Search the Community

Welcome to the Liars Club everyone. Canva is a DIY replacement tool. You’ve just added your entire User Base to the replacement pool. All this time, big talk about professionals, standards, quality, NEVER a subscription model and more, turns out after all to be nothing more than any other Sellout. ‘Even when forced to purchase V2… and we all did, it was the product believed in “by professionals, for professionals” without being greedy like Adobe having subscription. And here we are. Canva has nothing your current Users need… as everything Canva can do, WE your Users (you know, the ones that kept you in business) already can do with current Affinity products. ‘All of the touting and Marketing, and support in MINDSET more than anything… of denying the Adobe Subscription greed train, is finally revealed. The only thing mildly good hearing this news, is you didn’t layoff your current Dev Staff… but that’s only because Canva HAS NONE to keep it functioning. ‘Guaranteed… as soon as the Subscription comes, and it WILL (we all know it), even your/they will be obsolete… so kudos. Makes perfect sense now as to why fixing or updating your iPad V2 hasn’t happened in several months to a year even though reported numerous times. All I know is, I purchased BOTH V1 and V2 of all three Affinity apps for iPad… not even the Universal License as some (which YOU recommended)… and expect to be able to use them in perpetuity as you claimed in writing. Else the term Class Action happens, which is typical where PROFESSIONALS are concerned. Enjoy your money Sellouts.

Most of the time it probably works, but is not of course the same as overprint. I probably misunderstood the "mindset" thing. This kind of talk somewhat reminds me of "having to" (whoever forces) do trivial business-oriented things in "Micro$oft way" and "think" "different" and be automatically "creative" when switching to Apple egosystem, using the exact same apps on that platform. Being forced to upgrade from Altsys/Aldus/Macromedia to monopolizing Adobe was not altogether bad experience at times when properly color managed PDF workflows were introduced (and were a bit later made non-proprietary ISO standards). For me the most attractive feature of Affinity apps has been that they feel instantly familiar because having copied as much as possible from Adobe apps, and that they additionally have some nice functional pluses that Adobe apps do not have. But talking about "Affinity" (a different) mindset (and possibly referring to things like Studio) does not make sense to me (I consider it a sales gimmick and a technological flaw in context or press production). Affinity mindset, if there is one, is "low cost non subscription". Production-wise it often means lots of workarounds, or "voodoo", as you put it. That is totally fine, considering the price, but to put it right, it often requires training in "Adobe mindset", that is, with industry standards.

Point taken, and I agree wholeheartedly. Until CC came along, I was quite happy with Adobe. Of course, exception being them killing my beloved FreeHand and forcing me into Illfrustrator… Here I have to disagree. Some paradigms have simply become ubiquitous, and possibly even Adobe has got them from elsewhere. Or they simply bought the company that invented them… You already likely know what my personal pet peeve is with Affinity: PDF export And obviously PDFlib simply isn't up to par with Adobe PDF. That's the main tragedy here. When I talk about the Schmadobe Mindset™ though, I mean the creative workflows. Regardless whether the intended output will eventually work out all right or not.

To put it humorously: You'll have to engage in voodoo! But seriously: There is some kind of a major flaw or bug when it comes to gradient overprint, and the workaround we've figured out some time ago is indeed close to voodoo. Check out my recent post here: Alternatively – if your printer accepts PDFs with transparency à la PDF/X-4 – you can use the Multiply blend mode which usually shouldn't rasterize anything below. https://affinity.help/designer2/en-US.lproj/pages/Layers/layerBlendModes.html https://affinity.help/designer2/en-US.lproj/pages/Clr/selectingClr.html In general, you really may want to read at least some chapters of the built-in help files and watch a few video tutorials. They really do help. For the record, it took me 5 years since I bought Designer in 2014 until I was ready to give up Adobe CS5.5. A significant part of the process is to forget about the Adobe Mindset™ because many of the so called Adobe "industry standard workflows" were in fact just decades old ugly workarounds. Been there done that, too. Whereas Serif was bold enough to try new workflows with Affinity. Some are frankly a bit hit-or-miss and some still have bugs but the overall concept of the "Affinity Trinity" was a smart move.

Ah, been there done that, too. Photoshop user from v2.5 until CS5.1, circa 1993 to 2019. It takes time to free oneself from the stiff Adobe Mindset™. It took me literally years after buying Affinity Designer in 2014 and Photo in 2015. Eventually with Publisher in Serif's portfolio I decided that it's time to move away from my aging Adobe CS5. Just take your time…

PS... I've just followed the link to download and installed 1.10.6. No charge! I had assumed that Affinity would be like Adobe's dollar-grasping mindset, but I was wrong.

