iMatt

Thanks a LOT for this!!! It works brilliantly! My problem is I am still a bit too used to the way CorelDraw does things. Or rather DID as I am now using Affinity Designer, Photo and soon Publisher full time.

Go to the Layers panel and click on the upper layer to select it. Now click on the ‘Blend Ranges’ gearwheel at the top of the panel to display the Blend Options dialog.
At the top of the Source Layer Ranges graph you’ll see a line joining a black node on the left to a white node on the right. It’s at the top of the graph because everything is at 100% opacity, but if you drag the right-hand end all the way down you’ll make the white pixels in your image 0% opaque (i.e. 100% transparent). At this point the black pixels will still be 100% opaque but everything else will be semitransparent; to restore full opacity to all the non-white pixels, drag the left-hand end of the line straight across towards the right, stopping when the white pixels begin to reappear.

There's no 'priority' issue here. I'm the Project Manager (and Lead Developer) of Affinity Designer, so I'm busy working on my next release (AD for iPad) whereas we have a whole team of developers working on Affinity Publisher and have had for a long time now. My post was really about apologising I've not been around as much as usual (because I'm very busy!) and about reassuring you that Publisher is still coming along nicely from what I can see... I'll move on to help out the team with Publisher imminently, sure, but it's not like there's been a pause while everyone waits for my help!  They're much better at Publisher-specific stuff than me anyway, so I just need to help out in the areas that I'm good at! As with any of our products, they won't be released until we're actually happy with them, because at the end of the day, nobody wants software that doesn't really 'work' properly!  
It's difficult from my perspective to imagine what we could have done here to make customers feel less frustrated by the lack of progress?... Development of good software is often an iterative process - it's SO unlikely you'll just hit the sweet-spot on your first go at typing something and you'll need to start again with new knowledge and try something a little different - that process is notoriously terribly difficult to estimate how long it takes. In a world where it only matters if something actually works or not, then maybe your first go would've been good enough and maybe timescales are easier to guess, but we're looking for a great solution, not just any solution... So Publisher seems to be taking a while when viewed from the outside - but there's no 'problem' here, everything is going great and we're converging on something special - but rushing to reach a goal before it's truly ready would just be a terrible idea and would setup the product very badly for the future. I think the 'teaser' video for Publisher we released was partly to show that it really was happening, and partly because we're really excited to show it to you! The guys working on the product are doing their job, but it's also something they're passionate about, so they're proud of their work and want you to enjoy it. The alternative was for us to have never said anything about Publisher at all but then customers would just wonder what we were doing that was meaning we weren't updating Photo/Designer very often recently and then would get frustrated. Hang in there - it's on its way and it's going to be good!  

Remember, Microsoft are not the only ones to have used Publisher. There has also been Timeworks Publisher , Greenstreet Publisher, Envision Publisher and Express Publisher DTP programs launched when Microsoft was also using the Publisher moniker.

Just because, perhaps, you might like it better (is 50 sth bucks, not a purchase you gotta think a lot about, even if having by then some solution for that) , or because the UI and functionality adjusts better to your specific workflows. Who knows. Or, yes, you might discover that Quark is better for your tasks. Or even if happening so, the integration among the suite in terms of the file format, other matters,  pipelines are so good with AP and AD, that you decide to use Apub and solve somehow any feature lack while it grows. One way or the other, you are the winner if you stay with the tool serving better your purposes, being it Quark or APub.  BTW, I agree, Quark was the tool to use for this back in the day. That at least must serve to think they have experience with the professional aspects of publishing, and it did a ton of that type of work, back then. Surely counts for something.
I think though, that developing any application of this complexity takes usually a lot more time to other companies. I don't know why one should expect that Serif would be faster than the software giants. I would understand a complaining tone (not fully, as Serif has the biggest motivation (sells) in releasing it as soon as possible, so, if is not released, there must be very solid reasons for that) a bit better if not released a beta (which I'd still totally understand, been at software developing companies, and cr4p happens, and often is none's fault)  on Winter, but this first beta was promised for the Summer... once again, not at the start, the middle, or the end. That was not specified (as is not that easy to determine). And IMO, you are going to want an at least polished beta...not broken in a bunch of places. Even more, it has been told it is not going to be comparable with InDesign in a lot of time, so, certainly not in this beta. So, why the urge ? If is for a basic use, probably the beta will perfectly do, though (or even their legacy PP).
Edit: About competition in general, in the market. I believe Serif's Affinity has taken a really good spot, with so many unhappy with the subscription, no-options model. Also due to an amazing price difference, unseen for this kind of software complexity. Indeed, in terms of market, I believe it can even boom, if things go in certain way... (AP and AD teams keep polishing the rough corners, etc). The addition of Apub is, IMO, going to help that possible market wave a lot more. No one is speaking of killing the CC, among other things because that suite covers a much wider area, and professional niches (After Effects, Premiere, A. Animate, etc..each owns an entire world of pros and companies workflows) and because too many pipelines in the companies strongly linked to the proprietary formats and to internal in-house code, plugins, etc, on which entire companies depend on, yes or yes. But still, being the second here is so, so huge. The 2D market is way larger than 3D, still today, I saw stats about that, and in terms of business sizes, money moved, the difference was crazy. So, second place here, pretty nice. It can probably get over all of the other alternatives, with most of them that has already happened. All this, IMO, is worth some wait. Is only my opinion.

