Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About geirrosset

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

235 profile views
  1. Just to back up mac_heibu here. I'm a publisher (print) and it seems that there are a lot of answers here from folks who do not work in publishing. Nevermind the technical aspects of file types or pixels vs dpi vs quality. There is no issue for screen based designers, but that doesn't mean that Affinity Photo can't be fixed to work equally well for print designers. Attached is a screen dump showing file info for two blank Quark XPress 2016 files with the same photo inserted at 300 dpi and 72 dpi. That's half a MB difference for a document containing one photo. The photo files are the same size (725Kb), the layout files are not. Now scale that layout file up to include a couple hundred photos, lots of text, fonts and graphics and you should begin to see what the problem is about. Just let us open a (72 dpi) jpg in AP, change the dpi (to 300), leaving the pixel dimensions the same, check that the print size in cm/inches is sufficient for your layout and then save and close it (you can do this now, but nothing is written to the file). Shouldn't be than hard to fix. As a publisher I see graphic files at anywhere from 1 dpi (yes that's 1 dpi) to 4000 or 6000 dpi (all because most authors have no idea what they are doing when it comes to images or scanning). FYI: Increasing the dpi further will further decrease the size of the layout document, but will force you to scale the image up in your DTP software so there is no point. So this is really a matter of how DTP software works and how badly Affinity want's DTP customers to switch to their software. I doubt Affinity can change the way Adobe or Quark handles images in their documents.
  2. Just to set the scene. I am an academic publisher. I have a dream... As a starting point assume that each project will be based on 4 or more crappy word files from author who do not have the faintest idea of how to properly use styles or formatting, with documents which have been copied and reused since the days of Word Perfect containing tens upon tens of unused or duplicate styles. If you can import all files and easily format the body text and the footnotes/endnotes to your own specifications you'll have a winner. Currently this is way too complicated and buggy in InDesign and Quark with multiple nested styles. I am currently working on a book built up of 8 Word files, written by someone who is no good with computers (if authors knew how to properly format and publish a book then there would be no need for publishers) containing about 1000 footnotes. It seems to me that Adobe and Quark assume that each book is created by importing flawless and properly formatted Word documents which leads me to think that none of the people who are responsible for creating the applications actually use it in real world publishing. I would gladly be an alfa/beta tester if it means having any say in the way Publisher handles importing Word files (which like it or not is what 99% of all authors use). I'd throw away Adobe and Quark in a heartbeat. I already have Designer and Photo and would be happy to include Publisher on that list. Best regards Geir Rosset Novus Press Oslo Norway
  3. First of all, If dpi was indeed of no great interest then there would be no reason for Photoshop or A.P. to include the ability to set it, and they have. Secondly if you have worked with DTP applications you know that if you insert for example a 4000 dpi scan of a slide in a 16x20cm box it will look terrible on screen because (at least in QuarkXPress) the software needs to blow it up about 400%. The file has more than enough pixels, but the application looks at print size which with 4000 dpi is tiny. So I do not think we need neither a complex tutorial on something as mundane as changing the dpi of an image nor a technical brief on file formats. Affinity just needs to fix A.P. so that what you set in the dialogue is also what is exported to other file formats. I am no power user, I mostly work with normal retouching and archive scanning, but A.P. has some basic faults that make me fall back on PS again and again. I might just be unlucky in that two of the things I need are the only two things that still need work (jpegs look worse than the same file exported from PS (kills A.P. for creating crisp thumbnails of products for lets say a web shop), and then there is this resolution thing which kills A.P. for (my) DTP use). If you work solely with applications that do not take dpi into account, then A.P. is perfect just the way it is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed for those who actually need it.
  4. It is unchecked. Also the exported TIFF is layered. I see no option to export without layers. Geir
  5. So I tried resizing. I have a photo scanned from a slide at 4000 dpi. I go to resize document. It says 16x20cm print size at 300dpi. I accept. Then I export to TIFF. The TIFF is still 4000 dpi. What is going on? Best regards Geir Rosset Oslo Norway
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. 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.