Yes, it needs some tome to get used to. In Affinity, every object is a layer and vice versa. They can interact in many different ways. For example, many PS workflows that may involve pixel selections, masking, flood fills, you name it, are much easier done and faster in Affinity by using vector objects. This is because in fact, Affinity is just one app and one document format. The trinity of Photo/Designer/Publisher exist – apart from marketing reasons – only to define specific focus on users' respective needs. And to avoid app Featuritis™ and bloat. But still, even Photo retains the actual capabilities of its two siblings, even though it lacks some of the more specialized vector and typography tools. So, after literally freeing myself from decades of "Adobe mindset", some of the workflows I was previously using is PS/AI/ID now look to me like ugly workarounds. That doesn't apply to everything though. Many advanced (niche?) features known from Adobe apps are still missing in Affinity. And a bunch of "standard" workflows still require slightly annoying workarounds in Affinity. At the end of the day, the real Affinity "killer feature" is the "StudioLink": the seamless interoperability of the three apps. Try that with the indd/ai/psd file formats… You know, I bought each app – Designer, Photo, Publisher – right when they were introduced, i.e. starting with Designer in 2014. But it wasn't until late 2020 until I was ready to do the switch from Adobe. (The pandemic lockdowns have helped a bit, haha…) For various technical reasons, I still work on MacOS El Capitan, so the Adobe CS5.5 apps are still here, should I need them. That happens rarely, and mostly for converting my old INDD documents to IDML, or resaving native AI files with PDF preview for more compatibility. Oh, and Acrobat for PDF preflight. Also, while I bought the Affinity 2 universal license and installed all apps on a Catalina partition and on an iPad, I still continue to do all work with Affinity v1 until some of the current nasty bugs with v2 are resolved. But I actually expect that I might be doing more work on the iPad in the future, now that I have the Affinity suite there, too.

Mmm, that's slippery logic and I don't know that you understand how that can come across, Mark. Any legitimate feedback can be overlooked with that mindset. After all, what's problematic to take in can be averaged out by other feedback by sheer quantity. It's not a very good test for the quality of feedback and it can create bias and echo-chambers. Saying certain feedback methods are only outliers defeats the purpose of collecting different types of data. Also, social and particularly the forums are one of the main ways your most engaged and sensitive (for good or bad) clients can connect and are taking the time to be diligent with feedback. (People have to register to even post.) I'd like to think we're helping in to fill in a much larger picture, not whinge into empty space. Of course a portion of users will pick up the software because it's cheap (just being realistic), but if that's the option that is being offered, then it would all stop there. However, if a company is seeking to be an exceptional company that goes above and beyond beyond the perception of "good enough", then this approach should be broken. The posters also don't exist in a sandbox (no pun intended). They have had experiences with other software, they talk with other people in the industry, they work with them on a daily basis, they deal with clients, etc. I can say for myself that a lot of what I read here I have seen mirrored in perpetuity through social. Designers I watch make similar commentary and they're not necessarily influenced by what's popular on social. Many do know what works and doesn't work in the business. So I say this to say: Every customer should be treated the same and feedback should never be ignored or brushed off. Many of us left Adobe or won't deal with certain companies because they treat us the corporate way. It's the attitude of well there's 100 of these people, but for every 100 of them there's 100,000 of these and they are paying customers that don't complain. So get rekt, etc. Edit: That part is what people can be very reactive to and may be some of what you are seeing, because to some degree they've come to expect this mentality and are just waiting for the pin to drop. Instead of waiting, we dropped Adobe/other alternatives and came here hoping for something better. For me, I never thought of Affinity as an Adobe replacement. I'm really hoping it will be quite different. Edit: In case that wasn't clear for some reason, I'm characterizing the different-ness from Adobe as a good. Edit: BTW, I did want to make clear this isn't meant to put words in anyone's mouth or to cause a disagreement. So please DO NOT take it that direction. I just thought it might be constructive for the sake of discussion to point out how certain wordings can be so easily misconstrued even though it's not what we intended. I don't want anyone to feel bad. We offer our own filters and individual biases when we post. That's natural. That's why we need to take on all the feedback we possibly can and that's what makes it a discussion. That's the purpose.

