Jump to content

jepho

Members
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    jepho got a reaction from Jowday in [Poll] Do you need a DAM? And what should it be like?   
    Sorry for any confusion. It appeared to me that people were wanting Serif to include the DAM and the RAW processor within Affinity Photo. I am happy to have separate applications and having used many different RAW processing softwares, often with pre, inter and post sharpening provided as separate applications, I am not in need of a DAM. You will have noted that DxO provide adequate filing, sorting and batch processing. It turns out that they also provide outstanding RAW file processing and include all of the lens correction files necessary. 
    I will not be using another RAW file processor anytime soon because I am more than happy with the one I do use. I already use the storage and filing provided extensively; with DxO Optics Pro. The interesting question for me is do I think that Serif would find making a RAW processor that matches my expectations too complex a task. I have been processing RAW image files as a professional digital photographer since 2001. I processed and printed all of my own monochrome and colour film as a professional film photographer for all formats from 8 x 10 inches down to subminiature since about 1970.
    RAW image processing was very variable in the early days and the standout applications were Adobe's ACR, Apple's Aperture and Phase One. I have tried many others including Pixelmator, Acorn, Iridient and some software which was just a RAW file processor. ACR was not always the best converter and Aperture had a great (almost filmic) way of file processing. Phase one had great software to go with their outstanding digital backs. Iridient was very capable but difficult to drive well or effectively. Eventually I settled on DxO and found it suits my workflow while making my task easy and well organised. The level of quality in the ease of use and the converted file quality, makes me think that serif would be chasing a fast moving target.
    DxO Optics Pro started out around the last quarter of 2004 with version 1.1. That development cycle of fourteen years has refined the software to its present state. Effectively that is a fourteen year head start on anything that Serif would bring to the table and if we assume that Serif can shorten the development cycle for a RAW image processor to say 4 years to bring out something as highly polished as DxO Optics Pro, they would still be behind the development and refinement curve by eighteen years. I believe that the task is too complex for Serif and that they will be unable to meet my expectations with a RAW image file processor within the next five years.
    Reinventing the wheel is usually not a profitable line of enquiry. The reason that Serif have gained traction with Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo is that the marketplace was smarting from Adobe's rental scheme and the legacy bloat and failure to update old code left Adobe vulnerable. Affinity Publisher is a different animal and providing Serif address several inexplicable omissions, it will gain traction too. Every camera manufacturer and his brother provides a RAW file converter for their own proprietary image formats.All other generic providers have to update the RAW filetype database regularly to make their image processor work with files that a manufacturer would rather keep proprietary. File handling to extract the maximum detail is more than a set of numbers and parameters and the programming has to be very high quality if it intends to make any inroads in the professional RAW file processing markets. I process Dicomed medical image files occasionally. Will a mainstream software house like Serif wish to service the minority medical image market which needs to process Nifti, Dicom, Analyze and Minc images?     
  2. Like
    jepho reacted to timlt in [Poll] Do you need a DAM? And what should it be like?   
    I posted earlier that I'd like an integrated DAM as some others do.  And still wouldn't complain if we get one.   But the more I read about it and experiment with some 3rd party DAM apps, I see your point and am starting to wonder whether (a) I really NEED an integrated DAM, and (b) Whether it's realistic to expect Affinity's small team can build that in the near future, while also completing their other development priorities.
     
    While I agree with your overall point (that some of us may not NEED an integrated RAW + DAM app, and that they are complex and will take serious effort to develop), I'm less sure about this supporting argument.  If I follow, you are saying that it took other RAW + DAM app developers X years to build a solid mature product, thus we should expect it'll take Affinity roughly the same amount of time.
    I'm not sure that this line of reasoning holds, for software development. There are so many factors that go into building software, you cannot assume a simple apples-to-apples comparison on how long it'll take to build a certain type of project.   Some examples of these factors include:  the effectiveness of the app design and architecture (a simpler, more elegant design from the start can speed development by orders of magnitude), the total amount of man-hours (aka 'resources') they have to devote to the effort, the skill and experience of the devs themselves (a great dev will often complete a project several times faster than a mediocre one, at the same time building it with higher quality), whether they are starting with a 'clean slate' or having to build on some legacy functionality (clean slate is often faster), what kind of design-build-test-deploy pipeline and tools they are using, what awareness they have of existing apps in the same space which can speed the development of their own (example:  the AP team had a good awareness of what functionality they needed to build by looking at mature competitor apps--versus having to sit down and invent from scratch all the functionality that AP would need to include), and so on.  Basically, given the analogy of the rapid development of AP and AD, it wouldn't surprise me if the Affinity team could build a solid RAW + DAM app fairly quickly if they have good devs, sufficient resources to devote to it, a good design, and so on.  
