Brad Brighton

As I said in my first post "On desktop browsers..." There's no such thing as hover on touch devices.
Not being helpful to everyone is not the same as not being helpful to anyone

Hey @Callum this is from my post in the moderators lounge. It's deliberately been added. It can go if it's disliked by Serif Staff
On desktop browsers you can hover over acronyms to see what was meant (they are not case sensitive, except AD and AP)
A list of acronyms
AD ADe AP APh  APu afphoto afdesign afpub .afphoto .afpub .afdesign These only affect NEW posts as they are parsed when they are made
Thoughts?

That's a sane start but there are other variables that could complicate the situation, such as what you've changed along the way in the native APh files, both intentionally and "randomly" attempting to solve the problem.
If you want to try setting the export profile to sRGB first and testing your satisfaction with the result, that's a good first step. If subsequent steps are needed, you'll be best served by posting the afphoto file(s) here so forum denizens have an opportunity to look a little more deeply into what your current state of affairs is.

Fear not @tiger01vincent, this is because Microsoft Windows is made by clowns. Affinity Photo is colour managed - Windows Picture Viewer is not. Can you believe it? Why the Hell do they (Microsoft) not use settings from their own operating system. Much of Windows is not colour managed. The only internet browser I know of that is totally (!!!) color managed is Opera.
Look at these two representations of the same image. Left Affinity Photo showing the picture that is shown totally wrong to the right in Microsofts viewer. The roses are waaaay too saturated etc. etc.

My guess is that you have a monitor profile set up in Windows and perhaps a wide gamut monitor? If you do have a correctly configured profile, Affinity Photo/Designer/Publisher will use the monitor profile. You should also be able to see the image correctly in Chrome.
 

Exported with this ICC now, is that what you ment by sRGB?
And it is still too saturated compared to inside Affinity photo...

Thanks for bearing with me... I finally understand (I think) where my misunderstanding lies.
Apparently I am more focused on the task than on the exact size of the white bounding circle because it indeed does change with relation to hardness. It took setting up a video and comparing directly for me to realize this.
As a general statement, you're already measuring it, to my mind, when you decide what the new representation of the bounding circle on the screen is.
I can't say I know of other software that does differently as I've never noticed the need to look this closely before and even if it does behave differently than other software, now that I realize how THIS works,  can deal with it. If changes were going to be offered though, I'd go one of two ways; the first (and likely the least intrusive to existing behaviors) would be a second circle that marks the true outside bounds (the end of the feathering). The two circles would be the same size at 100% hardness and diverge from there. The second of the two ways would be a user-selectable toggle (current behavior should be the default) that turns the single bounding circle into a true bounding circle, always representing the outside edge of the effect of the brush.
My ultimate wish is to see a visual demarcation of the bounds of the effect even, (or especially) in the case where the changes may not be noticeable on the particular monitor or to a given set of eyes even though modifications are being made.
THANK YOU for all your help and I apologize for being "that person" this time. I'm considering this thread completed unless there's something useful to you to continue it.

My apologies.
Let's say we have a 450 px Width brush at 100% hardness. When we paint, the paint fills the entire bounding circle.
Now let's change the hardness to 0%. When we paint, the brush width is still 450 px but the bounding circle is smaller. This means that the area inside the bounding circle should be almost solid leading into a less-solid area which eventually begins to feather.
However, you should notice that the feathering is never bigger than the original brush when painting with 100% hardness.
If we constrained the feathering to fit withinside the bounding circle, how do we measure where the solid fill ends and the feathering begins within said bounding circle?
Do you have any other software that does it differently? Or know of any? If so, it might be worth us looking into it. The only worry I would have is changing the behaviour for everyone if they are used to how it currently is.

Hi Brad,
Well if you feel like there is a difference we need to investigate! I'll look forward to the video  Cheers! 

Hi @Chris B,
Thanks for weighing in. I re-tested before I posted my most recent followup so I'll see if I can put a video together for it. I don't know if I'm misinterpreting what I'm seeing or what, but I feel like I'm definitely seeing a difference in behavior between the two versions. 

One thing about this that's certain to cause you to pull some hair out... if your print shop is using a different printer, print process, and/or paper than your manufacturer, your test proofs from the print shop will be of limited (but not zero) value. The process you're going through now, learning how to know what factors are negatively impacting the results is invaluable, especially being able to learn it on the small-scale.
However, the manufacturer's print mechanism will have its own profiles, paper, inks, etc. and while you'll have a much stronger understanding of the process when you start working with them in detail, you'll still have to go through the process. Make certain that your manufacturer has "proof creation and acceptance" as a milestone before the mass print run.

Tried and tested. The level of detail at which each of the suggestions needs to be applied will vary depending on a variety of factors, including but not limited to:
the range of colors in your original images how far off from "true" your monitor is (that is, what you see) vs the mathematical representation of the underlying actual colors used the type and quality of the output substrate (glossy labels will present colors differently than matte fine art paper, etc) how critical color reproduction is for your end result ("different from the screen" and "not an acceptable result" _may_ be different levels of judgement) You expressed a frustration at the detail being thrown at you; that's understandable. The world of color management is obtuse and only made worse by the relative ease with which high-gamut material (photos, designs) can be created these days that look spectacular on a light-based display but will wash out on pigment-based output. Still, if you're doing any sort of non-trivial print, learning the basics (and beyond if you choose) will make your print-creation-life if not easier, at least a little more predictable.