Oh, tell me about that. After Adobe took Freehand from me, I never got used to Illustrator, even though I've been occasionally using it since v3 in the 1990s. Illustrator's "logic" never made sense to me. The Affinity concept is that every object is a layer. And thus vice versa, every "Layer" type of object is, well, an object. The obvious evidence for this concept is that you don't need to have any "Layer" objects at all. In that sense, everything is a "layer". Specifically, the "Layer" object is primarily used as a container without own vector attributes, i.e. it has no size or no fill. The slightly confusing thing here is that they have chosen to name the corresponding panel "Layers". Probably because naming it e.g. "Object Hierarchy Panel" would be too long, I don't know… As with every indoctrination and brainwashing, it takes a lot of time to escape it. After decades with Adobe, Macromedia, Quark and back to Aldus, it took me six years from buying the first version of Designer in 2014 until I was ready to make the switch. It's a switch of mindset. Many things can be done differently than what we've been told for so long. If you group a blank Layer object, then the Group object will become its parent layer, and the blank Layer object is inside the group as a child object of the Group. Basically, the object hierarchy is freely editable. Every object can be a parent or a child. With corresponding consequences, of course. Simply put, it's all just math. Huh? Frankly, there were/are a few bugs with moving objects in and out of layers or other objects. You need to be more specific and post e.g. a screencast of what you're doing, or an example document. Huh? (again) Of course you can. Even then, you don't have to do that either. Simply disable the Edit All Layers button, select one object inside the group, then Select All. The object selection will then affect only objects on that hierarchy level. This is by design: Selecting an object in the Layers panel selects it – or its children, depending on type of object – on the canvas/page/artboard. That's "by design" according to Serif. Likely the majority of forum users also disagree with this concept. I, for one, am impartial. I got used to it – aka indoctrinated, haha – and can deal with it by now. I like that I still can select locked objects. I don't like that I can't optionally lock them to be completely non-editable. Huh? (again) Turn off Preferences > General > Prefer To Keep Selection After Delete … download the trial affinity.serif.com/designer (scroll to the bottom) … and watch the tutorials affinity.serif.com/learn/designer

You can do all that in Affinity. It's just that many workflows are different to how other applications are functioning. Affinity is not an Adobe clone. Various Affinity settings or terminology may appear slightly illogical or confusing at first, as they won't do what a longtime Illustrator user (or Freehand, for that matter) would intuitively expect them to do based on previous experience. Trust me, been there done that… It takes time and a learning curve to adjust to the Affinity mindset. But apart from a bunch of slightly flawed "sub-concepts", overall there's logic in the Affinity way of things. Personally, it took me a few years to understand the big picture. Including pixel perfect workflows.

