Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Peter Jackson

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Peter Jackson


  1. AFPUB 2. Edition    Windows 11 Pro, Version    22H2, OS build    22621.819. 32GB RAM

    Trying to follow this instruction (which is not mega-clear and, yes, English is my mother-tongue) No tooltip appeared and AFPUB locked up. Had to close from Windows' taskbar; tried a second time, same result but had to use Windows' task manager to close AFPUB.

    To change the width of a column without affecting other column widths:
    • -click and drag over the separator between two adjacent columns in the header area. A tooltip will appear displaying the dimensions of the column, and the table will increase its width as you drag the separator.

       

    Screenshot (13).png

  2. On 10/12/2018 at 11:14 PM, walt.farrell said:

    If you use the Picture Frame tool and draw a frame the size you want, you can use the Place Image tool or File > Place... to put an image into the frame. The frame properties (in the context menu while  the frame is selected) will control whether the image is scaled or not, and  if so will provide you several options  for how it should be scaled.

    Many thanks, I'm up to speed on this now.

  3. On 10/12/2018 at 11:08 PM, Chris26 said:

    The most convenient way I find is to use the PICTURE FRAME TOOL not the image tool and then simple OPEN the image, not place.  This will give you what you want to do I believe.  Not the same method as indesign but I find it just as good as indesigns method to be honest.

    True, I've focused on this now - which also solved another irritation: how to apply strokes to graphics.  Peter

  4. On 10/12/2018 at 11:14 PM, walt.farrell said:

    If you use the Picture Frame tool and draw a frame the size you want, you can use the Place Image tool or File > Place... to put an image into the frame. The frame properties (in the context menu while  the frame is selected) will control whether the image is scaled or not, and  if so will provide you several options  for how it should be scaled.

    I find this solution to be very clumsy confirm to right-click + Transform.  For that matter, there seems to be no equivalent of right-click + Fitting, which I use so often. 

    Actually this leads onto a broader issue: layout control is presently so limited - we are spoiled with the pixel-precise ability in ID to place/ position/ resize any component on a page.  Yes, we have the basics here of alignment, spacing etc but I need precision. Hopefully, somebody will tell me I am missing something fundamental and I just need to to click a setting somewhere. ??

  5. On 10/19/2018 at 10:11 PM, Whitedog said:

    Though Lightroom started on the Mac, it, and, I presume, ACDSee work the same on Windows as they do on the Mac. ACDSee appears to be much like Adobe bridge with editing tools. Long ago Bridge was part of Photoshop but it slowed down the app so much that Adobe turned it into a separate unit. The catalog function in Lightroom does not seem to slow that app down much; it saves thumbnails so you can view things easily.

    ACDSee is on sale again at $34.95, though that appears to be for the old version, 3.7.2, the demo download. Then there's upgrade pricing at $24.95 for version 4. Which, surprise, totals the same as Affinity Photo, at $50. Though this is off topic in a Publisher forum, it seems tangentially relevant.

    The fact that you have to create an account to register the product before you can unlock it bothers some people. But it's in line with many professional apps, including those from Adobe. I simply opted out of their e-mail alerts program.

    It looks as though the Mac numbering is out of kilter with Windows. Mine is 11.2 !  My only beef with Lightroom (apart from the fact that it's Adobe), was that the catalogue created thousands and thousands of small files which enormously slowed down file-synchronising. 

  6. 12 minutes ago, Whitedog said:

    I took a look at ACDSee some years ago but it was new and underdeveloped at the time. If you like it you should post a review on MacUpdate because most reviews are not favorable. Maybe I'll check out the demo again. That said, I like Lightroom just fine.

    Ah, sorry but I'm in the majority Windows world (and before that it was CP/M, TRSDOS and finally QDOS/MS-DOS in those far-off days before the Xerox Alto introduced the idea of a mouse-driven GUI in the '70s).  Actually, I only use the cataloguing function of ACDSee not photo-editing (I didn't use Lightroom's editing either).

    Peter.

  7. 6 minutes ago, Whitedog said:

    There are (at least) two distinct markets for InDesign. The large volume publisher/printer who can account for the expense of a Creative Cloud subscription at marginal cost to their clients, and the small margin pro/sumer market where the expense is hard to manage. Many of these, including myself, have stuck with InDesign (and Photoshop, etc.) CS6 because they cannot afford the ongoing cost of CC. The first group will have little if any incentive to move to another publishing suite. For the rest of us, for whom CC is out of reach, Affinity Publisher will have great appeal, even with possible conversion issues. Taken together with Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer it may easily supplant Adobe in this secondary market. Not that Adobe will mind as they have ceased to care about entry level users.

    There was a time when you could get Adobe programs with a student discount and continue to use them until you established yourself professionally and needed an upgrade. Now, when you are no longer a student, you are stuck with the full cost of a CC subscription immediately, whether you can afford it or not. Adobe no doubt sees this as a way to hold on to customers; their customers may see it as an incentive to find an alternative to Adobe as soon as possible. That would seem to be a perfect niche for Affinity. The ex-student will have a modest investment in Adobe centered assets; migrating to Affinity will be relatively easy and certainly far less expensive. As far as I know, the Affinity suite is the only substantial alternative to Adobe's publishing and design programs. To replace Dreamweaver there are innumerable web design apps, including the ever more popular WordPress; for audio and video there are powerful programs from Apple that can compete with Premier, et al. This won't help those using Windows PCs, but they probably have alternatives of which I am unaware.

    It is my humble hope that Serif will help break up the Adobe monopoly among creative amateurs and professionals alike. May the force be with them.