    I suspect that today, the main thing blocking them is simply the resources.  They may be able to grow and add more devs, which would let them eventually tackle this.  But for now, I'm moving ahead with a 3rd party app.  I tried XNview and liked it for pure DAM, but it is VERY weak in the quality of the output and the "preferences" options you have to change that, when you are processing files and exporting them to other formats.  I do not see Xnview as a viable choice for anything other than viewing, sorting, tagging, basic file renaming, stuff like that.  I'm experimenting with some commercial apps, ON1 is one that I liked.  And some FOSS alternatives. They are all quite good, though for different reasons.  My 2 leading FOSS options are DigiKam and DarkTable.  Both have good (DK) or excellent (DT) RAW processing that exceeds the basic tools in AP. They both have the ability to do powerful batch processing, plus they are both very good DAM apps for my needs.  Not quite as slick and easy as Xnview for simply viewing/tagging/sorting kinds of stuff, but FAR more powerful in bulk graphics processing while still more than adequate for the DAM aspect.  Right now I'm torn between which one I like better, but leaning slightly toward DT as it seems to hog less system resources, and has much more powerful RAW processing that gets great results.  
    What I'd really like to see in the near future--and might be more realistic than to expect Affinity to build a full DAM app with their current small team--is if Affinity would simply partner with some viable 3rd party app, and provide smooth integration between it and the Affinity apps. I'm not sure if partnering with a FOSS DAM app is viable, given that Affinity is commercial, there may be some kind of licensing conflict.  But the principle is the same, whether you integrate with a FOSS DAM app like DT, or a commercial one like DxO or ON1.  GIMP has been doing something like this, partnering with both DT and RawTherapee so that you can open RAW files in GIMP, which pops open the appropriate RAW app, then hands the processed RAW result back to GIMP.  I think Affinity could do something like this, and do it much better than it works in GIMP.  
     
     
     
     
  3. Thanks
    jepho reacted to hifred in [Poll] Do you need a DAM? And what should it be like?   
    Sounds as if DxO was a great choice for your needs! But one can also get the impression that you here can do to your RAWs pretty much everything you need and only quite rarely in comparison need to edit images in a layer based fashion. Is that impression correct?

    I think the more regularly one needs RAW development as well as compositing the more desirable it gets to have a suite of applications by the same vendor, which play perfectly together: in the same way as is highly advantagous to use Photoshop for the source graphics when regularly creating Layouts with Indesign. In my situation leaving the Adobe Suite towards Affinities current RAW develop-workspace would be a terrible step backwards. But using two separate programs for RAWs and Layer based editing was unacceptable too.
  4. Like
    jepho reacted to walt.farrell in Affinity Photo - Save As...   
    PSD is not really a standard; its format and major features are merely understood by many different applications. It's really owned by Adobe, and there are features in it that only Adobe understands and that are not documented for others to use.
    Edit: For example, editable text layers are not fully documented, which is why Affinity can't create them.
  5. Like
    jepho reacted to Steps in Affinity Photo - Save As...   
    I think this is because there will be always things in a file that you can't save exactly as is to a TIF.
    For example TIF can't AFAIK take adjustment layers as is, just pixel layers.
    So you loose something.
  6. Like
    jepho got a reaction from cal.zone in Affinity Photo - Save As...   
    Thank you.
    Agreed. 
    My use case is that I import a file in .tif format and process it. That processing may occupy weeks of my time if it is a complex composite image. I wish to save the file in its semi-processed .tif state. Affinity forces me to make an Affinity Photo file which I have already no need to keep. I am working on my .tif image and I would prefer to keep it in that format without the need for overwriting any previous work or creating an Affinity Photo file every time I process the same .tif file.
    My digital negative is the RAW image and that is what I keep and file, so that I can always process my image again as required by the client or when techniques improve. I process my RAW images in DXO Optics Pro because I can rely on the conversions and I am not being forced to create a file I have no use for. The Affinity RAW conversions are not as good as DXO Optics Pro just yet but assuming that they would serve the purpose, I would have no need to keep an Affinity Photo image file because my 24Mb RAW .ARW file is my insurance that I can always recover my images. Affinity Photo (just like DXO Optics Pro which I use now) would be just the intermediate file used for processing the image.
    My interest in an image is the subject matter, followed by the manner in which it portrays the subject and meets the brief. I treat the RAW file (A) as the digital negative and the finished file as the work derived from the digital negative (B). The manner of getting from A ~ B is immaterial and purely a matter of convenient workflow and method. My interest in the software only extends to the point of understanding what the software can help me to do and what its effect on the quality of my work is.
