Search the Community

I wouldn't say this, I'm sure it's ideal for purely graphic design at this state - (illustrations and such). Off-topic: I'm an architect, my primary domain is also visual, but the sources are different: drawings and vector illustrations are generated from a model or drawn from scratch in ARCHICAD or Rhino, I'm not creating them in Designer. I would use it to touch up or recolour stuff, add details, etc. I do my postproduction on renderings in Photo, it actually works a lot better with 32bit images than PS (I have no other reference, I was too lazy to learn to use other tools). I also create a lot of text based documents, that vary on the scale of "shallow beauty" to "scientific writing": specifications, descriptions, summaries to competitions, right now my thesis. Usually I can work with importing stuff from .txt (I write a lot in iA writer lately) to Publisher (referencing is already taken care of in the .txt, either by me or a colleague), or just do the whole thing in Pages, where type and formatting also looks "okay-ish" with little effort. Right now I'm authoring everything, it's not just a matter of quickly formatting imported material, this is where Publisher falls short, and I cannot use Pages completely as it dies badly from huge imported PDFs... speaking of which: Object level display quality is something that would worth implementing someday. In my personal experience something is always better to do in a certain package: the ease of creating tables and diagrams (iWork does this wonderfully), built-in referencing (Word or LibreOffice Writer), regex handling (Google Sheets), then throwing all the source documents together (only a few things are missing from Publisher to fit my needs). I'm a self employed freelancer in the need of "professional" graphic tools, but not a constant need. There are weeks that I won't open Photo, and there are ones when I have it open 0-24/7. There are days that I spend finalizing a competition layout in Publisher, and a month passes with a cumulative use of 20 minutes of it... I guess there is a "barely visible" range of users that are neither professional graphic designers by trade nor amateurs. on-topic again: That's why I don't really understand how such an essential feature like displaying the word count can be omitted, it's present virtually everywhere.

Thank you for your feedback. As package function is available in 1.9 beta I think there is no reason to continue arguing this.

Great! Please add an option to generate the folder automatically, because it will be annoying to package multiple projects when we have to create a folder for each project manually. Folder name could be the project name.

I am not a professional user of DTP and one of the main attractions of the earlier versions of thze Serif packages was how intuitive they were to use. It does appear that the quest to make the package look more professional and similar to the market leaders, later versions and certainly this package has somewhat lost that. To a professional everyday user who is au fait with such products, I am sure they can whiz around with no difficulties. To the occasional user like myself, knocking up the odd poster for advertising events for the organisation I am involved with, it is not so easy and quite daunting to be honest. Perhaps having a basic layout with popup windows with more advanced features for those that can would be a way 'forward'.? Two useful features that were in X9 (already getting less intuitive than earlier versions), were the Logo Design Studio and the Cutout Studio.These would be excellent and worthwhile inclusions in any future versions. HTH

Unless I am missing how Affinity does it, I see no way to package a file. This is a VERY important function in my opinion. Please add this as a priority along with bleed guides. There is no way I would work on a live job that I could not package and pull all the fonts and linked images into a neat organized folder. This has been around for ages with Quark and Indesign.

Just a thought I bought Qty 5 PP4 quite a while ago for distribution among a team. Although the team has effectively disbanded I am still using PP9 quite extensively for relatively minor skilled publishing work, mainly instruction books with lots of diagrams. I hate using old software and while PagePlus X9 doesn't quite reach that line, it will in the future. There are many examples of such things happening, when support disappears and the programs become unstable and unusable over time. Given the uncertainty about being able to import from PP X9 (and all the older versions) and given the expected price with all the chargeable updates as we work through the versions, it is now likely that Microsoft Publisher as part of my Office 365 suite must become a candidate. It has its critics and is not wonderful for artists, but it has very acceptable layout tools and I may as well train myself in that rather than a new package such as Affinity Publisher and save the extra pension money. After all I am rapidly, (and far too fast in my opinion), approaching my own use-by date! I fully understand and respect the decisions made by the developers and I have argued many times with software projects that it is often better to start from scratch rather than cover all the bases and over complicate the final package - there are still Windows 98 users out there unhappy because they have been cut-off but sometimes you just have to bury the old stuff, its too expensive to keep. However, if the community is large, the tears of dismay will cause a flood. I wish the developers the best of times and not the worst of times - they will get a lot of stick whatever they do. John

