4dimage

I will gladly pay for the 2.0 major upgrade. I have yearly subscriptions for Construct 3, Office 365, Cyberlink and I can tell you, they cost at least double as what Serif is asking for the Affinity suite.
I do not see what the 2.0 upgrade price has to do with fraud? I am wondering how much Marko Grafiko is doing for free. We paid once for the 1. version of Designer, Photo and Publisher. Serif updated regularly and we worked all those years for the price we paid long ago (depending on when you bought). Is it then too much to ask for an update fee for 2.0.
I also checked out the OxygenBuilder.com you suggested. 129 USD for the basic version and in promotion 149 USD for the ultimate version. Still Serif is much cheaper because when I remembered correctly, I paid 54 euro when they were first released. Normally the OxygenBuilder.com Ultimate cost 349 USD, which you need when you are a serious website developer. So when buying the ultimate version, it will take 6 Affinity paid updates to come on that price.
Marko Grafiko is very wrong here in my opinion. Speaking for myself, I am willing to pay for every update because it still will be cheaper than for a subscription. When for any reason you cannot work for a month, still your subscription keeps running. In the Serif model, you pay for what you are really using.
The 2.0 upgrade will not come any time soon I think. I cannot find any mention about a coming 2.0 upgrade.
The Affinity Suite is an excellent tool and you can make good money with it. So in return, let us support the Serif company to motivate them to innovate and improve on their applications.
Chris
 

I really don't understand why some people get so upset about having to pay for software! It's your choice!
There are plenty of free apps, for just about everything, if that's what you want. 
On the other hand, if you want the "market leader" brand, or some very specialised apps, you may have to pay through the nose for them.
Then there are the others, like the Serif/Affinity apps, which do an excellent job and are reasonably priced.
Different companies and organisations have different criteria for how they charge (or make money in other ways) to develop and distribute their apps. That's up to them!
Personally I use a number of free apps and I have a few which I paid for with a "one off" fee. The only apps which I have bought, and expect to have to buy again if I want to get new versions, are the three Affinity apps. I am perfectly happy with that. Several of the other apps I use are now quite old, but they still work and I'm happy to keep on using them. When the next versions of the Affinity apps are released, I will decide if I think it's worth paying for them, if not, I'll just keep using the current versions. It's my choice, just like everyone else can choose what they want to do.
(And, please, don't blame anyone else if you don't bother to read the marketing information and EULA properly, or if you don't make the most of free trials and return policies!)

Oh sorry, I didn't express well, I meant 40+ articles with some paragraphs each. Yes, ctrl + A didn't help me much unfortunately...

Hallo elk,
ja ich kämpfe seit über 2 Jahren ständig mit den Affinity Programmen, da ich auf jeden Fall nicht in dem erpresserischen Adobe CS Mietmodell enden will.
Und die 3 Affinity Programme sind, wie Du schon sagtest, auch für mich die einzige professionelle Alternative zu den Adobe Hauptanwendungen Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign. Ich habe im Markt nichts vergleichbar Modernes und gut Ausgebautes gefunden (Corel Draw und Konsorten sind ziemlicher Krampf, QuarkExpress natürlich absolut professionell aber irgend wie strange UX).
Gerade Affinity Publisher ist mit InDesign CS6 verglichen echt der Hammer 🙂 Und Affinity Designer z.B. als PDF / EPS / AI Dosenöffner ist ziemlich krass...
Ich mach das Adobe Spiel jetzt schon seit über 25 Jahren mit (Aldus gekauft, Macromedia gekillt, ...).
Dabei war für mich Photoshop schon immer das Arbeitspferd schlechthin - und wird es wohl auch noch eine Zeit lang bleiben müssen, bis die Affinity Suite so geschmeidig läuft wie die Adobe Dinger (da wimmelte es aber auch über die Jahre immer wieder mal von Bugs).
Aber Adobe hatte auch über 20 Jahre gebraucht, um durch das User-Feedback alle professionellen Funktionen stabil auszubauen.
Also ist Geduld mit Serif gefragt - auch wenn es manchmal schwer fällt

I already logged this as an improvement .

