EddCh

I come from a 'heavyweight' Adobe InDesign (previously QuarkXpress and Aldus Pagemaker), Illustrator, Photoshop etc etc background and I found it so similar to the other page layout software I was familiar with that it took me literally no more than an hour to understand. Personally I found the transition from QuarkXpress to Adobe InDesign was more difficult and a steeper learning curve. I was able to produce a 64pp book right from the very first time I used Affinity Publisher (and without any need for a manual or tutorial). 
I am really astonished that you can use InDesign "without any problem" but cannot grasp Publisher as I think the two are fairly similar to each other. 

I come from a 'heavyweight' Adobe InDesign (previously QuarkXpress and Aldus Pagemaker), Illustrator, Photoshop etc etc background and I found it so similar to the other page layout software I was familiar with that it took me literally no more than an hour to understand. Personally I found the transition from QuarkXpress to Adobe InDesign was more difficult and a steeper learning curve. I was able to produce a 64pp book right from the very first time I used Affinity Publisher (and without any need for a manual or tutorial). 
I am really astonished that you can use InDesign "without any problem" but cannot grasp Publisher as I think the two are fairly similar to each other. 

As a Mac user I think there are some good options already available at reasonably low prices (or even free) that have a standalone one-off purchase price (or alongside subscription plans).
Typeface RightFont FontAgent Whilst there are other options available, the feature-rich are subscription-based ones whilst the free alternatives are somewhat limited or 'feature-light'. The three that I have listed are a decent price-to-features compromise in the perpetual license category. Personally I have been using Typeface for a number of years now (having migrated from Suitcase Fusion and Linotype FontExplorer) and think it's pretty good (for my needs).

As a Mac user, I had migrated from Aperture to Capture One Pro earlier in the year. Whilst RAW processing is awesome, unfortunately, C1’s image management is utterly woeful in comparison to Aperture – which I still feel is king when it comes to photo management (makes LR seem like 💩).
Having previously given up running Aperture on macOS Catalina, I have recently found that it can be patched to run on the very latest OS.
So, with Aperture running sweetly, I have reverted back to it for basic batch editing, photo and metadata management as well as brainstorming with its unique Lightable feature. 

Aperture, for image management, is still (IMHO) king. There just isn't anything available that can do what it can do with ease and speed… and then there's the Light Table feature, which is still unique (within the world of photo editing/management apps) to Aperture.

Despite Aperture being killed off by Apple years ago, I still keep it running happily on a dedicated older Mac to maintain a massive library of edited/completed images. Whilst Capture One has taken over the batch image processing duties, its image management abilities are shockingly bad in comparison to Aperture.

Every time an image editing/management app has been released or got updated, the feeling of disappointment continues as all the developers seem to concentrate on nowadays are new features that might create headlines or outdo their competitors. Feels a bit like the car manufacturers game of chasing stupid horsepower or acceleration figures. I really wish someone, anyone (I no longer care if Serif/Affinity can/will do this or not, but great if they can/will), would come up with a proper image management alternative to Aperture that goes beyond just the basics.

Aperture, for image management, is still (IMHO) king. There just isn't anything available that can do what it can do with ease and speed… and then there's the Light Table feature, which is still unique (within the world of photo editing/management apps) to Aperture.

Despite Aperture being killed off by Apple years ago, I still keep it running happily on a dedicated older Mac to maintain a massive library of edited/completed images. Whilst Capture One has taken over the batch image processing duties, its image management abilities are shockingly bad in comparison to Aperture.

Every time an image editing/management app has been released or got updated, the feeling of disappointment continues as all the developers seem to concentrate on nowadays are new features that might create headlines or outdo their competitors. Feels a bit like the car manufacturers game of chasing stupid horsepower or acceleration figures. I really wish someone, anyone (I no longer care if Serif/Affinity can/will do this or not, but great if they can/will), would come up with a proper image management alternative to Aperture that goes beyond just the basics.

Aperture, for image management, is still (IMHO) king. There just isn't anything available that can do what it can do with ease and speed… and then there's the Light Table feature, which is still unique (within the world of photo editing/management apps) to Aperture.