    My linked piece discussed the behaviour of the software and how it is currently not quite as easy to use as the professional epithet would suggest. For my own use case it is incredibly tedious to keep pulling up the same file for multiple times and many hours of editing work and having to specifically say that I do not want my carefully produced .tif file to be turned into an Affinity Photo file. When my work (.tif) is saved, I want the file path remembered and I do not want to overwrite any previous work. 
    The parallel that I can use to illustrate my ire is this; what I find irritating is when Windows software observes the user doing something that they wanted to do, it asks "are you sure?" despite the fact that the user initiated the action. Affinity Photo feels like that to me. I am editing a highly complex 16bit .tif file because that is what I want to do. I understand why I am doing it and I don't want the software interposing itself between me and my objective because of some notion that I may not understand the implications of choices which I have made. 
  7. Like
    jepho reacted to Steps in Affinity Photo - Save As...   
    I think most people here are aware of that and work on RAW files with the seldom exception of a mobile phones camera picture.
    I develop my CR2 with Canon DPP, export it as TIF to Photoshop, work on the PSD file and at the end of the process as the very last step I save it as JPEG. And yes, I said "save".  Stop that "export" nonsense please.
  8. Thanks
    jepho reacted to cal.zone in Affinity Photo - Save As...   
    The issue is that Save As and Export are two different, yet equally important concepts:
    Export assumes you care to retain your current file as-is and create a copy of some other format for use elsewhere.
    Save as assumes you don't care to retain your current file as-is and instead want to convert it to a different format (or name). It can be used for versioning and (common with digital image editing) it can be used to implement a series of complex transformations to a file… only to decide you don't care to preserve layers or editing history, etc… and just want to save it and forget it… or to convert a work to a format other than the one that is native to the platform you're working with. This last example is extremely common for people who start work with files that are ultimately intended to go to a different application and never come back to the app used to start work. For example, you may not have MS Excel on your Mac but you need to create a spreadsheet that a co-worker will be using Excel to read and edit. So you would want to open Numbers to create the spreadsheet but then Save as an MS Excel file and not bother keeping the Numbers document.*
    Export is entirely different because it assumes you do care to preserve the current file as-is (whether native format to the app or not).
    In Photoshop, they have the "save as a copy" checkbox, which is effectively identical to using an Export function. It means you keep your current document as-is and create a new copy of a different format. Save as, on the other hand, assumes you're abandoning your current document and using it as a starting point for a new document of a different name and/or format. All changes get saved to the new document and the original document is effectively reverted to last saved (or, if never saved, there is no original document at all and you have simply used Save As to dictate to your software what your preferred destination format is for this file).
    Having to use Export in Affinity effectively kills this entire workflow branch and forces you to always keep an Affinity Photo version (either on disk or in memory) while exporting your copy elsewhere.
     
    * Note:
    I'm not claiming you can do this with Numbers (you can't)… only that this is a perfect use case that Save as would cater to (so it should… indeed, IMO, any format you can Export to, you should be able to also Save as).
  9. Thanks
    jepho reacted to walt.farrell in Affinity Photo - Save As...   
    Not completely true. If you Open a .jpg, .tif, or .png file you can edit it in Photo and Save it (overwriting the original file), as long as you have not created any new layers, or have flattened any that you created. What you cannot do is Save As and end up with a file of another name and the same file type. For that you must Export.
    For your 16-bit TIFF question: It will be saved as 16-bit, as that is what it is. It will be saved as compressed, because Affinity compresses all TIFF files, but the compression is lossless. You will not lose any image data or fidelity.
    In the 1.6 versions of Affinity the compression is LZW, which may actually make your 16-bit TIFF files larger when "compressed". Serif has changed the compression method in the 1.7 versions (now in beta) to a different lossless version that they believe will be compatible with more programs as it's the one that Adobe uses. They still give the user no choice about whether to compress, but I suppose they may, someday.
  10. Like
    jepho got a reaction from Wosven in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    I have no data on this. My intuition is that the advent of the CC model will have brought some users into the DTP software fold; who previously would not have considered using ID. I would be surprised if there was any significant bonus for QXP in this move to enrol prosumer/consumers into using what were once known as the main formal DTP software packages. The POD/Photo book market is relatively new and many of the providers of those services also provide the necessary website gubbins to make the books under their own aegis. I would agree that these users are not really to be considered as professionals, even if they are going on to sell the books.
    Absolutely! The dilemma for Serif is that their approach was to state that the program would be aimed at professionals. It is unsurprising that professionals would wish to assess the software. The point was well made by @JGD when describing his concerns for the GM release of Publisher. We have witnessed many calls in these forums for GREP find and replace, Master Page fixes, Anchors, Grids and columns fixes and other omissions... any of which could halt the current workflow of professional pre-press users of DTP softwares dead in its tracks. The sheer volume of commentary on several of these issues should have caused the developers to pause and think about whether their current offering will be good enough at GM release time.
