jepho

PDF export/saving/printing: Windows 10 has a native print to PDF option. You could print your fully assembled book like this. The print option saves the whole file as a PDF file. You could send this to your printer... with a couple of caveats. The file will be the wrong size because you are not creating your photos at the requested size. The windows native option may not let you apply an icc colour profile. You could address these issues by working in the iccc profile colour space and making the images the finished size. Another advantage is that the printer would not be able to work with .jpg image files which will lose detail every time the files are saved because of the lossy compression algorithm. Working in a 16bit lossless filetype like .tif will give you the maximum headroom for adjusting aspects of your images. If you need the space in your computer when working with images then an 8bit lossless compression type like .png is the way to go. The native export options for Publisher are very good and providing you set the rasterise option to 300 dpi and then press the More button between the cancel and export buttons on the PDF export screen, you can set all of the parameters that you need to keep a high quality file. A PDF file cannot be adjusted by the printer so you would need to work at the finished size of the book. Your image sizes are larger than the finished size which equates to 15.09 x 7.66 inches at 300 dpi and this converts to a metric size of 383.26 x 194.56 mm. Where you have used fonts that you have purchased, create outlines of the fonts and lock the PDF file. This way the printer will not have access to fonts for which you have paid for the right to use. Hold all of your image files in lossless formats. There is no value in saving .jpg files because they are altered and lose detail every time you save them. Work in the icc colour space your printe requires.

I am not too sure about your processes but the issues you raise are all amenable to resolution. What computer OS are you using? Windows or MacOS? "Placing images, crop and rotate them, add an outline, add an shadow and some artistic text here and there" Is the work profile you have listed above all that you require? "With the printers software I can do that for free, BUT it will not give me a high-quality printable PDF to keep forever" This looks to be resolvable by changing your methods slightly. For help with this, I would like to know what image sizes are you using and what resolution do you send to the printer? The printed quality of a digital image depends on the number of pixels which are native to the image. "Printers even do not offer to give one a PDF-version of the book for money. And you can't get a PDF out of it in any way" You may find it better to publish to an ePub format and then send that file to a printer. Something like Calibre can convert the file. If you use a Mac then Apple iBooks is your answer. You can create a book that is virtually an ePub book and it can import and export PDF files. Extracting the best resolution from your images depends on not processing them into jpeg files. I would suggest 16bit tif files if you intend the images to retain detail and colour information. the PDF files produced from these images will be the highest quality that you can achieve but that is a conversation for another thread. edit: I forgot to add that you can use a book printing service like Blurb. I have included a link to one of my books at... http://www.blurb.com/books/233471-bricolage The images were all processed as 16bit tif files in Photoshop around 2009.