Despite Aperture being killed off by Apple years ago, I still keep it running happily on a dedicated older Mac to maintain a massive library of edited/completed images. Whilst Capture One has taken over the batch image processing duties, its image management abilities are shockingly bad in comparison to Aperture.

Every time an image editing/management app has been released or got updated, the feeling of disappointment continues as all the developers seem to concentrate on nowadays are new features that might create headlines or outdo their competitors. Feels a bit like the car manufacturers game of chasing stupid horsepower or acceleration figures. I really wish someone, anyone (I no longer care if Serif/Affinity can/will do this or not, but great if they can/will), would come up with a proper image management alternative to Aperture that goes beyond just the basics.

Aperture, for image management, is still (IMHO) king. There just isn't anything available that can do what it can do with ease and speed… and then there's the Light Table feature, which is still unique (within the world of photo editing/management apps) to Aperture.

Despite Aperture being killed off by Apple years ago, I still keep it running happily on a dedicated older Mac to maintain a massive library of edited/completed images. Whilst Capture One has taken over the batch image processing duties, its image management abilities are shockingly bad in comparison to Aperture.

Every time an image editing/management app has been released or got updated, the feeling of disappointment continues as all the developers seem to concentrate on nowadays are new features that might create headlines or outdo their competitors. Feels a bit like the car manufacturers game of chasing stupid horsepower or acceleration figures. I really wish someone, anyone (I no longer care if Serif/Affinity can/will do this or not, but great if they can/will), would come up with a proper image management alternative to Aperture that goes beyond just the basics.

Aperture, for image management, is still (IMHO) king. There just isn't anything available that can do what it can do with ease and speed… and then there's the Light Table feature, which is still unique (within the world of photo editing/management apps) to Aperture.

Despite Aperture being killed off by Apple years ago, I still keep it running happily on a dedicated older Mac to maintain a massive library of edited/completed images. Whilst Capture One has taken over the batch image processing duties, its image management abilities are shockingly bad in comparison to Aperture.

Every time an image editing/management app has been released or got updated, the feeling of disappointment continues as all the developers seem to concentrate on nowadays are new features that might create headlines or outdo their competitors. Feels a bit like the car manufacturers game of chasing stupid horsepower or acceleration figures. I really wish someone, anyone (I no longer care if Serif/Affinity can/will do this or not, but great if they can/will), would come up with a proper image management alternative to Aperture that goes beyond just the basics.

As a Mac user, I had migrated from Aperture to Capture One Pro earlier in the year. Whilst RAW processing is awesome, unfortunately, C1’s image management is utterly woeful in comparison to Aperture – which I still feel is king when it comes to photo management (makes LR seem like 💩).
Having previously given up running Aperture on macOS Catalina, I have recently found that it can be patched to run on the very latest OS.
So, with Aperture running sweetly, I have reverted back to it for basic batch editing, photo and metadata management as well as brainstorming with its unique Lightable feature. 

Thank God that the Picture Frame linked content issues have been fixed!!!

If Apple had replaced Aperture with something usable then I can understand it – but, six years on, the replacement Photos app is still just as shit and useless as it ever was at the beginning. Heck, even iPhoto (simultaneously ditched with Aperture) was waaaaaay better. 
I had been searching constantly for six years to find a suitable Aperture alternative… to no avail. Nothing even comes close to Aperture’s photo management abilities, never mind its unique Lightable feature.
Like you, I doubt there’ll be an Affinity DAM any time soon (or ever) but, I am over the moon that I can still use Aperture. I still have the C1 safety net (C1 can import Aperture libraries) if I need it.
That said, I would dearly dearly dearly wish that there will be an Affinity DAM.

Is there still no way to show/hide invisible characters directly within Designer?
It seems crazy that we have to use File>Edit in Publisher… then switch it on/off in Publisher before coming back to Designer to continue with a design.

Thank you. I've restored from a TM backup.

