Jump to content

Tazintosh

Members
  • Content count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tazintosh

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://tazintosh.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

379 profile views
  1. Hi folks, Thanks to Argee answer providing us with it's Affinity file, I managed to find out the issue. Here's a screenshot of the Affinity Published Print Panel: When I compared the print preview to the actual look of it's document pages, I noticed that the margin was way bigger. Obviously, if when sent to Create Booklet, Argee couldn't have the expected result since it's already "wrong?" on the generated PDF from Affinity's Print Panel. So indeed, playing with scaling/position etc. on Create Booklet could not help much. Now that I knew that the issue was not Create Booklet related: I don't know yet why, but it appears that the "Fit Type" dropdown on the Affinity Print Panel is the cause. I've not took a close look to Argee's document settings so I cannot tell if it's a bug or not, but when I choose "Fit to printable", with it's document, everything worked fine on the preview, thus on Create Booklet.
  2. Hi Argee, I answered your three points by email, as you requested. Hope this will help us to figure out your issue and provide you great support. Just a side note about the "unfair" word. Don't you think it's also sightly unfair to call our app “not very good” or “doesn't quite get it right” when no support contact have ever been made (beside asking for a refund) and while we yet have no clue if it's Create Booklet related? We did had bugs, most probably still have some, but we do have a vast majority of insanely satisfied customers. I hope you'll consider my proposal on my email answer to send us your input document, or accept my screen sharing session for live support.
  3. Hi Argee, I'm Édouard, I designed Create Booklet (with Affinity Designer BTW) while Christoph from TheKeptPromise programmed it. Note that if you had issues or needed help for Create Booklet, it would have been better to contact us directly so we can help, rather than trying to get some on a non Create Booklet related forum We're are “TheKeptPromise” and here to provide a good support to our customers As said, the refund will rely on Apple directly, but just keep in mind that Create Booklet can create booklets from any single app that can print with tons of options. It's a dedicated app. Cheers
  4. Hi folks, What's the situation with this bug? It's still present on the last Designer version. This is BTW just a workaround, which is sadly not complete. As any attempts to set back pressure profile —onto the solid style— will end up with the brush texture applied again. Note that clicking the "properties…" button on the Stroke panel, keeps displaying Texture related content, even if you are in solid style. The only workaround I've found to really switch back to solid style is the following: Create a filled rectangle that will frame your buggy stroke Move it under the stroke layer Intersect the two layers Switch back the result curve from fill to stroke Open it if needed (cause the curve fill be close by the operation) Set your solid style pressure Voilà! --> but this is quite some time loss.
  5. Ok, I've been able to find a friend's computer with Photoshop installed. It appears that those Apple's files are not anymore containing Smart Objects (they were by the past), which solve my wonders. I was also mislead by Apple's own texts on guidelines: They are talking about a "localisation" folder that in fact doesn't exist on their provided contents. In the end then, I've compared all files and Affinity Photo is importing them perfectly. Solve my fear. Still, since Apple start providing other format on UI (like Sketch files), would be nice if you push them to provide Affinity format All the best.
  6. Hi folks, Apple contacted us because they want promotional contents from our App. To do so, they're providing (you obviously know it), AppName_AS_FeaturingAppsGames.psd, AppName_AS_FeaturingToday.psd, AppName_AS_ProductPageArt.psd, AppName_AS_SupportingImagery.psd, AppName_AS_TitleTreatment.psd Those PSD files have generally a specific structure, containing "smart objects" etc. My problem, is that I'm no longer using Photoshop. I'm done with Adobe, seriously, I don't want them to get my money, and even more, I don't want them to touch my computer anymore. So my computer is totally clean from anything related since more than a year now and I won't switch back. I knew/used for to long their apps to be able to hate almost any single parts of them. Question is: how do I satisfy Apple if I cannot open the exact structure of the file they are providing? How did you managed to provide them with —your– promotional contents? Did you used Photoshop? That's embarrassing… Would be nice if you could put pressure on Apple (you can, I cannot), so they offer more formats, ideally .affinity. Else, please make your import of PSD files more efficient Thanks for your time, I would love earring back from you.
  7. Hey Generic Patriot, Thanks for the video. Your process is interesting, but finally, it validates what I was afraid of. In your explanation/video, you are considering your mask as good by default, and then, you apply your effect (dodge or whatever) to the result masked image. What we are talking about is totally different: Applying dogding, burning, level, curve, etc. directly on the mask is all about refining it (the mask), and nothing else. The HUGE benefit of working directly on the mask is that you see in live, how it behave on your creation as you edit it. Let say your mask has slight grey areas. Those area will act as partially transparent on the masked image right? In your example, you can over paint whatever you want, in whatever blending mode, you'll still get those areas partially transparent. This is exactly not what we want. We want to be able to fix those areas, which can be defects on the mask. And to do so, you may want the doge / burn depending the need, specific areas of your mask to make it perfect. Starting at 1min. on this video I've made years ago… (was still on Photoshit), you'll exactly see the benefit I'm talking about. I'm working right into my mask, and burn it. This method provides insanely precise results when applicable. And I've endless count of case like this. At least, Photoshop logic was good on this… (the very only feature I'm missing)…
  8. Hey Patriot, Thanks for the input, but you dare putting a "Just" in front of your multiple steps process? "rasterize to mask" will anyway produce a destructive result. Would you mind providing us a quick screen record? There are some formulations I'm missing here. Thanks in advance.
  9. This is a little bit more than 4 years (June 2014) now that Apple have dropped Aperture. I've tested everything around (really) and Aperture simply beats hand down any single other apps in the — DAM — aspect. (I'm not talking about the adjusting tools, which luckily did evolved on competitors). I've purchased Affinity Photo in July 2015, since then, I'm reading here people asking for a DAM, and Affinity answering, "yes", "yes", "yes", then "no", then back "yes"… So I'm sticking on Aperture, it's that simple (sadly) The day an Affinity DAM will come, I simply hope it will vaporise Aperture, which no one yet have been able the achieve.
  10. This lack is by far the most irritating part of my whole work when using Affinity Photo.
  11. Tazintosh

