Steps

@ToOldForThis As @walt.farrell pointed out the Picture Frame is not broken. I think it has just bad usuability. This two-move-tool issue is very confusing. But that is already with the devs, so let's see how they will improve it. The problem that the frame borders are not visible during moving of the Image inside the frame is indeed annoying. This was also mentioned before, but I'm not sure if Serif will look into that, too. I hope so. If it's still there with the next version I'm going to pull up the topic.

Yeah, Easy Paint seems to have a nice solution. Photoshop Elements gives you this on RMB: There is much need to scroll wheel and with a slider you feel to be more in control.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but did you know more and more AAA games actually add this to their games? https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/3d0suk/why_did_chromatic_aberration_become_so_prevalent/

Can you give screenshots how that looks like in Photoshop? In Photoshop Elements you just can change the brush type with RMB which is IMHO of little use.

I think there is a space left in the context menu for this and former users of Photoshop Elements will find their way a bit quicker if you add it also there.

Which review do you refer to? I do not use that software, but quick googling shows up many 4 star ratings. Not too bad I think.

I did not mean you. With "reviews" I really think of that what magazines / blogs like Macworld, TopTenReviews, dpreview and others write. People will listen to that.

Exactly. Releasing it now would result in a lot of bad and angry reviews as Publisher gets unstable and unreliable at a certain point. This would only result in refunds and image loss. During beta you are told to expect that and you paid nothing. You fill a bug report instead of write a bad review. Total different situation.

Hi Dennis, You wrote "Today was the first time I have seen several posts on Adobe Family stating that they were leaving Adobe in favor of Affinity if Affinity can do what they need." and I just wanted to read about that discussion on Adobe forums. I was interested in their statements. As I did not find that I asked for a link. What is the limited value? I don't see what you mean. I consider comparisons like this to be pure bullshit. Affinity is a "tog boat" or a "caboose"? This is of limited value. What is the purpose of your post anyway? Do you want to start the 1001st Affinity Photo vs Photoshop thread? We already know they are different. The only interesting feedback in that regard is which features from Photoshop are really missing in APhoto and why. (I also have some on my list) --- By searching I only find very short postings started by you complaining about Adobe. https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/affinity-desktop-photoshop-look-a-like-software And you seem not to be to happy with Affinity either. Maybe it's just hard to please you.

AppleScript is problematic but there are plenty of alternatives. Here is a long in depth discussion on this. There is not really much more to add to this topic.

No offense, but it's important to you. Maybe Publisher in it's first version is not for you if you can't do without that.

Interesting. My document also has 200 images, but bigger ones. Document size is around 500 MB. Until now I was thinking it has to do with the file size, but it may be the amount of images regardless of their size. After rasterizing all images there were no crashes anymore. I think Publisher has a serious problem with 200+ images in a document. I gave my file to @Jon P but he had no luck reproducing my problem. Maybe you also can share your file. You find a private link on the other topic.

Yeah, I just ordered a 80+ page photobook with more than 200 photos. I consider that a huge publication. I put it to a real stress test, but sadly it failed half way due to memory and stability issues. To continue my work I had to do workarounds like rasterize everything to reduce stress to it. If I would have a business I would not trust Publisher right now. It is just not ready. But take the risk if you think so.

It's not a "problem", it's just not ready. It's a good thing that Serif take their time to polish Publisher. I'm confident it will become a great tool at release, but right now it needs more love. And that needs time. Everything is fine.

I wonder who with a serious business would take that risk. It's a beta!

Most likely the same issue as here. How big is that file?

Translations are in the making and to come during beta? Interesting. I thought they may be ready and you wanted for easier development screenshots in your language.

@foddomanoo I agree. I used Publisher to create a 86 page photo book and placed over 200 photos. I somehow learned how to use this functionality, but it still feels not good. The system used in PagePlus X9 has a way better usability. I know people so not like to hear that, but this is how I feel.

@Chris B Sorry, no offense, but your answer makes no sense to me. If I zoom with Ctrl-9 every pixel of the document corresponds already with a pixel of my monitor. So I see a live rescaled version. Rasterising should not have a visible change on THIS zoom level. Maybe rasterising does it with bilinear resampler and the much sharper preview uses bicubic? I want it to look the same after rasterize.

This Photoshop vs APhoto discussion in this board is old and repetive. Let's not start that again as all has been said in other topics. More interesting to me would be a proof that on the other side this discussion also happens. But there was no link provided and I did not find that.

Link?

Some applications allow exporting PDFs for a fast web view if you want to share them over a link. I noticed currently Affinity does not optimize the PDFs for that and there seems to be no option to enable it. This might be a improvement to the PDF export.

To avoid performance problems I needed to rasterise my images in the document. I somehow noticed that they get a bit blurry due to this which surprises me. I have a placed Image with 900 DPI in an 301 DPI document. I zoom using Ctrl-9 to pixel size I use the "Rasterise..." from context menu I notice that the image gets a bit blurry. I would not expect that because on this zoom level one pixel of my screen corresponds to one pixel in the document. I would have expected that on this level (and zoomed out) I would not be able to see any difference. It should only get blurry if I zoom further in (for obvious reasons). Can I configure somehow options how I like the rasterisation to be? Like the resampler or something? I can't see this effect on all images, but some. Could there be a bug in the rasterisation process? Maybe using wrong DPI to rasterise to or something?

Agreed.

Because InDesign is capable of everything professionals need. Microsoft Publisher is more or less a toy.