    My own conversation with @Steps in this thread underlines the scale of the issues facing Serif. I could resolve the issues that @Steps is experiencing very easily but he is starting from a place which I had not expected. This means that my convoluted hints and explanations are of little value to his specific situation. A simple example is the generation of a high resolution PDF file. MacOS can do this natively with any file that can be printed from any application on the desktop. Until one has seen all of the options which can be adjusted in Acrobat, before a print from a PDF file is made, then all potential new users of DTP software have insufficient information to proceed. 
    If I make the assumption that Serif is serious about marketing Publisher to the professional market, I must assume that they are willing to market Publisher in a form which includes all of the obscure abilities that only a professional would know about or would want to use. The beta process is one means by how this objective would be achieved. Some of the comments I have seen in these pages, from the development team members, have suggested that some omissions are likely to remain absentee facilities.
    Does this mean that Serif exhibit a refusal to consider the software in the light of comments from professionals... or was it an underestimation of the manner in which professionals work? I cannot say and it is not a very profitable line of inquiry. What should be obvious is that without a very clear and specific idea of where the software is heading, apropos the omissions discussed within these forums; there is likely to be a subset of professionals who will be unable to commit their time to this very worthwhile project.
    I respectfully disagree with these two propositions. My issue is that they are mutually exclusive. I have little to no interest in what any consumer wants from the software. My rationale is this... any concession to the consumer users is likely to result in a dumbing down of the software. My earlier point about facilities needing to be what a professional wants and can use professionally remains unsullied by consumer demands. I don't want to read about a consumer user complaining that the font kerning pairs options are taking up some much needed space on the menu bar.
    It is likely that the professional software instruction set refers to concepts for which consumers have no previous information or experience. e.g. Typefaces have x-heights, ascenders, descenders, counters, legs, bowls, bars, loops, cap heights, serifs, collars, links, necks and stems et al. A consumer will not want the correct terminology used whereas a professional will want the instant understanding that accompanies their own specialist knowledge when seeing specific and meaningful terminology. 
  11. Like
    jepho got a reaction from Steps in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    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.  
  12. Like
    jepho got a reaction from JGD in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    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.  
  13. Sad
    jepho reacted to MikeW in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    I hardly know where to begin. I sincerely hope most of what you wrote was ill-conceived and ill-written. Because it is pretty elitist and ill-informed in places.
    I really don't know what you actually mean here. So I likely have a wrong take on it. I take it to literally mean that "amateurs" and "consumers" should have no say in how you work, your work-flow. But I don't think that simple restatement is what is meant. I take it to mean you don't want them involved in, having a say in, what functions are included and how those functions should work in a layout application. And in this thread, specifically how APub functions and what those functions even are.
    I find that simply silly. Just how many decision makers at Adobe that are making decisions about InDesign are even competent in its use? And by competent, I mean even at a novice level? How many people at Serif that are making decisions are competent layout persons? At Quark? 
    Nah, not tautology, but whatever.
    I have seen layouts of all sorts from "consumer" users that rival much "professional" work. And I have seen work from a few people that have grown over the years in their abilities, and yet at best are laypersons. Conversely, I have seen dreck from professionals. That learning road is the exact same road we all travel. How well one learns, how well one performs, is not tied to a paycheck. But we all, lay people and experienced people alike, have all traveled that road.
    I have no idea when it was during your journey you considered yourself a professional. But I would reckon you are better, quicker, your eye more assured now than the day you considered yourself a professional. At least I hope so. Don't judge the part-timer's work by your current standard. Judge by that once upon a time period. And then look around at Amazon's selections of POD and use their Quick-look to peak inside. Yep, you'll find some not so good layouts, poor decisions, rivers and the like. But you should also find some damn good layouts done by the casual person, the consumer user.
    I think I have said all I want to say in response to your posts. Neither will convince the other. We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion.
    Take care, Mike
  14. Thanks
    jepho reacted to MikeW in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    Not really. So I too disagree with your kind self.
    Making functionality simple to use enhances good practice in work-flows. That is a benefit to a very wide range of users. That doesn't mean dumbing down in any way. Simple can also be elegant.
    Making text styles more assured in use, for example, benefits this wider range of users. Making master pages work as per ID/QXP/Etc., benefits everyone and ensures a better work-flow (and master pages are having a look at by Serif). So-called consumer users may not be up to speed from the get-go no matter whether they are using Word, MS Publisher, APub, Q or ID. But how else do they do so? By using whatever software they end up with and coming here for help. It's no different than on the job training whether they are being paid for it or not.
    As for the quote below--I accidentally posted to soon...