    Very nicely summed up.  Your're right, there are good alternatives for everything except InDesign.  I was concerned about Lightroom which I used for running a catalogue of several tens of thousand photographs but found a far more capable product in ACDSee with which I am delighted - note that I was able to import my catalogue and settings seamlessly from Adobe Lightroom.  I am also one of the users of Adobe Muse abandoned by Adobe which has unapologetically walked away leaving users locked into their proprietary file structure.  I will go the Affinity route as soon as practicable. 

    Peter.

  8. 8 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

    I think that Affinity will not try to make IDML export for 2 reasons:

    1. If they make IDML export and import we will have complete ID for 50 EUR, which I think is not good for Affinity.

    2. Beside Publisher updates they will have to chase every new version of ID to update import and export filters.

    So Publisher goes in a shadow.

    IMHO import of IDML files is all we need.

    In my case, Petar I am only really interested in importing InDesign files.
     

    Peter.

     

    4 minutes ago, Whitedog said:

    There are (at least) two distinct markets for InDesign. The large volume publisher/printer who can account for the expense of a Creative Cloud subscription at marginal cost to their clients, and the small margin pro/sumer market where the expense is hard to manage. Many of these, including myself, have stuck with InDesign (and Photoshop, etc.) CS6 because they cannot afford the ongoing cost of CC. The first group will have little if any incentive to move to another publishing suite. For the rest of us, for whom CC is out of reach, Affinity Publisher will have great appeal, even with possible conversion issues. Taken together with Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer it may easily supplant Adobe in this secondary market. Not that Adobe will mind as they have ceased to care about entry level users.

    There was a time when you could get Adobe programs with a student discount and continue to use them until you established yourself professionally and needed an upgrade. Now, when you are no longer a student, you are stuck with the full cost of a CC subscription immediately, whether you can afford it or not. Adobe no doubt sees this as a way to hold on to customers; their customers may see it as an incentive to find an alternative to Adobe as soon as possible. That would seem to be a perfect niche for Affinity. The ex-student will have a modest investment in Adobe centered assets; migrating to Affinity will be relatively easy and certainly far less expensive. As far as I know, the Affinity suite is the only substantial alternative to Adobe's publishing and design programs. To replace Dreamweaver there are innumerable web design apps, including the ever more popular WordPress; for audio and video there are powerful programs from Apple that can compete with Premier, et al. This won't help those using Windows PCs, but they probably have alternatives of which I am unaware.

    It is my humble hope that Serif will help break up the Adobe monopoly among creative amateurs and professionals alike. May the force be with them.

     

  9. 9 minutes ago, MikeW said:

    Peter, I agree as regards the necessity of importing IDML.

    I stick by my comments as regards working in a collaborative environment. IDML export out of a non-ID applicaiton is a recipe for disaster or simply extra work as it still will need fixed in some version of ID.

    As regards the "two incompatible packages" thing. This happens all day every day for some when moving to a new application. Even back in the day, I've never had a QuarkXPress or a Pagemaker file open in ID faithfully. I have mostly taken the tack of producing new work in the new layout application. I rarely chose to attempt a conversion. There are exceptions, though. Like Publishers that have one format and insist on completing into a different layout application. For those (most all have been books) it isn't really onerous. But for say a magazine? It's easier to just recreate the template and move on.

    Mike

    Sure Mike, but why "move to a new application"?  It was very different world when Adobe made me an offer I couldn't refuse for the first (very incomplete) version of Indesign.  Then the market penetration of such packages was minuscule (QuarkXPress was far too expensive to consider for most people, I was using MS Publisher).  Now everyone who needs this sort of software already has it.  Of course, there is certainly potential for another professional package, particularly with smaller users who might feel that Adobe is monopoly-screwing them with the CC licencing but possibly not at the expense of abandoning their existing library of files.  We shall see how it goes in the marketplace.  I certainly really want to jump ship.

    Peter.

  10. 5 minutes ago, MikeW said:

    Thanks for the info, Medical.

    I do agree about the IDML vehicle for at least importing if one is fully moving to a new layout application and/or IDML export if moving out of a layout application. Depending upon the simplicity to complexity of one's work, IDML export really ought to be run through the exact version of what one is needed for collaboration and fixed as export to IDML is at best as good as import--which means there are things needing fixed.

    In general, though, in a collaborative environment, one really ought to be using the same application & version as those one is collaborating with.

    Mike

    Well, as numerous people have pointed out: InDesign is the industry standard.  Most would-be customers for Affinity will be existing InDesign users and the companies they collaborate with will be using InDesign. That means that people will be UNABLE to replace InDesign with Affinity and why would they want to run two incompatible packages?  I should have thought it is obvious that file compatibility has to be the there for significant Affinity adoption.

  11. 6 hours ago, Petar Petrenko said:

    @Medical Officer Bones PDF is createad from various kinds of apps and is used for distribution purposes. Because it is not a native format of any app, you just can’t open it and continue to work with it easy way. But because of that, A-team is working on it to make the PDF import filter better and better to allow all users to recreate their documents in Affinity apps as easier as possible.

    On the other side IDML files are created only from InDesign.

    Thank you for comments.  Peter

  12. 9 minutes ago, Tom Schülke said:

    No not at all..   This is only true for smal companys and people who work alone..     my company , 500 architects are dependent on interdiscoplinary workflows, that for example include green Planing...     they just send their indesign document to the greenplaner who puts in what is missing from his side, and the file comes back...

    without the possibility of exchanging with external people, affinity PHoto will cost us more workingpower maybe as we spare from switching away from adobe.

    so im and export of indesign formats ore idlm formats is a killerfeature for all people who have to work with others together.. 

    No, what Tom says is correct.  The industry standard is Adobe Indesign, for any other software to impact this market it must have file-compatibility...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.