@ronnyb@fde101 - good points I don't expect to open up an IDML from InDesign into InDesign and expect it to be perfect - especially if there are older versions of InDesign or PC and Macs involved. But it is a useful starting point for edit-ability. Surely there is also a business/promotional benefit to being able to export in a compatible way. If I say that I'm using Affinity, but I can package an IDML, then maybe another person in an Adobe based company might be willing to trial it without the risk of being a dead end in the process? I'm an Affinity adopter in my organisation, but others need to see it working to be reassured. Had I realised, that IDML wasn't available, I might not have jumped from InDesign as early.

Yes, but experience does not prevent that bugs are being made during development in a new software package 😉 d.

You may also want to look at the new Save as Package option currently in beta testing in ver 1.9 That may be an alternative way of working between Mac & PCs in the future

Chris_K wrote: Future? Not bad? That’s outrageous and absolutely unacceptable! Here’s why: I’ve been working with QuarkXPress since the 90s and InDesign since the 2000s. I was completely surprised when I noticed a Package / Collect for Output feature was missing. So I made a call to a project manager working with various commercial publishers and with contracts at CocaCola, HP, Cannon, Honda, Hallmark, etc. The basic response was:, “What! There is no way that output process will work or be taken seriously by anyone in ‘The Industry.’” So Chris, I’d respectfully suggest that instead of moving this to a feature request and thinking about it as something for a future update, Serif get on this immediately and have it working prior to the first release. And while I understand there is little chance Serif will take my advice, I’ll predict this is one of the biggest blunders ever. Whoever vetoed the Package / Collect for Output feature has little understanding of the final output process of professionals and commercial print houses. yYM - - - - - - - - - - AFFINITY PUBLISHER (BETA) 1.7.0.133 - macOS: 10.13.6 - MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Early 2015) - Processor 3.1 GHz Intel Core i7 - Memory 16 GB 1867 MHz DDR3 - Graphics Intel Iris Graphics 6100 1536 MB

Because packing also pulls fonts and puts everything in a nice package neatly organized. Say you place images in your document, you do all the work but you forgot to put it in the folder, that would not matter when it comes time to package (as long as all links were still fine). It will automatically pull everything together for you. You can then delete all the loose stuff in a folder and are left with a workable file and 100% all necessary pieces for that file.

Readers of this thread may be interested to try the first beta implementation of Package in the latest Affinity Publisher Beta You can find Affinity Publisher Customer Beta 1.9.0.796 for macOS HERE and for Windows HERE If you are coming to this post late the latest customer beta can be found in the last post in the relevant one of these announcement threads on macOS or Windows

Readers of this thread may be interested to try the first beta implementation of Package in the latest Affinity Publisher Beta You can find Affinity Publisher Customer Beta 1.9.0.796 for macOS HERE and for Windows HERE If you are coming to this post late the latest customer beta can be found in the last post in the relevant one of these announcement threads on macOS or Windows

I already told, why I personally(!) don‘t package files: In most cases, a file, I place in layout has many predecessors and/or support files: originals, edited and colour corrected variants, RGB and CMYK versions. If I package my layout file, only the placed assets will be gathered, what means, they are (a) separed from their related files and (b) they are doublettes. My alternative: I keep my assets together with my layout files within a long time approved folder system, which is always the same for every print product (documents, placed files, support files, text, PDFs, customer correspondence, …) Thus all project files are kept together, packaging isn‘t necessary. The print company doesn‘t get any native files, only PDFs. But as I said: This is my workflow. For others packaging is certainly more important.