    Nah. Consumers that care will learn. In my experience here, on the Plus line forum, the Q forum, the various other forums, Adobe's ID forum and the Facebook groups, people are more than eager to learn. Heck, most all of them I have dealt with in the past decades, take instruction, challenges and the learning opportunities better than professionals.
    I have pointed consumer users to Wikipedia and other sites to gain learning. So have many others here. They usually respond that it was a good learning experience.
    So to have I seen consumer (simply non-professionals) do work akin to most all professionals. Easy--but not dumbed down--software is a leveling field. They may not do it as quickly, they may stumble here or there, but they can do excellent work.
  15. Like
    jepho got a reaction from Wosven in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    I have no data on this. My intuition is that the advent of the CC model will have brought some users into the DTP software fold; who previously would not have considered using ID. I would be surprised if there was any significant bonus for QXP in this move to enrol prosumer/consumers into using what were once known as the main formal DTP software packages. The POD/Photo book market is relatively new and many of the providers of those services also provide the necessary website gubbins to make the books under their own aegis. I would agree that these users are not really to be considered as professionals, even if they are going on to sell the books.
    Absolutely! The dilemma for Serif is that their approach was to state that the program would be aimed at professionals. It is unsurprising that professionals would wish to assess the software. The point was well made by @JGD when describing his concerns for the GM release of Publisher. We have witnessed many calls in these forums for GREP find and replace, Master Page fixes, Anchors, Grids and columns fixes and other omissions... any of which could halt the current workflow of professional pre-press users of DTP softwares dead in its tracks. The sheer volume of commentary on several of these issues should have caused the developers to pause and think about whether their current offering will be good enough at GM release time.
    My own conversation with @Steps in this thread underlines the scale of the issues facing Serif. I could resolve the issues that @Steps is experiencing very easily but he is starting from a place which I had not expected. This means that my convoluted hints and explanations are of little value to his specific situation. A simple example is the generation of a high resolution PDF file. MacOS can do this natively with any file that can be printed from any application on the desktop. Until one has seen all of the options which can be adjusted in Acrobat, before a print from a PDF file is made, then all potential new users of DTP software have insufficient information to proceed. 
    If I make the assumption that Serif is serious about marketing Publisher to the professional market, I must assume that they are willing to market Publisher in a form which includes all of the obscure abilities that only a professional would know about or would want to use. The beta process is one means by how this objective would be achieved. Some of the comments I have seen in these pages, from the development team members, have suggested that some omissions are likely to remain absentee facilities.
    Does this mean that Serif exhibit a refusal to consider the software in the light of comments from professionals... or was it an underestimation of the manner in which professionals work? I cannot say and it is not a very profitable line of inquiry. What should be obvious is that without a very clear and specific idea of where the software is heading, apropos the omissions discussed within these forums; there is likely to be a subset of professionals who will be unable to commit their time to this very worthwhile project.
    I respectfully disagree with these two propositions. My issue is that they are mutually exclusive. I have little to no interest in what any consumer wants from the software. My rationale is this... any concession to the consumer users is likely to result in a dumbing down of the software. My earlier point about facilities needing to be what a professional wants and can use professionally remains unsullied by consumer demands. I don't want to read about a consumer user complaining that the font kerning pairs options are taking up some much needed space on the menu bar.
    It is likely that the professional software instruction set refers to concepts for which consumers have no previous information or experience. e.g. Typefaces have x-heights, ascenders, descenders, counters, legs, bowls, bars, loops, cap heights, serifs, collars, links, necks and stems et al. A consumer will not want the correct terminology used whereas a professional will want the instant understanding that accompanies their own specialist knowledge when seeing specific and meaningful terminology. 
  16. Like
    jepho reacted to MikeW in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    But here's the rub. By seat-count, the largest user base of ID is exactly that: consumers/prosumers. But I suppose it depends upon one's definition of professionals. For the most part, I do not include people creating POD (typical) books in the term. Nor those who use it for illustrated/photo books. But those two segments are a large portion of ID's user base.
    I do agree about people making their living, or a substantial portion thereof, from (in this case) layout software having valid complaints, suggestions, etc., concerning APub's direction, capabilities, work-flow, etc. God knows I've had a fair bit of all those discussion types. As well, consumer users need to have their input as that will be the largest segment of users.
    Usability studies should have been done early on and repeated with both previous and new test users (if they didn't that is) before the software saw this public beta. I believe how certain things are done and even what functionality may have been different by the time the beta was available. Once released, there will be a public roadmap and we'll all see what the near-future will bring.
