Bartek

K=100 means that the black channel has 100% coverage, but for printing purposes, to get a deeper black colour, other channels can also be used. (Here's where the catch comes in because depending on the paper and ink, printers have different limits on the total ink in all channels). Affinity has no control over ink coverage, so I just want to reduce the overall amount of ink on the blacks using a gradient map. That's when I realised something was wrong with the filter. And what you can see: the gradient has 100% coverage on every channel, while the picker shows 0 on CMY and only 100% on K. Thats mean Gradient Map does not affect object.

CMYK document. And as in the screenshot: the square originally has a fill of C-0 M-0 Y-0 and K-100. The gradient map has 100 on each channel at both ends of the gradient and yet the picker shows the colors as if the gradient map is not there at all. If I decrease the values of K then the others increase, but with K equal to 100 you can't see anything at all on the other channels. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?

Think about all those unemployed chimney sweepers who lost their jobs because you chose electric heating instead of using a fireplace. Once upon a time, there were attempts to destroy mechanical looms because they took away the work of weavers. Signs of the times. The question is whether you want to fight it.

Is there any obligation for graphic designers to provide the earnings of photographers? It should all be a matter of my choice whether I spend the time/electricity and use AI to generate the wolf image or spend the time/skill and go into the forest and photograph the wolf or spend the money and buy the wolf image from stock services (if I happen to need a wolf image).

I use stock photography very often in my work (DTP, social media). From my clients' perspective, it makes no difference whether I use a purchased photo or AI-generated graphics in a designed flyer or banner. For me, it is a convenience because I gain control over the materials I use in the project. In both cases I have to make a lot of adjustments to the images anyway, but the AI-generated images are at least more thematically in line with what I expect. Long Live AI!

And anyway, I think it would be crucial (and perhaps offer some hope) to know how many Canva users are simultaneously using the Adobe suite. Because that's who Canva might be trying to fight for and that would mean it wants to continue to portray Affinity as an Adobe competitor worth switching to. Which would mean growth and the need to keep the current buying model as an added value for those wanting to move to the Affinity environment.

The dust has lifted but will eventually settle. What will emerge from it, despite assurances, is uncertain. And that is what is worst to bear (although from what I read not everyone realises this). I am confident that Canva will succeed. Just as I was convinced many years ago that Adobe would succeed. Except that today I know how I had to pay for that success. One day I realised that I was no longer a user of the application but a slave to it. The subscription system made the corporation feel that it could do anything to the user and he would have to stay with it anyway because his projects would simply stop working. And that was the cost I had to pay for Adobe's success. I've left them but I'll never open my files created with Muse again, I won't be able to use projects where I've used fonts I bought from their platform, the habits and workflow I've developed without a subscription become useless. Affinity gave me a sense of security (which shouldn't happen). I bought a package for myself, I bought packages for my employers - with the feeling that the same thing that happened to me once again when Adobe announced a subscription system and then shut down the servers for older versions would not happen to me. Now I just have hope but the certainty has strongly diminished. I fear for my archived projects, the files created by V2, my clients. Of course that's life and I've always taken into account that the tool can break down. But here there is also the issue that I like the tool very much.

IMHO no. We are to small bite for them to care about us. So far Canva targeting a dufferent part of market (only hope for us is that maybe this will change).

Ouch... Today morning i had mixed feelings. Now, in the evening, after reading your comments, I am certainly already feeling severely depressed. And I think after I'm about to pour my thoughts into this commentary it may be even worse. Yes, the scenario I have in my mind does not offer great prospects of a bright future for us and the hopes we had for Affinity. For one simple reason: we don't represent any value to Canva. Canva doesn't need aspiring designers, it needs the gray masses (since they themselves declare that they are democratizing design) and Affinity probably will serve them at most as a substructure to perform specific tasks for their own platform (e.g., modifying existing templates for corporate clients intrinsic needs). No one will cry for us, we'll be able to go back to Adobe (since you'll have to pay every month anyway), or wherever anyone wants. In conclusion, I would like to quote my text, which was supposed to appear as a response to the recent "affinitystories" campaign. I didn't send it for some reasons, but here and now I can paste it as a sad summary of today: Tonight, all this seems to be a thing of the past. Or will there be another morning for us? Greetings and goodnight to old friends from England and "g'day" to our new friends from Australia (it's probably already the right time for "good morning" for them)?

Cuz our reaction was predictable.

Interestingly (and a bit depressing at the moment) - just as here (and on other forums) Affinity users are feeling anxious and maybe even angry, the main Canva Facebook profile shows great bursts of joy and huge streams of happy smiles and hearts! Yeeee... (BTW: I wonder how we would be talking now if the situation was reversed and it was Affinity that bought Canva?)

What I mean is that they probably understand that they didn't buy their competition, which they have to slaughter, and they didn't buy a finished product from which they will be able to profit right away only acquired a promising, growing plant, which in a while will grow to the size of a tree on which to hang a swing and only then fall from it.

No. But - Canva is succesfull company and they probably know what they buy. Affinity is in the process of development and if they don't want to just devour it then they need to let it grow and use the main advantage it has now - the sales model. For now.

Guys? A little bit of faith in the management of Canva and Serif? Let's put it straight: at this moment Affinity is still growing and has a long path ahead of it before it reaches the goal of ACCORDING to Adobe's level. Right now the HUGE benefit to users is the purchase model and they would have to be out of their minds to change anything about it at this point. In other words: Affinity purchase model gives too much advantage to their target users (and this is a different part of the market than Canva users) than to be so easily lost.

I found this myself but will write it here if someone had a similar question. To get a similar effect as in the first point, first move the entire paragraph away from the left and then manipulate the parameter "First line indent" that sets its own value when changing the distance from the left edge of the text frame.