Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

Lorox

Members
  • Posts

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lorox

  1. This is actually quite a nuisance – you can fiddle around a bit with the „Phase“ setting to influence where the dots/dashes begin, but it's not much use, actually... As this is Publisher 1.9.3 I wonder if this issue has been addressed in v 1.10 or if it's just tha same there. It's obviously related to the issue of dashed/dotted strokes not aligning correctly with a rectangle's (or any angular object's) corners. They just meet those corners randomly with some part of dash or gap... This hasn't been a problem anymore in Illustrator or InDesign for ages now and I'm really disappointed that the Affinity apps don't seem to be able to get it right.
  2. Yes, but unfortunately, I did not manage to display the overprint elements correctly this way. You're right – if overprinting is part of your design, it will not work. Obviously Affinity Photo does not translate the "overprint property" from the PDF into its rendering of the design. I checked with a simple file using overprinting versions of CMY and they block out completely what's below them. In this regard I have to add to my post above: whereas you can actually check whether your blacks are 100% K blacks or all-component "rich" blacks, you – due to this method’s failure at handling overprinting correctly – unfortunately CANNOT check whether your 100 K black is overprinting (as it usually should with type elements). Too bad!
  3. Hi MEB, as you say so I do suppose this will work. I'm quite certain, however, that the vast majority of designers will actually NOT think this way (and not only because they possibly may have years of practice in InDesign, where this is handled in a more obvious and intuitive way). If we (please excuse me for brazenly generalizing) as designers think of using overprinting, we almost certainly and intuitively will think first in terms of specific objects (= their fills and/or their contours) which are meant to overprint – using whatever(!) colour that's been assigned to them. Designers will NOT primarily think of the assigned COLOUR as such to be the carrier of the "overprint information" but they will think of the OBJECT (or more precisely of the object's fill and/or contour). Accordingly it would make very much more sense if in Publisher (and Designer as well, of course) the overprint property could be assigned directly to an object's fill or contour no matter what colour those may be. Why on earth should I e.g. populate my colour palette with "quasi-duplicates" of even basic colours like Cyan, Magenta or Yellow which then are set to overprint (as opposed to their "regular" non-overprinting standard counterparts) if I just want to achieve an overprinting effect with just one, two or three particular objects? I really don't get the "thinking“ that's behind Publisher's and Designer's way of handling this (and why it should or could be reasonable to do it this way), while it just seems so natural the way InDesign lets me do this: select the object in question, set its fill's or contour's attribute to overprint and there you have it! Could you possibly elaborate on this?
  4. Well said (and I actually did accordingly...) Unfortunately, Inkscape 1.1.2 tends to be so "lethargic“ on my 2019 Mojave iMac that it isn't exactly fun. BUT: you get it done and the options Inkscape’s offering for customizing spirals are very useful indeed. If Inkcape's performance on Mac would be as fluent as it seems to be on PC I'd actually do quite a few things Designer doesn't offer (yet) in that app...
  5. Thank you, this is actually a very interesting (and in its simplicity somewhat surprising) take on the issue of preflighting colour separations in Publisher generated PDFs. As it is so easy to drag/import rich black text into Publisher without really wanting to, checking the blacks (for all black text elements) is – at least for me – of primary importance when viewing the colour separations. And your method seems to make this possible without resorting to any third party apps. So far I've only checked (on desktop AP) with strict CMYK PDFs (which I almost solely need these days), but back in the day I've done quite a lot of spot colour jobs, so it would be worthwhile to know how solid colours from PDFs are handled in AP and if the method works with them as well.
  6. Yeah, absolutely so. But please let them include REAL vector brushes, a blend tool, gradient meshes, a shape builder tool as well. If another "budget" app like VectorStyler has got all these (and a few others as well) it shouldn't be impossible for the Affinity team to offer these to us as well... Ah, well: image tracing would also be great!
  7. It would be VERY convenient, though, if this feature could be added. E.g. via the Layers panel’s options menu or a right click context menu. Often it's these little things that make a really pleasant and ergonomic workflow and eventually will make you miss PS even less... I won't say PS's UI and its features are or have been perfect and I'm really glad about Affinity Photo offering such a great alternative, but some things – especially workflowwise – are certainly worth learning (and adopting) from all those years/decades of a rival’s refining an industry standard application.
  8. Hi NotMyFault, yeah, I sort of had the impression that – more or less between the lines – you seemed to be insinuating that Zane Vali must have made some mistake that could have easily been avoided just by paying intention to the official tutorial videos. As I had been experiencing quite similar problems not so long ago while being 100% (OK, let's say 99%) sure that I'd been playing entirely by the rules this got me a bit on the wrong foot, I guess... So – no offence meant on my part – I didn't really mean to be harsh and what you write about the obvious difficulties getting to the core of such apperently random issues is – of course – perfectly true. Luckily I haven't encountered issues myself where actual damage was caused to the document(s) itself (although some reports by users having issues with proper PDF exporting with versions 1.10.x have prevented me from updating my 1.9.3 versions so far...). But then I'm maybe a bit paranoid after all...
