Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

kirknurse

Members
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kirknurse

  1. As someone who used InDesign from 1.0, I remember how buggy and the same complaints that people are expressing about Publisher were there as well. While it would be nice for the import compatibility it is not a deal-breaker (for me). If anything new I use publisher and anything old I can either rebuild the file or edit in InDesign 

  2. Hi I am not sure if this is a bug or feature request. In previous versions of Publisher when I placed a PDF that had crop marks and bleeds it imported as is. The last two versions when I place  the document it comes into the page cropped. However, when you go to edit you still see everything. There are instances where those marks and/or bleeds may be required. Is this just a bug or will you be implementing placement options that would allow the user to determine how the external document will be placed?

     

  3. On 9/5/2018 at 7:25 AM, musiberti said:

    No, I know that it's a beta. But the lack of global layers seems to be wanted. That let me believe various statements by moderators (in other threads) . I think that's a very big mistake, because ultimately it means that the publisher will never prevail in a professional environment.

    I am by no means an novice I used page layout programs from Page-maker days. Magazines, Catalogues, Annual Reports, booklets I have worked on many multi-page publications. While I understand what you're describing. I think you're over-reaching when you say it won't prevail in a professional environment. It depends on the individual's workflow, Affinity is not Adobe and vise-versa. Two things, 1. Are you trying to force your expectations on the product? 2. When you compare apples to oranges you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Adobe is $600 US per year Affinity products are $50.00 each some level of expectation management is required.

     

  4. On 9/4/2018 at 9:22 AM, musiberti said:

    From a "professional" point of view, I must agree to the the statement of the video. Even for a beta, the publisher is currently a bad publication, which unfortunately is likely to damage the previously impeccable reputation of Affinity. It's, at best, an early alpha version that better would not have been made public yet. Here in the forum some moderators try to turn the bugs into features. In my opinion, Affinity has just taken over the concept of AD and AP simply without any significant changes for DTP and layout purposes. But that does not even work. My main criticisms:

    - Layers only affect the corresponding single page. Real layouters can not do without global layers.

    - Master pages can not contain editable text frames or images. What is it good for?

    - Bleed is neither visible nor exported properly. (I still have hope for this bug).

    Unfortunately this list can be extended indefinitely.
    Without adding tons of features, the publisher becomes just another gimmick for hobbyists and occasional users.

    Working with workarounds is no alternative. A publisher must be one thing above all else: fast and effective.

    As a professional, I can't necessarily agree that it is not production-ready. It depends on your workflow and if you are willing break out of your comfort zone. Many of the issues that the video complained about were non-issues as they were just presented differently than he was accustomed. When I first started using Affinity Products I sat down and went through the tools as I accepted that it was not going to replicate Adobe. I used InDesign from 1.0 and it had it flaws and quark "die-hards" had made many of the complaints that are being made about publisher. In my not so humble opinion,  Once you accept that alternative does not mean the product does not match adobe feature-for-feature.

  5. 1 hour ago, Wally_G said:

    Hi,

    Downloading and installation ran ok! On older machine - looks like loading is faster than the previous beta!!! Great job Serif Tem!!!!! More testing soon...

    @kirknurse:

    Go to View > Show Bleed and You'll see the bleeds. (Snapping to bleeds works fine for me)

    Thanks but not showing up in my installation, I uninstalled and reinstalled 3 times. I will wait for the next update.

  6. On 9/4/2018 at 11:18 AM, nwhit said:

    Yes, very familiar with workflow. Our media production company does a lot of it. But I am also concerned as to whether the APub PDF output will have the fidelity required or any other issues. Although we use Photo and Designer, we've never sent any of their PDF exports to a printing company, so not real interested in possibly blowing a print job for a client. On screen, the APub pdf looks fine, but you never know. May decide to wait until others have done it without issues.

    Just for the record, I have sent numerous files to print originally produced in Affinity Designer, no issues. As long as you know what you're doing it should be fine.

     

  7. 6 hours ago, ballardstudio said:

    Thanks for backing me up on this one! A lot of designers don't understand the back end portion of this.

    I am a designer but I was fortunate to work with a few prepress houses back in the early days before direct-to-press. You had to do separations to film and then burn plates. Film was not cheap so you HAD to get it correct almost from the very beginning.

