dannyg9

Garry, "Sometimes these things are simply hang-overs from something that isn't relevant anymore, but it's better to ask." I'm not quite sure if there's even a good reason in regards to browsing shelves of magazines. I'm not completely sure what the target audience is, gender-wise, but it would seem that targeting just men would be cutting off your nose to spite your face kind of thing. "MEN" will be a mystery until the next issue. I'll tell you this much: the Publisher did have me "clean-up" a lot of the clutter on the cover from previous issues, much to the aesthetic benefit of the cover. Sometimes it's not until a client actually sees a change that they notice it's better or, in some cases, they don't even miss what's not there anymore. -Danny

Garry, Ah, the joy of being the only creative working on a project. Granted, I've got a fantastic Editor and Publisher who are part of the proofing process, but no other designers throwing in their opinions/critiques. I miss that. No person is an island. I see what you're saying about the shape on the La Natra spread. Image could have been shifted down a bit so that start of the curve would have been chopped off in the bleed. The white glows were added to the Inkhore photos to have them pop a bit. I try not to use too many effects if they're not warranted, but in the overall context of the magazine, some articles need to be set apart from others and using certain devices helps that. Thanks for pointing out the spacing on the footers. To be honest, this is the second title from the publisher, and the first issue of it that I'm designing and I basically had to "reinvent the wheel" and every single element in a short span of time. Inevitably, some bits will fall through the cracks. I will adjust the footers. As to the cover with the "MEN". . . I have no idea what that's all about. It's an established element from the publisher yet I'm as baffled by you. I did change a LOT of what I thought were really bad design choices from previous issues and that "MEN" will be something I'll bring up for next issue. Hey, it did get your attention yes? LOL! Seriously though, thanks for the critique points. Very appreciated. -Danny

Thanks Mike. With the thousands of images to choose from I could easily make it a 300 page magazine, but that wouldn't fly with the publisher! With all the amazing work, the challenge is to create compelling layouts without detracting or distracting from the tattoos.

Rolling along in a groove, thanks to Photo, Designer, QuarkXpress, and PDF Expert (no Adobe products involved WHATSOEVER). Latest Issue of Tattoo Media Ink's "Tattoos For Men" #109 is on sale now. Cover to cover, all photos were processed with Photo. Mind you some of the source material wasn't the greatest, but you work with what you've been dealt. I used Designer to recreate the Title logo, which is also used as footers on the inner pages. It's been almost 2 years since I used Adobe products, and especially InDesign and I don't miss any of it. Dabbling with Publisher and am looking forward to when I can use it side by side with Xpress. I've used Publisher for some small single page projects, but I can't put a 100 page publication solely on it's shoulders just yet. Loving Affinity products.

Bryce, Thanks so much, much appreciated. In regards to Acrobat, I hear you, although I've got 2 machines and I'm using PDF Expert which for what I need now is serving as an excellent replacement for Acrobat. It seems that every other week they have an update and/or improvement. I've tried some other PDF programs, but I'm not ready to invest in software that, to me, seems more complicated than it needs to be.

Thanks for the head's up in regards to FB. I shall take a look through my wife's account!

Thanks Mike. Truly appreciate the compliment, especially from someone with such a wealth of knowledge and experience.

I believe this is the 4th issue that I've created cover-to-cover with QuarkXpress and, just as important, Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer. My workflow has COMPLETELY changed, from the world of Adobe, to a mix that serves me better. I've read through many threads in the forums, mostly positive, but some rantings how Affinity products are not "pro," whatever that means. Granted, these are my opinions, but Photo and Designer feel so much better than their Adobe counterparts. There was a bit of the "changing the brain" learning curve, but I'm far more comfortable now than I ever was with Adobe, especially since they went to a subscription model. Just with the magazine in mind, I've created photo collages, done a massive amount of photo manipulation, color correction, logo creation. . . .everything but the layout (I've been using Publisher Beta but it's not at the point where I can rely on it to see the magazine through to print). The magazine Editor and Publisher are happy, the print files are hitting all the right notes with the Printer and the public are enjoying the product, both physically and electronically.

Opening a PDF retains 99% of formatting, including individual text boxes (including linked boxes). Cutting and pasting from CS5 to Publisher, in some instances, is creating individual boxes of text for each line. I think it may depend if there are hard returns in the original InDesign file. I've found it much easier to clean up whatever shortcomings there are right now (the 100 page Magazine for example), than to reinvent the wheel. As we're still in beta mode, there will be obstacles, but the fact that it can "read" the placement and overall formatting of a "cut and paste" and pretty reliably recreate 100 pages of placement, styling, formatting and effects is pretty impressive.

With the latest Beta of Publisher, 1.7.0.133, I still have the ability to open a PDF in Publisher and have all the elements and effects intact (yes, some of the text is grouped in blocks, but that's an easy fix) and I can still copy the entire contents of an InDesign CS5 file and paste it into a new blank Publisher file with the same results (content, effects, etc.). I'm also able to open a 100 page magazine PDF file with bleeds in Publisher with only a few font replacement issues. As I refuse to subscribe to Adobe, I can't vouch that this works with any later version of InDesign.