  9. I, on my part, can assure you that the observed behaviour of not being able to paint on a pixel layer, can in fact be errratic (and enigmatic) and didn't go away when established ways of doing things (like those shown in the official tutorial videos) were followed. As I have reported in this thread the problem has occured on an on and off basis when I used Designer(!)'s pixel layers some time ago. The workflow used i.e. the steps taken had been exactly the same with different tries but sometimes it worked, sometimes not. Just toggling primary and secondary colours could be sufficient to not being able to paint on a previously unproblematic pixel layer anymore. As I pointed out before it seemed to me that maybe(!) all this could be related to memory issues as quitting and relaunching Designer (or the computer as such) could – for a while at least – make that strange problem go away.
  10. Just in case someone looks into this thread again: Problem solved: you CAN turn your custom shape/vectors from Designer into nice 3D in Art Text. Just do as MEB said and import from a PDF file (so far so good) – the shape(s) will import as a 2D layer. Then with that layer selected go to the Layers menu(!) and choose "Convert to 3D" and there you are! When you can do almost anything directly via an app's visual interface, you sometimes forget that you can't just do everything there but there might be the odd operation which actually requires you to resort to a "real" menu...
  11. Ah, thanks Walt! You can always hope, though... Apart from that I'd say that Art Text can – for some opportunities – be quite an attractive companion to the Affinity apps (which in turn don't need to be bloated with special functions you only need once or twice). You'd wish, though, that importing and exporting your stuff between the programs would be easier.
  12. Hi Undnyable, I've just bought Art Text 4 and as I was just playing around with it a little I quickly had the very same idea as you! Seems to be the logical thing to try once you know how to get your vector shapes from Designer into Art Text... Have you possibly found a way to turn these into 3D objects since? Your feedback would be very much appreciated! Added later: Thinking of it I speculate that you could possibly make your vector shapes into a font – if I remember correctly there are even free tools that will allow you to create your own font from your designs. The you will have some sort of personal dingbat font which you can assign to your 3D text element...
  13. In Affinity Photo I, too, am missing dearly the view options Photoshop has given us (by simply pressing the F key) for decades by now – especially the preview mode where you just see your image against an otherwise black background (and you can still zoom in or out). I really thought it was sort of a nobrainer to have this in an image editing program. (BTW: even InDesign as layout program has this).
  14. Hi MEB, thank you very much for replying this quick! The "Precise Clipping“ option had actually escaped my attention up to now. Anyway, this seems to work – so thanks again! I had in fact made sure eventually that pixel alignment had been applied exactly as you suggest. Being someone who'd been designing mainly for print this hadn't seemed so obvious to me before, but when I encountered this issue I already thought precise pixel alignment would certainly be helpful and possibly minimize any rounding/antialiasing effects. This having been said I also noticed that putting some element of the same or similar colour behind those elements’ boundaries also seems to make the lines disappear. But this might not be visually possible everywhere – so hopefully activating "Precise Clipping“ will do the job on a general basis.
  15. @NotMyFault I've done according to your suggestion: As to the noise filter (it's actually just „Noise“ added to the fill in the Colour Studio/Palette): as it happens it really doesn't make any difference if it’s a fill with or without noise – the lines will appear all the same...
  16. Obviously there is a problem manifesting itself in the form of thin lines appearing at the edges of vector shapes under a couple of circumstances. (Affinity Designer v. 1.9.3 on a 2019 iMac running macOS 10.14.6) Example 1 (Designer): The edge of the rectangle clipping the circle (left side) remains faintly visible – in my experience this will be rendered as well (and so keep visible) if the artwork is exported to a pixel format file (e.g. JPG). Note that when doing the (visually) same sort of "masking" using the same sort of elements by way of a subtractive compound these thin lines do apparently not appear. Example 2a (Designer): screenshot: area from artwork viewed in Designer (zoomed in at 400%) – no thin lines visible at borders Example 2b (Designer): screenshot: area from previous artwork after having been exported to JPG (100% quality); opended and viewed in Designer (zoomed in at 400%) – thin vertical lines visible where vector shapes touch (absolutely flush pixel perfect positioning!) Example 2c (Designer): screenshot: same as in 2b but flat black colour applied to the touching shapes (whereas in 2b there had been an additional 40% noise to the black) Obviously it doesn’t matter if some noise has been applied to the individual objects’ fills thus possibly causing some sort of interference at the borders – those thin dividing lines continue appear with flat colours, too. Other users report that this kind of problem also pops up with (seamless) patters where the pattern’s tiles touch. I haven't tried this but I guess they're right. I've actually noticed those thin lines first when I started with Designer (v. 1.5, I think) quite some time ago – I had tried to get a first grip on masking then and at the time had hoped that they were some kind of temporary display glitch... However, when the lines kept showing up in the JPGs as well, which I exported from Designer I began to suspect that there might be something more to it. I really hope, this problem will be adressed by Serif some time soon as it tends to severely hurt delicate artworks. Anybody looking just a bit closer will see these annoying lines, I'd think.
