Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dazzler

  1. Yeah, I agree, and in many cases you can actually push images way beyond their 100% resolution, but it would depend on the nature of the final output. I used to work for a company that did large format printing and we'd quite often downsample images to much lower resolutions than 300dpi to make the file sizes more manageable (back in the mid 90s when 1Gb was extremely difficult to deal with and would literally take many hours to transfer over a network!). But yeah 300dpi is a good guideline for most outputs. You could probably go with much less for a billboard. I do like the way that readout works though, gives you exactly the information you need to know.


  2. With regards my above solution, it also makes sense to not convert a text frame in the first place, but to use a rectangle object and paste that inside the group also constrained in the same way. That way you can colour at will and apply features such as rounded corners (using the corner tool), and these will also resize in a nice way with the outer parent rather than being stretched etc. It also allows you to choose the amount of margin you want inside the outer frame by simply resizing the text frame to suit, then when you resize the outer group the text frame will maintain that gap.
    In this way you are sort of constructing little text 'widgets' that can be duplicated and resized to suit - great for speech bubbles for example.

  3. You can sort of achieve this in Designer with a workaround.

    1. Create your text frame, add text etc.
    2. Set it to the jusification you require (mine was centred both vertically and horizontally).
    3. Group that layer using CTRL+G / CMD + G and then add a stroke on the parent group layer.
    4. Select your nested text frame and go to the constraints panel and set those so the two resize arrows in the middle square are showing but the arrows around the outer edges aren't.
    5. You should be able to resize the outer parent box and the text frame will expand with it. However, it fails with regards to adding text - the text frame won't resize automatically when you add more text, but you can always pull the parent box open more.

    Hope that helps.

  4. If you want to reduce the amount that the sliders affect the picture when adding an adjustment layer such as shadows/highlights then you can take the opacity down a bit on the adjustment layer (it's just there in the corner, so no need to switch back out of the dialogue). That will make the adjustments more subtle as it's then mixing it with the original. Also, don't forget you can add more than one adjustment layer even if it's the exactly the same as a previous one, so you can always add a second shadows/highlights to use with the shadows and have that a different opacity than the one you use on the highlights, so they each have their own aggressiveness.

  5. +1 for this feature to be added. I'm a little bit surprised that you can't already do this, as it's not exactly a new thing, pretty sure you could do this in some vector packages in the 90s?

    For some inspiration, take a look at the way the 3d package 'Modo' by The Foundry does it's replicators - they are superb, allowing not only one item to be duplicated, but a group of items can be used and it picks items to duplicate from that group - very nice for more organic ideas. Would love to see this sort of thing in a 2d version.

  6. It’s one of those things that once you know to use the correct tool, it’s fine. The icon is perhaps not the most obvious for a gradient tool but again once you get used to it it’s fine. I also spent ages looking for the angle when I first used Designer but I’ve got used to it now and reach for the grad tool rather than using the panel. That does feel odd though when you are used to the Adobe method.

  7. If I remember correctly, you can just click on the pixel button on the toolbar  to unselect it (it’s a toggle button). 

    Pixel based preview is a very useful thing for people who work with web or where the output will eventually be rasterised. It enables you to draw assets that don’t have that fuzzy ‘half a pixel’ thing going on and is one of the great features of Designer, which may be why they have it enabled as default. 

  8. Yes, there are three methods of masking, one is the 'Rasterise to mask', which is pretty much equivalent to the Photoshop way of doing it. 

    The second is by nesting layers in other layers. This is more interesting and would be the way to go if you want the mask to be a vector shape rather than a rasterised image. The parent layer becomes the mask and the inner layers are then masked by it.

    The third is using the blend mode set to erase. Not so keen on that way of thinking, but it's there if you need it.

    It looks like in your case the mask is a solid flattened image with a background colour containing a greyscale image map, so you'd have to use the 'Rasterise to mask' method. 

  9. I wouldn’t worry about it. If you’ve been doing it for years and there’s never been a problem then you wouldn’t realise. Really, the problem lies with the software companies where no strict standard has been maintained. I’m a web dev, and as any web dev will tell you, consistency and strict rules are absolutely essential to being able to provide a consistent experience for the user. If there is no agreement at the start of new technology then it goes off in all directions and then you find yourself putting five css rules into a style sheet instead of just the one, because the browser vendors all decided to implement the same thing in different ways. It’s crazy stupid. But that’s the nature of cutting edge technology, where it’s expensive to bring new technology into places like printers, so workarounds happen to allow new technology to talk to old technology. 