Tried and tested. The level of detail at which each of the suggestions needs to be applied will vary depending on a variety of factors, including but not limited to:
the range of colors in your original images how far off from "true" your monitor is (that is, what you see) vs the mathematical representation of the underlying actual colors used the type and quality of the output substrate (glossy labels will present colors differently than matte fine art paper, etc) how critical color reproduction is for your end result ("different from the screen" and "not an acceptable result" _may_ be different levels of judgement) You expressed a frustration at the detail being thrown at you; that's understandable. The world of color management is obtuse and only made worse by the relative ease with which high-gamut material (photos, designs) can be created these days that look spectacular on a light-based display but will wash out on pigment-based output. Still, if you're doing any sort of non-trivial print, learning the basics (and beyond if you choose) will make your print-creation-life if not easier, at least a little more predictable.

Tried and tested. The level of detail at which each of the suggestions needs to be applied will vary depending on a variety of factors, including but not limited to:
the range of colors in your original images how far off from "true" your monitor is (that is, what you see) vs the mathematical representation of the underlying actual colors used the type and quality of the output substrate (glossy labels will present colors differently than matte fine art paper, etc) how critical color reproduction is for your end result ("different from the screen" and "not an acceptable result" _may_ be different levels of judgement) You expressed a frustration at the detail being thrown at you; that's understandable. The world of color management is obtuse and only made worse by the relative ease with which high-gamut material (photos, designs) can be created these days that look spectacular on a light-based display but will wash out on pigment-based output. Still, if you're doing any sort of non-trivial print, learning the basics (and beyond if you choose) will make your print-creation-life if not easier, at least a little more predictable.

@brad thanks for your calm insight. I am frustrated. I am designing a board game and have spent money on art that may be darker than I thought and need to correct it. So this is very much a matter of perception  rather than precision.
@RCR I will definitely look at cambridgeincolour.com and have already started.
@walt I am disappointed in the print shop too. It is fully professional with the full range of products you’d expect from a print shop but I sometimes wonder about the attitude of the owner. It’s just around the corner from me, so very convenient, but I really hate going there because they don’t seem to be interested in the end product I want to achieve. 

Tried and tested. The level of detail at which each of the suggestions needs to be applied will vary depending on a variety of factors, including but not limited to:
the range of colors in your original images how far off from "true" your monitor is (that is, what you see) vs the mathematical representation of the underlying actual colors used the type and quality of the output substrate (glossy labels will present colors differently than matte fine art paper, etc) how critical color reproduction is for your end result ("different from the screen" and "not an acceptable result" _may_ be different levels of judgement) You expressed a frustration at the detail being thrown at you; that's understandable. The world of color management is obtuse and only made worse by the relative ease with which high-gamut material (photos, designs) can be created these days that look spectacular on a light-based display but will wash out on pigment-based output. Still, if you're doing any sort of non-trivial print, learning the basics (and beyond if you choose) will make your print-creation-life if not easier, at least a little more predictable.

I do physical printing, but not (yet) via a print shop.
They are right (I think) that prints are darker than the image on the screen. I mentioned that indirectly earlier with my comment:
And merely using CMYK rather than RGB for your document profile won't address all of that. But it's possible it will get you closer.
I'm a bit disappointed that your print shop doesn't have more to offer. For example, saying "use CMYK" is quite vague, and incomplete. Your document also needs to have a color space (profile) specified.

Affinity Photo has many of the things you mention but not all of them. See the tutorial videos about RAW editing to get a feel for some of it. 
 
On the other side of the coin, since you talk already about a blended workflow, your camera manufacturer very likely has a RAW management/editing tool specifically designed for the type of RAW you're generating. One workflow would be to use Affinity Photo for everything it can do and fall back to the manufacturer's tools (for example, Digital Photo Professional from Canon if you shoot that gear) for the times when Affinity Photo is insufficient.
 

Hey Brad,
Good catch! I managed to get this straight away so I'll pass it to the developers. Thank you.

FWIW, note that this video uses an older version of Affinity Photo. There is also an updated "Placing Images" video for the 1.7.x version, but it does not really cover anything new in 1.7.
One new feature the OP may want to try I can't find demonstrated in any of the new tutorials. That feature is that you can now select multiple images at the same time to place in your document & then click or click & drag once for each of them to place them one at a time. This can save a lot time vs. selecting & placing them one at a time.

Hi Brad,

thank you very much for the file! I've reproduced that here and will get it logged. It might be an idea re-saving it as a new file without 'Save as History' ticked to clear it and then re-enable it. That will help avoid the crash when using the history going forwards!

An additional (possibly unhelpful due to lack of specificity) data point -- I also have been seeing glitches like the ones described here. The external monitor doesn't seem to show the flash; the built-in display on the MBP2018 does. I have all the graphics performance stuff turned on and primarily work with the Affinity windows on the external (except when I need the greatest color fidelity and move back to the laptop display). I can't yet tie the flash to any specific behavior or repro case (like closing the apps). macOS 10.14.6 / Radeon Pro Vega 20 4GB.

Thank you. Clicking the down arrow you provided in your reply fixed the problem!
 
Thanks again,
Chris 

Hi Brad,
This is now fixed in the latest version. Yes, we hope to improve things here eventually for old cameras/lens combinations but for now it's not possible, sorry.

The problem is that when you are working with different apps and switch between them (some workflows require that), you have to constantly change your habits when editing text. But I really don’t want to think about the ways I edit text. This is something that simply has to work in an automated fashion, just like talking works for most human beings. To me, editing text in Affinity Publisher is far from fluent at the moment. 
Custom shortcuts for navigating and selecting text will have to be implemented, at least at the moment when Publisher receives the long-awaited functionality required for typesetting long documents. Otherwise, I fear book typesetters won’t get on the boat … 

Hi Brad,
I'll get this logged for you. Thanks and sorry.