Chris26

Ramblings of a guy who saw the pyramids being built....... Adobe has absolutely nothing to be worried about, 20 000 employees world wide, 10 billion revenue thereabouts and its biggest rival is Quark, founded in the 1980's somewhere 10 years before Adobe. Adobe has clout, power and resources world wide. Affinity, I imagine, is not there to compete with Adobe, I doubt that it ever could or even wants to, except to fill a niche market that Adobe cares nothing about; of very small business and 2 man operations and the semi professional photographer or illustrator and for Those that find Adobe's pricing system outrageous where you pay for a product that will Never belong to you. This Is the space, that I believe, Affinity fills. Those people that complain about Affinity not being able to do this or that should take a good look at Adobe Photoshop 4, which is where I frst started. This was a huge leap because after 4 years they finally broought in adjustment layers and actions WOW! That took Years my friends, years. It was young just as affinity is now. So No complaints please, just wishes dreams and suggestions, patience and kindness. Not to mention there was no such thing as a forum back in 1996, so no one to make suggestions, no one to complain, no one to say things like photoshop should be able to do such and such, it is the technological development of mass communication on the internet that allows every single person on the globe to communicate their issues, for good and for the not so good. With so many individual needs expressing their wants based upon one facet - comparison . How on earth did we publish, write, type, design, draw, sketch, in the 1990's? How did we copy paste duplicate type circular combine text and graphics, how did we proof read, check spelling, before automation? It's a philosophical issue I know, but the truth is we only want or desire something when we are force fed the fact that we can not live without it and exposed to advertising that confirms our need for it. A similar principle works in that I am use to something in Photoshop but could not work it in Af.Photo and got frustrated - I too am guilty of what I have just written, I know. It is enough that Affinity has a forum and communication channel that surpasses Adobe's in that it retains a personal and open channel to the developers as well.

Hallo Ali, welcome, this is easy. Open both projects in publisher together. Select the page you want to copy. Copy it via the Edit > copy menu after selecting the whole page, best to group it first, just for safety. Then select the other document which is also open next to the one you just copied from. Now Paste the contents. Voila.

No need for such a broad and wild judgement! I have remained polite and apologetic throughout this discusssion. Did you come here to discuss and be kind to those that display a lack of knowledge in a given field of your expertise or to elevate your ability to digest and investigate matters that would be helpful and beneficial to members of this forum? You could have simply investigated everything, as you already seem to have accomplished, and then log your findings with the Serif Developers on this forum in a polite and friendly manner. Where is this arrogance comng from? I asked a reasonable question and you return with an erroneous assumption. As far as I am concerned this conversation is over.

Ok, this is all well and good. But I have one question. I had already noticed some time ago that, for example, I have TIFF files tagged with the AdobeRGB1998 profile, brought in from Apple mac from Photoshop. Looking at the Properties in apple I see that ICC profile recorded. Now that same file is in my windows laptop, in a folder, and the properties dialogue reports "Uncalibrated". So explain as this has nothing here to do with affinity.

When I worked with Epson 3800 I spent countless moments and sheets of Hahnemuhle and Permajet paper looking for optimal prints for my images for a gallery. Not only testing resolution between 300 and 360 as a matter of interest, but quality of paper and the resolution and white points of those papers. A very basic concusion for you are the following points: Assuming that you are working with a good image from raw in the first place, the variables involved are very much dependent upon the Type of Image, Black and white, soft tones, in your face contrast tones, shades, many colours or just a few colours, toned images, gentle gradations and so on. My findings were this, for some of those images I printed at 240 PPI in order to increase the size of my image and when compared to 360 there was not one iota of difference unless I walked right up to the image and analysed a square inch of it. 300 or 360 often made no difference except when I viewed them with an 8x Loupe, (used to view negatives before printing in a darkroom). People viewing photography stand Back from the image to view it, not up close with a Loupe. Printing an image at 700 PPI no I have never ever done this . Mainly because I had enough training to see that this was useless. Each image needs a different approach, some will respond better with 360ppi and with others no noticeable difference would warrant one to go back and add an extra 60 pixels to a 300 px img. On a technical note ultimately the Printer driver will take those pixels and translate them into DPI, and yes a 720 dpi setting is better. But having said that, a 600 dpi printer can print just as well as a 720 dpi printer, they are not all hard and fast variables. What I am failing to understand is this, Your original question - " When I print directly from Affinity Publisher the quality is horrible." When this happens it is my experience that a colour managed workflow is usually the problem and it is my experience from another forum (a Photography forum) that so many people begin a new topic with this question and 90% of the time, they have missed something in their colour managed workflow. The fact that your pdf came out as expected tells me that something must be wrong in the affinity setup, this narrows it down. So maybe you could, as I asked earlier, give me that file and I will gladly take a look at it and print it also on my printer.