    Straight line bug with Paint Brush

    Thanks Chris.
  12. Hi folks, On the attached video, you'll find the illustration of the bug described here: Select the Paint Brush Tool Make a —single click— to paint a point Move somewhere else and hold shift ⇧ —Single click— to paint a straight line Repeat steps 2. to 4. to better understand what's going on To make is "work", you have to click —and drag— at step 2. I hope this help. Can't wait to see this one fixed as it's pretty annoying. Thanks for the support. Affinity Straight Brush.mov
  13. Ok, this is weird, this topic is quite old but I do encounter this issue with AD 1.6. Snapping tis behaving completely wrong with such a setting.
  14. Multiple times, Affinity team answered (here or on Twitter) that a DAM was under development… I even had a private discussion on iMessage with a developper where we talked about Aperture and the DAM: Quote: “We’re hoping for 2017 for the DAM app […]” and my answer before ending the discussion: “Please don’t hesitate to keep in touch with xxxxx for the Aperture thingy.” I'm still sticking with Aperture because it's the best DAM + non destructive tool I've been able to test, and I know we are multiple sharing this opinion. As many too, I've put aside all thinking of switching (no way I'm going on Lightroom) because Affinity said they were on it. This is the biggest sad news for my near future workflow…
  15. No need to tell you toltec. You just did on the line above… How can you pretend that your described workflow is non destructive while it's last step makes it even non-editable? I've 100% quit this shit of Photoshop for about two years now. So if I was "thinking" Photoshop, I would be quite weird on my decision making to be productive and live from my work. The described need on this topic has in the end nothing to do with Photoshop itself. Aperture is exactly using the same black & white concept for mask, as well as hundred of app out there, 2D or 3D. There is a reason Affinity also renders it also and B&W. It's an extremely efficient, not old fashioned, and powerful way to work. If you are not concerned by it or don't see it's potential, it's fine. But toltec, I'm trying to understand you here… We would like the mask behaviour to be enhanced, for the good of it. Out of curiosity and rather than arguing against the feature itself, how would —your— work be impacted by a behaviour like the one we want? Because, my small brain is searching for valid reasons, and while a pixel B&W behaviour for masks would insanely help our workflow in Affinity, I don't see how yours would change since your work seems obviously not concerned.
×