    The Professional moniker used in marketing is just marketing hype for the most part. It is designed to attract the eye of the consumer-level user. It certainly isn't aimed at the professional user. People making their living or a substantial portion of their revenue from layout software won't pay that marketing hype any attention. As you mention, Affinity software cost will not be much of a consideration, at least for the most part. But I do know some professionals that are attracted by their cost and bought a license just because of the price and will purchase a license for APub when available.
    I too will purchase a license. Certainly not because it meets all or a good portion of my needs. I simply desire to support Serif. And should how work-flow issues are resolved & how functionality is change/expanded/included in the future, well, that will simply be a bonus for me. I have sent some commercial work to print already and I will choose to do work in it for commercial purposes in the future.
    Mike
  17. Thanks
    jepho reacted to Steps in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    Windows 10 64-Bit Build 1809.
    I think I'm going to write that into my signature as most people here. :-D
    No, sorry, I missed that I also like to place decorative frames.
    Figuring out the right way to do that is quite a hassle compared to printers photobook software or PagePlus X9 which support that out of the box. But it can be done once you figured out how Publisher expects the handling with masks.
    I attached a screenshot of what I'm working on right now that pretty good sums all all features I use and need right now.
    I scale my photos to 4500 x 3000 pixels and my printers wants 4.527 x 2.299 pixel sized images for a double page on the book size I want. He has templates for Photoshop and InDesign. I work based on a PSD import.
    I started of desiging my photobook with Photoshop Elements, but I quit that due to two problems: 1) the imported images get rasterized on saving and later on resizing the get blurry. 2) after rotating an layer the rotation information is discarded and selecting it back shows it with 0° rotation. So once rotated you never come back to zero rotation. Really stupid.
    My printer would accept a bunch of JPGs also, but he recommends PDF and I quite like the idea of having a high-quality PDF for archival, sending around and ordering books from. PDF is a great format in that regard.
    Also as usual for all printers that accept PDF he gave out detailed instructions how to export the PDF in regard of color space, ICC profile and so on. So this is a safe way to do it.
    Yes, I also like ePub. Using it as intermediate format sounds cumbersome to me.
    Are there good programs suitable for photobook creation that export to ePub and lack a PDF export? In that case that would be an option and justify doing an extra conversion.
    When Publisher gets an ePub export I would also export that beside the PDF, PSD and JPGs. I use multiple export formats to ensure that in 30 years from now I can still use that.
    Yes, that would be awesome. :-)
    I will addintional export to the TIFF in the future.
    But my printer will convert to JPEG anyway.

  18. Like
    jepho got a reaction from Steps in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    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.  
  19. Like
    jepho got a reaction from Steps in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    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. 
  20. Like
    jepho reacted to Steps in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    I guest not, but the whole pricing of the Affinity range attracts amateurs. So it may be also meant for them judging from that. What I want to say is that the 829€ for QXPress or the InDesign costs are a clear statement to me that I'm not the target audience. I could never justify the costs. Never ever.
    Publisher in it's current state is actually pretty well suited for creating photobooks as a side effect - even with it's annoying usability flaws here and there.
    Of course I don't use 80% of what it's capable of as I have no need for that. And yes, I would mind pay extra for that. But I got the feeling that it's not necessary.
    All I do is what you can already do with the printers software: Placing images, crop and rotate them, add an outline, add an shadow and some artistic text here and there. Pretty basic. With the printers software I can do that for free, BUT it will not give me a high-quality printable PDF to keep forever. And I fear loosing all my work when a printer goes out of business and the propritary photobook file is no more readable and the book can't be reordered after it got lost or destroyed (or whatever). I'm so anxious to come in that situation that I learn this software and willing to pay the price for the whole Affinity bundle just for the safety not to loose hours of work. So I see that as a insurance fee.
    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.
    If Serif had not made clear from the beginning that Publisher will be priced like the other two products I would not bother testing and using it.
    I still can see the problem that you as a professional who makes money out of it are still ready to pay (let's say) 400€ for it as it's still half the price of QXPress and after a few jobs you have earned the money back and start saving. For me the money is lost forever in exchange for the PDF export options.
    Before checking out Publisher I looked at some products that seem to target my audience with the same fears. A prominent example that also came out this year is a software called "YouDesign Photo Book". You get for 47€ a "basic" version and the "pro" version for 97€. Both can produce printable PDFs (to send to printers), but they stripped numeric entering of sizes & rotations, guides and rulers from the basic version. Ridiculous! And with starting discount Publisher will beat that price anyway.
    I really currently see absolutely no alternative for my purpose to Publisher and I hope Serif will not change the planned pricing into the commercial region as I would not know what to do then.
    Okay, Scribus is still there. But it's a real usability nightmare and gets me really angry using it. The problems with Publisher (for amateurs like me!) are "complaining on a high comfort level" as we Germans like to say.
