Steps

Rasterize kills quality. I want to keep it an Image Layer and rasterize only in the final PDF Export for my printer.

There is nothing creative about having to do three clicks more every time to reach the same goal as in another software. Struggling with that and not getting help from the software is by definition cumbersome. I am clear what I want: Having a mode where my image edges cannot leave the picture frame. This is a default in many other software and not esoteric. And I just want a tiny Checkbox to operate in that very useful mode to save clicks. I want to crop, but not to expand the image. What dou you not unterstand about that??

I fugured out how it is meant to be done and think it is a behaviour I would not expect and want for good reasons. Doing it different here is way more cumbersome. I have to watch closely that my picture does not leave the frame. I do not see how to achieve what I want here on an alternative easy way. I do not mean to take anybodys feeedom. I just want an option or configuratuon possibility to restrain the image into the frame so that I can work faster on the Photobook use case which is a subset of things that should be possible with a publishing software. Its frustrating that nobody sees my point. Maybe Publisher is not suitable for easy Photobook creation and not meant to be... @Chris_K What is Affinitys position here?

I still see end user photobook software as a kind of desktop publishing software. The things you do with it are basicly the same. Many photobook printers accept InDesign PDF because of that. I see no reason why a "professional" software should be harder to use or more cumbersome than other Software. Here I want to crop and scale with Picture Frame, but I do not want to to add more border/pixels as shown in my first post. This is not possible?

Regarding that I think of the pretty simple photobook Software my printer service wants me to use. I can add a shadow and a outline (with Color picker) to a picture. It's just in a right-click context menu. Pretty easy to understand for everyone. The drawback is by changing my mind about color or shadow properties I need to touch every picture manually. Also I need to do it initially for every picture. Simple, but inefficient. On the other hand Publisher has Color swatches and Styles that can be saved and apllied in batches. You can work faster with that, but it it takes significant mind space to learn this complex system when you just want a simple shadow. Another software from my ex printing Service at least had a checkbox with "Also apply to all images on page" to be less inefficient. --- Currently the joke is since Paste FX and Styles are broken/buggy I also touch every damn Image for shadow and outline. I may stop using the beta until it is fixed.

Beside the price tag the Quality will be important, too. My enthusiasm is a little bit dampered every time someone answers in a topic "Yes, thats a known problem in Affinity Photo too and never got fixed". I will closely watch the development and see how many bugs reported here will be fixed until release. This will be important. If they would release it right now I won't buy since it's buggy and not easy to use with many inconsistencies. So I expect a long beta time.

I find it strange that I can move the Image in an picture frame so freely it even must not be visible. I would expect that I the Image should not be able to leave the borders of the picture frame. This also means that I should not be able to scale the image to be smaller than my picture frame. The way it's now its very cumbersome to place the photo the way I want. Picture Frame is currently only a mask for an image where it should be a real frame in that regard. Several photobook creation software from printers behave this way and so I think Publisher should at least have an option to enable that. Before someone mentions it: The scaling options in "Properties" do not help me here in any way.

I don't know what you mean. The "Placement" of all my files is "Linked" and I accidently deleted that file. This makes it "Missing". I only can "Replace..." it with the opening the original file. There is no option to export it from the file. I know that the resources are always embedded and "Linked" is just a way to update them in the document if they are changed from the outside. On a side note this is a very useful feature as I often work of them in Photoshop after seeing the final result in a printable PDF. So I still think there should be a "Export" button to get the file back.

What is PP? PowerPoint? EDIT: PP aka PagePlus... ok, got it.

I see great potential for Publisher to be an easy to use software. Right now it's pretty cumbersome as many options are not "at your fingertips", missing in context menus, have a misleading label or just do Not support a "natural way". For example you cannot drag assets into the panel and have to use "Add to selection" which you will not find without help. This is typical for the overall state of Publisher. I try my best to help them.

@Chris_K San you log this to the devs, please? I do not understand how this is broken and nobody cares.

I accidently deleted one of my photos used in an Publisher document. Now it shows up as "Status" = "Missing". I want to export the original resource thats embedded into the document. So it would be nice to have a button to do that in the resource manager.

Nice that this is working. Rather than document it a real import for ICC profiles in user space would make more sense as not everybody is a local admin to change the system. However: How is soft proof meant to be done? I tried it with PDF exports, but since I don't have a good tool it's cumbersome to do so. I would Publisher expect to have a soft proof functionality on board where I can press and holding a key down to see the colors with another ICC profile. So I would know where I have to change things.

You mean for softproof, right? I looked for that, too, and found that you can do it by embedding it into the PDF at export time. At least I think it has to be done this way... And for the topic: +1 I would like to ask my book publisher for a official profile, too. They already offer that for InDesign. So maybe an additional import would be nice, too.

Where did you see that?

Do you calculate how many fake accounts you need to request that feature again? No, seriously, I never encountered any 32-bit software that did not run on a 64-bit system. I run 32-bit Photoshop Elements 12 on 64-bit OS.

@Chris B Please tell me you can see and reproduce this problem. This one really gets me mad. :-D

What do you mean by "border"? The only thing I can see is applying the Layer Effect "Outline". Beware: Layer Effects currently are broken when you try to copy them with "paste FX".

@Chris B Okay, now as I understood what this does I know where the problem with this feature is. To call the option "Convert to Picture Frame" is a straight-up lie as this is not what happens. If the option would be called "Wrap into Picture Frame" I would have known what to expect. A Image Layer never ever can't be converted into something else than a "Curve". I strongly suggest to change the label of the menu item to reflect what really happens. Less confusion.

@Chris_K Yes, I know that. It's missing in the context menu of a layer. This is inconsistent as I would expect it to have the same menu items as "Layer > Alignment". This is true for the other options. So I consider this a bug.

You can call it OCD if you like, but if I have a group of two images in my collage I want one rotated by 3° and the other one by -3° with some overlap. I would see that the angle is not exactly the same and it would annoy me. And as you mention it: Yes, I also want a picture to be exactly 15x10 cm and not 14,975 x 9,955 cm as this is somehow unexactly. Even if no one else will ever notice that, I know it's there.

Ok, you're right. I meant "snapping". I want to configure the snapping granularity. @thomaso Du musst ja jedes Wort auf die Goldwaage legen.

I work on a picture collage with many layer on one page and I noticed that these measurement guides that show up when you move an object by keyboard are a mess. There is currently no way to control them in any way and they seem to measure just random distances. Sometimes I'm lucky and the distance I want to know shows up (for e.g. to my margin), but most of the time it's cluttered. Am I the only one with this problem?

Nice catch. Corrected.

Oh! I did oversee that. Nice one. Thank you. Everything is good. :-)