Ich glaube eine Export Persona für APu ist bereits öfter angefragt worden, aber es geht (zeitmäßig länger) auch so: Bild markieren, auf Export gehen und im Dropdown "Bereich" "Auswahl mit / ohne Hintergrund" auswählen, Exportformat auswählen und exportieren. Hoffe das hilft deinen Workflow etwas zu verkürzen?

Hi guys,
thanks for your efforts 🙂
Take care everybody!

That's interesting. Then the effects (unsharp mask) are not cliped by the picture frame boundaries. Hope you can fix this :-)

Having the new linked resources feature with the resource manager is a very good step in the right direction. But this stil does not solve the problem i mentioned in earlier posts regarding the huge document filesizes that Affinity Designer and Publisher produce. It seems that as in AD the linked images in AP are stil stored within the document. And they stil seem to be stored uncompressed.
Furthermore the filesize is unpredictable. Sometimes after deleting a picture frame with a linked image completely from the document, the filesize drops sigificant. Sometimes it gets even higher!? Overall the filesize increases significant with every single image that is added.
I expected this issue to be solved with the linked resource, but a closer look tells us: it is not.
I placed these two well known sample JPGs in a new blank AP document. As you can see in the Resource Manager both are linked and they are about 380 KB and 780 KB in original filesize.

After saving the AP document the overall document filesize results in round about 3.7 Megabyte! And this is caused by only two midres images (1024 x 768 px). Imagine a poduct brochure with hundreds of images in print resolution. The document filesize will be some hundred Megabyte or more.
But things get even worse after using the exact same linked image with two picture frames. I would expect, that at least both frames internally reference the same image data. But instead after saving the document the document filesize has increased to now 5 Megabyte!

 
I don't know the reason for this stategy - not in Affinity Designer and especially not in Publisher. The latter is a tool by nature that has to deal with lots of external resources in one document. It's main purpose is to bring text and image together in a layout. Not to collect - and not to produce even more - redundant data.
I am absolutely convinced that, like me, the majority of professional users keep a close eye on their computer resources. And it does matter when  a single layout document is bigger than the sum of all its contained images. At the latest when it comes to archiving and backup.
The strategy might be as easy as this (compare it to InDesign or Quark):
1) linked resources might only stored as rough lowres previews within the document. When opening the document the lowres version is displayed which will speedup loading. Then you can decide whether or not to show the layout in full highres resolution in the viewport. The option to switch between rough layout preview and highres design preview will always meet the needs of texters AND designers because both have different priorities when working with layout tool like Publisher.
2) embeded images will be stored within the document. But please, please as references to the embeded original data stream (jpg, tiff, etc.) - not as uncompressed bitmap which drastically increases the document filesize.
I know this needs a huge amount of infrastructure behind the sceenes. But with the introduction of the linked resources you have the chance o build this the right way right from the start. The next step is as background process, that watches for changes in the linked resources and displays notifications about external changes (e.g. like the yellow warn icons in InDesign, that inform about external updates).
 
Now sorry for saying it that clear.
I really appreciate your efforts to provide clever tools (Photo, Designer and Publisher) with a professional, nice and clean UX and some cool features where even the f...... Adobe guys should take an example of.
And i don't expect a "smaller" application with a "lower price" to have the full featureset like an "expensive one" with a "high price" (InDesign, QuarkXPress).
The question is - should Affiity Publisher be a professional tool that is somehow comparable to these "top dogs". Or is it just a "nice small" tool for "low budgets"?
E.g. CorelDraw is out now for almost 30 years. That was my first layout software I had to struggle with in the early 90's. If you look at it now, it's UX is nicer. But under the hood lot's of stuff is done the same way as 25 years ago - no really huge evolution. You can use it professionally if you have to. But it's not comparable at all to an actual version of Affinity Designer or Photo which offers modern techniques and workflow approaches. But the Corel Suite is still sold for actual 594,00 €. Not exactly cheap for a set of software which is not matured in the best manner.
As far as I'm concerned, I was and I am always willing to pay a good, reasonable price for a good software tool. If it makes my daily work as a designer (craftsman) really easier and faster it will always be a good invest.
Cheers.

