Jump to content

abarkalo

Members
  • Content count

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About abarkalo

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    LaLaLand

Recent Profile Visitors

1,064 profile views
  1. Hi Affinity, I badly need the option to autosave - maybe a toggle icon or a prompt after a few minutes of working with a new file ("Do you want to autosave this file as you work?") which would also save history. I could then close anytime (without CMD+S) and all my edits are saved. I realize that there is an autorecover function, which I've rarely ever used since Affinity software is quite stable. The problem, rather, is my own stupidity. I sometimes open a lot of files to edit and then decide to exit them - the software asks me "do you want to save?" and certainly I don't want to save all these files I just opened (especially if I made some test edits). More than once this week already I have closed down without saving documents that I had been working on. Really terrible, and then it happened again. I try and train myself to look before I close everything, but my reptilian brain doesn't always comply.
  2. Affinity Publisher is the best desktop publishing system, no matter the price. What it has done with Studio Link is revolutionary. Congrats Affinity.
  3. abarkalo

    Transparent Background

    Hi I'm just checking in again about a shortcut for transparency. I would like something like a toggle as in Illustrator's shift-CMD-D. In Illustrator I toggle back and forth quite a bit when designing. In Designer it's a bit of a chore to go to Document Setup > Color > set transparency on/off. Please show me a way to create a shortcut.
  4. I realize this is a more general question but excitedly anticipating any kind of variable font support in this beta. Any plans for that???? InDesign 2020 now supports variables and a lot of foundries are getting into this.
  5. My only point in my post is that it would be great to list the fonts according to weights, like InDesign does it (see right side of the image). See that the condensed group comes before the normal group, which comes before the expanded groups. InDesign may not show the optical widths of the font and I don't care - I can scroll down the list in a live preview. I care about this because it helps me make design picks much faster.
  6. I started a thread in feedback on font organization but now honestly this issue has turned into a bug or a glitch and wanted to address it here. My original request/complaint was that Affinity Publisher (or any Affinity product) could handle font organization better, grouping the widths together as a condensed/normal/extended format. Adobe does it this way and it works well. Now however, I sent feedback to a font foundry because I thought they had mislabeled SemiExpanded to be wider that Expanded. They told me it was the case with my software not their font. I looked again and realized they were correct and want to share a screen grab from Affinity and another from Photoshop to compare. Please see how the weights and widths organization is messy but the optical illusions of the widths. It seems the word length is squeezing down the sizes as well. Since Affinity Publisher is a master layout assembly tool especially where typography plays a critical role, and where many designers use thousands of fonts and many superfamilies that are extremely difficult to navigate through in the current font organization scheme, I ask for the fonts to be displayed as they are with Adobe. This would help tremendously. I love Affinity products but this is issue a thing to deal with.
  7. posted on a new thread per your location recommendation and hid here. thanks,
  8. I started a thread in feedback on font organization but now honestly this issue has turned into a bug or a glitch and wanted to address it here. My original request/complaint was that Affinity Publisher (or any Affinity product) could handle font organization better, grouping the widths together as a condensed/normal/extended format. Adobe does it this way and it works well. Now however, I sent feedback to a font foundry because I thought they had mislabeled SemiExpanded to be wider that Expanded. They told me it was the case with my software not their font. I looked again and realized they were correct and want to share a screen grab from Affinity and another from Photoshop to compare. Please see how the weights and widths organization is messy but the optical illusions of the widths. It seems the word length is squeezing down the sizes as well. Since Affinity Publisher is a master layout assembly tool especially where typography plays a critical role, and where many designers use thousands of fonts and many superfamilies that are extremely difficult to navigate through in the current font organization scheme, I ask for the fonts to be displayed as they are with Adobe. This would help tremendously. I love Affinity products but this is issue a thing to deal with.
  9. Mac AP sorts the same way. I'm referring to when you open each of these families.
  10. you are correct - I meant width. But anyway just see the images as that shows how much easier it is in one vs. the other
  11. Yes I know - there are a few foundries that don't organize well. For that (license rights to modify notwithstanding) there is a great tool to use called TransType4 by FontLab. This fixes all these badly organized font issues. Either that or ask the foundry to fix - I have occasionally done that as well. But excluding those the main issue is that a lot of well-behaved font families are organized by weights - condensed, expanded etc and Adobe organizes these in groups. In Affinity there is no sorting by weight and I would have a fantastically easy time as a designer who works with a ton of fonts if this problem were fixed.
  12. Hi Affinity, While I love the way OpenType features are handled much better than in Adobe, I really cannot navigate font superfamilies. If you have any family that has different weight groups then navigating through the font list is very difficult. Can you guys please fix the font organization. It really slows down my work otherwise. I am showing screenshots for one particular font family. I have licensed countless superfamilies and I really don't like working with them in Affinity products for this reason.