So what may I ask does this mean in practical terms? Forgive the digression here, but in your original post you mentioned: "Is there a way to make sure that the embedded colorspace is available to Windows Properties as well as various online browsers etc.?" Online browsers will assume an s"RGB colour space at all times, even with untagged images they will be viewed in that colour space. Anyway, the question remains, what difference would any of this make to designers and photographers in the workflow? I notice the profile creator in both documents was different, one was HP the other ICMS. Why the difference?

Ok sorry then. I apologise for the useless information. All I can say is that I have been trying to demonstrate that this exif information does not affect the quality of output at all. I have digressed picking up on a point or two that you mentioned and forgive me for missing the target. As by way of interest, I have been the only one to reply so far so I am not showing a lack of interest simply attempting to point you to two sites of many more sites where you would find this information. Sorry, also that comment about windows photos was an ad lib thought. Apologies for that as well.

Hi there, no that 720 dpi is not the same as 720 in publisher. 360 pixels will be translated by the printer into however many dots per inch it can handle. Not a single Professional or semi-professional or colour mangement person will ever send a 720 ppi image to a printer. That 720 gives finer detail --whoops I have to shoot and go sorry................. Back again, was interupted. Keeping it short, scour the internet for articles by colour management people, photographers semi and professional, you will never find a single one of these people placing images at any highr than 360 ppi, 360 is the optimum for any image if the image is already good quality that is. DPI and PPI are utterly totally two different measurements and the DPI setting is Publsiher has nothing to do with the printer because Affinity have labelled it DPI instead of PPI. The internet is filled with all this information so I have no need to re-write what is commonly known.

I do not have the mental stamina to indulge in complexites this deep under the hood so I took the liberty of surfing the web and came up with this: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117152.20 Windows Photos is not ICC aware, and this https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/32-digital-processing-software-printing/345995-color-representation-uncalibrated-srgb-vs-adobe-rgb-washed-out-color-etc.html there are quite a lot of tech articles on the web so you should somewhere firnd peace of mind regarding your issues. Hope this helps to get you started.

Well Otto all I can say is this: I work in Raw, edit in PS 16 bit adobergb1998. I save the layered files and duplicate these and convert to whatever I need, 8 bit Tiffs is the usual for me. I then export to windows from my mac, import into publisher ensuring that all PPI resolutions are synchronized and bobs me uncle, they print out as expected. Now when I look at some of these images in windows properties I too am baffled by the fact that this cheeseburger of an operating system seems to think it knows best and assigns the uncallibrated bit, to others it does not. A mystery I can live with being that this does not affect the quality of my workflow at all. The only extra thing I can add is that this info in properties is exif data, from the image at the point it was captured, whether uncallibrated has anything to do with the fact that RAW has no need of a colour profile and is not in itself a colour profile at all, maybe this is what windows has done, I have no idea. Sorry that I can not be of any real help here.