Why would you not package a file once done? It is the easiest way to keep all assets associated with that job in one place and not have to maintain a second library of supporting files. Also fonts are handled very well with Adobe CC, I rarely even use my font management software as a properly packaged file opens perfect with the fonts in the font folder. Yes there are still people who send working files, I personally would prefer PDF's but a few of our clients have us make changes after the fact. I also do not package fonts to hand them to anyone it is again to keep everything necessary to run that job together. I do not need to worry if I deleted something elsewhere because it is all there properly packaged in one complete set. Adobe TypeKit works well for what it is because if anyone is using Adobe CC they will all have the exact same fonts. Now I rarely use fonts from there as I find the library a bit limited, but the idea is fantastic in the framework of the subscription model Adobe has (and I hate). In the end whatever works for you is great, but there are many printers and designers though who organize like myself and keep jobs packaged. It was even recently added to Illustrator. If Affinity chooses to decide for its users how their workflow should work well I do see them having a lot of people unwilling to adopt. I would prefer choice to work how I need. You could do it your way with Indesign and I could do it my way, they would have 2 happy customers in that instance.

There is zero legal issue as regards packaging and including fonts. The legal bit is what one intends to do with a package. I use ID's Package & QXP's Collect for Output all the time. It gathers the exact assets needed for if I ever need to reprint or edit. I can make sure the fonts are the same revision that way and this helps that reflow won't happen. Updated fonts often have changes and those made to kerning will cause reflow. As well, it is these folders used int he process that I use for back-up purposes. What I do not do with these folders is share them. I've never sent native files off so there is zero legal implications when used for archival purposes. There is also zero legal implications when a designer chooses to send the original files off to a service bureau (or anyone else) so long as they also have a license for the fonts used--and that license can be for an older or newer version, a different format (PS T1, OTF, TTF) than what they receive. Mike

Packaging files is a must, in order to make the leap to Publisher. @F+C is spot on. This is industry standard for printers/design agencies. I came across this thread, because I was trying to walk a customer through how to package their Affinity Publisher file and send it to us, only to find that there was no such feature. So, count my vote for this feature, too.

In the same way as an .icc file, they appear to differ only by the suffix, not by content. So in macOS you might need to rename the suffix to .icc to be able to e.g. import it in AfPhoto via menu "File" > "Import ICC Profile". What me confuses is that I already do have a profile named "Schwarze Druckfarbe – ISO coated v2 (ECI)" (without "300%") in my export options profile menu but I am not able to detect an according file on disk, even the APub app package doesn't seem to contain this profile. – Additionally odd: this profile does not appear in AfPhoto (but I can add the 300% version via import). – Maybe anyone can shed more light on this?

Hi @walt.farrell I agree with everything you say! Especially the bit about it being easier to start from scratch than amend. Or maybe it's especially about not being able to satisfy everyone all the time. My argument is with the criteria that have been used to select the priority list, now made all the more galling because I know that the list is not going to fundamentally change whatever anybody says (please prove me wrong again!). My contention was/is that if all the functions of all the DTP & WP packages going back to the IBM360 were listed and counted, there are a few from the top of that list which Serif have yet to address and many which don't appear on the list which have amazing functionality in Affinity. To overwork the car analogy, "sequinned boot liners" will not appear on many (sic!) specifications, but "seats" will be on every one. Why, then would I build a car with no seats and artistic boots? Everything you say is equally relevant to seats and boots. That's not about "personal most important features" but "industry standard" - and again, I agree with what you say. In the early days I had hoped that Serif might respond to the volume of concerns but I think we are too far down the line for that. It's more a matter, now, of letting off steam as PPX9 becomes an increasingly 'legacy' package and I see the possibility of having to revert to InDesign. So it's probably time I shut up with one final exhortation to Serif to address these key issues asap!

