Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

thadeusz

Members
  • Posts

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thadeusz

  1. This looks really great! As far as I can see, it's not supporting Designer files directly, but SVG. But this works quite good as export from Designer. I'm using it to go from Designer to Pixelmator Pro (and from there sometimes directly to Motion as it exports Motion project files).
  2. As much as I share the expressed anger towards serif - and I wrote mainly cynical comments about flaws in Publisher in the last year - why would someone use version 2 for production right now? I mean - you can't go back to V1 with your files. Nevertheless, it's good to test it out and post problems - thank you! I've also bought it, installed it and looked at it. And use V1 for now. Serif will need some time to make it's homework, often too long for my taste. But that's all known. It's like updating MacOS on day of release. Good luck with that! I'm always one year behind and have not many problems in productions. Good luck with Adobe by the way, with this behavior. But I just read about problems, never have them really. So it's only 2nd hand knowledge . I'd really recommend to hold back with updates during and for productions, even we're not getting those new shiny functions immediately.
  3. Guys, there are dozens of threads for this topic. As long as Affinity is so unprofessional in this specific field, there are only workarounds. I hope, but don't belief a separation preview is coming soon, as many of us where demanding this from day 1. I'm using a little program called PACKZVIEW, which is free and does the job:(https://www.packz.com/downloads-info/ Especially when using spot colors there are problems keeping colors as spot and not converting to CMYK. Keep an eye on a consistent color profile and only using multiply, transfer or normal as layer blend mode. I've wrote about my way to this quite stable workflow in this forum. So please don't be shy and have a look... 😎
  4. And? Waiting since April to get this fixed. This really can drive you crazy day by day. What takes so long to fix this?
  5. Thanks for sharing - Mark does a great job, as always. That looks indeed promising. And yes, it's not the worst idea to have PixelmatorPro as an export plugin for now. But for near future I think Serif should consider some smart decisions to make it more easy to use Affinity apps in certain workflows.
  6. @serif If you still listen and find this topic at least not too boring, PixelmatorPro just released a Motion file export option. I'd love to see that too - even I have the solution mentioned above running for now. At least on the Mac it's a good idea to have Affinity and Motion/FCPX side by side. Latest update for PixelmatorPro adds Motion support: https://www.pixelmator.com/pro/updates/ (I'm not using it and not planning, but I like this new option - and some of their AI functions)
  7. There is a way to export shapes for Apple motion. I know, it's not After effects. But for all Motion people on a Mac, this might be a possible way. Found this on Youtube. Two little programms needed, links can be found in the description of the video.
  8. Just a bit later.. As you are on a Mac, have a look at Apple Motion. It's not on par with Fusion or Aftereffects, but it's a very intuitive app for simple motion graphics. And there is an (awkward) way to export Affinity elements to it (another two little apps and extra 30 EUR needed, though). Just used it today and it works, but direct export to Motion is still on my wish list..
  9. Serif hasn't even been on track for finishing their first three desktop layout/illustration apps. Maybe we let them do their work here first. Forum is full of complaints and clever ideas to improve all apps, but not much really happens. I would not want to see anything from serif in video or animation space, as they could not add anything better, I believe. By the way - if you are on a Mac, there is Apple Motion. 50 EUR and better than anything serif could put together in ten years. And there is an (awkward) way to export Affinity elements to it (another two little apps and extra 30 EUR needed, though). Just used it today and it works, but direct export to Motion is still on my wish list..
  10. For CMYK that seems to be ok. But it is not working for any spot color. I'd consider it as another point on a very long list where we have to read "we are on it". And for a short moment you might think, ah, ok. But then you see, answer is from 2018. Or in this case Feb 2020. How time flies by these days..
  11. Hehe, "2 years later". Maybe that answers the thread starters question. It's so sad to see Publisher, after a good but not really exciting start, to crawl around like an Apple app. I really don't understand, why someone is investing so much time and energy and is not finishing the last few steps towards a good product.
  12. Absolutely agree. Would be great to have a button in toolbar. Another way to achieve capitalization quickly is by assigning a keyboard shortcut.
  13. I found an issue coming from Mac OS Big Sur. Should have read about it before.. There are some issues with Type 1 Postscript fonts, as they are no longer officially supported. But they often they work, but sometimes they just disappear and are not available. Anyway - only solution will be either get rid of them or convert them into OTF.
  14. In my case it seemed to be caused by a font cache problem, maybe from updating to Big Sur. But I'm just guessing. After resetting font caches it looks good for now.
  15. Same problem here. Some fonts don't show up in Designer, but are ok in Publisher. In my case - Mac OS Big Sur (11.5), Designer from Apple App store, Publisher direct from serif. Please fix. Thx
  16. Ah, ok, I was not sure. But I don't really understand why it would be useful to convert 100% black into a weird four color mix, especially when it's text or a graphic element. And one more problem - I can change this setting, but it's not staying. When I reopen this document config, it's back at convert.
