Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Virginia, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,333 profile views
  1. Do you mean you have no experience at all with computer photo editing? Knowing your level of previous experience, if any, would help us advise you. I see from your profile you've been using APub for at least two years.
  2. Are you trying to achieve something like I showed at You can indeed build an image that includes parts of various images in a stack with other parts of the images masked out. APhoto stacking is very robust. It would help if you could provide an example of the result you want given your starting images, as I do in my brief tutorial
  3. Those amused as I am by the various directions of this thread might also enjoy reading F. M. Cornford's classic 30-page monograph titled "Microcosmographia Academica." When my boss gave me a copy some 50 years ago, I was far too young to make sense of it. After years of observing the habits of mind and patterns of thought in academia, meaning emerged. I came to appreciate the wit and wisdom of this Cambridge classicist. His insights, published in 1908, have wide application in our own times, as revealed in episodes of "Yes, Minister." You can find a copy at, among other places, https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/iau/cornford/cornford.html https://archive.org/details/MICROCOSMOGRAPHIA-ACADEMICA https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/baked/micro.pdf http://educ.jmu.edu/~brownet/Microcosmographia_academica.pdf
  4. To put into context my comments from three years ago on 6/25/2019, we should take into account the content of the G2.com page as it was three years ago, not as the page appears today. Sadly, I cannot find a revision date on the page, but we can still learn when the page started to include APub by taking a quick visit to the Wayback Machine. In 2019 and 2020 the page from which I quoted did not include APub. For example: https://web.archive.org/web/20190711154413/https://www.g2.com/categories/desktop-publishing https://web.archive.org/web/20191024222725/https://www.g2.com/categories/desktop-publishing https://web.archive.org/web/20200426211843/https://www.g2.com/categories/desktop-publishing Eventually the site did include APub, as shown in the page capture for August 19, 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20200819015631/https://www.g2.com/categories/desktop-publishing As to weighing the site's opinions, they themselves do not seem to have any opinions. Instead they describe an algorithmic process for scoring based on reviews collected from other sites. On August 22, 2020, the site explained its scoring procedures as follows https://web.archive.org/web/20200822180842/https://research.g2.com/g2-scoring-methodologies Today's scoring procedures are at https://research.g2.com/methodology/scoring At the moment the G2.com site ranks APub ninth on its list of top 10 products. APub is rated as having higher than average performance with middling market presence. I assume that will not surprise anyone in this forum. https://www.g2.com/categories/desktop-publishing#grid https://www.g2.com/categories/desktop-publishing
  5. Why would a company choose NOT to include templates in its DTP package? We could speculate at length as to what the absence of templates indicates about such things as company abilities company staffing levels company attitude toward its customer base company attitude toward widening its customer base company understanding of its customers' needs, purposes, and desires company attitude toward attracting new customers company understanding of software usability company understanding of world market company goals and directions I myself use DTP only a few times each year to make greeting cards, business cards, and sometimes a newsletter. I bought APub three years ago, but I always return to Microsoft Publisher because its templates launch me easily into whatever project I'm working on. I recommend Microsoft Publisher to my relatives and friends because the templates get one started. Templates have served that purpose in every word processing and DTP package I've used over the past 35 years. My young grandchildren also use Microsoft Publisher for greeting cards and school projects. Affinity Publisher obviously is aimed at a market that does not include me and my granddaughters but one that does include those who argue vehemently against including templates. I do not understand that vehemence. If one does not need templates, why oppose them for someone who would find them useful?
  6. A new review of the "most powerful photo editor on earth" mentions several alternative products for those who want to pay less, avoid subscription software, or use free software. Sadly, Affinity Photo is not even mentioned as a possibility, though past reviews at PCMag at least gave APhoto a nod. https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/adobe-photoshop
  7. My post from a couple of years ago illustrates perspective alignment. My example involves a subject moving away from me at an angle while I panned the hand-held camera to follow the subject. I also included a link to a video tutorial about using stacking to create panoramas. https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/114815-create-an-action-sequence-by-stacking-panned-photos/&tab=comments#comment-622750 I concluded that APhoto's stacking is very robust. Other editors I've tried could not stack my images.
  8. From the drop down list by your name in upper right corner of screen, click on Account Settings/Signature
  9. The UI problem has been discussed for many years with no improvement from Serif. For more information relevant to Windows users, see my posts at https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/148867-is-there-a-way-to-make-the-ui-fonts-larger/&do=findComment&comment=831673 https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/135393-scale-panel-to-bigger-size/&tab=comments#comment-748118 https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/135052-tool-icon-size—need-to-enlarge/&tab=comments#comment-745313 as well as posts linked from these for partial solutions.