I did hit the Like icon in both of your posts for a very single reason : While not agreeing with several statements (I'm expanding about them below, because I believe some details are important to consider for us all), I have indeed explained before (years and months before) one very similar aspect to a part of what you say: Affinity pricing is... BETTER for large chunks of the world population. Not only for countries where having a roof or eating is already an issue to be fought everyday (I've quite first hand info about this, I help largely for certain stuff) , but also for large chunks of population in the first world. I am not sure if you ALSO love linux with a passion, you say it's all about giving the opportunity to artists without possibilities to pay Adobe's subscription, but it clearly reads as if you also really quite dislike already the other OSes, or specially, Windows (less negative mentions than Mac's world, but t hat's a constant among Linux people since always). And that is just fine. But I come from a point where I have intensively used both, and I like both (if anything, I like more Linux, as an OS, but don't have even the slightest idea to abandon Windows in a long time). I mean, I can tell you that it is only affected by that very fact my consideration of how this pricing does help already those areas and users! , despite being "only" (yikes!) on Windows/Mac/iOS. As ... sad to say, but a bunch there (both in 3rd/2nd world and poor areas in 1st world ones) use "fixed" Windows licenses, there where the governments are mostly failed and can't control that, not even at business level! they've enough to fight the revolts and try that the 80% of their population stops starving. This happens in more corners. Meaning other ones crossing several of the oceans around you.... Coding is on the raise, not just front end, and mostly due to AI and robots, big data and stuff, owning slowly the world, this is going to keep increasing the demand of coders, besides that the whole IT thing and structure gets more complex itself, and more coding is needed. Python is too in very high (#1 or almost) demand, as keeps being java, and both quite well paid. But yeah, imo is global, coding is on the raise, making graphics... saturated. In the web it (graphic design) got killed largely tho (the web designer figure sort of disappeared) when the frameworks, bootstrap and other stuff took place. The graphically heavy and CSS wizardry + graphics craft (a profession for a bunch of us...it was) kind of lost all of its importance. Today is mostly putting pre-made (in code and graphics) components together with the help to mount it of UI/UX individuals or teams. Who often are not really high end graphic designers , but people capable to structure well information and user experience. You get offers with the profiles split, is becoming more common, now... surely due to experiencing the reality (already known a bunch of UI people not wanting to deal with the finished, fully rendering of graphics. Some don't even have the background for that, as come more from other professions, more UX or marketing related. )... Cases like several offers, same day and company: An UI/UX (which indeed is two profiles, but battle lost, there), a graphic designer for high end finished graphics, then the usual front end and back end or a full stack, instead) But imo that could be not the best mindset. In a saturated market you need to do (be it coding or graphics) what is not being solved, what others don't do, or be best at something where there's not so many people excelling at it. Or if staying in the saturated one, adding a differentiation value. Meaning, I think there's always chance, is a matter of how each one attacks the situation. Yet so, if you accumulate enough graphics-only profiles, when a field gets dry, you jump to offers in other profiles (2D, 3D, games, print, web, etc), and kind of deal with the dry years in A or B field, without needing to become a digital nomad. Still, I don't recommend it. Be it coding or whatever, moving to a profile or job of local (and /or global) high demand and not so high requirements is surely smarter. I did it the hard way, tho. Okay, this was quite an OT aspect of it, but IMO is a key matter and concern for a lot of students, pros and hobbyists. There's a ton of risk tho in getting into an entirely new platform, market, type of users, etc. So, kindda gets compensated, that advantage...at least. The Adobe but cheaper is understood in two ways. One the totally market unaware (the most dangerous for each individual, in real life) and another actually considering the market and its needs. We live in the world live in, and even people with certain very progressive ideology knows applying changes without realism can damage the most those who are already in the bottom of the pyramid. So, the market aware sense of that statement is the one knowing that it IS a market (clients, business, to generate income, to make each small design or whatever studio a reality) need to actually provide with a tool, for example, that REALLY can do at least the core functionality that Adobe Photoshop is capable of. NOT necessarily with the same approaches, but definitely covering the same market needs, high end stuff. In that way is not as much as making a PS clone, but DEFINITELY covering what the top pro apps DO cover. The stubbornness so characteristic of a large group of Linux users and devs has too often lead as all (all those wishing for Linux to have serious pro graphic software) to an stagnated point. For instance, the Gimp case.... because I "want to be different" is ok that I don't support a CMYK mode (crucial for many print workflows, and ONLY this year it's going to be added, and because is a Google Summer of code, if not, who knows, maybe in 2050.... ) , or how were Blender people takes at some matters and features back in the day: Max and Maya have it, but we don't need it... Luckily Blender is the one that has realized sooner and more decisively that they have to cover the top pro needs, even if so they can be called imitators for that (anyway, Blender does all things so differently that it'd be silly to say so. But the functionality IS covered) And I can very safely tell you... It's the hipster, romantic positioning about it (lack of pragmatism as damaging as a sharp knife for people in need in other countries) the one not standing "to look like PS". If you gave this people a Photoshop freakin exact clone, and telling them it's only 50 bucks, or a Gimp really achieving allthat, looking exactly like PS, but free, in both cases they'll thank you with tears in their eyes, to start using it just a second later. So... it's not in the ones at need who do need the UI to be "super original". They freakin need the functionality, and to be sth they can pay. Even if 53$ is a huge payment already for many of them, evenas a permanent license. But PS was 800 ! And they can video edit with Davinci, free although limited (zero cost while starting), Blender for free. Just for these fields they'd already need the 60 bucks monthly subscription every freaking month, and have ac onnection, etc, etc, etc. Impossible for incredibly large areas in the planet, I agree in that part. People also tend to remove credit to Adobe in having actually pushed the limits and what we could do in every area. They helped making the design and general graphics world to the level that we know today. It has helped to develop very advanced and complex workflows to produce very high end graphics. Making Adobe look like an all-evil , good-for nothing company often looks simplistic and unfair. At least for those in the job(s) and freelancing since 95, who have seen many fields grow thanks to Adobe software. And the tools actually evolve a lot : Indeed the issue is that people don't realize how high it has set the minimum standards, and how much work involves achieving all that in a fraction of the years for a much smaller team and company (near 24500 against...whatever the relatively small number Serif has). You are not talking then about pro graphic designers... but in your list... beware, there are also many very pro photographers, illustrators and many graphic oriented professionals, out of the US or Europe, and also the ones in those areas.That's a bazillion professionals working at that, from India, Africa, South and Central America, Australia, Russia, Japan, etc. Saying Adobe is not used by most of the creatives out there is an statement I would not dare to make, as I believe is exactly the opposite. At least the professional ones. I'd agree if you mean just regular users, without the need of the professional market, needing to make some lighter work than say, a AAA game artist is asked to do with PS at a top game company. BUT THEN...! we are talking about hobbyists, or users with similar level of requirements. And... For that, IMO, Gimp, Inkscape and Scribus are highly underrated. I have handled all corporate image and everything else with Gimp an Inkscape at a company, for many years, being there the only graphic pro. It was an absolute PITA, also due to the fact that back then these were WaAyY less evolved than now. And I wont even start with it about Blender (the hugest evolution I've seen in graphic OS). The Linux community leaves those almost unattended, while those have an immense potential. They do stuff that even Affinity tools don't have yet (some features). And there you have it, Gimp, 3 permanent coders (3!!! not 24k workers...of course, it'd be great with even just 20 (permanent, all year) of 'em...shame on you linux dev community (and users, as u get to pay these 3 through user donations... 3 salaries from donations in the entire WORLD!!!) and linux companies, you could do a lot better there if you'd have real interest on true open source graphic apps !) only at Gimp team... One main person at Synfig (which could become an Animate (Flash) for Linux) and the donations every month are ridiculously small despite being already a very complex and ambitious tool. It's actual Linux community not really caring much, why? A huge dominance of people focused on system, network and programming. Not graphics creation. Krita is another one in the right direction, and yet so has some issues that are surpassed since eons by even very basic Windows (and Mac) based painters. Many of the community are searching the solution in the wrong place, at closed source companies, instead of solve the problem at the heart of it: The linux dev community, and the already big linux based and linux related companies don't really care about actual real Linux open source respecting philosophy graphic tools, actual open source apps created since decades and with enough merit to receive a hundred times more attention, resources, people working and coding for it. It is way easier to blame (that's always easier than asume some things. And more romantic/epic looking) the neighbor, who has nothing to do with the movement and line of thought. Well, it has been always, since my first years. I've seen it so (and that converting to better salaries, influence in the company, and better everything) since '95, and the same (with its context differences) at game companies, advertising agencies, software developers (in Windows or Linux environments), etc. I would agree that's getting EVEN WORSE for graphic content creators in comparison to the importance perceived of coding, and increasing demand of programmers. A front end developer is not supposed to handle PS or After Effects. a designer, definitely. But since at least 2012 /2013 the split among those two fields, better said, loosing the graphics making requirement as become definitive. in any job offer, for the web... is rarely spelled so, "web designers"; is mostly UI/UX professionals. But those don't have to (usually) code. And they need to cover new fields of knowledge that a designer wouldn't (at the same time, often are required less and less high end rendered detail design. So, front-end have zero issues to work on Linux, Mac OS or Windows. Unless we do some heavy misplacing of the jobs areas, here. Of course, a freelance web professional, lets use that term, is increasingly being used so.... or directly, web designer (but those creating trends in tech frown upon it, sigh) as in the freelance - clients world is yet being mentioned, is indeed needing in his/her everyday to handle graphic applications and making all the gfx, unless out sourcing it to a colleague. Many are ONLY coders, and have indeed zero interest in even launching PS or whatever. They simply don't need it. I know even WordPress pros, earning A TON of money every month, and they don't do a single graphic. Indeed, a majority of them are of these characteristics. Hmmmm I know I totally could. Having made all the print and web work for a company during a decade, with quite older and inferior versions of graphic open source, I know it can be done, is just really hard. For JUST making graphics for personal work or ocassional freelancing (not full time freelancing as a job) , or as part of projects that need some graphic elements, already Inkscape and Gimp are very high end . I do ALL my 3D freelancing with Blender, indeed, currently, since quite some years. I believe there is a HUGE reason why a lot of people even SHOULDN'T fully migrate to Linux. Specially shcools... The market is... Adobe, full stop. The job market. Students should get skilled in market compliant tools, no matter if, besides, they become experts for home projects in low cost and open source tools. That indeed should be the right approach to not damage the future of these kids or teenagers. Every company out there, not only in EU and US, is using Adobe for actual business, professional activity. The worse, by very far, that you can do to a student is tell her/him that can forget about adobe, that should use alternatives. Then the companies simply DO NOT pick you, unless you are an exception, a jewel so rare that they will train you in Adobe, loosing that time, money and effort on you. Heck, I ain't a jewel, but I've worked at companies which did let me keep modeling in Wings3D (open source cross platform, btw) due to the fact that I provided what was required exceeding their expectations in quality and time. And yet so, it was very hard for me to do so, as you become instantly enemy of their system and habits. Any slight error, they are over you like beasts. That's a ton of stress, and also, is time you could be using to improve in what really is required in the job market : Adobe Photoshop, Zbrush, 3DS Max, InDesign (every agency I step in asks for it even for heavily graphic profiles!), After Effects (INCREASING in demand and pay!! , as much as coding, so is not like a whole field is damned. It goes per specific things), Premiere, etc. I had to spend a ton of time in the worst moment, bad timing, due to having been an enthusiast of Linux, free software, or the underdog at cheaper cost (no subscriptions back then, but tons of underdogs). I can only think it's a very bad route not to teach kids and teens (and older ones needing an actual job) the Adobe suite, indeed. All of it. Very independently of the fact that there would be or would be not Affinity Linux versions. So, even in the cases of schools deciding to teach, on Windows and Mac platforms, only Affinity and replacing Adobe. Bad , bad error. What would be an error too, would be to tell them to also use their Adobe student version for home/personal projects. No!. There's were they get their Affinity suite, Clip Studio, Blender, and other open source software. And freaking learn every bit of it, knowing they can go to every contest and every public project as is all legal. And even allows full commercial use, so to make some money for their expenses, unlike with academic software (Adobe, Autodesk, etc). The brain, and full understanding of what is 2D and 3D in its essence (that is not a button placed EXACTLY there) , evolves at much higher speed the more they need to change between UIs, specially if very different. Human brain is super flexible, if solidly taught to pro level at the school, they will be able to apply all those methods at home in the cheap alternative and free software, helping indeed to increase the knowledge base, the howtos in the new tools, but with the decades long existing pro workflows in the really complete and deep tools. That's how you enable a REAL alternative without leaving the kids jobless later on because every other candidate out there was taught the market standard tools to get a job. Which since long time, these are under the Adobe and Autodesk umbrellas, in 2D and 3D respectively. It is a very serious act of responsibility, indeed. I've been a teacher (for short time) and studied a lot (to get a vacant as a public teacher), I got to pass the exams very well, but our country's extra points system is peculiar, to say the least : I know about teaching, and I know this should be the way, for the students future, until the market changes very dramatically. Which doesn't seem likely for a very long time, if ever. They are IMO thriving thanks to filling important gaps. There is a ton of users not able / willing to pay a subscription. A lot, just already have a low pension...can't add on top on that.. (seems there are many older great people around ), others are in the other extreme, students who can't pay more for a hobby or personal projects tool. Others are indy game developers, others hobbyists photographers (maybe a majority). And only to mention a few (in these forums you can read many, many stories....) . It just happen to be the case that they are Mac and Windows users. So, they are indeed filling gaps that other were not filling... enough, let's say (Affinity is far from being the only alternative. Is not even the older among those, but probably the youngest). But yeah, Linux is yet another gap to fill. But if you notice, they seem to be focused now the efforts on Publisher, I guess as is the youngest application and the one needing more a push now, I suppose. By all signs we have, it just seems they are doing all they can for what their current, paying uses are requesting in their polls (I suppose, tho I believe I have never filled any) or however they track these things. If the sure source of income (current, not "potential", paying customers) tells them that their paying customers want a polished Publisher, the wrap / distort feature and outline stroke (improved) in Designer, some details in Photo, while yet porting all they can of the apps to each iOS version... is only natural to understand both the delays, and no desire to risk it all to an uncertain (in business terms, sorry, it IS uncertain) adventure. And happens like with some wished features. For some weird reason, people think that "can't do now", or "not doing it in the near future" means never. "Never" will rarely be the answer, as doing anything that even 10 user want can be 10 extra licenses. But is the cost of going one route or the other what a software dev measures carefully every day, if I remember well my years working at those. Most of us wish a Linux version. But to be sincere, if an app has an important matter to fix or add, to actually compete in the job and freelancing market, is of no use to release it in a bazillion different platforms until those minimal requirements are covered. Otherwise, that is, if people was not picky about fixing those or releasing stuff subpar in a new platform, people was capable (and fine with it) of creating their own hard workarounds for bugs and lacks of features, then people complaining here at this thread would be using Gimp, Scribus and Inkscape for ever, would not have visited these forums even a single time.