  17. I'm adding two screenshots here: one from inside Designer at 800% zoom which actually doesn't show those fine lines (and the grain/noise looks finer) and another from the exported JPG (full resolution of a 300dpi AD file), also viewed at 800% zoom.
  18. I have this very problem with my Affinity Designer artwork (AD v. 1.9.3 on Mac OS Mojave) . Even if shapes (i.e. simple rectangles which are not rotated) are positioned abslutely pixel perfect flush to each other I'll get those thin lighter lines when exporting my artwork to pixel formats (say JPG). This actually has been some kind of a problem right from the start in AD years ago. It's even visible pre-export in most zoom values while still in Designer. As I'm in Designer I unfortunately don't have Adjustment Layers to try the method described here... Any ideas about what might be done to get proper exports?
  19. Hi all, I've struggled with a related problem lately and I really couldn't think of a way to do what I wanted in Designer by straightforward (vector only) masking. The most simple example of my problem may be to make some sort of moon crescent using two circles where you want to be able to control the amount taken away from the "full moon" at any time later without creating it all again from scratch or copies of the original circles. I could have done it easily in Adobe Illustrator, though, with its concept of opacity masks (which in AI can [also] be populated by vector elements which then hide content at the same/corresponding location on the "real" artboard according to their degree of greyness [the old “black conceals, white reveals" way]) and I could even have done it in Designer using a pixel layer mask. But with just curves which at all times should remain fully editable by themselves and NOT be merged to the shape/curve which they were meant to make invisible some part of by "Substracting" it seemed impossible... (you might, however, try something with shapes/curves set to "Erase" which are then attached as a clipping mask to the shape which they are supposed to visually take something away from). A day later now I've come across a solution which I'll attach a screenshot of here. Using "Compounds" to me seems to do the trick. Still, Adobe Illustrator [regrettably] seems to offer more options as with the "compound trick“ in Designer you seem to be reduced to using the hard edges of the vector curves only, whereas with AI's opacity masks you can can also work with varying degrees of transparency according to the "greyness" of the schape on the mask layer – so fading in or out is possible when using shapes with gradients. As far as I see you can only do something like this in AD by using a pixel layer mask...
  20. I don't know really. I've bought all 3 Affinity apps and use them according to the projects I have at hand. My concern with the marching ants is that I often find myself doing artwork which is basically vector based (hence using AD as the weapon of choice). But I often also like to add some more "painterly" touches to the vector parts using AD's Pixel Persona. This way of doing things can't be so uncommon, I'd guess. So I really thought the marching ants topic in AD might generally be of interest for other users of the app as well...
  21. Thanks a lot – we'll see! It's interesting, however, to see other users obviously not seeming to miss this feature or being just content that it's there in Afffinity Photo. As Designer's Pixel Persona allows us to add some nice pixel painting to our vector content on a pixel layer – or specifically a selected part thereof – it seems so natural (or desirable) to me personally to be able to hide such a selection’s boundary in order to not be distracted by those "marching ants" that I really thought this should be a classic "nobrainer"...
  22. Ah well, that's been said in February 2017 – as it seems this hasn't been implemented almost 4 long years later, has it?
  23. I just ran into this again today... It's actually quite a nuisance when you're working/painting within a selected area in a pixel layer in Designer. The "marching ants“ are so obtrusive and they don't let you judge properly what you're doing on the canvas. In my opinion it is absolutely necessary to be able to temporarily hide any selection borders if you're doing any delicate artwork. This applies to those "marching ants“ with pixel content as well as to borders of selected objects with vector objects. Photoshop has had this very option ("Hide Extras") for a million years (and for good reasons). As it seems so natural a need I cannot quite see why this hasn't been implemented in Designer right from the start. Even though I definitely enjoy using the Serif apps the wishlist for (sort of) vital additions in version 2 obviously gets ever longer...
  24. Hi Walt, no, "Protect Alpha“ had definitely not been set. I'm perfectly confident that my Context Toolbar and Layers Panel wouldn't offer clues to anything wrong or unusual. Actually, this morning after a fresh launch of Publisher everything worked as should be expected. I first created a new layer on the chosen page while in Publisher Persona, then rasterized it and switched to the Photo Persona to add some big (4000px) spatter brushstrokes to that (now) pixel layer. They showed up fine, maybe with a bit of lag because of their size, though. Even toggling primary and secondary colours between brushstrokes didn't stop it from working, whereas yesterday I couldn't add more brushstrokes after doing so. However, this has been just a quick test and – given my experience yesterday – I wouldn't actually bet on it to continue working after some more changes to the design/layout have been made. I have done it exactly all the same way as yesterday, no settings whatsoever had been changed since then. Nevertheless it just wouldn't work out yesterday and the only difference I can think of has been that yesterday I had already been working on the document for quite a while (and having saved every now and then) whereas today I went for that pixel layer right after launching Publisher and having just opened my document. So maybe there IS some kind of memory issue here after all which is sort of accumulating while the file is being worked on and/or the app isn't relaunched?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.