The issue is not one of price for professional users. I don't mean that professionals can stand to pay anything because the client will always bear the cost of software and equipment. The fundamental question to answer before a tool is used professionally is this; Will it do the job? Every tool has to be justified in terms of its cost when set against its utility. Buying a tool that does not do what is required is wasted expense and effort, even if the tool only cost the user £1. Possibly it is more of a calamity if the tool costs the user several thousand pounds but the value of the tool lies in what it permits the user to do, easily and accurately. If you were to commission me to create a portrait of you and you want the framed image to be 60 x 40 metres in size, you would be concerned if I turned up with one small camera and nothing else. You would expect to see flash units and continuous lighting, slave units, stands, background materials, a few props and at the least a medium or large format digital camera. I would usually bring a back-up camera, spare batteries, an exposure meter and a colour temperature meter along with assorted gobos, snoot and barn doors for the lighting and numerous reflectors of different colours too. My living depends upon me selecting the right tool for the job. The item at the URL: https://www.polaroid.com/products/cube-plus-action-camera just will not do the job required. Designing any number of project types with a computer is pretty much taken for granted. A myriad software solutions exist to solve any specific problem and job type. Desktop publishing for pre-press purposes is a purely professional pursuit. It is largely the preserve of graphic designers, professional photographers, technical writers and book publishers. If you are designing a single page flyer at home for your local darts club, you are unlikely to want more than a basic page, images and a little text handling. Most image editors will handle that requirement. You will not want to be bothered by page numbering, index/table of contents, foreign text and R to L or vertical text, traps, glyphs, drop caps, dot gain, colour management, typeface handling and a whole raft of considerations that MUST be decided upon before sending output to be printed. The missing bits of Publisher are essential to any software that claims to be professional because the pre-press professional is unable to work accurately without them. The line, to which you refer, must not drawn below what a professional would need to use the software. The constraint must be placed upon all other non-professional users otherwise the software is doomed to be sub-optimal for professional use. Back in the day, no amateur had even heard of Photoshop when digital imaging was in its infancy. Most cameras had manual controls and I could control shutter speed, aperture, and if a light meter was included in the body (rarely) ISO. Film images were scanned by drum scanning bureaux and pre-press assembly was handled by dedicated software such as raster image processors and computer to plate programs. Pages were manually pasted up before being imaged and sent to an image setter. These tasks are all largely automated today but they must still be completed. The purpose of professional software is to permit the users to undertake work on a professional basis and charge the client for doing so. When the software does not permit the task to be done, it prevents the client's needs from being serviced. Take typing for reprographic work. Imagine a worker being asked to produce a 50,000 word text for a corporate brochure. It was laboriously typed, proof read and corrected and then typeset and imposed for production. If colour was required then spot or corporate colours were designed into the project. If the client, on seeing the proof copy, wanted to make changes in font, colour placement and content, the assembled document would have to be taken apart and adjusted. The process would be completed again and when the final proof copy was signed off, the work would be printed, quality checked and sent to the client and with luck and a fair wind, the client would pay on receipt. Good pre-press software handles all of these tasks such as changing text content. It can be achieved more rapidly but it still must be done and the facility to do the work must be included in the software. It may never be used but were the client to demand it, the designer must be able to meet their needs or else the software is just an impediment. The accuracy with which the software works is also an issue when using it in production work. If I cannot be sure that my content placement (such as gutters) is accurate to three decimal places, a cut through the final printed pages when assembling say... a book which is to be perfect bound may have some of the content obscured by the glue or stitching. A professional software will not permit such inaccuracies. When I print a proof image for a client, I want the client to see every detail, in the right colours and at the actual size of the final image. In my opinion, you are not the target audience for the Publisher software. That you can make sense of the program and use it for your purposes is a side effect of how well the system has been designed and programmed. As you scale the learning curve and become more familiar with the software's uses and capabilities, you may bump up against its limitations. While you are using it for your own purposes it will not matter too much. Should you ever want to use the software commercially, it will become a major hurdle.

Yes, this is a very well made point. If the GM release follows the beta accurately, I will find it hard to overlook the obvious omissions. I set up pages using odd numbers of grids when publishing newspapers. There appears to be no ability to run headings, external to the text columns, for any number of the columns. Yes, there is a work around but placing a frame which can contain text or images across a number of columns should be a standard implementation of how grids are used to control the manner in which components are aligned and the general look of a page. I have not yet found out how to create and run a frame round an odd shape component, like an alpha background image, so that I can control the inset of a textual runaround placed underneath the image. This is the bit that is less clear. What commitment do Serif have to produce a really useful substitute for ID/QXP? Stopping to review what they have produced and the requests for features that appear to be absent, ought to assist the developers to rethink their plans. The base is good and the integration with Designer and Photo is an excellent notion, although we have not yet seen how that will operate. Professional capabilities will be essential to a program marketed for professionals. I would not mind paying double for the software if it funded the addition of features that would make the software useful for professional purposes. I hand off the image file as an uncropped and unretouched maximum resolution RAW file and I provide the requested image at its printed size. This is in a printable PDF file form which is locked to external editing adjustments. I don't keep any of these files. In the case of say... a corporate brochure, the whole design is produced as requested and the image files used are all provided as full resolution, unretrouched and uncropped RAW images. The fully assembled and printed output is also supplied as locked PDF file. Once again, the files are not kept. My clients know that they are buying my services once only. The locked output files are to prevent my work being disassembled and components used without my consent. Repeat business does occur and my clients seem to like being in control. They can take my images anywhere to be reproduced and they control their files. My design work is my own and they can use it for the original purpose but anything else has to require more layout and design work and further costs or they use a new designer. I retain the ability to open all of the locked PDF files which I have produced. I agree completely. There is no need to work in a convoluted manner when you don't need to. This is the worst of all possible worlds. I was a happy user of Adobe products until they forced decisions upon the user in the move towards CS Suite. I felt like I was running to stand still and was not convinced by many of the so-called updates. I started skipping them and felt like I was losing touch with what was essential software for me. Designer and Photo have been my lifelines but layout has been problematic with InDesign and CC. I don't want CC and I resent being forced to drop my standalone version of Acrobat Professional (v. XI) in favour of the CC version. Feeling out of the loop is a horrible experience when you make your living by being able to process your work. I have begun to feel something similar with Apple hardware. The original Macintosh II was a great machine. Apple have slowly removed hardware that was useful and now it looks as if expansion will be restricted to Apple proprietary connectors. My next machine is likely to be non Mac because I don't feel that Apple wants to keep me in its development loop. I paid a lot of cash for Aperture only to see it heavily discounted by Apple then abandoned. The design of their computers seems to be heading for style over hard to justify and very expensive substance. Hmmm... well they are your own expectations, nevertheless I do understand and empathise with what you mean. Next to Photo and Designer, it certainly feels as if Publisher has not met the brief. I would not ascribe any malice to Serif's motivations but I think they have not considered who would want to use publisher and how it would be used. The uses and users of Page Plus software may have sidetracked Serif a little and caused them to take their eyes from the ball and the prize... that is to say wholehearted professional endorsement of their layout and publishing software.