  10. Some page curl tutorials for Affinity Photo 30 second method by Graphical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii1tZBjwzqU Carl Surry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg0UcXHTA2Y PDF tutorial linked at https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/106686-written-tutorials-to-download/&do=findComment&comment=660198 Affinity Vibes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBklZ2HHqdA Graham Rabbits https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FV8aYbfbx8
  11. On Windows you have three ways to expand the tool icons that have a white arrow in the lower right corner: 1.) Left-click on the white arrow. You do NOT need to click and hold. 2.) Right click anywhere on the icon, which is easier than trying to click the tiny white arrow, especially on hi-res monitors. Again, you do NOT need to click and hold. 3.) Left-click-and hold anywhere on the icon. In all three cases, you can release the mouse button and the list of tools will continue to be displayed until you click one of them or click somewhere else.
  12. Specialists in typography, readability, usability, ergonomics, and efficiency will be surprised to learn their disciplines are no more than a matter of personal taste. At least in its early years, Microsoft had usability labs where ordinary people were observed using variations of Microsoft products to determine which designs were most effective at enabling users to do their work. As for getting used to things, my mother was sustained through 96 years by saying, "Oh well. What can you do? You just have to put up with it I guess." On the other hand, Lucy van Pelt gained fame for saying, "It is better to have crabbed and fussed than never to have crabbed at all." The problem for a commercial enterprise is discerning exactly how much their customers are willing to put up with. They should hope their customers care enough to crab and fuss rather than simply walking away. When Adobe charged me for a PSE "upgrade" that had fewer features than the four-year-old version I had been using, I did not crab and fuss, I simply walked away.
  13. I would have expected that the UK editions of popular magazines that review photo editing software would at least be encouraging use of UK developed software, if not actively promoting such software on the basis of its future promise. But just a couple of weeks ago, Affinity Photo was specifically called out as lacking an intuitive interface. But let's not argue about the meaning of "intuitive". More to the point, APhoto isn't even mentioned among the several best choices for photo editing. https://uk.pcmag.com/photo-editing/8546/the-best-photo-editing-software On the other hand, some reviewers think APhoto is the best for professionals. https://twitgoo.com/best-free-photo-editing-software/ Yet even reviewers who recommend APhoto comment that it is "quite technical." https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/buying-guides/the-best-photo-editing-software That combination of a poor interface and technical complexity are the two main reasons I stopped recommending APhoto to my photography friends after my initial exuberance about APhoto wore off. I myself revel in the wonderful complexity of things, but most people do not. They have a job to do (editing photographs in this case) and don't want to be overwhelmed with technical details. I'd compare it to the development of the World Wide Web in the early 90s. Some people prided themselves on editing HTML markup, others stayed away until WYSIWYG web page editors appeared. Today everyone is an international publisher and author without knowing any technical details at all. My major concern about the future of APhoto is that even the support staff at Serif admit to being in the dark about where the products are going. What do we have to look forward to in operational terms? Many seem to hope that "improvements" will be made. Thus, I've been hoping for a more usable UI and for fixes for obvious display bugs for more than four years. No progress so far, though the .afphoto files have grown hugely in size with no benefit to me at all.
  14. This is clearly not the case. You have the history in reverse order. I graduated from typewriters to word processing software more than 40 years ago. I've never seen a word processing software environment that did not have footnotes, endnotes, table of contents, indexes, headers, footers, running titles, and page numbering capability. All these word processing functions long preceded the invention of desktop publishing software. I started word processing with GML/Script on an IBM mainframe, moved to PC-Write (DOS), Word Perfect (DOS), and Microsoft Word (DOS), and finally Word for Windows. The last was a triumph. We were finally freed from inserting special codes and tags into the text stream to control formatting. Instead, we assigned properties to paragraphs, sentences, and words to get the results we needed. Suddenly word processing was object oriented rather than data stream oriented. More powerfully, we could control formatting globally through the use of styles built from combinations of properties of textual elements. The other fundamental word processing invention was fields that provide references to and that grab data from other locations in a document. Desktop publishing software on the other hand was invented later to control page layout, to put into frames precisely located on the page such things as images or text continued from frames on other pages. A DTP package that couldn't handle the basic elements of textual content like footnotes and endnotes produced by word processors was of little to no use for writers. In the category of what you call "digital typewriter emulators" I'd perhaps include XEDIT (IBM's text editor used to construct GML/Script files that were processed into page output printed on $250,000 laser printers in the university computer center}. You could also include Windows Notepad and KEDIT (DOS and Windows) as typewriter emulators.
  15. Olivios's restoration tutorial is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXc-Gh3rcN4 InAffinity also has a couple at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mav026pYTV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDb6T1Vkr0Q Your own photo is very fixable with a little patience. If the basic structures are there, then blemishes can be removed. Missing parts can be cloned in. You crop out the impossible parts, but even the lower left corner can be rebuilt somewhat with the clone tool. I did the following restoration for a friend 6 years ago with an alternative product, long before I discovered nondestructive editing. What you can't see in these small versions is the amount of scattered water damage over parts of the building and sidewalks. Today I could do a much better job using APhoto. If you are going to do many restorations, you might be interested in Affinity Revolution's course at https://courses.affinityrevolution.com/p/photo-restoration-for-beginners/
  • 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.