@Comet@ra.skill@Dalibor Puljiz@typeglyph I encourage you to check out Vectorstyler as you wait years for Affinity Designer (AD) to mature. As I wrote a little earlier in this thread, Vectorstyler (VS) is a terrific complimentary application to AD. VS has all the main vector tools and more that most any professional would need and copying and pasting between VS and AD is very easy. Others on this forum turned me on to VS a couple years ago and over the last year especially, it's really become more stable and productive. The VS developer is VERY receptive to new ideas, issues, bugs, problems, etc. He could use all the help anyone would offer. The forum on the VS site is full of helpful answers and dedicated users. Right now, AD is a little more polished and bug-free than VS, but VS has many times the tools and abilities of AD. VS is also not subscription-based. It's priced around 75-100 dollars and allows a year of updates at least. Like when Affinity hits 2.0, you can pay for the upgrade or keep using the existing purchase in perpetuity. We all seem to share the same mindset, that AD has been under-developed the last few years with some even wondering if it was being worked on at all. Right now I'm still using my copy of Adobe CS6 as needed, but doing as much of my work in VS and AD as possible. I kept waiting for AD to catch up and eventually I had to start looking for alternatives and I'm glad I did. I'm still an Affinity fan and will support them as they slowly work toward 2.0. That said, if 2.0 is not including a major upgrade in tools and features for AD, I may wait to purchase the upgrade until they do. Assuming the best, I see the last major upgrade with all the unsexy updates under the hood as the launching pad of new tools and features to come next. Fingers crossed. I don't see VS as a true rival of AD, more like two artistic weapons in the designer arsenal. I can foresee using a combination of Affinity (all three apps) and VS in the future for all my professional work eventually; because I have my doubts that AD will ever be the equivalent of an Adobe illustrator in terms of features and tools. To be honest, I see VS having surpassed Illustrator in abilities and tool options - though there are a few things it lacks and will be added in the 2.0 releases I'm sure....