  21. Like
    jepho got a reaction from Steps in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    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.  
  22. Like
    jepho reacted to Steps in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    And I would mind. Really.
    One of the main strengths of Affinity is that they beat the Adobe Elements range in price while providing more features.
    I doubt that Affinity wants to split their products into different versions as this adds confusion to users and is surely an overhead to manage all that. The hardest thing there is to decice where to draw the line which features are for the professional edition and what amateurs may need.
  23. Like
    jepho reacted to AdamW in Affinity Publisher Public Beta - 1.7.0.206   
    Please Click here to download the latest beta for Windows
    Status: Public Beta
    Purpose: Stability and General Testing
    Requirements: 64 Bit Win 7 SP1 / Win 8 / Win 10 
    Hi,
    We are pleased to announce Affinity Publisher build 206 is now available on auto-update and as a manual download from the link above.
    As this is a beta it is considered to be not suitable for production use. This means that you should not attempt to use it for commercial purposes or for any other activity where you may be adversely affected by the application failing, including the total loss of any documents. 
    We hope you enjoy the product, and as always, if you've got any problems installing or running up, please don't hesitate to post in this thread.
    Any problems actually using this version please make a new topic in this forum and we'll get back to you as soon as we can. Please feel free to leave general suggestions and comments in the Discussion Forum. Many thanks for your continued feedback.
    Short of major catastrophe this will be our last update until January, so I would like take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holiday Season and a Happy New Year. Many thanks for your continued feedback.
    --
    Main View
    Some common tools missing shortcuts
    Fixed issue setting ruler origin for spreads other than first
    Fixed Pen Tool not initially snapping to grid when document opened
    Fixed Rotation Centre not snapping to guides
    Fixed issue with panels (e.g. Styles) resizing content when scheme changes
    (Mac) Fixed special case of Ctrl+V failing as a shortcut
    (Win) Basic Grid fails to show 'Spacing' and 'Divisions' entry boxes on Grid and Axis Manager
    Loading / Saving
    Fixed failure to save if HEIC file is used in document
    The term 'Embedded Document' is replace with 'Linked Document' in the UI when appropriate
    Fix for Picture Frame Properties defaults not saving correctly
    Pages and Document Setup
    Added option to switch an existing Master Spread between Single and Facing
    Import / Export / Print
    Fix for PDFs with different DPI to document DPI importing at the wrong size
    (Win) Print max copies increased to 9999 
    Pre-print check warns about overflow when text is hidden.
    Fix for Crop Marks appearing in document area on Print
    Text
    Fixed Drag Drop text from Finder / Explorer to drop into existing frame if available
    Capitalisation not being set when text frame is selected
    Fixed Drop Caps alignment when using Baseline Grid
    Fixed Baseline Grid alignment for second page of vertical spread
    Fix for linked text frames flipping link order to match z-order when cloned
    (Win) Fixed limits on Paragraph Justification settings
    (Win) Fix for a new 'Based on' text style not being set up correctly from its base style
    Fix for 'No Style' not removing Lists, Drop Caps, Initial Words attributes
    Fix for 'Decrease List Level' not always working correctly
    (Mac)Removed recently used fonts erroneously placed at top of 'All' section
    Fix for Optical Alignment with quotations causing Artistic Text to jump horizontally
    Find and Replace
    (Mac) Fix for entering comma into Find Field
    Fixed tabbing issues in Find and Replace Panel
    Implemented better 'Replace All' behaviour
    Other Panels
    Fixed Assets subcategory order not being remembered after restart
    Fix for crash when adding to a Symbol after deleting all the children in a detached instance
    Double Click to add Glyph in Glyph Browser could crash if tool was not active
    (Win) Fixed History scrolling with the mouse wheel removed highlight
    Resource Manager
    Different images are grouped as the same in Resource Manager when opening PDF
    Fixed Colour Profile in Resource Manager not updating when image replaced
    ---
    Earlier Release Notes Beta 192
  24. Like
    jepho reacted to JGD in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    Yep. That's exactly my point of view as well. I use whatever software is good for the task at hand; I've been using Affinity Designer for CMYK and RGB gradients, as they look[ed?] much better than Adobe's shoddy implementation, and have this nifty little test file set up with spot colour gradients and transparencies to periodically check how far along the Serif team is on their support thereof (I am happy to say they are progressing well, though they're not quite just there, yet).
    Absolutely true. I know Serif developers, like any other, are only human. Maybe it was too soon, or maybe it wasn't. Gmail was in beta for years on end, and nobody complained; many Rev.A Apple products, like the Apple Watch or the original iPhone, revolutionary as they may be, are a bit like “paid hardware betas”, as they miss some critical functionality found elsewhere because the developer decided to focus on, you know, revolutionising things and didn't have enough time to add those features (like, say, copy and paste and, rather more dramatically in the grand scheme of things, third-party apps [!!!]). Affinity Publisher, to me, seems like a proof-of-concept of sorts. It may work for a subset of prosumer users, and make them extremely happy.