I think the main change is mindset, comparing Affinity Photo to Photoshop will likely end in frustration because what people do is try to make Affinity Photo the same as Photoshop but Adobe has a 30 year head start and while some things may be similar such as Keyboard shortcuts it's just not a good idea to hold on to the Photoshop framework.
Affinity Photo isn't Photoshop, it's not a Photoshop Killer either, the killer for Photoshop is the subscription model, if Photoshop was the same or even twice the price of Affinity Photo I would bet my Grandma that most people who have bought Affinity Photo would have bought Photoshop instead. Adobe made the mistake of alienating its amateur users and forcing them into a subscription model that is really for Professionals that use Photoshop everyday and so can realise the cost as acceptable and work it into their fee's.
So, forget what Photoshop can do and focus on what Affinity Photo can do and how it does it. You have made a good start by wanting to orient yourself to all things Affinity and there are a substantial array of tutorials available, see my sig below for links to the tutorial section. 
Then of course you have us, the Affinity forum, which, I think is one of the best forums around, with eager to help people from all levels from professionals to the dabbler.

Little more than a week ago I introduced a collegue to Affinity Designer and Photo. When he saw it presented on the Affinity website - and noticed the price - he exclaimed a loud 'Wow!' and immediately placed an order. The next day he proudly presented an intricate logo for his wife's association, made in Designer.
I share his awe and want to express my gratitude for you people at Serif - programmers et al - for your hard work, willingness to listen and to continually seek to perfect already impressive software. I know of NO other software company that rivals you!
A bit off-topic, perhaps...

I worked for a company providing tech support for games - the "more educated tag" very definitely doesn't apply to a lot of the users!  
 
I don't think so - Linux users are more likely to be a self-selecting group who are already knowledgeable and enjoy unscrewing the OS.  Most license paying customers aren't like that - they want a turnkey system that works straight out of the box, and if everything is held in place with torx screws, so much the better.

Where did you read that?
 

A bit of hyperbole there, methinks! PageMaker was only introduced in 1985, so even the mighty Adobe would have found it a bit difficult to kill it off 400 years earlier.
 

Corel attempted this with CorelDraw for Linux back in 2000 or so I think. They were not able to make this work even though it was free at the time. Affinity Designer and Photo may possibly fare better. However,  developing for Linux will not only cost more up front for Serif, but also in terms of support too. The same goes for Adobe, Corel and Xara of course.

Hi iMatt,
Welcome to Affinity Forums
Can you be more specific please? Which format are you trying to import? How are the layers/objects structured? Can you post a screenshot of the Layers panel so we can give specific advice?
Overall, take a look at the Layers panel (the labels after the layer's name): if the elements are grouped you can ungroup them going to menu Layer ▸ Ungroup (or Ungroup All). If you have a single compound curve - identified as Curves (note the S at the end) in the Layers panel - you can split it into its basic shapes going to menu Layer ▸ Geometry ▸ Divide (or pressing the equivalent icon on the main toolbar). If you have several objects clipped inside an object (curve/shape) you can select them all in the Layers panel, right-click in one of them and select Release or simply drag them to outside the clipping object layer.

How will a software combined from three separate programs be smaller and faster? I, personally, don’t need advanced image development and manipulation tools, and neither do I need print publishing tools, so what good would a bloated Swiss army knife software be for someone like me?