But we're also still stuck in the "it's a page layout app only" mindset! But that's not all what Publisher is about, as you can have pixel layers and edit them natively within the Photo Persona. That's essentially a Good Thing™. However, it would be nice to have an option if you want to import your photos as plain pixel layers or directly into a Picture Frame. I think the new Merge Data mode goes into that direction, but I've downgraded back to 1.8.4 until just one day toying with v1.9. so I haven't played with it yet. My first DTP experience goes back to Aldus PageMaker 3 on a Macintosh SE/30 in a public University library in 1989… Currently I'm in the process of converting my regular projects from Adobe CS5(.5) to Affinity. For most parts it's manageable while at the same time I'm exploring all features, looking up solutions here in the forums, and commenting here myself. That's why I'm so active here at the moment, even though I've registered already 5 years ago. The more I'm diving deeper into the Affinity workflows, the more it starts to make sense. Many of my mindsets and muscle memories needs to be reprogrammed and that takes time and quite some learning curve. That's OK. I'm self-employed – partially as a musician as well – and have thus now plenty of time due to those worldwide "circumstances" we all know about… Now if only Serif would finally fix all those long known [insert expletive here] bugs already… Definitely my argument as well. I could only afford Adobe apps because I was deliberately skipping upgrades until the "last minute"! 2001: "Adobe Design Collection" (PS7, ID2, AC5, AI10) 2007: Adobe CS3, but upgraded each app individually which was cheaper than buying the monolithic suite upgrade! 2011: Adobe CS5.5, same as above featuring a Black Friday discount! Skipped CS6. Never jumped onto CC apart from some of the freebies available on iOS. When CC came, I made a calculation how much I would have paid if the CC subscription model were here ever since I bought the Collection in 2001. That would have been pretty expensive. But I'm just not the kind of a graphic design workaholic to make a subscription affordable for how I make a living, being also just as a passionate musician and sound engineer. Hence Affinity. The best alternative thus far. [/offtopic] [/rant]