     

  8. 2 hours ago, ballardstudio said:

    I am very serious. Carrying over attributes, especially from Microsoft, to any other application can cause issues with your files. I've seen it too many times and ask designers not to use imported or copy/paste text from MS Word. These issues also occur in digital design when copying text from Word and pasting it into an HTML document. In print, your provider may be charging you additional money for fixes in your files due to attributes and you wouldn't know because it's considered as a hidden production charge.

    I second that, It is a big pain in the behind. Set up your native style sheets (in this case apub) and then bring in plain text is the way I have always done it. It can even be a pre-press nightmare as when you're pre-flighting and it's looking for a nonexistent font.

     

  9. 15 hours ago, Whitedog said:

    Exactly. A PDF won't include your styles sheets and edits from InDesign. PDFs are generally part of a proof and print workflow. Without the ability to import InDesign documents more or less intact, Publisher will be dead in the water. If you can't migrate from InDesign, Publisher is useless as an InDesign alternative. Once it can handle InDesign docs, then Katy bar the door. Why to you think Adobe offers their Photo Package, including Lightroom and Photoshop, so inexpensively? Obviously they are feeling the heat. It will be interesting to see if InDesign comes down in price once Publisher is cutting their water. If you need InDesign's e-publishing features no doubt you hope so. Otherwise, Publisher looks great. If you have not done so already, take a look at their online tutorials. They cover Publisher pretty thoroughly.

    "Dead in the water" is a bit melodramatic. I constantly have state this, alternative does not mean competitor. Never once have the good people touted their software as a feature to feature replacement of Adobe's products. Goals and objectives are different in very organization, they may just be looking for a piece of the pie not the whole  bakery. There are many many persons in the field that it will suit their needs just fine. Frankly expecting a $50 (US) one time purchase software to match a $600(US) Per year subscription base feature for feature is a tad unrealistic.

     

  10. I would love to own Quark express, but can not afford the full price.

    I do not see Affinity Publisher coming to windows any time soon, so I am a looking for a solid affordable option that i can do paper and web publications that includes professional printing with proper images and colors.

     

    Or you could try VIVA Designer, they have different packages in terms of cost you should be able to get a version for under $100 USD

  11. So rude.

     

    Forums are largely ineffective. Manufacturers measure product success by sales quantity and user quality; low-end or high-end users, and they will have a target audience in mind which is monitored against revenue. They might use forums to judge the latter but mostly they are just talk with little action. Which is why I rarely come on them.

     

    When sales figures drop a manufacturer must make the choice of either improving the product or moving on to something else. So far Serif have responded with small improvements but nothing significant which suggests sales figures are up to their expectation. The crunch will come when these figures fall and they have to make the big decision to either inject some serious development or to invent something entirely new. Serif's track record is to do the latter.

     

    With this post I'm kind of hoping they will wake up and go all out for a full-blown Photoshop alternative, it is something that is badly needed. They obviously have the support and they have produced in a short time a pretty remarkable platform from which to achieve this, but I can't help but wonder if they will to go the full distance. Time will tell.

     

    It's already an alternative, It may not fit your needs but It does for many. I stand corrected, but I get the impression from you that adobe needs to be crushed in order for affinity to be a success (A lot like that Windows vs MAC Crap). Alternative does not mean it has to match feature to feature. For me any professional tool must offer CMYK support for Offset as the bare minimum. I never really saw Affinity overtaking Adobe to begin with, but as a niche market for some design professionals like myself. 

  12. Typical heads-in-sand replies so far. Affinity was launched as a Photoshop contender and I was one of the first to buy it. Right from the outset they knew what they had to do to capitalise on claims made but somewhere along the way it ran out of steam. I go back to it now and then but development seems to have come to a halt. I WANT a Photoshop contender but Affinity has not made the progress its launch promised.

    What exactly are your requirements? I used Photoshop for 22 years and yes it does lack some features but it is no way a slouch. Just because development is slow does not mean it has stopped. Programming is complex, and their team is no way as large as Adobe's, it will take time. I am genuinely curious what as to what's a must for you? As I used photoshop as early as version 2.0, and had to do many of the automated task manually, so none of the issues with Photo are a deal-breaker for me. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.