Agreed! Paying more is always an option and it may be that Serif have misread the audience of professionals at this point in the development of Publisher. I had not found any difficulties with using Photo or Designer and the softwares largely perform as expected. I don't mind that there are different sequences of actions or behaviours to achieve what I want. The acts of image editing and vector image creation are pretty well understood and minor differences between softwares are ultimately of little consequence. In photography, I can and will use any item that can be called a camera and I have no interest in the manufacturer or the format... I will always produce an image. Likewise, I can and will use any software (on a Mac) when it comes to producing a vector design or editing pixels. Naturally, I prefer to use software that does not require me to fight it to achieve simple things. I have even used GIMP which I dropped when I needed to edit 16bit images and the software could only handle 8bit images. The matter of using a single software to pull together all of the elements of any designed production in a layout program... such as a newspaper, magazine, technical publication, pamphlet or a book; requires the software to be capable for multiple levels of activity. Arranging the elements both freeform and constrained and outputting accurately placed items in a format understood by printing houses and including end to end colour management and permit all manner of text adjustments, ligatures, glyphs &c., is a simple overview. Yes, 16bit CMYK output and Pantone support for spot colours absolutely implies a professionally capable piece of software. In Publisher beta as is, grids and frame handling do not yet seem ideal and master pages have already featured in our discussions. Possibly the beta version of Publisher was released rather too early. The calls for features that may appear (to the developers) as if all people request and want/need is a cheaper version of ID or QXP; in order to get out from under Adobe's subscription model heel or the oppressive pricing structures of professional layout software like QXP, may feel as if there has been a sustained attack on their efforts. Project management can be a nightmare filled with dependency networks and Gantt charts. Whichever point in the envisaged Publisher development cycle has already been reached for the current beta of Publisher, may dictate that it is not yet possible to add some features in the developer's current development timeline. It is something of a mixed blessing to learn that certain facilities may not be added for a time (or even told that there is no intention to provide a facility discussed in the forums) but at least we should be able to decide whether the software is worth our time investment on the basis of what we know and can see and have tested. It is evident that Publisher beta misses several essential marks for a layout software and it remains to be seen how Serif addresses that particular fact. The beta suggestions and bug reports will help to refine the product but I can see why the development team may be reluctant to be sidetracked while the software is still effectively in a pre-release form of development. I can relearn to work within limitations set by software and I do not have any old files that will require conversion or reworking. That is a rather long story but with image editing sales I was constantly receiving obscure requests many years after undertaking a commission. I decided to never store client files again. All of my images were sold complete with the copyright and the RAW files and the need for large costly storage and file handling software as well as dealing with copyright abuses; was removed in one fell swoop. I am happy to wait and see what the final Publisher product looks like. We all would like to make cost savings because we must defray our costs by charging the customer. Can we get more work by charging less than our competitors for doing the same work? Probably, so I am going to wait until the final product is released. I can see that the Publisher software will not suit people who have requirements which are not met by the current beta and for which the plans to provide the facilities needed are not in place.

