KipV

Yes, it was said in a thread.

I am mostly concerned that Serif doesn't seem to understand the reasoning behind it given that they apparently are made up of people who work in the field. Still not sure if the company is really serious about thinking the measurement is out date or it's just a joke I am not getting?

Whether or not someone uses the measurement is separate from if it is the most efficient or best way to work. A lot of people shoot video vertically or use the word "literally" incorrectly but I am less concerned about the number of people who do these things then how sound their reasoning is for doing them.

Also this is something Quark does from the main interface (without needing to dig into the preferences) as it should be. I don't think even ID works this way (I'm still on CS6.) Publisher should work this way as well. Click on the ruler to change both the x and the y a the same time. Basic function done at least a gazillion times a day.

As it turns out according to Serif Picas were not included since it's and outdated measurement that no one uses anymore . Because math is the kind of thing that goes out of date. Remember when I wrote those threads arguing that even when Publisher would come out it wouldn't be even close to taking on the pro competition in this area? Yeah, stuff like this.

Not having the most common type of design measurement is a bit of a bug really.

I might not have worded that as well as I meant to. AP and AD can do quite a lot and I use them both for pro work. They even do a number of things better then the Adobe Counterparts. However with Publisher I mostly see Serif desperately trying to play catch up competition that has been working in this field for over thirty years. Layout tools are at a stage where they are more about fine tuning the existing product rather then introducing lots of flashy new features. The fact it is they are behind on features in a mature field and that justifies Publisher being a lower price then it's competition. The other two Affinity products can justify a higher price point today with all the major advancements they have made since version 1.0. In fact I would welcome that so they could build up their staff and marketing.

It's hard to tell how much influence my posts have. I made suggestions in the past that got implemented and sometimes they get brushed off. Like I said earlier today I applaud Serif for getting iPad versions out (and far ahead of when Adobe is supposedly scheduled to release their competitors) but I think they should have at least put out a minor feature update beta to AP/AD by this point.

The reason I am here is I feel that Designer had the potential to crush Illustrator but we haven't seen a feature update to that program on Mac or Windows in over a year. Instead they are putting the time into developing features that competitors are already doing well.

That is the other thing, it has been taking Serif so long to come out with this program. By the time 1.0 hits Quark and ID will already be half to their next major update.

Also I should point out that ID has adding some features that have been long standing Quark advantages until this year. By adding end notes the competition between these two market leaders becomes extra hard for Affinity compete against. I don't know how much Affinity's tight integration will matter to some people if that is a feature that Adobe already has.

Is integration enough reason to justify making a whole new app? Also Publisher is a tool that won't be important on touch since pen input isn't as critical as it is on a drawing/retouching tool.

It is a bit frustrating that Photo and Designer haven't received new features on Mac/Windows in the last year while working on a layout tool that in many ways is just trying to get caught up to the 2000s. I know they put out iPad versions which should be applauded but I am not an iPad user at the moment (and probably won't be one for a while.) For a company that has a lot of ground to cover a year of stagnation (not including the bug fixes) is a very unfortunate set back.

Which is surprisingly a feature the current ID doesn't have (and Publisher as well I'm sure.)

No the price is $400 for anyone who uses a wide range of competing products (just about anyone who works in the field.) But the real cost will be when a client asks you to do a function that Affinity isn't capable of. It's cheaper for a reason.

Here are a couple of discoveries that pleasantly surprised me about Quark 2018. I wasn't recently mentioning this to my typography instructor who has only used old versions of Quark. The page cloning feature is an amazing advancement over ID. Here is also the screen shot of the vertical bar and the OpenType typography tools. All of this is major advances over ID but I am not aware of anything other then tighter integration that Affinity can do. The main thing Quark should focus on is making third party plug-ins and they will be a good competitor to ID. Who knows how long it will take Affinity to do this.

I could ask or a lot more. I have been very happy with Quark 2018 innovations like the vertical measurements bar and the OpenType special characters panel and the larger interface for Retina Displays. The previews I have seem from Affinity are just doing things that other programs did decades ago for the most part. The important thing for Affinity to do is to bring basic layout functionality for Designer and Photo which are both fairly poor for doing simple one or two page layouts (this topic has been brought up in a previous forum if anyone wants to detail on it. Designer has important in that it replaced a lot of what a week competitor could do (Illustrator) but Publisher has several strong competitors.

No you I didn't!

@MEB Oh good, I hope that has been fixed. One of my machines is still on Sierra was it also fixed on Sierra?

Can you go into detail by what you mean when you say: "Fixed “Edit In..” Photos integration"? I have had a lot of problems getting changes in AP to get saved back to Photos, is that what this fixed?

I just found out how to do clippings straight from within Quark: Quark FB group discussion about clipping Doing it this way might make the most sense since I would only have to use two apps in this workflow instead of three. I can do the basic editing in LR export, and clip in Quark rather then LR edit, Photoshop clipping path, and then import into Quark.

Deleting the inverse selection should leave you with a checkered or white background. What we are trying to do is get rid of the background. This is a popular operation to do in Photoshop.

Yes, that is enabled (I wasn't even aware of that option.) What I am trying to do is make it so the box around the object goes away. This way when you bring it into a layout app that box will not block the surrounding objects. As far as I can tell you need Photoshop to do this or you can do it straight within the layout tool. I tried doing it in ID once and wasn't very impressed with the result. Hopefully Quark can do this better.

@dutchshader, What dialog box are you at in Quark? It looks like it is in German so I can't tell. I am not familiar with alpha channels in Quark. I just had a thought, I once heard that Quark has good drawing tools, can I use those tools to do the whole clipping path in Quark!? That would be really nice! @MikeW I made a clipping in Affinity so that I got the checkered background. When you say "delete the mask and remove the background" I don't understand that. Don't I need the mask to make the clipping work? I may be better for me to just use Photoshop for the time being (and maybe Quark for doing the clipping?)

Ideally the way it should work (at least in Photoshop) is that the clipping should cut out the white or whatever background there is so that you can see other objects. I know how to cut out an object in Affinity so that I can see other objects below it in Affinity but the problem comes when I bring it into a layout app and expect the clipping to work there.