Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Search the Community

Showing results for 'Schmadobe Mindset'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Affinity Support
    • News and Information
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Affinity Support & Questions
    • Feedback & Suggestions
  • Learn and Share
    • Tutorials (Serif and Customer Created Tutorials)
    • Share your work
    • Resources
  • Bug Reporting
    • V2 Bugs found on macOS
    • V2 Bugs found on Windows
    • V2 Bugs found on iPad
    • Reports of Bugs in Affinity Version 1 applications
  • Beta Software Forums
    • 2.4 New Features and Improvements
    • Other New Bugs and Issues in the Betas
    • Beta Software Program Members Area
    • [ARCHIVE] Reports from earlier Affinity betas

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Location


Interests


Member Title

Found 19 results

  1. 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.
  2. @Bryan Rieger & co., take a step back, relax, and use the tool that suits you best for your work, whichever brand it is. Then, when Affinity is at, say, v2.1 with some of the major issues hopefully fixed, check back and try again. You already have the license, right? It will be valid for quite some time to come. Been there done that. Although an early adopter of each of the three, i.e. starting with ADe in 2014, I haven't used any of them for serious work until 2020. Not just because of missing features, but also because I was not ready yet to free myself from the Schmadobe Mindset Indoctrination™ of two decades. It takes time to change habits.
  3. Well, I genuinely like to work in Affinity, now that I've freed myself from the Schmadobe Mindset™ for most parts. It's very fluid. Like, zooming in and out with MacBook trackpad from 0.2 % to literally 309402941 % within seconds and the like. Try that in InDesign CS5. Better don't try that in Illustrator CS5 without saving all your work first… And I also want Serif to succeed. I mean, hey, they have the balls to stand up against the old bull! Way to go! Fight the de facto Schmadobe monopoly! Yep. Especially since it's not just the "you're holding it wrong" factor.
  4. Yep, works fine for me. To disable each language layer globally, I go to the Text master page to turn it off. Easy peasy. It may feel confusing at first if still being trapped in the Schmadobe Mindset™, but to me it's simply a slightly different workflow to get used to. Been there done that in so many instances already that by now I'm fine with it.
  5. 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.
  6. The Affinity suite is on a good way to there. Some features are missing and some bugs need to be fixed, but overall the transition has been a pleasant experience for me. (I'm still amidst.) Hint: Leave the decades of Schmadobe's indoctrination and their narrow mindset behind, open your mind and accept mentally that there are different workflows in Affinity that will get you to the same objective just as well, if not even better. Been there done that.
  7. This is what I call "getting rid of the Schmadobe Mindset™" As in: Been there done that, too. I simply decided to take my time and having fun while I'm at it. Never had that fun in the decades of using all the "other" apps, perhaps with the exception of Freehand 9 (the latter as long as I didn't have to export to PDF, that is). You can, but: Hierarchy matters! To erase everything below, the "Erase" mode layer must be on top level. That's definitely "by design", and rightly so. In other words, if you want to exclude objects from being erased, you put all the other objects incl the eraser into a group/layer. Anything outside and below that layer/group will not be affected. This is a pretty straightforward workflow. (unlike e.g. in AI where I have to look up every time what the exact meaning of those blending option checkboxes is…)
  8. In short: Export all *.indd and *.indt as IDML; Publisher can import those pretty well, as long as you're not using any features that it can't interpret and rebuild (yet). If you're relying on XML workflows: forget them. Save all *.ai with PDF stream, preferably also in an older format if possible. (From CS5, I've been often archiving my *.ai in CS3 format, unless I was using some new features.) All Affinity apps can open an *.ai with the PDF stream just fine. Save all *.psd in the "backward compatibility mode". Possibly you may need to rasterize some tricky and complex layer hierarchies or live effects. If you're relying on seamless PDF/X-1 or X-3 export, don't hurry with the transition. Or bang your head against a wall at times… If you're relying on composite preview, CMYK, spot colors and the like, continue to keep your Acrobat handy. Or bang your head against a different wall… And most of all: Get rid of the 20 years of Schmadobe Mindset™ indoctrination. It will only hinder you during the transition. Be open-minded to accept new workflows, rather than expecting "but in <insert_your_schmadobe_app_here> it was just click this and drag that!". Keep an eye on these forums, read, watch, take your time to experiment and trying new ideas how to do things differently but often equally effectively.