OK - maybe not pre-dating Maxwell but certainly around when he launched Pergamon Press! I don't even mind being considered senile - I'm headed that way🙂 But @walt.farrell, you seem to be arguing that we must not learn from experience. Certainly there are people who take 20 years to gain a year's worth of useful experience. There are others who gain 20 years worth in a year and I'll bet Serif have employed a few of these latter for a few years. I would have thought 20+ years of maintaining PP would have proved a pretty good foundation - but it seems to have been thrown away. I am not diminishing the problems of starting with new code, but if I can take a program in one language and translate it into another, so can less intellectually stunted people. NO - I just don't get it. I am also slightly disagreeing with @MJWHM. It's not the bells & whistles that have been left off this model of the car. It's not as serious as the transmission, or as insignificant as the air conditioning (might get a Canadian reaction to that!) ... but how about the seats? We can drive the car without seats but only a selective minority of drivers are likely enjoy it. Of course, if they have never experienced seats they might see alloy wheels as more important. They may think that seating should be delayed until thermostatically controlled eco-heating is available on all 5 seats. Maybe delayed further until it be installed in all 7 seats of the SUV model and use so little power that it can be left on all night ........... Me - I'd be happy with something to protect my rear end from the inadequate suspension, delayed by sewing sequins on the boot mat 🙂 🙂 Bottom line is, though, much time has gone by, the Affinity trio is the best all around package available, the company is a delight to deal with and perhaps the end(s) are in sight. Maybe they will arrive before Microsoft throws a spanner into Windows which blocks PPX9.

Hi. I tried the collect solution via Resource Manger and it's not the same. Look, lets' all be honest. We all need the same functionality that the "Package" has in InDesign. No "do this and then it asks you for that" type of thing. Just the same thing. We don't want Affinity to try and re-invent the wheel. The reason is that is the way professionals need their files handled. Full stop. You may think it's overkill or not a big deal, but if you're dealing with many staff (and some freelancers who have differing amounts of experience), you need a proven system that will work -- even after a year or more where the original machine might have been reformatted or changed. I'm not sure if it's legal concerns preventing this seemingly straight-forward feature but perhaps they don't want to raise the anger of Adobe, but that's what the pro market needs.

@Cranky Old Huckster The collect feature is new as of 1.8, and there was some indication at that time that it was just a starting point toward a comparable package feature. I do not know how soon we could see the next step, but at least we have a sense of the direction they are headed. Presently, it is images only (not fonts). Perhaps a simple suggestion for Serif at this time is the option to duplicate images rather than moving them.

Does it collect lilnked files and fonts? I didn't get that impression from the posts, if so, I seat corrected (don't have a standing desk). (If it collected my laundry and took it to the laundry, it would be genius!) [UPDATE: I tried the Resource Manager and collected the images in a sample document. What it did was that it moved the linked files to a new folder I created. A "package" feature duplicates the linked files into a new folder and leaves the originals in place. In a shared workflow, Publisher's method would be chaos. Or at least a mean way to stick it to the man.]

I'm new here, but a "package/collect for output" feature is a necessity for all the reasons stated by fellow "publishistas". Embedding hi-res images may be OK for a single-page flyer, but for a multipage catalog or publication, it would make the file unwieldy at the least. That's why there were so many (expensive) "packaging/collecting" apps back in the day until Quark & Adobe wised up.

Standardization makes life easier for service bureaus, printers, etc. But lack of competition leads to high prices—such as what Quark XPress used to be and Adobe is now. Competition has its advantages, like lowering prices. This happened to Apple with Aperture. It started out at $500, with not trial period. Then Adobe released the beta version of Lightroom, and most of us never looked back. When Lightroom 1 came out it was priced at $300, cutting Aperture off at the knees. Later it went down to $150, an even better deal. Now Adobe is offering LightroomCC and PhotoshopCC as a package for $10 a month. Unfortunately, there is not yet a discount price for InDesign. So when Publisher got IDML to work, I exported the large document I was working on in InDesign to IDML format and imported it to Publisher. The only thing I lost was the custom dictionary. As for printing from Publisher, Designer and Photo, PDF is the standard output format for pretty much everything, whether you're using an Adobe product or something else.