Having the new linked resources feature with the resource manager is a very good step in the right direction. But this stil does not solve the problem i mentioned in earlier posts regarding the huge document filesizes that Affinity Designer and Publisher produce. It seems that as in AD the linked images in AP are stil stored within the document. And they stil seem to be stored uncompressed.
Furthermore the filesize is unpredictable. Sometimes after deleting a picture frame with a linked image completely from the document, the filesize drops sigificant. Sometimes it gets even higher!? Overall the filesize increases significant with every single image that is added.
I expected this issue to be solved with the linked resource, but a closer look tells us: it is not.
I placed these two well known sample JPGs in a new blank AP document. As you can see in the Resource Manager both are linked and they are about 380 KB and 780 KB in original filesize.

After saving the AP document the overall document filesize results in round about 3.7 Megabyte! And this is caused by only two midres images (1024 x 768 px). Imagine a poduct brochure with hundreds of images in print resolution. The document filesize will be some hundred Megabyte or more.
But things get even worse after using the exact same linked image with two picture frames. I would expect, that at least both frames internally reference the same image data. But instead after saving the document the document filesize has increased to now 5 Megabyte!

 
I don't know the reason for this stategy - not in Affinity Designer and especially not in Publisher. The latter is a tool by nature that has to deal with lots of external resources in one document. It's main purpose is to bring text and image together in a layout. Not to collect - and not to produce even more - redundant data.
I am absolutely convinced that, like me, the majority of professional users keep a close eye on their computer resources. And it does matter when  a single layout document is bigger than the sum of all its contained images. At the latest when it comes to archiving and backup.
The strategy might be as easy as this (compare it to InDesign or Quark):
1) linked resources might only stored as rough lowres previews within the document. When opening the document the lowres version is displayed which will speedup loading. Then you can decide whether or not to show the layout in full highres resolution in the viewport. The option to switch between rough layout preview and highres design preview will always meet the needs of texters AND designers because both have different priorities when working with layout tool like Publisher.
2) embeded images will be stored within the document. But please, please as references to the embeded original data stream (jpg, tiff, etc.) - not as uncompressed bitmap which drastically increases the document filesize.
I know this needs a huge amount of infrastructure behind the sceenes. But with the introduction of the linked resources you have the chance o build this the right way right from the start. The next step is as background process, that watches for changes in the linked resources and displays notifications about external changes (e.g. like the yellow warn icons in InDesign, that inform about external updates).
 
Now sorry for saying it that clear.
I really appreciate your efforts to provide clever tools (Photo, Designer and Publisher) with a professional, nice and clean UX and some cool features where even the f...... Adobe guys should take an example of.
And i don't expect a "smaller" application with a "lower price" to have the full featureset like an "expensive one" with a "high price" (InDesign, QuarkXPress).
The question is - should Affiity Publisher be a professional tool that is somehow comparable to these "top dogs". Or is it just a "nice small" tool for "low budgets"?
E.g. CorelDraw is out now for almost 30 years. That was my first layout software I had to struggle with in the early 90's. If you look at it now, it's UX is nicer. But under the hood lot's of stuff is done the same way as 25 years ago - no really huge evolution. You can use it professionally if you have to. But it's not comparable at all to an actual version of Affinity Designer or Photo which offers modern techniques and workflow approaches. But the Corel Suite is still sold for actual 594,00 €. Not exactly cheap for a set of software which is not matured in the best manner.
As far as I'm concerned, I was and I am always willing to pay a good, reasonable price for a good software tool. If it makes my daily work as a designer (craftsman) really easier and faster it will always be a good invest.
Cheers.

Having the new linked resources feature with the resource manager is a very good step in the right direction. But this stil does not solve the problem i mentioned in earlier posts regarding the huge document filesizes that Affinity Designer and Publisher produce. It seems that as in AD the linked images in AP are stil stored within the document. And they stil seem to be stored uncompressed.
Furthermore the filesize is unpredictable. Sometimes after deleting a picture frame with a linked image completely from the document, the filesize drops sigificant. Sometimes it gets even higher!? Overall the filesize increases significant with every single image that is added.
I expected this issue to be solved with the linked resource, but a closer look tells us: it is not.
I placed these two well known sample JPGs in a new blank AP document. As you can see in the Resource Manager both are linked and they are about 380 KB and 780 KB in original filesize.