I have used CorelDraw for page layout. It works fine for single, double-sided and documents which are not going to have too many pages such as a newsletter. CD is never going to have the robust page layout abilities of ID and QXP. Nor are those programs ever going to have hardcore vector illustration and manipulation abilities of CD. Corel should either put in a 'DTP mode' within CD or create a new page layout program from scratch. But then, as I use Affinity programs, this is a moot point as far as I'm concerned.

I quite liked ID when I used it in CS, CS2, CS3 and CS4. It was QXP I had issues with. I found ID esp its earlier versions a souped-up version of PageMaker.
Of course, with Adobe's rigid subscription based CC, I left and went over to Corel for a few years. Gave Affinity a chance around 3 years ago as Corel went down the subscription route AND effectively increasing their prices by publishing a new version every year rather than every two yet keeping the same pricing structure.

I am really looking forward to this. I have a lot of art I want to bring to the world, but the best way to do it is not easy to figure out. I decided that I want start by publishing books and sell on sites like Amazon and Barnes and Noble. And now seeing that this product is coming close to launch, it makes me feel happy knowing that I will now have a better way to organize and work. The Affinity products have really put a boost on my workflow and helped me to actually want to work towards getting my art out there.

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux. But you have to be realistic.
 
None of the software companies you mention are serious consumer suppliers, not even small ones.
 
Like Microsoft (office type stuff), Adobe, Quark, Corel, Apple, Cyberlink, Movavi, Magix or Serif. Surely that tells you something ?
 
Corel tried a few years back but it was a disaster.

It is not just numbers that count, it's the type of user.
 
I got quite interested in Linux a few years back, possibly to offer print or DTP services, still use it sometimes (Mint)
 
It seems that most people use Linux as a way of turning an old PC into a browser. The typical user seems to do everything possible to use free software, like a badge of honour. The other users use it for servers, specialized requirements and so forth. Linux is an enthusiasts machine.
 
That's no good for a commercial graphics product. Compared to a Mac, which has traditionally been a Graphics machine with people willing to pay. Even Windows users will pay.
 
The big issue is lack of support. If something goes wrong, you are on your own. The shiny Mac or PC has umpteen shops willing to supply and fix, for a price. Commercial companies need professional support! How many shops do you see offering Linux machines with back-up?
 

I'd say in an urgent (and also a little desperate) need for a publishing alternative.

Thanks! Do you know if Publisher is supposed to be able to open native InDesign files? Most of anything I'd ever need to open was made in InDesign from the CS5.5 suite. 
 
Has there been any word on how to get on the Publisher beta when it's ready? 
 
Also, I haven't used Quark in a VERY long time. Honestly, I didn't even know it still existed. Had assumed that InDesign had killed it. Worth looking into again?
 
Edit: never mind... at $849 for QXP, I'll just rent InDesign when I need it, and wait for Publisher

Hi
will there be another preview (longer or more features shown) before beta release of AP?
 
Thx.
 

You can see which standards Adobe has set in terms of price. Everyone thinks that a good program must cost 1000 euros. However, Adobe's prices do not arise from the utility value, but from the maximum possible exchange value. In other words, Adobe takes what they can get and not what the software is really worth.
Just a small example: When Photoshop was still sold, the price in Germany was always twice as high as in North America. No one here understood that. The anger about Adobe was already there before the subscription model.

It will update straight over the top there is no need to uninstall AFAIK

nwhit,
 
My memory seems to recall things a little differently. I'm not sure but your post seems to imply that Indesign was released not long after Adobe bought Pagemaker, but it was 5 years later (and a long five years if you had to use Ragemaker everyday).  Adobe bought Pagemaker from Aldus in 1994 and they didn't release Indesign until 1999. As well Adobe didn't buy Freehand from Aldus, they bought it from Macromedia who had purchased it from Aldus. Maybe I read your post wrong? 
 
I don't think you can compare the transition from Pagemaker to Indesign in regards to transitioning file from Indesign to Affinity Publisher. Pagemaker and Indesign are owned by the same company, which Affinity Publisher and Indesign aren't. As well Adobe had a legion of developers and while Serif has some very talented developers, no doubt they are fewer in number compared to those at Adobe. 

What Alfred says is important. As a result, I have been able to open the very same files created in Illustrator CS in CorelDraw and now Affinity Designer.