Jump to content

dasigna

Members
  • Content count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dasigna

  1. just wondering what might be the benefit of more than 2 decimals (regarding mm) in a graphics app??? (set it to 2 and just works fine btw. ...) a watchmaker might use more - but not in affinity or similars ...
  2. dasigna

    PNG Export size (for web)

    honestly, referring to such filesizes they wont bother me at all! getting much more interesting with bigger sizes, lets say 50 or 100kb up. more interesting what AD would do here (havent really tested yet, awaiting the promised preview-update with 1.6). so as long as the qualitys just fine some more kb are o.k. (to me). that spoken, the far more interesting part would be the files compared regarding quality (again, to me). concerning "making google speed insights happy": i dont give a damn about it as long as speaking of several tiny 5 or 10kb! :) speed insights anyway has to be treated as not very helpful more often than less. the results are regulary kind of... yes what? ... strange? as long as any website runs smooth without hassle under every condition, google might tell me whatever they want. so as long as its about 3 or 4kb for a file - forget about it. if its 10 for a 100kb file - ditto. (unless there aren't hundreds of them...) if theres a remarkable difference in quality - thats another thing. may it be possible to see what you've tested?
  3. dasigna

    PNG Export size (for web)

    just as remark from my side... fireworks always supplied the smallest files so far - even unmatched by ps or illustrator. (insnt used by myself anyway, as 3.5 or 3.2 kb doesnt matter to me...) but as meb said - it may not be appropriate to compare in this way as you dont handle the files directly made by AD. seems it cant handle ps-files very well due to the mentioned reasons. would be interesting whats happening to quality and size if you would build them from scratch in AD (know this is not intended and extra work, but would be interesting anyway...) :)
  4. dasigna

    16bit cymk support

    ... reading, reading again etc. maybe that might help. seems you can follow my demands as well as you dont? so it may be pointless to you - not for me. but thats o.k. in every way. thanks for being here. :huh:
  5. dont know if or how often this one may be asked for already (search is empty on this)... i really need to have 16bit CYMK tif support for images in both design and photo. should be possible soon - shouldnt it? cant imagine any reason why this isnt already there and be able to edit/use existing tifs wich 16bit cymk color space. quite annoying and makes it impossible to use affinity for eyery case i have to deal with them. please!
  6. ... yes thats the fun side of it at the end ;) (forgot to mention).
  7. dasigna

    16bit cymk support

    ... thought i have done that some way up from here ... no?
  8. sometimes its kinda strange in here ... battle of words and such where no one is eighter completely wrong or right. and sometimes i have a strange kind of feeling that too many seem to be forced to defend affinity or serif wheres no need to. and the discussions over stability towards mac or windows are quite useless anyway. the thing is (just my two cents): if serif would claim to be only for the 'average' users or just for the fun stuff side and not charging anyone for anything, alright. but they dont. and even more as the software is claimed to be for professional use also - what would be any better for serif than those who uses this every day (if not for work), reporting issues and such? its kinda development stage for free and even getting paid themselves... ;) so yes - there are chrashes. and yes there are demands for new features. development has to be towards more reliability and enhancement of existing features as well as new features. hard job. but i hope they will manage it - last update already lead to much faster startup times e.g. - great. so dont damn those who want more features, nor those who are reporting issues or want more stability. btw. i want both :lol: so hopefully serif listens to all, sort things out and go for wise decisons. at the end (supposing) we all want the same: a good reason to ditch off the old bulls with confidence!
  9. some words in english for all to read: really dont know whats the problem here :) the complete url is listed at the beginning of every chapter - what you are referring to in your photo is only the notice for the single file you need at that stage of the chapter, as theres no link to every single file. and you get all those files as .zip from the url mentioned before. complicated, huh? the actions are: reading - understanding - acting. vica versa is not that good ;) the only thing you are right to is the circumstance regarding the lack of 'https' in german edition as somewhere stated. in fact theres only 'http'. so hopefully at least i was able to bring you some light into the dark.
  10. dasigna

    16bit cymk support

    yeah - read that. so someone of the marketing people have to talk to those others finally and tell them what they have promised!! :blink:
  11. dasigna

    16bit cymk support

    ... hmmm. always regarding the print file factor. but thats not what i'm after... its the way in between ...and yes, i know (has been mentioned) dealing with 16bit cmyks is obviously an pre 2000 behaviour :wacko: so this seems to be an argument anyway. but eighter way - it would be really poor if i would have to tick that point off. not even being able to handle lots of existing content aggravates the real change to affinity unnecessarily. cant imagine it would be this complicated or heavy labour to implement it.
  12. dasigna

    16bit cymk support

    any statement from dev side possible?
  13. ... or at least resize them to max screen when viewing. :) +1
  14. dasigna