Your first point is an absolute with which I wholeheartedly agree. Its natural corollary is your second point and once again, I am in total agreement with you. The final point appears to be common sense but I don't believe the software industry has worked quite like that in the past. In years past I had attended an Adobe day where the CS2 suite of programs was launched. My software use included Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign along with Acrobat. My work was to produce stand alone photographic work, graphic design for logotypes and posters, tabloid newspaper production, corporate brochures, web page catalogue assembly, technical manuals and books. I was always, inter alia, a professional film photographer and I owned and used cameras that covered the whole gamut of film sizes and formats from 4x5inch down to sub miniature. My colleagues were all going digital and my first 6 megapixel professional digital camera cost me around £2,000 for the body only. I was keen to get an Adobe staff member's view on where the Photoshop aspect of CS Suite was going. This was in the light of Apple's Aperture software and its aspirations to become a highly regarded professional photographic production tool. I was told by Adobe staff that there were only about 100,000 professional photographer's globally and the market which was driving Photoshop development was the amateur photographer with his new found public accessibility of digital photography. It was clear to me then that Adobe had little interest in the professional photographer's needs market and so it has proven to be the case. Amateur photographers can now access Photoshop and Lightroom CC plus 20GB of storage for under £10 per month while another £10 payment secures 1TB of storage. Smartphones now have far more megapixel resolution (by a factor of 3x) than my first professional dSLR. Adopting Lightroom digital image management and Photoshop digital image processing looks to be a no brainer for many amateur photographers. Very specific professional photographic tools such as the NIK plugins were purchased by Google and now they have languished, despite being really excellent tools. While professional photographers are charged more (if they are paying the Adobe CC rates shown earlier in the thread) it is the amateurs that provide the bulk of Adobe's photographically derived income. No surprise that Adobe wants to woo amateur photographers, in preference to their professional counterparts. I am really guessing here but my educated guess is that market numbers will win and dictate where the software developers will aim their products. The ability to print direct from a computer to really capable home printers is a significant factor which helps to drive the DTP software markets. I can print 300 dpi dye sublimation up to 12 x 8 inch in addition to high resolution A4 colour laser output. There is no need for the user to be familiar with graphic design tenets or computer to plate printing methods when simplified DTP software is readily and cheaply available. To brand a piece of software as 'professional' usually implies a massive hike in price in return for a few obscure facilities that only a professional would want. This, in my view, is the precise area where the serif Affinity software must not inhabit. I welcome the simplicity of software and the underlying abilities to carry out professional work. Where the sales dictate the market, it remains to be seen whether Serif can overcome the temptation to make vast numbers of amateur sales and neglect the needs of publishing professionals.

I agree with you that master page functionality is a convention and is a vital function where it is included and implemented well. I would like to think that any of the elements which I attach to a master page are reflected throughout a document. Any change in master page composition should be reflected throughout the document contemporaneously. I suppose that it is the developers that tend to view master pages as a software program within a software program. Herein lies the first problem... that the master pages sometimes have a life of their own because of their implementation methods and they may not act entirely in concert with the ordinary pages. The tighter that master pages are integrated into the general program, the more useful they are functionally, in my view. How difficult are these pages to implement, so that they can be independent of the pages that they determine the layout for, is unknown by me. Once I understand what it is that I want to achieve in terms of my overall layout, then I would hope that the software permits me to arrange my pages how I wish. My own use of master pages falls at one of the early hurdles when I find myself trying to apply several different master pages within the same document.

Yes, I get that the conventions with which we are familiar and have come to use and like are best left untouched. Looking a little deeper; we can see that conventions are merely those methods that are included with the software that has become flavour of the month or year. Some of those conventions (e.g. Photoshop mediated) were turned upside down with the arrival of Aperture. It was a fantastic software that was completely transparent to old fashioned film photographers like me and completely logical in its use. It soon became less popular with digital photographers who demanded curves adjustments because they had no understanding of how the software was designed or how film worked. Sadly, that software is no longer supported but I have never used such an easy and speedy bitmap editor with great image colour management. The granularity of version 1 or version 2 software is never completely satisfactory. It takes many iterations to achieve a satisfactory level of fine control. I like to see all numbers available to three significant decimal places but that level of fine adjustment is not necessary in many tasks. Arguably; one could probably manage with integers in a well-designed software package. Legacy beset software tends to take small evolutionary steps to overall improvements while new softwares can be as revolutionary as they like. I use Adobe's Acrobat a great deal and as yet, I have not found anything to compete with it. There are plenty of PDF file editors around but none with the rather comprehensive and fine control of Acrobat. Much of what Acrobat can achieve could be described as convention but it is the overall reign of the software that dictates what features become an accepted convention. Supporting Serif and Affinity software products and feeding back suggestions is the one way in which we can contribute to the software offered and its overall development. It is probably inevitable that new developments will be compared with existing developments. What seems to me to be very odd are the many loud calls to make any new software just like the old software. q.v. my reference to Aperture above. Progress derives from examining current methods and then making improvements in methods and capabilities. I may not know where the journey will end but for me it will always be exciting. The serious business of making money does not get in the way of finding new and interesting ways to accomplish repetitive tasks which result in better endpoints. YMMV