    My only fear is with what kind of PR Serif will get once ruthless reviewers get their teeth into the GM release, because let's not beat around the bush here: Publisher is way behind the competition than Photo or Designer ever were, even in their respective beta stages, for the very simple and unavoidable fact that DTP apps are much more complex than bitmap and vector editors (or much harder to get to a level of functionality that makes most people happy), because they are extremely dependent on workflows and automation, as you've just mentioned. incidentally, a cursory look at the forums reveals that besides master pages, the other two most requested features are GREP-like search (and styles) and anchored objects, and I'd say the absence of any of those features in isolation (especially master pages and anchored objects; GREP is arguably a power-user feature which even those who do have a need for it only do so occasionally) would be damning enough, and their combined absence would be utterly catastrophic from a PR, conventional and word-of-mouth marketing standpoint. I am adamant in my view that Serif is being lulled into a false sense of security by their past experience with Photo and Designer users…
    Yes, people can make those decisions, and they may also revisit those decisions. But we shouldn't forget that Serif isn't putting out these apps to the world at large in complete isolation, and that first impressions matter, especially when it comes to impulse purchases and to the distinct possibility that there may be current Photo and Designer users who might not be paying attention to the forums or review sites, only to the Mac and iOS App Stores, and might end up sorely disappointed. It's already bad enough that many (if not most) Page Plus users are a bit mad at the fact that they will likely never get a first-party conversion tool for their old files; making CC switchers feel defrauded as well would basically alienate or otherwise irk the rest (and, by all accounts, the majority) of their potential future user base. If the guys at Serif can cut their losses, they should absolutely wait to get these two/three features right. And while I can appreciate that dependencies may be an issue… maybe they'll just have to live with it and rethink their roadmap accordingly. And yes, if they have to drop other less crucial features from the v.1.x roadmap, so be it.
    Interesting angle. It's certainly one way to work around the issue. As for me, seeing how I work mostly in graphic and editorial design, that's really not an option. I frequently have to reopen old stuff and repurpose it… I am, however, very adept at redoing layouts. It's a bit of a PITA but, as long as the rest of the work is fairly automated, I'm good. Which is decidedly not Publisher's case. Otherwise, I'd already have repurposed some of my old layouts, “just in case” [my next commission(s) arrived in time of v.1.7.0 GM]. I guess maybe next year…? Two years from now? Who knows, really, because their roadmap is still not entirely clear. What I do know is that if I were to include the extra hours to get the same job done in Publisher, they would come out as more expensive as the CC subscription, and I'd probably have to redo them anyway once the final, proper functionality was in place; seeing how I can just use ID CS5 instead of either option, why would I even bother with any of that?
    What also personally irks me is the fact that from the moment Serif releases Publisher in a grossly incomplete form (if that does indeed come to pass, and I'm seriously hoping it doesn't), I'll be, for the first time in years, “out of the loop” so to speak. I feel like I am a valuable member of this community, and would've liked to have given more useful feedback much, much sooner (in fact, I was given a rare, privileged chance to do so and wasn't up to the challenge for personal reasons), but I just can't bring myself up to be a paying guinea pig. Not even my slow-as-molasses Apple Watch Series 0 is as frustrating a piece of tech than… having to take 10x longer to do basic work tasks, even just in a strictly QA scenario as a beta-tester. Do you now see where I'm coming from?
    I feel a bit duped by Serif, honestly, because Photo and Designer raised my expectations through the roof (as I've said here on the forums before, ironically enough, Serif's past success is also their biggest enemy, and the reasons are two-fold; it may induce hubris on their part and, as it just so happened with me, raise their users' expectations unrealistically), and the whole extended wait certainly didn't help. Now that we know the bigger picture, well… I'm no longer nervously and eagerly anticipating it; just sorely disappointed. I'm just asking the Serif team not to compound that with the added insult to injury of making me choose between paying for useless tech or being left even further out of the loop. I'd basically have to constantly peruse the forums, or run trial after trial on a guest account/virtual machine or some other stupid shenanigans just to check if the bare essentials were there and if it was finally worth the money, instead of just outright buying a useful app on day one, make use of it and update it in frequently to check if any more “nice-to-have” bells and whistles were added.
  25. Like
    jepho reacted to Steps in Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)   
    @jepho @JGD
    Guys... in Germany it deep in the night right now and your conversation is so interesting I can't put my phone aside. 
    The insights you share from different viewpoints are very valueable to me.
×