I've been running CS5 on MacBook Pro Yosemite for some time. I've also got a late 2017 iMac which is Adobe-free. No subscribing, thank you very much. Been waiting for the Publisher Beta patiently. Has some quirks on Yosemite (expected, it is a Beta). No real problems on the iMac running High Sierra. Read through the whole thread here, and happy to say that selecting all and copying from an ID CS5 file and pasting into new Publisher file works quite well. All formatting intact, including the feathering of the background image. Importing a PDF works about the same. So far just experimenting with single pages. As some others have stated here, Publisher is LIGHT YEARS ahead of where InDesign was when it was released (I was an early convert from Quark to InDesign). And this is a Beta (did I mention that?). Can only imagine when 1.0 is released and it integrates with the rest of the Affinity line with a click of an icon. Let the naysayers call Affinity products "toys for hobbyists." I've been designing since T-Squares, Triangles, REAL paste-up, etc. and they're anything but "lite" applications. I've been producing with Photo and Designer for 2 years and they make Photoshop and Illustrator look and feel almost as antiquated as the T-Square. As for transitioning, just do it. In the Beta there's ways and means to pull in InDesign files via Copy and Paste or placing a PDF of said InDesign file. Of course larger documents will take a bit of effort and cleanup. Move forward. Don't stay stuck in the Adobe rut. They don't care about you and if you think they do, have I got a bridge for you.

I can understand the frustration. Personally I avoid subscription software and I've been using Adobe CS5 since 2010. Only hitch is keeping my MacBook Pro at Yosemite in order to have full functionality. Affinity Designer and Photo work beautifully on that so I've only had to rely on InDesign CS5. While waiting for Publisher I decided to give QuarkXpress a try and I've been using the 2017 version on the MacBook as well. I have a 2017 iMac and I run QuarkXpress 2018 and Affinity Designer and Photo on that. No Adobe products and it's blissful. You could say I've been waiting for Publisher for almost 6-7 years. The only reason I haven't upgraded my MacBook Pro is in case I need to convert an InDesign file. Publisher will be a great addition to the software arsenal without subscriptions. If you peruse the Adobe forums you'll see the defense of the Adobe universe argument being that in order to share work. . . I can understand that but my work doesn't involve that sort of collaboration. I achieve everything through PDF output, whether for proofing or print. If you can't wait or are tired of the delays, then the choices are fairly simple: Continue with the Adobe Beast, try QuarkXpress or any other page layout alternative. Complaining on a forum about what a company does or doesn't "owe" us in regards to software that is in development seems a bit bizarre. The only thing I see Affinity owing me in regards to Publisher is the actual software once I've paid for it. As a product, it doesn't exist yet. You can storm the walls of the castle all you want and shout at the top of your lungs, but it won't hasten anything. If it's not in your pocket you don't have it. If Publisher is shaping up to be as great as Photo and Designer, the wait is worth it. Just my opinion and I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone here. I've felt that frustration as well, at many companies for various reasons, especially those that kill off software for no reason.

If the Adobe story has taught us anything, it should be that we have to have options and engage them in order to have an uninterrupted work flow (Mike W seems to epitomize this). When Publisher hits (Beta or otherwise), I'll be there. I've transitioned from Photoshop and Illustrator to Photo and Designer, I've got Pixelmator, and I've been using QuarkXpress for 7 months now with no regrets. Took a while to export/import my InDesign CS5 files (some still to be converted) and I'm happy to say that I'm out of the Adobe design cycle. I use the latest CC at work because that's what they've got. The possible future of elements of the Creative Cloud can be seen firsthand in Adobe's EOL of MUSE. As many have posted here before, there's quite a bit of perfectly good software that Adobe has killed off and other programs that they've let wallow or become bloated. Pretty sure that no matter what Publisher may lack at the outset it will only go forward and become better.

If Publisher (can't believe Microsoft isn't questioning the naming) enables me to do what I do with InDesign CS5 (no clouds here), then it will be worth the investment. In the meantime, I use QuarkXpress and it's actually a pleasant relief from the Adobe product line. We should all be flexible in the tools we use as a developer can go belly-up or, like Adobe, just decide to kill a perfectly usable tool and then lock it away in a dungeon to prevent further development rather than sell it off and let the product and it's users flourish. Quark may have been super arrogant at one time, but since coming back to it I've found the company quite pleasant to deal with. And just for the record, I've never had any problems with Affinity programs.

Just a thought, and forgive me if it's already been mentioned, but with the Beta release of Mac OS Mojave, might that delay the release of Publisher? Maybe towards the end of Summer? It would make sense as Mojave is being released in the Fall and that would be playing a bit of "catch up" if Publisher didn't work on it. My two-cents conjecturing.