    16bit cymk support

    just to be clear: "... I do not know any printing processes that take CMYK16." - nor do i . "... most people use RGB in the production and convert to CMYK8 at last stage." - obvious. but thats not the point. 1. you can go along with (pro-photo) 16bit rgb most of the way. right. best way. but at some point you have to change to cmyk - and that leads to the important thing: (at least me) never let any software handle this completly in an automated way! the results quite often are more or less not whats to be expected. no matter if generating the print files yourself with automated conversion from rgb to cmyk or even sending rgb within your files to the printers and let them do it. (btw: for the second one i do not know any printer who is giving any warranty in this case for perfect results...) 2. so you have to have control over this when going for cymk at the end, and occasionally (and possibly) have to tweak some things within your required colorspace (cymk) ... you cant do that in 8bit seriously due to the high risk of the limited colorspace and loosing information and other damages. you have the smaller cmyk colorspace anyway with 16bit, right, but you take advantage out of the much bigger headroom (just watch the histogram when editing photos in 8bit... regardless of colorspace). so going for 8bit is the very last step when compiling the final files for print. everything above that has to be 16bit - even in cymk. mandatory. maybe most of the people who are using cmyk for print havent noticed any issues so far (i had), or arent even aware of the limitations within 8bit cmyk (i am). so theres no way dismissing 16bit cmyk in a serious workflow for print at least for me - have to have this both in AP and AD. its simply all about control over the final result.
  15. ... they cant be 'saved' normally (at least here on windows) obviously due to copyright reasons (absolutely clear and o.k. with this) so you have to perform 'save as' anyway when tweaking with them. but 'wasting diskspace' shouldnt be any argument really with terrabyte-disks nowadays for a several MBs 'big' file B)
  16. ... why not simply take advantage of the 'save as' option and store them to a destination of your choice? as long as you remember this you'll find them again with no hassle :)
  17. dasigna