After saving the AP document the overall document filesize results in round about 3.7 Megabyte! And this is caused by only two midres images (1024 x 768 px). Imagine a poduct brochure with hundreds of images in print resolution. The document filesize will be some hundred Megabyte or more.
But things get even worse after using the exact same linked image with two picture frames. I would expect, that at least both frames internally reference the same image data. But instead after saving the document the document filesize has increased to now 5 Megabyte!

 
I don't know the reason for this stategy - not in Affinity Designer and especially not in Publisher. The latter is a tool by nature that has to deal with lots of external resources in one document. It's main purpose is to bring text and image together in a layout. Not to collect - and not to produce even more - redundant data.
I am absolutely convinced that, like me, the majority of professional users keep a close eye on their computer resources. And it does matter when  a single layout document is bigger than the sum of all its contained images. At the latest when it comes to archiving and backup.
The strategy might be as easy as this (compare it to InDesign or Quark):
1) linked resources might only stored as rough lowres previews within the document. When opening the document the lowres version is displayed which will speedup loading. Then you can decide whether or not to show the layout in full highres resolution in the viewport. The option to switch between rough layout preview and highres design preview will always meet the needs of texters AND designers because both have different priorities when working with layout tool like Publisher.
2) embeded images will be stored within the document. But please, please as references to the embeded original data stream (jpg, tiff, etc.) - not as uncompressed bitmap which drastically increases the document filesize.
I know this needs a huge amount of infrastructure behind the sceenes. But with the introduction of the linked resources you have the chance o build this the right way right from the start. The next step is as background process, that watches for changes in the linked resources and displays notifications about external changes (e.g. like the yellow warn icons in InDesign, that inform about external updates).
 
Now sorry for saying it that clear.
I really appreciate your efforts to provide clever tools (Photo, Designer and Publisher) with a professional, nice and clean UX and some cool features where even the f...... Adobe guys should take an example of.
And i don't expect a "smaller" application with a "lower price" to have the full featureset like an "expensive one" with a "high price" (InDesign, QuarkXPress).
The question is - should Affiity Publisher be a professional tool that is somehow comparable to these "top dogs". Or is it just a "nice small" tool for "low budgets"?
E.g. CorelDraw is out now for almost 30 years. That was my first layout software I had to struggle with in the early 90's. If you look at it now, it's UX is nicer. But under the hood lot's of stuff is done the same way as 25 years ago - no really huge evolution. You can use it professionally if you have to. But it's not comparable at all to an actual version of Affinity Designer or Photo which offers modern techniques and workflow approaches. But the Corel Suite is still sold for actual 594,00 €. Not exactly cheap for a set of software which is not matured in the best manner.
As far as I'm concerned, I was and I am always willing to pay a good, reasonable price for a good software tool. If it makes my daily work as a designer (craftsman) really easier and faster it will always be a good invest.
Cheers.

Having the new linked resources feature with the resource manager is a very good step in the right direction. But this stil does not solve the problem i mentioned in earlier posts regarding the huge document filesizes that Affinity Designer and Publisher produce. It seems that as in AD the linked images in AP are stil stored within the document. And they stil seem to be stored uncompressed.
Furthermore the filesize is unpredictable. Sometimes after deleting a picture frame with a linked image completely from the document, the filesize drops sigificant. Sometimes it gets even higher!? Overall the filesize increases significant with every single image that is added.
I expected this issue to be solved with the linked resource, but a closer look tells us: it is not.
I placed these two well known sample JPGs in a new blank AP document. As you can see in the Resource Manager both are linked and they are about 380 KB and 780 KB in original filesize.