  9. Well, I do hear you for sure. ;) The difference to ID (CS5.5 here) is that 1) you don't have to edit a list using that annoying modal window (its "preview" checkbox notwithstanding), and thus 2) you don't need those duplicated Left/1st Indent fields. Which is what likely makes the "ID method" seemingly (but not really) "easier" at first, because we've all been brainwashed by the Schmadobe Mindset™… Instead, in Publisher all necessary fields are in the live floating/docked Paragraph panel, so you can adjust all parameters (the list mode & Left/1st indent) on the fly. By the way, just yesterday I've figured out how to format bulleted lists with the bullet being outside the text frame a.k.a. negative indent: Take that, SchminDesign!
  10. 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:
  11. What is "edge to edge" supposed to mean? A slice can "be" from "anywhere to anywhere". The only drawback I've noticed with slices so far is the lack of snapping, but I might be also overlooking something. Haven't used slices very often for "serious" work yet, not even in PS or AI in the past 20 years. Find new workflows. Explore. Free yourself from the narrow Schmadobe Mindset™. It's fun! (Well, mostly…) Well, for pictograms like yours, first of all I would work in Designer with vector objects and with pixel preview, making sure to select Snap To Pixels and watch out for any blurry subpixel edges. But to each their own preferred workflow…
  12. If you need to use a brush: click to start hold Shift key click elsewhere Otherwise use the pen to create strokes, or create rectangels or other shapes, then apply effects or filters to them, then rasterize them if needed. Yep, I get regularly confused by that as well. I'd consider this a bug. But even though it's not exactly obvious, simply pressing a key to select a different tool, e.g. "H" for the View tool, will do exactly the same. We've all been brainwashed by the Schmadobe Mindset™ for decades. That doesn't mean their method was always right and the alternatives are wrong. It's different workflows.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.)
  16. Cmd- key while in text editing mode allows for non-consecutive text sellection. While that's a long time MacOS text standard, it was never possible in InDesign. Because, well… you know what the command key does in InDesign. Also, holding command key while hovering over unselected objects will display coordinates info. But I get what you mean. 20 years of muscle memory and Schmadobe Mindset™. Been there, done that… I'm going by: Deselect keyboard shortcut (I'm changing it consitently to cmd-shift-A for every single app that has this kind of command, be it via custom app shortcut preferences if available, or via System Preferences > Keyboard > Shortcuts > App Shortcuts. Because, you know: muscle memory) v Getting back into text editing is then usually just a matter of a double click. That said, the InDesign mode's advantage is that you can modify a text frame while keeping text selection intact. Apparently we can't have the cake and eat it too.
  17. In my opinion, "pro" software means that the pro user understands what the software can do for them, what are its strengths and what are its limits. It's a tool. When I'm creating illustrations, I still prefer to work "analog" with oil pastels and a pencil, rather than drawing digitally with a tablet. (I may create digital sketches though.) Of all "pro" oil pastels, I'm totally partial to the Jaxon brand. I don't remember why exactly, but back in the 1980s I have likely tried a few different brands and Jaxon simply felt "good" in and on my fingers; as in literally on my fingers, apparently having a low melting point. Does it make the other brands less "pro" because they didn't work for me? No. Jaxon are just ideal for my technique. Affinity apps also feel "good" under my fingers. Much better than all Schmadobe apps ever did, despite all of their pro superfeatures. It took a few years to get used to the Affinity mindset, but now they are already making money for me. But then again, it also took me years to accept that I can't run Freehand 9 in the MacOS Classic environment forever and I had to accept to use Ill-frustrator. Now… let's talk about the bugs…
  18. Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing: the cog button right next to the Blend Modes popup menu. Confusingly enough, the tooltip says "Blend Ranges" whereas the following floating window is titled "Blend Options". So much for UI consistency, huh, Serif? Frankly, I've always been more of the typography and vector guy. So I'm more at home in APu & ADe, and before that (in order of appearance) in PageMaker, Freehand, XPress, InDesign & Illustrator, rather than APh, Photoshop & co. That applies to many Affinity workflows. As I have already posted elsewhere a few times recently, the best approach for not to get too crazy during the transition is trying to get rid of the Schmadobe Mindset™ and start afresh. Sometimes, it doesn't help though…
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.