    Ultimately a tiff file should really just be a tiff file, and it should fit the exact specification of a tiff file, not have some extra hidden data stuffed in there. But now it’s too late, it’s already happened, and so if you stop supporting odd files where things have been abused, then suddenly you find yourself with a load of files that no longer work as expected with certain software. Exactly the same with the web, where you can’t suddenly make all browsers behave the same without breaking a ton of old legacy content. So we continue to adapt everything to accept these formats, and so the problem lingers on. Ho hum, fun and games!

  10. Chris, I think the thing that can be learned from this, is it’s not really your fault, file formats sometimes get skewed to suit certain situations, and it looks like that’s s what’s been going on. So we’ve ended up with a file which actually has two methods of storing it’s transparency. That’s kind of dumb, but I guess there are reasons somewhere along the line, probably due to compatibility. It must mean however that the files are larger than they need to be. 

  11. 1 minute ago, walt.farrell said:

    The Edit Image button should be present when you have

    • Placed an image file (TIFF, JPG, PNG) in your Publisher document as a
    • Linked file and you
    • Select the placed file with the Move Tool active.

    Thanks Walt, the bit I was doing different was embedding the images rather than linking ... got it now!



    2 minutes ago, Murfee said:

    There is transparency in the original file, it’s single layered and opens just fine in Affinity Photo, it also opens fine when opened directly in Publisher, the white background occurs when the file is placed in Publisher

    I realise there is transparency in the original file, as you say, but is that transparency coming from the extra psd data rather than the true tiff part of the file? Being that AFPhoto can open PSD files it may be? Certainly looking at the files within my explorer window the ones that are working have a transparent background in the thumbnail, whereas the ones that don't look solid white. They ALL open in Photoshop and AF Photo with transparency intact, but the ones with the white backgrounds don't come through with transparency when placed into a document, however a TIFF file that has the transparency checked upon save does work perfectly with the place image tool in publisher. So I maintain that the original file was saved with that option not checked, and it's the extra psd information that is where any transparency is coming from. Would be nice for it to work the same across the board though. But if the place tool is reading it like a true tiff and the open is reading that hidden psd data then it would explain it.

  12. 1 minute ago, Patrick Connor said:


    This is a consequence of the Photoshop export code also placing a native (optional?) photoshop file in the .TIFF in a hidden stream next to the TIFF data. This makes the re-opening of the TIFF in Photoshop actually have all the Photoshop layers including its transparency. The Tiff itself will have transparency or not according to the setting in Photoshops export dialog.

    Thanks Patrick.

    So surely this is the answer then? The original seagull file has been saved out of Photoshop (or whatever) without the transparency being checked?

    Any ideas about why I can't see the edit image button? I've tried doing all sorts, changing personas etc. but I just can't get it to appear? Should it be there for me? As I say, I have all three apps installed, and can happily switch between the personas. Is there a reset for the workspace somewhere that I can use?


  13. Ok, so upon further investigation, saving out from Photoshop if I don't check the save transparency option (below the compression settings dialogue), then the file comes in with a white background into publisher when placed. However that same exported (supposedly no transparency) file can be opened back up in Photoshop and has the transparency still. Which is a bit weird isn't it?

  14. 4 hours ago, Murfee said:

    Hi Chris, I have all 3 apps so I am not sure if you can see the Edit Image button, if you can then with your image selected click the Edit Image button, a new tab should open in Publisher, go to this tab and copy the layer, then go back to your original tab and paste

    Screen Shot 2019-07-04 at 13.52.26.png


    This is what I see when I click the new tab, still in Publisher


    Screen Shot 2019-07-04 at 13.55.55.png

    Oh this is weird. I have all three apps installed, but on my publisher I don't see that Edit Image button like you have?!! Is that something you've added in somehow? I do have the replace image button and the surrounding tools look to be the same, but just no Edit Image button.

    But looking at the tiff scenario, if I open the seagull image in Photoshop or Affinity Paint I have the transparency. If I place it in Publisher, no transparency. If I save it as a tiff from AFPhoto it opens fine with it's transparency by placing it in Publisher just as you would expect. If I open the original in Photoshop, then save as a tiff, and then place in publisher then still no transparency, yet it still opens in Photoshop ok.