After saving the AP document the overall document filesize results in round about 3.7 Megabyte! And this is caused by only two midres images (1024 x 768 px). Imagine a poduct brochure with hundreds of images in print resolution. The document filesize will be some hundred Megabyte or more.
But things get even worse after using the exact same linked image with two picture frames. I would expect, that at least both frames internally reference the same image data. But instead after saving the document the document filesize has increased to now 5 Megabyte!

 
I don't know the reason for this stategy - not in Affinity Designer and especially not in Publisher. The latter is a tool by nature that has to deal with lots of external resources in one document. It's main purpose is to bring text and image together in a layout. Not to collect - and not to produce even more - redundant data.
I am absolutely convinced that, like me, the majority of professional users keep a close eye on their computer resources. And it does matter when  a single layout document is bigger than the sum of all its contained images. At the latest when it comes to archiving and backup.
The strategy might be as easy as this (compare it to InDesign or Quark):
1) linked resources might only stored as rough lowres previews within the document. When opening the document the lowres version is displayed which will speedup loading. Then you can decide whether or not to show the layout in full highres resolution in the viewport. The option to switch between rough layout preview and highres design preview will always meet the needs of texters AND designers because both have different priorities when working with layout tool like Publisher.
2) embeded images will be stored within the document. But please, please as references to the embeded original data stream (jpg, tiff, etc.) - not as uncompressed bitmap which drastically increases the document filesize.
I know this needs a huge amount of infrastructure behind the sceenes. But with the introduction of the linked resources you have the chance o build this the right way right from the start. The next step is as background process, that watches for changes in the linked resources and displays notifications about external changes (e.g. like the yellow warn icons in InDesign, that inform about external updates).
 
Now sorry for saying it that clear.
I really appreciate your efforts to provide clever tools (Photo, Designer and Publisher) with a professional, nice and clean UX and some cool features where even the f...... Adobe guys should take an example of.
And i don't expect a "smaller" application with a "lower price" to have the full featureset like an "expensive one" with a "high price" (InDesign, QuarkXPress).
The question is - should Affiity Publisher be a professional tool that is somehow comparable to these "top dogs". Or is it just a "nice small" tool for "low budgets"?
E.g. CorelDraw is out now for almost 30 years. That was my first layout software I had to struggle with in the early 90's. If you look at it now, it's UX is nicer. But under the hood lot's of stuff is done the same way as 25 years ago - no really huge evolution. You can use it professionally if you have to. But it's not comparable at all to an actual version of Affinity Designer or Photo which offers modern techniques and workflow approaches. But the Corel Suite is still sold for actual 594,00 €. Not exactly cheap for a set of software which is not matured in the best manner.
As far as I'm concerned, I was and I am always willing to pay a good, reasonable price for a good software tool. If it makes my daily work as a designer (craftsman) really easier and faster it will always be a good invest.
Cheers.

Hi,
first of all, thanks for your intense work on Publisher to complete the Affinity "family" ;-)
 
Following remarks to the public Beta 1.7
1) To my mind, the default behaviour in AP should be to link images rather than to embed them. I guess this meets the nature of the application better because as a page layout tool (like InDesign or QuarkXPress) you rather deal with a lot of images in one document. Furthermore the typical team workflow may be that one person does the layout while another one does image editing.
2) There is a strange behavour with the image fit when scaling and streching the pciture frame. Autofit (max, min strech, none) meight be handy in some scenarios when the images are prepared in the exact size and crop. But mostly you don't not know the exakt crop and resolution until you placed the image in the page layout - tweeking it a little bit to see how it looks in the context of the whole layout.
In AP there is the positbility to resize, rotate and pan the image contained in the picture frame to get the desired crop (double clicking on the frame activates the masked image). But as soon as you resize or strech the whole picture frame again, the image snaps back to the auto fit behavoir and all your manual sizing, positioning and croping is immediately gone. Even when setting the picture frame property to 'none' (no auto scaling), when resizing the whole picture frame the image is scaled to its original size (as it says - allways switch to original size...). All manual croping an paning is gone.
This missbehaviour is even applied if "lock children" is active on the picture frame.
 