I understand that it may be the only choice for YOU. Facts: $49 x 12 = $588 pa. In the UK the same monthly paid fee is £49.94 which equates to $63.25 monthly and totals $759 at current exchange rates. This is $171 more than the US rate. Enough for almost 3 months additional subscription. Why does Adobe indulge in this price gouging when it costs no extra to deliver software globally via the internet? The next monthly fee includes membership of Adobe Stock at £73.93 per month. This the equivalent of $93.63 per month and totals $1,123.56 annually. Of course only the first ten images are included in that stock fee component. The costs of Adobe Stock can be chosen from the following scale depending on your needs... £19.99 ($25.32) £47.99 ($60.78) £99.99 ($126.63) or £119.99 ($151.96) At the current exchange rates you could pay an additional annual fee of $303.84 up to an eye watering $1823.52 per annum. So if I wanted the best package including Adobe Stock, I would need to find the sum of $2582.52 as rental for the software and the use of Adobe Stock, every year! Adobe is very definitely NOT the only choice. YMMV.

Yes, up to a point you may be correct. It is clear that software which falls into the category of 'professional software' has to be capable of fulfilling tasks which would not fall within the scope of amateur work. i.e. Photoshop Elements does not compete with Photoshop if you want to create CMYK separations. How would you deal with dot gain, screen angles or traps and knock outs with software intended for amateur uses? Grids are likely to be found in professional DTP software but not in less well specified applications. DTP of course was known as CTP before DTP supposedly freed everyone from the constraints of printing. Frame, PageMaker, Quark Express, InDesign were softwares that grew from original CTP applications like Impression on an Archimedes computer. Everyone and their brother could then produce a Parish magazine from home. We have all seen the amateur 16 page monochromatic productions produced on 80gsm coloured paper that uses 70 different fonts. If you were a local letterpress/offset litho printer, you probably could not afford to own 70 families of typefaces in different sizes and weights. Amateur software also does not address issues for the designer who wanted to produce long runs of high quality documents by the photogravure printing process, for example. Interestingly, despite being introduced in the mid 90s, Hexachrome printing requires Adobe's Photoshop or Illustrator software to adopt and use plugins like Pantone's Hexware, Heximage and Hexvector in order to be Hexachrome aware. My point here is that even the industry 800lb gorillas of today are somewhat less capable than they could be. One software solution will not be the answer to every user's problems. I have always kept many different bitmap editors and utilities on hand for file conversions and ease of use. Likewise with design and publishing softwares. Not wanting to be locked into a one size (from one manufacturer) fits everything philosophy was my rationale for owning many different pieces of software. After many years of Photoshop (v2.0 onwards) I got sucked into the Adobe CS nightmare with version one and somehow realised it was the beginning of the end. The assurances and promises from Adobe that prices would stay reasonable were quickly forgotten (shades of QXP from its position of market superiority?) and it seemed as if the updates broke more than they fixed. I skipped versions so that I could keep essential funds to myself rather than exchange more cash for doubtful 'features'. Adobe CC has been a bit of a nightmare and truthfully, was the final straw. I have learned to do what I need to do in Affinity products. Photo does all that I need from a bitmap editor. Designer is a delight to use and shows Illustrator the way forward. Publisher looks set to be a killer program and all Affinity software is priced so that users do not need to have a mortgage to purchase it; nor is the software on some endless merry-go-round of paying the piper. I think it is likely that the Affinity suite will be purchased by many users rather than pirated because it represents excellent value for money. There has been some commentary from professionals who want the Affinity products to work like Adobe products. Learning some new methods may not be a bad thing, especially when it means that the code is lean, purpose built and not beset with legacy issues. Brutal honesty is a double-edged sword and cuts in both directions. Living in the past and reliving old glories is less than helpful. Who remembers what InDesign was like when it first appeared? It was not the perfect software that some reporters would have us old dogs believe. I would say that is better to learn some new tricks and support the developers who want us to have better software at a reasonable price. 0.2₵

I loved the very sharp, clean lines of the original app icons and the true logotype signifying a capital letter 'A'. The colours had come to be known by me and gave me instant application recognition on the Dock. The new icons look a little nondescript to my eye and they now seem similar to every other manufacturer's product line. I feel that the icon differences (refusal to be the same as the rest of the herd?) helped to distinguish Serif's new approach to vital software applications. I am really sorry to see this small detail lost in the general noise of icon design similarity for different OSs. The new icons are less distinctive and the capital letter 'A' is no longer obvious. That fact alone makes me wonder why Serif chose to lose the clear link with the Affinity name. Notwithstanding the explanatory post from Ash, it felt to me as if Serif just lost a little of the mysterious something that defines Serif as a company. I am of course happy to use the Serif family of Affinity products and will continue to do so. Just a tad saddened... that's all. :(((

Very useful. Thank you Serif. Informative post 3joern. Thank you too.

