Zuki

The issue of tracing bitmap images has been brought up many times, but AD doesn't have an auto-tracing function yet. I too miss the auto-tracing tools in Illustrator since I abandoned it for AD. However, be of good cheer, I have been Using "Inkscape" for professional work in both design and stock ever since. It's a roundabout way of doing it but when you develop your system of going about it you achieve any tracing endeavor. And it's FREE!

Tony, Did you read the quote I supplied from Istockphoto's senior vector illustration manager's reponse when I sent her an AD EPS file with a simple linear gradient? (my previous post). She said that the gradient was uneditable in AI. It wasn't rasterized, the gradient info simply was not editable. We are not talking about transparancies, we don't used them much because they are trouble, we are talking about simple gradients. As you can see in my portfolio, they abound. I will still use AD for flat illustrations. It's just a hassle to go to my older AI, it's on my other computer. I hope we can find a solution somehow for this.

I have been a stock illustrator for quite a while as I said before. ​It used to be AI EPS 8 ONLY, no transparencies (must be flattened), no open paths (must be closed), no fonts, NO rasterization of any kind, Gradients OK. Now, it's up to AI EPS 10, fonts are OK but must be converted to curves, all else is the same. ​The reason for having the older version as a standard for so many years is backward compatibility as edit ability is the core purpose of stock illustration. These are designers who are purchasing these files, and they want the ability to retain the look of the illustration while having the ability to tweak it. They don't care which program created it, as long as they can open it intact. ​It doesn't matter if you are doing illustration for print or web since in the end, it will all be flattened and rasterized. ​I know there are artists who are uploading to Getty/istockphoto EPS files with gradients from Inkscape and they are having files accepted. But, I don't like Inkscape, I never liked the interface. I like AD. I also know stock artists who tried AD and abandoned it because of this limitation.

+Mike ​Yeah, well, it doesn't seem that Serif is willing to put any effort into this which is a huge shame. I know the stock industry very well and as long as there is any type of export incompatibility, AD will not be a viable option for serious stock artists, or design work with cross platform collaboration. As it stands, I can only use AD for flat illustrations. Thanks, George

Is it possible for me to send you a file which contains the gradient I have been having issues with and have you open it in your AI? What version of AI do you have? ​If so, here's the link to two files, the EPS test file and the JPEG reference. There is a center radial gradient and a linear gradient. Remember that the gradients have to be fully editable in AI, so you should be able to go into AI's gradient editor and see the color points in the gradient and be able to change the color and position. http://www.artchest.com/342312/ ​Also, are you on MAC or WIN? ​I'm still a little confused as to your attached illustration, I should be able to open it in my latest version of AD if it's exported as an EPS file, all I get when I open it is a blank page. Thanks, ​George

Mike, Getty and istockphoto accept EPS level 3, in AI 10 or lower, or compatible, but that shouldn't matter for the EPS 3 file as long as it meets those parameters. It's evident, at least on my end that there's a downward compatibility but not an upward one. I also did a test by exporting to SVG from AD and then opening the test file in Inkscape and the gradients were imported just fine. My next test will be to then upload the Inkscape file as an EPS submission and see if it's accepted. If it is, then there's an issue with AD's export function, if it's not, it would confirm (somewhat) Dave's explanation. It would also allow me a conversion path for the time being. ​By the way, I couldn't open your test file in AD Windows.

Dave, It's not that clients want files in AI, it's that they want to open files from other software with editable basic components, and a simple linear gradient is as basic as it gets. This is a compatibility issue not a software preference issue. I like AD in many ways better than AI, but if I designed a logo or illustration for a client who needed to handle it in AI, he should be able to. I can open AI files with gradients into AD, but not the other way around. I should be able to do that with basic gradients at least. The stock and micro-stock market is huge, I've been part of it from the beginning, there are tens of thousands of contributing illustrators, it shouldn't be brushed off in the typical software rivalry fashion. ​Furthermore, the gradient does not get rasterized, it's there but its simply not recognizable by the software.

Not true as of right now for me. ​I have been going back and forth with support at Getty/istock images for a while now after I began getting rasterization rejections for all my new submissions with gradients, from Afinity Designer for Windows. Bellow is the reponse I got from the senior vector manager who has been reviewing my files containing simple radial gradients: ____________________ Hi George, OK so I took a closer look at that cloud file and yes, there is something strange about that cloud gradient background now that I poke around more. I can select it but I can't edit it at all. It doesn't show me the fills or gradients, just a '?' in the swatch palette. I could definitely see this being an issue for clients. I'm guessing it's just somethign about how Affinity handles radial gradients? I'm so sorry, but since almost all clients do use AI, every shape in a file will need to be editable for them. Is there any chance you could just build any gradients in an old copy of AI after you've built your other shapes? Thanks,____________________ ​So, at this point, Afinity designer has ceased being a viable alternative to Illustrator for professional vector work since I will need the extra step with Illustrator to avoid rasterization of gradients. I think this same issue came up at another thread, it is a serious limitation for cross platform work. ​UPDATE: ​Tried opening EPS files with gradients in Illustrator CS2 and none of the gradients transfer over in an editable form. So, it appears that there is simply no way to preserve editable gradients when exporting to EPS, unless the files are re-opened in Afinity. Designer.

TonyB, Does this go for gradients as well? I'm having a hard time exporting gradients to EPS.