Not if you have the Mac App Store version and don’t have a Time Machine or similar backup, but if you have the Affinity Store version you can download any of several older releases via the link below.
https://store.serif.com/update/macos/publisher/1

As a Mac user, I had migrated from Aperture to Capture One Pro earlier in the year. Whilst RAW processing is awesome, unfortunately, C1’s image management is utterly woeful in comparison to Aperture – which I still feel is king when it comes to photo management (makes LR seem like 💩).
Having previously given up running Aperture on macOS Catalina, I have recently found that it can be patched to run on the very latest OS.
So, with Aperture running sweetly, I have reverted back to it for basic batch editing, photo and metadata management as well as brainstorming with its unique Lightable feature. 

Is there still no way to show/hide invisible characters directly within Designer?
It seems crazy that we have to use File>Edit in Publisher… then switch it on/off in Publisher before coming back to Designer to continue with a design.

Hey EddCh,
Sorry about this. The developers are looking at it. 

Hi everyone.
I just wanted to let you all know that this is with the developers. I'll update you once I know more. 

Probably the same problem as here ....

Hi, I noticed that on Photo 1.7 there are two strange things happening when I toggle through both the lasso/marque tools (using the shortcut L) and the healing/inpainting tools (using the shortcut J).
For both of these tools, their associated shortcut does not cycle through all of the tools.
I'll have the freehand lasso tool selected, and when I hit L, it changes to the column marque tool, and then I can not hit L again to make it cycle back to the freehand lasso tool.
For the healing/inpainting tools (shortcut J), it will cycle through the healing, patch, blemish, and red eye removal, but it will bypass the inpainting tool and instead a clarity adjustment window will show up on the screen. I have to manually click the healing icon and select the inpainting tool.  

Thanks for testing. The oddity is that the very same macro still works fine on one of my laptops which hasn’t had Photo updated to 1.7.1
Yes, that is the problem and it is the same as using the Margin command—I just don’t want have to keep applying the command and typing in the figures every time on 1000s of images—and the result should be a blue keyline 2cm away from all edges with no change in document dimensions.

Having waited eagerly for Publisher to arrive, I didn't hesitate to download the first beta and test it out. Rather than just 'tinkering around the fringes', I decided to give it a proper test by designing and laying out one of my portfolio photobooks, which would normally be done in InDesign, and then have it digitally printed by a commercial printer. In effect, I treated it like I would all other jobs I do for my clients.
My experience of Publisher, from a professional perspective, was actually surprisingly good (as far as beta software goes). As a highly experienced PageMaker, QuarkXpress and InDesign user (from the v1.0 days) the learning curve was very minimal. The end result was that this initial beta release managed to produce a professional product that I would have no qualms releasing to a paying client. However the journey involved to reach that point was, obviously, not straight forward – but by no means remotely anywhere near as painful as some of the discussions on here would indicate. Without trying to 'blow my own trumpet', I will readily admit that it does require the kind of mindset that is capable of coming up with multiple workarounds and and when required.
Aside from some of the initial issues that many had reported (ie. master pages, lack of visible bleed guides, sliders staying visible etc), the main obstacle that I had was at the output stage because I was unable to output a final press-ready PDF with reliable bleed settings on every page/spread. Some pages would output WITHOUT any bleed, some only output with about 1mm of bleed and some would output with the full 3mm that was set throughout the document. In the end, my workaround was to create a template document with my own trims and bleed on it. 
The second most frequent problem I came across was the instability of the application – there were A LOT of randomly occurring crashes which, if it wasn't for recovery files, could have been a massive problem. Whilst I fully expected beta software to crash, I didn't anticipate so many (more than 12) during this process.
Less of a 'user experience' and more of a future file management issue is that the file sizes are HORRENDOUSLY MAHOOSIVE. Despite having all images linked instead of embedded, this 32pp layout resulted in a whopping 1.5GB .afpub file. As a comparison, a previous 96pp photobook with the same spec created in InDesign resulted in a 50MB .indd file.
There is so much more that needs to be fixed and implementd but, overall, if the first beta of Publisher is already capable of this standard then I am going to chomping at the bit for the full commercial release.