  13. Yes I use that cogwheel all the time. Agree with you that a curves-type blend modality is more powerful that sliders, in which you have to press option to feather (hate that part of Photoshop). But still that blending feature is separated from the rest of the layer effects and I use both modalities in unison in Photoshop. I have tried duplicating my workflow in Photoshop and yes there are other (more complex ways) around it but I like simplicity.
  14. In Photoshop I can apply an effect or fill and then change the blending option and then the blend range (Blend If). If I want to add a color fill and then change the blend range and then uncheck the color fill I am able to specifically target highlights or shadows. I tried doing this in Photo but wasn't able to. This might seem like a specialized thing I do but it's part of my daily workflow.
  15. Hi Affinity, As a member of the Affinity converted with Designer and Publisher, I have used Affinity software for my digital agency and there are presentations of mine in the exec offices of some global automakers. This work used to be done with InDesign but I switched over to Designer two years ago and used multipage artboards to work on my projects. When Publisher Beta came out I was on cloud nine, and then when StudioLink came out I really needed psychotherapy to cure my OCD with Publisher. Such an amazing, groundbreaking workflow. I also took a very deep dive on Photo, the latest store version and also the beta. I have a collection of thousands of Photoshop files and many of them opened up flawlessly. I also love the refined UI. And now rotating brushes are amazing! I seriously don’t know why Photoshop hasn’t done that yet, but consider that it took them many years to enable CMD-Z. You guys had live preview first but they soon adopted that, so it is clear they are watching what you are doing. I would like to come over 100% to Affinity but I have several issues that prevent me from doing so. Also, I do realize that this is a monumental task - Photoshop really is Adobe’s flagship, more so than any of their products. It was easy to switch over to Designer from Illustrator, really easy even with features missing (perspective warp please! - although doing that in StudioLink). Right now I am adept enough at Photo as and use it within a StudioLink context but not standalone and here’s what’s preventing me: Smart Objects. Before I begin, I know Adobe is never going to let you in on Smart Objects. PSD documents that include them will open up with these layers rasterized. But let’s consider that your embedded documents are pretty much there. I can add a Photo or Designer file to Photo or Designer or Publisher and I can edit the document just as I would a smart object, and see live updating on the master document - which is ahead of Photoshop in that regard. Also if it’s a Designer file in Photo I can edit in Designer without leaving Publisher or Photo.) In Photoshop you can only edit a vector with Illustrator). Then with the embedded document I can add a few live filters such as Distort>Perspective - which is a favorite in working in a mockup scenario. As a live filter I can go back and change the settings. I can also add some live blurs and a few other things. Sadly, the other Distort live filters don’t work as they have no effect on the embedded object. If you apply a non-live filter then the embedded document rasterizes, and then this gets destructive especially when placing a vector in a Photo document. I don’t mind converting my Photoshop PSB files (smart object files) to PSD then placing as embedded documents. This way I can have my entire core design and logo files standardized as Affinity vector and raster files, but the inability to do pinching and liquifying and other types of warping and shading stops me from doing this. Also there is no way to take a group of layers in Photo and convert easily to an embedded document. I really love how this works in Photoshop. It’s essential to my work, and this is the main thing keeps me on Photoshop. Hopefully Affinity can continue development here. Brushes. While I was praising brushes in Photo there is one simply itsy bitsy thing that is absolutely essential to my work. I need the brushes labeled with their actual names, as they are done in Photoshop. Photoshop has brush flyout panels - if you extend the panels. I have over two thousand brushes and it’s just too difficult to know what’s what in Photo. Even if there are groups, I can’t tell what the individual brushes are if there are two many. I can hover over the brush and then see if I’ve selected the correct one - this works well if you have a few brushes but not if you have so so many. LUTs. I love the live presets on LUTs. But honestly it is a chore to import them as presets. Also it takes too long to load the adjust layer presets. Photoshop allows you to add all the LUT files to the programs preset folder. Restart photoshop and they are all there. Pattern fills. Oh pattern fills. I keep reading in the forum that this is a badly needed feature and so I am throwing myself into this group. Yes I can work around this and have done so… but why? It’s so easy in Photoshop and I have a library of so many .pat files that I would love to use in Photo, just as I have converted my brushes, color files (with online converters) and gradients. Blend Options. I love your layer blend options UI - really easier to use than Photoshop. But shouldn’t it be part of Layer Effects? I want to add color fills for instance and select the blend options right then and there, so I can see what I’m doing as I can in Photoshop. Feathered masks. If I want to feather a mask in Photoshop I simply go to the mask properties and then adjust the feathering. In Photo I can’t feather a mask that’s been applied to an adjustment effect directly. I have to move the mask to a layer above, then apply a live filter, and then move the mask and its filter under the adjustment effect. I have to do these things all the time and this seems oddly cumbersome.
×

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | 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.