Ok, I've been seriously tinkering with AD (for windows) for a few months as an alternative to my previous AI stock illustration workflow and have come across a couple serious deficiencies which I hope will get the attention of the development folks here. 1. First. As an artist who seeks to provide quality artwork to serious clients, an open paths and stray point detection feature is a must in my opinion. This is important because an unclosed path can result in frustrating rejection of artwork for stock illustrators and serious issues for print prepress. Although AI did not have inherent abilities to do this, several third party plugins did. It can be very frustrating trying to locate an unclosed path in a complex illustration and impossible to avoid them. 2. Secondly. The inability to export transparencies properly to EPS files is another frustrating issue for me and might be a deal breaker in the future. Currently, transparencies can only export properly to Encapsulated Postscript (EPS) with solid backgrounds. Any transparent object over a gradient, or another transparent background results in rasterization of the transparent objects. This is unacceptable for pro work which requires complete integration with the EPS format. I hope something can be done with these shortcomings, they are pretty important.

Yes, for everyone, this is a very handy tool. ​This is one of the main features missing which exists in AI. Actually, a better set of path utilities would be appreciated, like, open path finder, stray point finder, etc.

I was about to post a request for this when I came upon this thread. As a stock illustrator, this is a MUST tool for submitting pro illustrations for stock since illustrations are rejected for open paths. In a somewhat complex illustration, it would be a nightmare to pinpoint an open path as you would need to check every connection manually. ​I don't think this would be a difficult implementation and it would make a world of difference for us pros.

SrPx ​I opend the file with my version of AD and didn't see any banding issues in the elliptical graphic. I have an NVIDEA GeForce GTX960 card and a 4k monitor. In reality, if you are doing print, it doesn't matter what things look like on screen or in the PDF, the Postscript data is there in the file. It just becomes annoying to have to see it that way in the workflow. The only reason we create PDFs is for either print or portability. I have learned through the years to ignore the faulty preview of the PDF file and trust the data that is encapsulated in it. Try this, Open the PDF in Photoshop and see how it looks. Photoshop will rasterize the file when opened.

vjsouza​, How do you know it doesn't work? The banding might be a graphics card issue onscreen. You need to create a PDF output of your file and have your printer do a RIP check of the file to verify that the gradient problem is duplicated on their end. Most printers are happy to help.

You usually have that choice in the job ordering process. Any job under 50 pieces will be done by a digital run, but anything over that is typically done on the offset along with other jobs. ​Large online print companies survive on numbers; high volume at a low cost. They can only accomplish this through a rigid production line, so specific formats and not much customizing involved.

+Fixx Good point, and I agree, a few more tweaks would have been great. I also don't see how noise info can be exported cross platform, it's only good if you rasterize the final illustration. ​A couple things I really miss coming from Illustrator. First, the Mesh tool was one I used allot in my illustrations although it can be somewhat simulated in AD with odd shapes and the transparency tool, although not quite. Second, the Transform tool which I used to accomplish strange morphs between objects.

+SrPx, +bleduc ​The reason why online printers want your file in RGB is because they have in-house prepress. They don't completely trust you with their RIP preparation. Most just want your artwork within the confines of text, trim and bleed so that they can do all the color seps, screen angles, registration, trim marks etc., themselves because your files are butted up against tens of others on the same press.

Ahhh, hidden little bugger. Thanks

I'm working on my second print project on ADW. Already on the first, which was a simple vector only Business card layout, I encountered minor size placement issues in the PDF which is no big deal since the online printer I use (PsPrint.com), has preconfigured templates for submission and quality checks the file at prepress. The second (a four panel postcard) is much more complicated and I experienced several challenges in the import features which I spent some time correcting. It's a press right now but have been assured by the prepress department that all looks OK on their end. I am learning that I have to use ADW as a design starting point for things to go smoothly. Import as of now is a little iffy. ​___________________________ ​UPDATE: As an update this, just want to say that my second project on ADW, a four panel 4/4 Christmas greeting card came out perfect.

I have been designing for print for 25 years and don't quite understand what the real issue is here. ALL offset printing eventually has to end up as CYMK, no matter what you start with. The only difference between using RGB and CYMK is that if you work in RGB, you will get a big surprise when the printed output doesn't look anything near what you client saw color wise on screen. The reason we word in CYMK (with calibrated monitors) is so we can get a fair idea what the final printed piece will look like in process color along the design workflow. If you show clients artwork on screen only, it will mean trouble at the end. I always tell my clients that in order to get true color accuracy, we need to do a press proof, otherwise the color is not completely guaranteed, there are way too many variables between screen and paper. You can use swatches for reference, but there are further variables beyond that point as well. ​I haven't as yet encountered the gradient issue, but I'm struggling to deal with photo handing, which is a learning process, I'm a 25 year Illustrator user who just jumped on board with AD.

If you are doing the prepress manually, any program will suffice. But if you are relying on software automation for prepress there are many variables as each software handles Postscript files differently. I have worked with Illustrator and now Affinity designer and already have discovered variables in the way PDFs are dealt with by default in each program. Each software requires an individual learning curve to set up specific processes for a prepress workflow.

You guys seem to forget that AD is generally an illustration program and doesn't have robust prepress capabilities like Quark or InDesign. It used to be that in the days when offset process printing was very expensive and spot color alternatives were necessary, the complexities of prepress (screen angles, lpi, ink spread, trapping, choking, knockouts, etc.) were an absolute know how for designers. Nowadays, there are software that by design will accomplish this and create PDFs intelligently although the occasional manual setup is unavoidable. ​Now fabric printing is a narrow field and whatever software provides the tools for the industry becomes the standard, but there are so many options for affordable online printing nowadays that prepress is usually done in-house. I have to admit, I have yet to use AD for actual printing project but I'm about to.

Hi, ​Loving the new Afinity Designer for Windows so far, Jumped ship after being an Illustrator user for over 20 years. ​I have one thing that's been driving me crazy however. I could have sworn that when I installed it, there was a surface texture, or surface noise feature which I can't find now for the life of me. Am I crazy or am I missing it? You can see it on the surfaces in Kevin House's Illustration attached. Thanks.