Having waited eagerly for Publisher to arrive, I didn't hesitate to download the first beta and test it out. Rather than just 'tinkering around the fringes', I decided to give it a proper test by designing and laying out one of my portfolio photobooks, which would normally be done in InDesign, and then have it digitally printed by a commercial printer. In effect, I treated it like I would all other jobs I do for my clients.
My experience of Publisher, from a professional perspective, was actually surprisingly good (as far as beta software goes). As a highly experienced PageMaker, QuarkXpress and InDesign user (from the v1.0 days) the learning curve was very minimal. The end result was that this initial beta release managed to produce a professional product that I would have no qualms releasing to a paying client. However the journey involved to reach that point was, obviously, not straight forward – but by no means remotely anywhere near as painful as some of the discussions on here would indicate. Without trying to 'blow my own trumpet', I will readily admit that it does require the kind of mindset that is capable of coming up with multiple workarounds and and when required.
Aside from some of the initial issues that many had reported (ie. master pages, lack of visible bleed guides, sliders staying visible etc), the main obstacle that I had was at the output stage because I was unable to output a final press-ready PDF with reliable bleed settings on every page/spread. Some pages would output WITHOUT any bleed, some only output with about 1mm of bleed and some would output with the full 3mm that was set throughout the document. In the end, my workaround was to create a template document with my own trims and bleed on it. 
The second most frequent problem I came across was the instability of the application – there were A LOT of randomly occurring crashes which, if it wasn't for recovery files, could have been a massive problem. Whilst I fully expected beta software to crash, I didn't anticipate so many (more than 12) during this process.
Less of a 'user experience' and more of a future file management issue is that the file sizes are HORRENDOUSLY MAHOOSIVE. Despite having all images linked instead of embedded, this 32pp layout resulted in a whopping 1.5GB .afpub file. As a comparison, a previous 96pp photobook with the same spec created in InDesign resulted in a 50MB .indd file.
There is so much more that needs to be fixed and implementd but, overall, if the first beta of Publisher is already capable of this standard then I am going to chomping at the bit for the full commercial release.

Having waited eagerly for Publisher to arrive, I didn't hesitate to download the first beta and test it out. Rather than just 'tinkering around the fringes', I decided to give it a proper test by designing and laying out one of my portfolio photobooks, which would normally be done in InDesign, and then have it digitally printed by a commercial printer. In effect, I treated it like I would all other jobs I do for my clients.
My experience of Publisher, from a professional perspective, was actually surprisingly good (as far as beta software goes). As a highly experienced PageMaker, QuarkXpress and InDesign user (from the v1.0 days) the learning curve was very minimal. The end result was that this initial beta release managed to produce a professional product that I would have no qualms releasing to a paying client. However the journey involved to reach that point was, obviously, not straight forward – but by no means remotely anywhere near as painful as some of the discussions on here would indicate. Without trying to 'blow my own trumpet', I will readily admit that it does require the kind of mindset that is capable of coming up with multiple workarounds and and when required.
Aside from some of the initial issues that many had reported (ie. master pages, lack of visible bleed guides, sliders staying visible etc), the main obstacle that I had was at the output stage because I was unable to output a final press-ready PDF with reliable bleed settings on every page/spread. Some pages would output WITHOUT any bleed, some only output with about 1mm of bleed and some would output with the full 3mm that was set throughout the document. In the end, my workaround was to create a template document with my own trims and bleed on it. 
The second most frequent problem I came across was the instability of the application – there were A LOT of randomly occurring crashes which, if it wasn't for recovery files, could have been a massive problem. Whilst I fully expected beta software to crash, I didn't anticipate so many (more than 12) during this process.
Less of a 'user experience' and more of a future file management issue is that the file sizes are HORRENDOUSLY MAHOOSIVE. Despite having all images linked instead of embedded, this 32pp layout resulted in a whopping 1.5GB .afpub file. As a comparison, a previous 96pp photobook with the same spec created in InDesign resulted in a 50MB .indd file.
There is so much more that needs to be fixed and implementd but, overall, if the first beta of Publisher is already capable of this standard then I am going to chomping at the bit for the full commercial release.