    16bit cymk support

    ... are you kidding or do you know that this is the reason??? "for press only" ... what should that mean for a designer app that is intended to be "used by professionals" for "your professional workflow"? not to use it for press? sorry, but this really confuses me and i hope it cant be the real answer because this would say that there is no plan implementing it in an acceptabele amount of time - which would be another downpoint to me and my workflow for cmyk printing ... would love to hear something about this from the developers.
  18. ... the original question seemed to be: "What's the best way to work with a photographic image that will need to be printed at 3m wide when I'm starting out with a jpg at around 3000px wide?" apart from resolution needs or related, i quite dont understand what the OP asks for... 'the best way to work with' may also vary heavily depending on cirumstances, needs or habits ... so i dont know what the answer might be in this case ... the best way, well, it depends. :)
  19. ... hmmm. no disrespect intended in any way - but that somewhat sounds like the absence of quite basic knowledge...? as it may lead to far to start from scratch, my advice would be to read something about this - googles your friend (or so they say). for now: pixel or points are 'simply' the units you choose for your work... for pixels on screens i would use 'pixels' as well when designing. basically logic. ;) dpi (or 'dots per inch') defines the resolution of your artwork. youre facing this again when it comes to 'retina'-displays... which was a question in another post of yours, no? hope this will give you some starting point.
  20. maybe visit mydevice.io/devices. this should help.
  21. +1 to this. books as pdf or for readers are highly overrated :)
  22. //EDIT: formerly known as 'the big disappointment'// -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dont know if i am in the right place for my complaints, admins just might feel free to change the category. ust tried the designer/photo-combo. although theres actually no trial available, the current offer made me weak. so bought both and the book, installed and ... just got quite disappointed! having a approved win7pro 64bit-system with two calibrated nec spectraview reference monitors, calibrated epson 3880 printer and soft-rip for cmyk proofing. this setup is reliable, well maintained and flawlessly working with adobe illustrator, photoshop, indesign and lightroom as well as corel draw for dtp and photo editing same as web development. every application is giving consistent results under the given color management enviroment. thus said before describing the affinity-experiences to indicate this might be not a newbies issue ... so to af designer and photo: first serious issue i am encountering is a quite incorrect color presentation when using cymk-incorpotated files. colors here are far to vibrant and quite "over the top". looks like viewing a rgb-pic under wrong conditions as wide-gammut with no correction. profiles set throughout all applications are eciRGB or srgb/adobe rgb respective iso coated/uncoated v2. as long as in rgb, affinity follows the other applications - completely going nuts in cymk. every application does this great too, exept for the affinitys. theres 'flashing' colors that neighter represent the correct appearance nor theire useable in any way. as the color management setup showed absolutely no problems so far, i assume the problem is up to affinity. having hardware calibrated monitors with 16bit lut, and experiencing affinity isnt able to handle existing 16bit cymk tifs too, there might be something that affinity cant handle regarding the monitor-assigned profiles? btw: when i am applying a srgb-emulation to one of the monitors (as i am doing when developing for web) the colors in affinity are getting better for cymk... but that cant be the solution, as this is not useable for all other applications which can handle the monitor profiles the right way. switching my monitor profiles to native srgb as suggested in some other threads, changes nothing at all. apart from that it cant be managed that way through windows due to hardware-calibration. so what does affinity wrong? affinity is praysed for being used by professionals, but how would they, experiencing such issues?? maybe its me whos doing something wrong with affinity, but why does it work well with all other programs??? any hint for maybe overlooked things highly appreciated. theres some other things too, i've experienced already within the first few hours: - no support for 16bit cymk tif-files (big downpoint, as there are many) - no color control/preview when exporting bitmaps /.png/.jpg (which is quite sad too when theres no consistent color-conversion as it seems) - no recognition of postscript-printer (soft-rip) and available deactivation of printer profile (because colors are handled by rip - adobe does this as well as corel...) - no option for printing without profile overall - quite important for printing calibration targets for profiling (as well as targeting the rip) ... - no color inspection tool without clicking (like info-panel in adobe, or maybe havent just found yet) - using exported corel-files as .ai does not work in affinity, have to save them in ai again. great clincher as well. - the dark ui has far to harsh contrasts, especially within menus - startup-time is worse 30-40 sec plus on a real fast engine (plenty of ram plus ssd - adobe and corel only takes a fraction of it) - ...? having just made simple setup and some research, maybe ill find other issues, maybe experiencing some change to the better, but so far there isnt much hope i am able to replace my print workflow with affinity at all. if this problems (at least the color-thing) wont be solved soon, theres no way using affinity for (my) cymk-workflow. and if this persists until the upcoming publisher is revealed, it will be unuseable for this too! really would be glad being able to dismiss adobe and corel (the sooner the better), but obviously theres completely no way for that up till now ... so at the moment regarding the buy as kind of support for affinity and ongoing development to the better... and: hoping for production-useable versions within version 1. sad. and just as a remark: its quite a pity one cant order designer, photo and book within one single subscription - maybe i am too dumb for, but it required three individual oders to get all of them... and - it may be some good idea for the future to offer bundles (once they work correctly of course!).
  23. as described already in another thread here, i am encountering (strange?) problems with colors in both designer and photo, especially for cymk-colours. they kind of 'burn out' and are far too vibrant, so theres no way working with because they not nearly match whats expected. rgb seems quite right to me so far, but i have to use both affinitys mainly for cymk-workflows regarding print. so i have some questions that may be answered to get a grip on this and hopefully find a way towards a solution. 1. there are two options for rgb-profiles, one is called 'rgbu' - what do they exaclty refer to, and what is the difference between them regarding the use within affinity. more simple: why there are two? 2. is there any way, affinity works different regarding color-management than other applications like the adobe ones or corel does? the reason behind this is: the latter seems to do it right and (cymk-) colors are more or less close on screen - but not so in AF, although the profiles are set consistend and are the same thoughout all applications. 3. normally i would assume, all applications are using the screen-profiles that are defined in settings within OS - or win7 in this case. that means: every application uses this (in this case custom calibrated) profile as a basis to render according to the profiles set within the application itself... any other thing for affinity? so what is completely driving me nuts is the fact, that i cant get affinity to show only slightly correct colors for cymk... and i dont have any clue why. the awful thing is, that when emulating a srgb-space on my wide-gammut-monitors it seems to work far better, but i cant believe affinity wont be able to handle wide-gammut spaces... affinity (at least designer) is buildt to use for design & graphics of course. and while print is (still) some great part of that i believe that one should be able to work within cymk without that hassle and be able to get a correct color-preview on screen even for that. right? so the question to me is whats going wrong in that case??? is it affinity? is it me? is it another hard- or software? currently i am running out of ideas, but i have to solve this! any hints and thoughts highly appreciated and thanks in advance if more info is needed please be so kind and simply ask for it :-)
  24. news to this... as the weather wasnt really great this weekend i did spend a 'litte' time on this issue in the warmth of the office. with no real success - and for some time honestly completely doubted to all my knowledge on colour-management and how to set up things the right way ... then gave up trying and did the following, as new profiling had to be done anyway within the next one or two weeks: - deleted all assigned profiles within programs and os - did a factory reset of both monitors - calibrated them from scratch (three times each, to ensure consistent results/two hours only to this one) - assigned the new monitor profiles within os - assigned all profiles anew within all programs accordingly. - did a complete reboot and started all programs one after another with a .pdf solely buildt for testing with several cmyk-targets. after that, all programs showed no recognizable change in colors and behaved as before... but: tadaaa - affinity suddenly also worked as expected! one might start some discussion now, about how close the screens are to printed targets (at all), but at last theres some good starting point to really dig into the affinitys! i really dont know what went wrong the time installing affinity and not showing correct colors even the nearest. so i might only guess that affinity at first did not recognize something quite right according to color-settings...? only possibility to me, because there wasnt any change - not in calibration nor in colour-settings or deployed profiles within all programs, and also as before there wasnt any faulty setting anywhere. so as this leaves me me still with some astonishment, it seems to be working as expected/intended for now (*knock on wood*). thanks to TonyB and everybody who tried to help. have to consider this as solved without knowing why ... :blink:
×