Hi Mark, this is a real stab in the dark because I have no experience at all with Ipad, nor photo nor designer. Taking the plunge based on my experience working with PSD files I would first check to see if you had layers still in tact when you saved it? Then I would check to see if you had saved the PSD with an alpha channel. PSD and TIFF do not open correctly in publisher if they were saved with alpha channels still in tact, this is not an issue really since once saved and edited an alpha channel can then be discarded for flattening purposes and exporting to wherever. Apart from ths I would not know.

I would not worry at all about that "uncallibrated" notice. It does not affect the image at all. I have some photos in windows that have this notice even though I know for certain that they have an adobeRGB1998 profile tagged. As far as s'RGB is concerned this colour space will be included in your image as long as you have it assigned to that image regardless of Windows silliness, (Windows mac-cheeseburger gets so many things wrong so don't worry). Now for the ProPhotRGB colour space. A complete waste of time with a jpeg file. Firstly if you have edited that image from RAW and assigned it the prophotRGB space then need to convert to jpeg this is fine. But if your Image began its miserable existence as a JPEG file, then prophoto will have absolutely no benefit at all ok? As long as you assign, not convert, then the s"RGB space will stay hugging your image for as long as they both shall live.

Hallo there Walt, Yes I tried drop cap function but find it limited in creativity and intermediate sizing between the default sizes given are not possible, at least as far as I am aware. Spell checking I really don't need, yes yes I do make mistakes but I spell check as I go along and then do a final one at the end. I suppose I like to treat the drop p as an image rather than a letter that I can manipulate independently of the text rather than seeing the text go awry just because I make an alteration, doe this make sense?

It is zoomed in quite a bit. Text box is small because it forms a drop cap and precision is key here so the text frame must be tight against the letter. I really hope all this explanation will quell your thirst for further queries.

I aggree, the cross hairs method is fine for normal text boxes, glad to have heard about it. But as this demonstration shows, not feasibe with tiny text boxes.

Thats great if your text box isn't Microscopic when doing a drop cap, and placing it over another text box - hard to pick up the edges.

My designs are often multiple text frames and being able to move each one as I type into each one is handy. Its not just a single text frame on a page. But your tips are apreciated Walt. Esc + V that is quicker than what I am used to doing Walt. Great.

Yes 360 is the optimal and best resolution for the epson 3880 as long as the original image has the pixels for it. Changing the doc settings to 720 in publisher will not help, anything above 360 ppi is a complete waste of time since the printer driver will then just discard pixels if it can only print at 300 ppi. And this applies to even the epson 3880, above 360 is a waste of pixels. I really need to ask the size of your original image in pixels and ppi as output from your camera. Also you pointed to colours as being 'Impure' , please explain that point. Which colours are involved. A screen shot might be helpful, or even the original file and I will take a look at it for you.

Hi, is there a mouse-click + keyboard shortcut for a very common action. This is where you are writing text in a text box and you need to move the text box frequently. I always have to keep switching between the text tool and the Black pointer arrow to move a text box now for months and never thought to ask. Looking through a list of keyboard actions I see that shift + Click and Alt +Click are taken.

Just maybe when you created the document it was set to what you see here? This explains the 72ppi.

If you wish to expand upon this point in more detail I may be able to help.

Hallo Bruce, I have never ever heard of this. I assume its a fancy expression for maybe just a seperate text box? Or is that the top letter in your example. I can make a custom drop cap, but am curious as what you meant.

Actually there are, in the print dialogue box: Also may I ask what is the resolution of your placed image? What is the resolution defined in Document setup? I print directly from Publisher on win 10. Always have very pleasing results with all images. So something is amiss somewhere and I am at this point wondering whether there might be something in the workflow.

Hallo there Thomahawk, There have been a number of threads about this. Here are two that I found. Apparently the development team are aware of this. Affinity Publisher still in toddler stage I'm afraid. Take note of both MEB and Chris K comments.

Don't ya aall ride horses in Texas? I mean here, for exercise, we go for a morning jog in the mist and drizzle, but you texans saddle up and chase bulls over a sun scorched plain. Mmm...so what has this to do with brakes? Nothing really I suppose.