Well, similar here. But that is often at the root of the problem. Step one to successful mastering of the Affinity concept is to forget the Schmadobe Mindset™. Desperately trying to do things the "Adobe way" is only hindering you in understanding the Affinity workflows. Trust me, been there done that. It took me 6 years (!) since I bought Affinity Designer in 2014 until I was mentally ready to "give in". The video tutorials and these forums were very helpful in the process. On the other hand, if one prefers it the Adobe way, that's all right. Just keep on using the Adobe tools then. They are good. That comes – literally – with a steep price, of course. (Which I, for one, am not willing to pay. Hence Affinity now.) That all said, there is a lot of room for improvement, of course. That's why we're here, posting about our findings, bugs, UI inconsistencies etc. Serif staff is reading and taking note, sometimes commenting or helping. Anyway. Here's a screencast I made a few weeks ago where I demonstrated the use of transparencies in gradients in context of a non-destructive mask: aph_gradient_fill_mask.mov But the gradient fill UI could definitely need improvement, as I've pointed out in this post:

Yeah, that's what I've been doing for the past few months, after finally deciding it's time to leave Adobe CS5 behind for good, wherever possible. Sadly, in certain specific workflows it's still not possible, either due to silly bugs or missing specific tools. But the general "key to successful Affinity transition" seems to be getting rid of what I call the Schmadobe Mindset™, after being brainwashed for the past two or three decades with their vision of DTP. Some Affinity workflows are different, and if you're coming from Adobe, "unusual" at first. But mostly they work just as well, sometimes even better. At least compared to CS5. (Disclosure: I was a "Freehand guy" before Adobe killed it. There never was any "love" for Illfrustrator on my part. Except that some of its tools "just work", reliably.)

You have a point here – regrettably Freehand wasn't too good at exporting to PDF (but eventually you COULD establish a proper workflow and get your – generally working – PDFs to your printers' shops). Can't remember anymore, though, if that actually required FH MX to work... I think, however, I eventually switched to InDesign from FH9... For me working with transparency was sort of awkward in FH and so way back then I didn't use the concept very often. That has always been so much better in the Adobe apps (at least in my opinion). BTW (as I just think of it): Freehand already had conical gradients (just as Affinity has now) decades ago and it has always been quite a pain in the butt to achieve something similar in AI (Adobe didn't seem to care, though...). But then, thanks to Designer, Photo and Publisher, today it's me who doesn't care anymore if they finally implemented the option... But as you say: it IS mostly fun to work in the Affinity apps – especially regarding transparency – and I do not regret having (except for legacy files/projects) switched to Affinity. You have to get the hang of it, though, as the Serif/Affinity mindset IS quite different in certain aspects of doing some things (however "normal" they may seem at first).