This auto fit behavoiur is absolutely counterproductive in most cases. E.g. InDesign shows how an image frame should behave:
- Any manual resizing and positioning on the inner image is maintained. The position is relative to the page scope - unless you move the picture frame as a whole. Then the image is moving with the frame. When resizing / stretching the picture frame by the side or corner controls, the inner image is typically not scaled and stays at its global coordinates. Only if you press some modifier keys while scaling the picture frame, the content is scaled with its parent as a group (either proportionally or squeezed).
 
Why is this usefull?
For example if your layout was OK but afterwards you may have to extend the document bleed and have to resize picture frames that extend into the bleed. Or imagine after some text changes the text floating around a picture frame does not longer look that good. You may have to tweek the size of the picture frame a little bit to get a better hyphenation. In all cases your previous image aspect will be dropped. Not funny...
 
To wrap it up:
- any imported resources - regardless of whether this is bitmap or vector - should be linked by default instead of embedded. Embedding should be the option.
- content (picture) frames should not influence their content by default (unless moved or scaled as a whole) when resized with the box controls ("anchors"). Auto fit should be an option but not the default. Or make this customizable via the app prefs.
 
By the way: please implement this linked resource behaviour (and the resource manager) directly in Affinity Designer because there every imported and embedded image inflates the document filesize dramatically. And even in Photo linked resources might be a really cool feature (compare this to Photoshop linked smart objects)...
 
 

Hi,
first of all, thanks for your intense work on Publisher to complete the Affinity "family" ;-)
 
Following remarks to the public Beta 1.7
1) To my mind, the default behaviour in AP should be to link images rather than to embed them. I guess this meets the nature of the application better because as a page layout tool (like InDesign or QuarkXPress) you rather deal with a lot of images in one document. Furthermore the typical team workflow may be that one person does the layout while another one does image editing.
2) There is a strange behavour with the image fit when scaling and streching the pciture frame. Autofit (max, min strech, none) meight be handy in some scenarios when the images are prepared in the exact size and crop. But mostly you don't not know the exakt crop and resolution until you placed the image in the page layout - tweeking it a little bit to see how it looks in the context of the whole layout.
In AP there is the positbility to resize, rotate and pan the image contained in the picture frame to get the desired crop (double clicking on the frame activates the masked image). But as soon as you resize or strech the whole picture frame again, the image snaps back to the auto fit behavoir and all your manual sizing, positioning and croping is immediately gone. Even when setting the picture frame property to 'none' (no auto scaling), when resizing the whole picture frame the image is scaled to its original size (as it says - allways switch to original size...). All manual croping an paning is gone.
This missbehaviour is even applied if "lock children" is active on the picture frame.
 
This auto fit behavoiur is absolutely counterproductive in most cases. E.g. InDesign shows how an image frame should behave:
- Any manual resizing and positioning on the inner image is maintained. The position is relative to the page scope - unless you move the picture frame as a whole. Then the image is moving with the frame. When resizing / stretching the picture frame by the side or corner controls, the inner image is typically not scaled and stays at its global coordinates. Only if you press some modifier keys while scaling the picture frame, the content is scaled with its parent as a group (either proportionally or squeezed).
 
Why is this usefull?
For example if your layout was OK but afterwards you may have to extend the document bleed and have to resize picture frames that extend into the bleed. Or imagine after some text changes the text floating around a picture frame does not longer look that good. You may have to tweek the size of the picture frame a little bit to get a better hyphenation. In all cases your previous image aspect will be dropped. Not funny...
 
To wrap it up:
- any imported resources - regardless of whether this is bitmap or vector - should be linked by default instead of embedded. Embedding should be the option.
- content (picture) frames should not influence their content by default (unless moved or scaled as a whole) when resized with the box controls ("anchors"). Auto fit should be an option but not the default. Or make this customizable via the app prefs.
 
By the way: please implement this linked resource behaviour (and the resource manager) directly in Affinity Designer because there every imported and embedded image inflates the document filesize dramatically. And even in Photo linked resources might be a really cool feature (compare this to Photoshop linked smart objects)...
 
