non proportional scaling

[boorowaboy]

Hi experts again

1 non proportional scaling This time I came across a small problem I always suspected. Some of the pics which have been placed have scaling errors so one dimension is greater than the other. As usual ID solves this easily. I have looked in several places in AfPub to find how to correct the difference but found nothing so far. Are you able to advise me where to look for the ability to correct this so images are scaled exactly and not distorted.

2 drop shadow/outer shadow While you are reading, is there anywhere to make the same drop shadow for each image (save the settings) rather than having to create a new set of three reference details each time. I know drop shadow is passé however it works for this publication.

3 rearranging pages The book I am working on will have about 160pp and the order of chapters will not be finalised until late in the production stage. I may want to move 20+ pages or more as a group from one place to another. Say from after p37 to after p129. In ID this can be done in a dialogue box. AfPub it seems you have to select and drag the pages. This is can very awkward as you can't see all the pages at once and there is a real chance of slipping them into the wrong position. I always save everything before beginning so I can revert. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance for advice.

nb Once again the Index is useless Scaling is only mentioned twice using sliders, nothing about non proportional scaling.

4 Index  I have attached a pic of a page of the Index in Methods of Book Design by Hugh Williamson OUP 1956. Here are cross references, meanings and locations to pages etc. This is useful publishing at it's best. Is there anyone in Affinity who cares enough to produce a 'proper' Index with cross references. They don't have to reprint the books just make one Index for the three publications. They could even send it as a pdf. I would even pay to have something useful rather than decorative.

[Joachim_L]

7 minutes ago, boorowaboy said:

1 non proportional scaling

Doubleclick on one of the centre handles of the image to get back a proportional scaling.

[h_d]

29 minutes ago, boorowaboy said:

2 drop shadow/outer shadow While you are reading, is there anywhere to make the same drop shadow for each image (save the settings) rather than having to create a new set of three reference details each time. I know drop shadow is passé however it works for this publication.

You can  set the effects for one image, then either (a) copy the image, select another image, choose Paste FX from the Edit menu (command-control-v on Mac, don't know on Windows); or (b) select the effected image and save its settings as a new style in the Styles panel and apply that style to subsequent images.

However, both methods depend on the original pixel dimensions and resolution of the images. When I try it with same-sized original images, it works fine. But with different-sized originals, the pixel dimensions for Offset and Radius differ from the the first image. So it may not be a perfect solution.

[h_d]

45 minutes ago, boorowaboy said:

4 Index  I have attached a pic of a page of the Index in Methods of Book Design by Hugh Williamson OUP 1956. Here are cross references, meanings and locations to pages etc. This is useful publishing at it's [sic] best.

It's a labour of love isn't it? There are plenty of indexing services and freelance indexers out there (Google is your friend) but I don't imagine they come cheap.

(Incidentally it probably helps future readers and anyone trying to follow the answers if you post totally different questions in separate threads 😃. Difficult to see the wood for the trees here.)

[boorowaboy]

40 minutes ago, Joachim_L said:

Doubleclick on one of the centre handles of the image to get back a proportional scaling.

Hi J

I have just double clicked with shift all these dots, are they the side handles? Nothing changed? Sorry to not be to quick off the mark here.

[boorowaboy]

1 minute ago, h_d said:

It's a labour of love isn't it? There are plenty of indexing services and freelance indexers out there (Google is your friend) but I don't imagine they come cheap.

(Incidentally it probably helps future readers and anyone trying to follow the answers if you post totally different questions in separate threads 😃. Difficult to see the wood for the trees here.)

Ok I will separate out the questions. I didn't want to fill the space with to many comments. You are correct about the cost of indexes but once created it can be updated. Affinity need to look to the future. As for Google. 6.5 billion entries, is that useful? Too much useless information purporting to be of use. What could you do when offered a several lifetimes of reading?

[h_d]

[boorowaboy]

33 minutes ago, h_d said:

You can  set the effects for one image, then either (a) copy the image, select another image, choose Paste FX from the Edit menu (command-control-v on Mac, don't know on Windows); or (b) select the effected image and save its settings as a new style in the Styles panel and apply that style to subsequent images.

However, both methods depend on the original pixel dimensions and resolution of the images. When I try it with same-sized original images, it works fine. But with different-sized originals, the pixel dimensions for Offset and Radius differ from the the first image. So it may not be a perfect solution.

OK Thanks for that I will give it a try. There are several different size pics in the publication so I will see how your suggestions work out.

I use a mac

[boorowaboy]

49 minutes ago, boorowaboy said:

Ok I will separate out the questions. I didn't want to fill the space with to many comments. You are correct about the cost of indexes but once created it can be updated. Affinity need to look to the future. As for Google. 6.5 billion entries, is that useful? Too much useless information purporting to be of use. What could you do when offered a several lifetimes of reading?

 

1 hour ago, boorowaboy said:

Hi J

I have just double clicked with shift all these dots, are they the side handles? Nothing changed? Sorry to not be to quick off the mark here.

Ok I think I have managed to correct most by shift double clicking however two of the pics changed to an even worse set of proportion. I gave up on them and re introduce the pics in new pic boxes. They are ok.

[R C-R]

10 hours ago, boorowaboy said:

11 hours ago, Joachim_L said:

Doubleclick on one of the centre handles of the image to get back a proportional scaling.

Hi J

I have just double clicked with shift all these dots, are they the side handles?

There is no need to use shift. The center handles (also known as the side handles) are the 4 handles on the center of each edge of the bounding box. This does not include the 4 handles on the corners of the bounding box.