Good to know, thank you. There is a world of difference between bloatware and a software development that is responsive to the user base which contains everything the user base requests. This is a tough ask, considering where Serif started from and the current and pre-existing state of the market. Well done Serif! The endless requests to the dev team are likely to be... well, endless. The triad of software produced under the Affinity banner is a fantastic achievement and (as expected) the software is improving with every update and iteration.

https://blog.marvelapp.com/better-grid-systems-ui-design-tools/ This software appears to be the sort of approach to grid and column layout that is required. Sadly, the beta program is now closed. More about the software at the link below... https://subformapp.com Having a single software program that creates precisely what is required is probably more useful than having any jack of all trades software solution. For me, I really like the direction Affinity Publisher has taken. I don't happen to have any legacy files in other publishing software. I will happily use Affinity Publisher for all my layout work and send a PDF file to the printing house. Imposition abilities was my one hope for Affinity Publisher but there is software which is available for that task. I like to be able to create all of my potential grid layouts before working on any project. The quote at the top of the article is instructive and it is certainly one with which I agree. viz "Designers must be able to explore the consequences of grids visually—not just in code."

Hi, I'm jepho. I have a little experience of technical writing, pre-press work and graphic design. I have used Photoshop, Illustrator, Pagemaker, Frame, Tex, Pixelmator, Acorn, Acrobat, Art Text and Impression (Acorn Archimedes and the very first computer to plate software I have ever used). I adore photography, like page layout/imposition and am interested in typography. My first work in Photoshop was during the mid 80s. I used to produce a weekly edition of a full tabloid newspaper, using a Canon BJ330 bubble jet mono printer which could just manage A2. I have used Affinity Photo for a few jobs and I like its feel. The Affinity Designer program is a worthy replacement for Illustrator and I found myself wishing for very little from the Adobe 800 pound gorillas of image processing and design. I have played around for a few days with the beta of Affinity Publisher and I like it a lot. The ability to edit any affinity file type when it is enabled is going to be a killer feature. No more round tripping in and out of software that fills the holes in one's favoured applications. A great suite of software and highly capable it is too. Editing PDF files inside Affinity Publisher feels more relaxed than when I am using Acrobat. Great job Serif!

+1 Very impressive effort. Lots of super functionality and logical working methods. Great job Serif. Thank you!

Oops! Thanks h_d. I will look a bit further before posting in future. ☺️

The snapping manager, when selected from the view menu, opens and closes as expected. When the screen tolerance setting is selected, the slider becomes visible and a value can be selected by sliding the input slider. The snapping manager is then closed. The slider for the screen tolerance input stays on screen and obscures the view of whatever was on screen underneath the slider. Closing the program by clicking on the red button with the cross closes the program but the slider stays on the screen. It only goes after the program has been quit from the dock menu Screenshot 2018-09-01 23.00.41.pdf Screenshot 2018-09-01 23.00.54.pdf Screenshot 2018-09-01 23.12.31.pdf

I prefer to send pre-press work to the print house complete... all in a PDF file format so that it cannot be messed with. Fonts I have bought remain useable under my licence. I don't want my final output to be adjusted by anyone. Ironic that it is in Adobe's proprietary format too.

Good tip!

Thank you GabrielM. It was not me attempting to get the lowdown on potential industrial sabotage targets... more an effort to understand what workflow choices I may have to plan for in the future. Planning is an essential part of my commitment to any particular software pathway and workflow.

Thanks for the timely reminder... I consider my knuckles have been very gently wrapped. :))) APub is very much better. It was just a brainfart and I had forgotten that Affinity Photo may also be abbreviated to AP.

Hi Guys. I cannot find any reference to the Imposition facilities which will be available natively to Affinity Publisher (AP). I would prefer not to have to use additional software along the lines of IDimposer Pro, although it has certainly addressed many of the imposition shortcomings in InDesign. Can any staff member say anything about the currently included or intended imposition capabilities of AP at this juncture? Thank you.

Winnie looks as if he may have been a fat controller on the railway.

Impressive piece of work Jackamus! It shows off your care, skill and obvious talent. Fantastic work!