  15. I'm also learning the table styling. The help docs are actually quite decent for explaining how this works, however the second line reads 'Affinity Publisher comes with an impressive selection of pre-defined table formats'. Well I've got one! is there somewhere to find more?! I've done a quick scout around the program folders and can't find anything, so I'm thinking the impressive selection may actually just be one! Not to worry, it's fairly painless to create more! The key thing is realising that within the edit table format panel, the cell formats in the centre column are applied to the table diagram on the top left, and that you can adjust the arrows in that diagram to select fixed areas on the edges, everything else gets repeated. Then the right hand column of the dialogue is everything to do with the currently selected cell format. Not sure how all this compares to other software as I don't normally use page layout software in my daily duties - just had to get publisher to complete the set really and experience the magic link between packages which is excellent.


  16. This was one of those tiny features that actually made me realise there were people 'thinking outside the box' at Serif. It's a fairly easy transition from Photoshop to Affinity Photo, but don't assume stuff will be the same, as there are a few things that sound similar but are actually slightly different or better thought out. I'm still transitioning myself, as a very long time Photoshop user (since the very first version of Photoshop), it's easy to find yourself trying to do things in a way that is engraved into your workflow, but I've been going through many online videos for Affinity Photos, just going over basic features, that I thought I knew like the back of my hand, only to find it's done slightly differently (and often better) in Affinity Photo.

  17. On 6/21/2019 at 10:41 AM, redlik said:

    Unless I'm missing this option somewhere I'd like to have the availability to save flat 1-layer-background image as something else then afphoto. I do a lot of cropping from scanned large sheets of photos and it would be nice to select, copy, new from clipboard and then save as widely recognised file formats for quick easy workflow.

    I know there's the export but it's just too many unnecessary steps.



    It may be worth investigating some alternative workflow options available. If I understand correctly, you should be able to select then paste (as a separate layer rather than a new document), then label the layer with your intended filename. Once you have separated all the images to layers you can switch to the export persona, select all your layers and create slices (one button click), then hit the export all button (deselect the first slice to avoid exporting the orginal back out), choose a folder and you should get all the slices as individual files in the format you choose in the export settings.

    Alternatively, you could just save them all as afphoto files for speed then do a batch file conversion on them using the batch tool, selecting a new format.

  18. I think it would be nice to be able to store distort equations in a similar way to the procedural texture equations preset panel. At the moment it seems the only way to store distort equations is to either jot them down in another app somehwere, or store them in a macro. When you store them in a macro you lose the equation, so you can't go back to it, which is kind of annoying. I've currently got my equations building up a text document, but working like that doesn't fit the nice workflow that the other features have. Also, with the procedural textures panel if you accidentally apply before storing the preset you lose the equation, would it be possible to have a persistent edit buffer that populates the dialogue with the last equation you used, rather than it opening with a blank panel each time? It's really easy to spent time messing about to get an interesting pattern and then pressing apply to see the pattern properly (with the anti-aliasing in place), before saving it as a preset ... then it's gone, you've lost all that effort!

  19. +1, that would be an awesome addition.

    AP doesn't seem to have the exact equivalent of displacement maps at present. The displacement filter seems to be more of a texturing thing rather than a mapped lightness direction to amount of shift in the x/y direction. Would be great to be able to pull values from a map (layer or image) for use in an equation. Maybe similar to the sources panel where you select a source and give it a variable name that could then be pulled into an equation? That way multiple maps could be used.

    I've been doing a lot of experimenting with equations and they are very powerful, and I love the way you can record them and expose the controls in a macro, however when used directly the sliders are smooth and instant, but in a macro they seem to wait for you to release before reacting, which makes it much harder to get the correct adjustment. Also, when using distortion equations directly you can click on the canvas and it relocates the centre point, whereas when recorded in a macro this doesn't seem to work.


  20. Good to hear embedded font support is something that might appear in the future. It's one thing that is keeping me glued to my adobe subscription :( (luckily my company pays for that - whereas my affinity products I bought personally because they are affordable!)
    I have a workflow for a particular job, where I need to make a set of thumbnail images from a batch of pdf files (40+), showing just the opening cover (page 1) of each. So the other thing that would be useful is to be able to somehow select a single page on the batch job input dialogue rather than it automatically open them all up and output it as a contact sheet of pages.
    Apart from that, I'm really very impressed with Affinity Photo and what it has to offer. Haven't found much else that it can't cope with so far.

  21. 15 hours ago, reglico said:

    You're right, but for some reason it doesn't always work: sometimes the text goes directly from the top (right) to the bottom (left) of the image, leaving the entire height part of the image without text, either left or right.
    The image is then simply placed between two text groups.

    Could that be down to the font size not allowing the words to fit in the space to the sides of the image? It works fine for me doing some quick tests here with a circle (image area) cut out of a rectangle and then inserting filler text. I can edit the circle using the node tool to distort it without any unexpected results. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. 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.