[boorowaboy]

5 hours ago, R C-R said:

There is no need to use shift. The center handles (also known as the side handles) are the 4 handles on the center of each edge of the bounding box. This does not include the 4 handles on the corners of the bounding box.

Thanks for that advice. I wondered about the process as there doesn't seem to be any response when those 'handles' are checked like a change of cursor or something.

[lacerto]

(...)

[boorowaboy]

Thanks also for your comment. A percent either way doesn't matter that much as most viewers won't see the difference but it is really annoying not to be able to create an accurate image simply and easily. I will look at your solution as well. The more you know the more ways to solve  some problem.

cheers

[R C-R]

8 hours ago, Lagarto said:

... double clicking the center handle won't produce this inaccuracy but as you mentioned, it does not seem to always work).

I have not tested this extensively but for me it does always seem to work if I am careful to double-click exactly on the center handle.

One thing I noticed that seems wrong is when I hover the pointer over any of the 8 handles, one of the things the status barn says is "Double-Click to reset." That includes hovering over a corner handle but of course double-clicking any of them doesn't do anything.

[lacerto]

(...)

[R C-R]

42 minutes ago, Lagarto said:

One situation where double double clicking the middle handle does not restore the non-distorted image is when the image is masked (e.g. by using the Crop tool):

I may have misunderstood what you meant but I tried using both a mask & a crop on an image, both before & after distorting it, & it still worked for me.

Maybe I would understand better if you posted an example file?

[MikeTO]

With regards to indices, you're asking for three separate things, two of which are possible now.

1. Definitions - the example of inserting a definition is easy with Affinity Publisher. When adding an index mark for "dandy", simply enter "dandy – wire roller that..." and the rest of the definition into the field. Don't worry, it will work even though the text field is small. Then edit the appropriate index style. Change Initial Words to Enabled, Max Word Count to however long you want (as long as your longest index term), End Characters to an en dash or whatever you're using, and then Style to a character style with italics defined. That will take care of the formatting perfectly.

2. Cross references, such as "See also em rule". This is possible with Publisher. After adding the index mark for "dash – here, rule whose length...", right click it in the Index panel and choose Add Cross Reference. Assuming you've already created an index mark for "em rule", then choose "em rule" from the list in the cross reference dialog.

3. Sub-topics: Publisher handles these well but with the vertical indented format. AFAIK, it doesn't offer the "run on" or paragraph style format as used in the example you gave. 

[lacerto]

(...)

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, Lagarto said:

Basically place any image, crop it, then distort, then double click the middle handle

By crop do you mean clip, like with the nested rectangles in your example file?

[lacerto]

(...)

[R C-R]

9 minutes ago, Lagarto said:

I used the Crop tool, and the result is a mask; perhaps I am confusing but in my terminology clipping means using e.g. a rectangle as an object that encloses another object so that parts outside the clipping object are left invisible.

I am not 100% sure of the correct terminology either but judging from your example file you used the Vector Crop Tool which (I think!) is in effect the same as using a rectangle to clip the layer. That's why in the Layers panel it shows a "(Rectangle)" layer nested inside the image layer.

Double-clicking on a center handle of the "(Rectangle)" layer 'resets' it to a square shape, which I suppose is the intended behavior, & double-clicking on on a center handle of the "(Image)" layer (so both that layer & its child rectangle are selected) seems to reset the pair to an un-cropped state -- the rectangle is still there but has been expanded or contracted so none of the image layer is cropped.

I have no idea if this is how it is supposed to work.

[lacerto]

(...)

[boorowaboy]

5 hours ago, Lagarto said:

One situation where double double clicking the middle handle does not restore the non-distorted image is when the image is masked (e.g. by using the Crop tool):

...so double clicking e.g. the bottom middle handle would cause this:

The problem is however illusory because the middle handle does not actually belong to the image but to the mask. One would need to temporarily hide the mask layer and then double click the middle handle of the image frame that now shows. Or remove distortion by using the context toolbar, which would additionally be useful as it shows the scale percentage, and placed PPI value, which is important for checking that the image has pixel density that is sufficient e.g. for print halftones (something that in Publisher can of course be checked by using the Resource Manager, as well, but in the other two apps for placed images only from this control):

 

 

Hi Largo This is exactly what happened to a couple of the pics I had placed. In the end I deleted the images and created a new image box. Now I know what was happening so thanks for the explanation.  I don't think I would have found that explanation by chance.

[R C-R]

32 minutes ago, Lagarto said:

If the contained object is distorted, double clicking the middle handle of any of these container objects will not restore the image to non-distorted state.

Using your original cropped_distorted.afpub file, if I select either of the Unsplash image layers & double-click on a center handle I get what is shown in this cropped_distorted not?.afpub file. The image is still distorted but much less than before.

Maybe a bug?

cropped_distorted not?.afpub

[boorowaboy]

1 hour ago, Lagarto said:

This is the terminology according to the documentation, top to bottom: cropping, layer masking (= same as using the Vector Crop tool), layer clipping:

 

If the contained object is distorted, double clicking the middle handle of any of these container objects will not restore the image to non-distorted state. With masks, the mask needs to be made invisible, and with the clipping layer, the contained image needs to be selected.e.g. by using the Ctrl / Cmd + click, and performing the double click thereafter. Or, by selecting the image (or its container) and using the scaling controls of the context toolbar. 

This is almost enough to cause a mental short circuit. I think some time will be required to take this exercise in. Thanks