  17. One question concerning pure black and color profiles: I had a document with FOGRA39 (for coated paper) and had to change it to FOGRA29 (uncoated paper). Every style I had applied was disconnected after changing color profile. Did this happen to anybody as well? What I did: - changed my color profile in document - found out in Acrobat that all pure blacks were changed into CMYK mixed blacks, also text - I used global colors and text styles, but they didn't update the color anymore Is this just my problem?
  18. I also ran into this issue. Thanks Joachim for the workaround on export. But - is there no way to change a spot color into a separated color in color palette? I can't believe it... but I couldn't find any option yet. I mean unchecking the spot color option would be it.
  19. Hi Eink, even you are right with this missing feature - better check back with a few real productions before jumping on this train. At the moment there are so many small details unfinished and features missing, I can't really imagine, that a production house would be happy. Just to make clear - I've left Adobe behind (only using Acrobat for print production check). But I'm a solo designer and having not much love left for Adobe. But even then it's very often not very pleasant to work with Publishers faults and bad workflow details.
  20. Wow, what an answer. Sorry, that you had to read a longer text which is not fitting your own opinion. Maybe I shorten this next time for you. How could I think this would be a good place to exchange opinions and perspectives. And sorry for disturbing you guys living around here. I would hope to have a possibility for bug reports without actually discussing if it is a bug or not. I'm off..
  21. Of course I also had to think about the different behaviour of pixel (rasterized) versus image layer in Photo. And why it's ok for me there. First, working with pixels forces you to have more an eye on resolution. Very often I switch to 100% pixel view to get an idea, if the resolution of a an image (or part) is matching and holding up within a montage. But maybe It would be even here good to know, what the original resolution compared to a montage actually is (as long as it is not rasterized). Normally when producing a book I'd have an eye more on the placed resolution of images and their color space. Working on images is done separately, which doesn't mean earlier. So it's more of a collecting and a layout process. To know parameters here is crusial. Maybe this old school approach will change over time with new concepts coming in. So for me part of this problem here is, that serif is mixing up different concepts and is not very strict in separating them from each other. And to be honest, I'm not very confident, that they are very good in developing new ways of fast and fluid workflows (but still hope for it). Most new are ideas are half-baked (as mentioned: strange/inconsitent image scaling properties inside image frame - WTF? - but it looks great in the videos). By the way - when rasterizing the so called curve layer of my unintentionally (not rasterized) image - the resolution shows up again in the left upper corner. Why not before rasterizing? And why can't I switch back to image frame, when I worked on the outline? It really makes no sense in the Publisher area..
  22. Ok, back to the problem. Let's just have a look from a more basic position. I'm in Publisher (not in photo or designer or their personas). I'm positioning an image and it doesn't have a picture frame. Why does it say "convert to curves"? I think, this is misleading, as this term is to my knowlegde used for vectors which are transformed from a reactangle (or other basic shapes) to a curve. Instead it should say "rasterize" or at least warn me if I misunderstood. If my image has an image frame, all is fine and working as expected. I know, and thank you for this perspective on it, that this is not neccesarly a bug. But for me, it's also not a strange function, but working incorrectly. I think, it's ok for me to stay here with my comment and report it as a bug.
  23. Look, Walt, for you version 1.0 of Publisher was already perfect. I get it. I don't know, if you really try to work with it and may find some behaviours strange. I thought, it's important to write about these things, so other users might find it and can work around it. Also discussing, how users are approching certain funcions is crusial to improve these programs. It's a strange attitude, if it's at the end always just about saying it's your fault, if you don't like it. Whatever..
  24. Come on, Walt, an image can't just disappear. In the end it's embedded. But you, of course, declare it to be gone. I mean, there might be a reason, why it's not working like that in InDesigen, right? I wrote about it already that it's a matter of concept here. Affinity has a document format which is ok with embedded, linked, rasterized and vector content and is also meant to ease out these differences between these formats for us. Mostly it's done in a good way. But I really think, there should be at least a warning and I would hope there would be a preference that makes it possible, to not rasterize, but convert to an image frame instead. Guys, maybe you are right, that it's not a bug by definition, but it felt like one to me. It's definetly a strange behaviour, which should be changed.
  25. I'm not guessing. You just show, what I've described. Problem stays the same - and that's what this place here is for. To report and problems and possible bugs. I don't see a reason and use case, why an image should become a fill and you cannot see anymore, which resolution and color space it has. It totally disappears from ressource list. Why? Of course I also can see this as a structural problem, where a program should be more than just a typesetting program to collect referenced items and behaves maybe like an image editor. I think it's a problem, when you convert an image accidentally and there is no way back. Which means, you don't know anything about this image and can't change it's parameters in a controlled way. I'd rather prefer, it would in this case be transformed into a picture frame. All would be fine.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. 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.