 

Hi,
first of all, thanks for your intense work on Publisher to complete the Affinity "family" ;-)
 
Following remarks to the public Beta 1.7
1) To my mind, the default behaviour in AP should be to link images rather than to embed them. I guess this meets the nature of the application better because as a page layout tool (like InDesign or QuarkXPress) you rather deal with a lot of images in one document. Furthermore the typical team workflow may be that one person does the layout while another one does image editing.
2) There is a strange behavour with the image fit when scaling and streching the pciture frame. Autofit (max, min strech, none) meight be handy in some scenarios when the images are prepared in the exact size and crop. But mostly you don't not know the exakt crop and resolution until you placed the image in the page layout - tweeking it a little bit to see how it looks in the context of the whole layout.
In AP there is the positbility to resize, rotate and pan the image contained in the picture frame to get the desired crop (double clicking on the frame activates the masked image). But as soon as you resize or strech the whole picture frame again, the image snaps back to the auto fit behavoir and all your manual sizing, positioning and croping is immediately gone. Even when setting the picture frame property to 'none' (no auto scaling), when resizing the whole picture frame the image is scaled to its original size (as it says - allways switch to original size...). All manual croping an paning is gone.
This missbehaviour is even applied if "lock children" is active on the picture frame.
 
This auto fit behavoiur is absolutely counterproductive in most cases. E.g. InDesign shows how an image frame should behave:
- Any manual resizing and positioning on the inner image is maintained. The position is relative to the page scope - unless you move the picture frame as a whole. Then the image is moving with the frame. When resizing / stretching the picture frame by the side or corner controls, the inner image is typically not scaled and stays at its global coordinates. Only if you press some modifier keys while scaling the picture frame, the content is scaled with its parent as a group (either proportionally or squeezed).
 
Why is this usefull?
For example if your layout was OK but afterwards you may have to extend the document bleed and have to resize picture frames that extend into the bleed. Or imagine after some text changes the text floating around a picture frame does not longer look that good. You may have to tweek the size of the picture frame a little bit to get a better hyphenation. In all cases your previous image aspect will be dropped. Not funny...
 
To wrap it up:
- any imported resources - regardless of whether this is bitmap or vector - should be linked by default instead of embedded. Embedding should be the option.
- content (picture) frames should not influence their content by default (unless moved or scaled as a whole) when resized with the box controls ("anchors"). Auto fit should be an option but not the default. Or make this customizable via the app prefs.
 
By the way: please implement this linked resource behaviour (and the resource manager) directly in Affinity Designer because there every imported and embedded image inflates the document filesize dramatically. And even in Photo linked resources might be a really cool feature (compare this to Photoshop linked smart objects)...
 
 

Affinity Publisher sneak peek! Just to prove we're not making the whole thing up, check out this early build of our DTP app. Still lots of perfecting to do; expect the beta next summer. Enjoy.
 
Update: I think we have answered all the questions we can about Publisher before the beta starts. Hopefully the public beta will answer any remaining questions when it starts at the end of August.   
This thread is now locked. 

Thought I'd give you a glimpse of some of the features that will be coming in 1.7.
 
Please note - this thread is only for discussing the features detailed here.  Postings related to other feature requests should be posted on their own thread (else they will get deleted from this thread).
 
We have spent considerable time overhauling the internals of some of our main tools.  It's been a labour of love, but it's going to open up greater possibilities for our core tool set.
 
The core tools are:
- Move tool
- Pen tool
- Node tool
- Shape creation tools
- Text tools
- Fill and Transparency tools
- Place Image tool
- Vector Crop tool
 
So, what improvements can be expected?
 
- Advanced grid editing on spread (move the grid origin and edit it's axis with a handy new widget, with full snapping of course)
- Guides can be created and moved in all the core tools, plus a toggle to turn guide editing off
- Move the artboard ruler origin (with editing toggle)
- Create objects and shapes into an arbitrary grid
- Rotate and flip objects in grid planes (great for people working in isometric), plus an option to rotate shapes in plane using the Move tool
- The Move tool will now allow you to cycle though selection boxes, including regular boxes and grid plane aligned boxes
- Snapping performance improvements