It's kinda an awkward workflow, but you can create duo-, tri- or quadtone layouts in Affinity. The first and most important step is, however: Forget everything about how you've been doing it in Adobe apps for the past few decades, and start anew with a blank mindset. More on that here: … and also here:

And frankly, I still do like InDesign. I just don't like Adobe's business model. So they won't get my money anymore. CS5.5 still runs alright on El Capitan, but if I ever move on to Catalina for good, I'll want to be using Affinity full time. Hence I'm trying to get used to it as far as possible, inventing and adapting new workflows while attempting to "reprogram" my crusty "Adobe mindset". Currently I'm also testing solutions to create CMYK separations from Affinity PDF/X output via Ghostscript to mimic one of the very few advanced control functions I'm occasionally needing Acrobat X for.

We've spent too much time with Adobe workflows and can't get rid of that mindset. You know it's hard to learn old dogs new tricks; and don't let me even start about us cats! Oh, so was the switch from my beloved Freehand 9 to Ill-frustrator 10 as part of the OS X compatible "Adobe Design Collection" that I acquired in 2001. I've never fully recovered!

If you want to switch from Adobe to Affinity, you should try to forget what I've dubbed "The Schmadobe Mindset™", take your time and start anew, exploring new workflows. Been there done that. (Still at it, in fact.) And I like it. Mostly.

To clarify: by "freed myself from the Schmadobe Mindset" I mean that I'm no longer attempting to replicate Adobe's workflows in Affinity. Instead, I'm accepting that various things have to be accomplished differently. And finding that I like it that way. APhoto's approach to the Crop tool being an example off the top of my head here: It made me crazy literally for years because I wanted it so desperately to work the same as the PS crop tool. Until just last year when I figured out that to crop an image fast and efficiently, I only need to change or switch a few steps in the workflow. Now it does what I want it to do, much better than how was doing it in PS previously. Or speaking of Publisher vs InDesign, two words: Layers Panel Finally I have an exact overview and control of my layout in the 3rd dimension.

That's what workarounds have usually in common per definition. I understand that, but… Another option is to figure out a completely different workflow that will get you exactly where you want to be as well. Been there done that while moving a couple of layout projects from InDesign (CS5.5) to Publisher in the past few months. Example: in InDesign I would use tables as predefined layout elements, and import XML to fill and auto-format them with text content. But back in the day, my use of tables was only necessary because it wasn't possible to create regular text styles to achieve the same design effect. And tables paired with XML are a p.i.t.a. in InDesign. Publisher doesn't support XML import and auto-formatting, but its text styles – paragraph decorations in particular – are more flexible that InDesign's. So, the right solution was a workflow change: "flat" text frames without tables, content import via simple tab separated text file without XML tags, advanced paragraph formatting via text styles with keyboard shortcuts. "Flat" text frames are easier to handle than tables any time. In Photo, if I would have to snap to pixels all the time, I would split all elements into separate layers. Those are handled smartly and are always being snapped to grid – if active – when moved with the Move tool. Some parts of the UI are considerably bad, agreed. Others are just different. The key to a successful Affinity transition is also getting rid of what I call the Schmadobe Mindset™. We've all been brainwashed, me for two decades. (Particularly after Adobe took my beloved Freehand from me. Bastards!) Sometimes it's a Good Thing® to let loose and start anew.

Well, one of the Affinity's "killer features" is the interoperability between the three apps with a file format that accepts almost all of it regardless if it's afpub, afdesign or afphoto. I also still haven't fully adapted to this workflow, having spent almost 20 years caught in the "Adobe mindset".

Sure. That's what "inline object" means. It's becoming part of the text and behaves as a character. Are you the type of guy who is going to reinvent the wheel "just because"? And I hear you. I'm one of the guys who's been posting quite a lot of "you've got to rid of your Adobe mindset to fully understand Affinity" all over the forums in the past few weeks. That doesn't mean I won't take the freedom to point out similar existing concepts and both their strengths and their flaws. In other words, I will type the A**** or the I*D***** words whenever I deem it appropriate. No taboos! Fair enough.

Many things will remain "awkward" and they won't do things "that one would expect" for as long as you remain stuck in the "Adobe Universe Mindset". Trust me, been there done that. It takes time to let loose after almost two decades… That said, some things are awkward nonetheless. There's still plenty of room for the Anti-Awkwardness Serif Task Force™ to take action. Like, for example: Yep, that's what I'd call awkwardly bad UI design. Yep, another good example of a bad example. But: … three totally different things. Even though sometimes you could achieve exactly the same results. Those three things can do things which InDesign CS5.5 can't. Where were you expecting to find it then? It's a paragraph function so this is surely where I would have expected to find it if I would have expected to find it in the first place which I wasn't but instead I stumbled upon it rather accidentally and was pleasantly surprised by what this thing can do…