Poor export quality of PNG and JPG.

[Bit Disappointed]

I can tell you that in Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop, at least since 1995, I have seen clear evidence that fonts and scaling are adapted to customer needs and feedback from customers in terms of sharpness. The two applications clearly deliver sharper output with the right settings than Affinity - and the defaults and typical output of the standard algorithms. There are clearly extra layers of algorithms and Adobe configurations that provide very satisfactory results for mainstream of their customers.

That's not to say that razor sharpness is good - the most obvious sign of amateur photographers is the perpetual pursuit of maximum sharpness (spoiler: professional cameras are often set to lower sharpness than prosumer cameras). You don't want excessive default sharpness. But it's good to have the choice and not have to go through all sorts of mind-bending tricks to get better rendering output.

Regards from someone who post-processes ALL exported files from Affinity in Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. Out of necessity. 🙂

What I'm trying to say is that Adobe has an opinion on what sharpness and quality the output from their products should be able to deliver, which has resulted in customized algorithms and configurations of algorithms and features. Not just implementing the same algorithms as everyone else. 

[debraspicher]

2 hours ago, Bit Arts said:

I can tell you that in Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop, at least since 1995, I have seen clear evidence that fonts and scaling are adapted to customer needs and feedback from customers in terms of sharpness. The two applications clearly deliver sharper output with the right settings than Affinity - and the defaults and typical output of the standard algorithms. There are clearly extra layers of algorithms and Adobe configurations that provide very satisfactory results for mainstream of their customers.

That's not to say that razor sharpness is good - the most obvious sign of amateur photographers is the perpetual pursuit of maximum sharpness (spoiler: professional cameras are often set to lower sharpness than prosumer cameras). You don't want excessive default sharpness. But it's good to have the choice and not have to go through all sorts of mind-bending tricks to get better rendering output.

Regards from someone who post-processes ALL exported files from Affinity in Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. Out of necessity. 🙂

What I'm trying to say is that Adobe has an opinion on what sharpness and quality the output from their products should be able to deliver, which has resulted in customized algorithms and configurations of algorithms and features. Not just implementing the same algorithms as everyone else. 

Sometimes I wonder to myself if it's really "fair" to compare Affinity products to Adobe, especially for the price, but then at the same time they are advertising to professionals and trying to appeal to that market... I don't mind as much if some features are lacking. That's more according to the needs of each person and may or may not make the switch untenable. However, despite anything that is missing, the polish and export quality must be there to be considered even remotely "professional".

Things like incomplete support of certain file formats or output quality that is difficult to maintain across a variety of workflows makes that work subject to error and is the stuff of nerds and enthusiasts who like to have their hands full figuring things out (I'm partly in this category), but generally bad for those who are outputting large volumes of work daily and needing to work efficiently regardless of delivery method (to another professional, to a printer, to stock sites, etc...).

That isn't to say that the enthusiast market isn't important to capture. It obviously is and I think it's why Affinity is still even a thing after all this time. Anyway, I enjoy your posts on here and I learn a lot from you and others on this platform. Let's hope they see these messages in the right light and will take it on board...

[Bit Disappointed]

3 hours ago, debraspicher said:

Sometimes I wonder to myself if it's really "fair" to compare Affinity products to Adobe, especially for the price, but then at the same time they are advertising to professionals and trying to appeal to that market... I don't mind as much if some features are lacking. That's more according to the needs of each person and may or may not make the switch untenable. However, despite anything that is missing, the polish and export quality must be there to be considered even remotely "professional".

Things like incomplete support of certain file formats or output quality that is difficult to maintain across a variety of workflows makes that work subject to error and is the stuff of nerds and enthusiasts who like to have their hands full figuring things out (I'm partly in this category), but generally bad for those who are outputting large volumes of work daily and needing to work efficiently regardless of delivery method (to another professional, to a printer, to stock sites, etc...).

That isn't to say that the enthusiast market isn't important to capture. It obviously is and I think it's why Affinity is still even a thing after all this time. Anyway, I enjoy your posts on here and I learn a lot from you and others on this platform. Let's hope they see these messages in the right light and will take it on board...

Thank you, Debra.

I compare with everyone on principle, not feature by feature, but in general. Obviously Affinity is a smaller and younger product, but Serif is not. For an IT company, it's an old company with 35 years behind it, which should have resulted in maturity in a number of areas, but I often wonder aloud why this is not the case.

My comparison here with Adobe is methodical. Companies like Adobe, Microsoft and many other giants have the same problem, namely that everything they do right and wrong is something their competitors can learn from and catch up on. You can, if you're brazen, replicate functionality and workflows, but it takes more to learn and understand the methods behind product development. But again, you can enter the game later and benefit from the fact that others paid the main price of learning first.

For example, I have been in contact with fairly ordinary but professional photographers from the USA who had been in a network Adobe used during the development of Adobe Lightroom's later versions, and have had for a long time. Probably still do. Here they were involved for years in a feedback chain, and their feedback as professionals was assessed and quietly implemented where Adobe deemed it necessary. One of the players who occasionally interfered in the network directly was Thomas Knoll, one of the brothers who created Photoshop. We're talking about physical meetings here and real relationships. Not a digital forum. I guarantee that knowledge about workflows has gone straight into the heads of key decision makers at Adobe. I love that Knoll went from the top of the pyramid into the engine room.

Not some naive "please devs" from all sorts of people in a forum, and actually not devs as such, but professional customers and professional players in Adobe, who met together physically in physical premises with coffee and refreshments, and arrived at what they expected and importantly, what they needed first and foremost. Of course, this does not guarantee a product that makes everyone equally satisfied, including me, but I can really, really, really see in many elements of Adobe's products that the company has listened and understood by being in direct dialog with professionals. This is especially true for outout. And there is nothing more important than output.

Serif has historically marketed themselves presumptuously and thrown around the term professional, and they simply must be held accountable for their words. I think they should do just that by coming out of the bush and working more closely with real-life professional customers - and usability specialists - and develop professionally and methodically. I wouldn't be able to resist just out of curiosity and pride if I were them. And besides, it's infinitely more rewarding to work closely with professionals in real life than with random people in the digital isolated synthetic universe. And it pays back a thousandfold.

You strike me as a balanced debater and a true creative, which is highly appreciated from here.

May you have a creative and wonderful day. 🙂

[debraspicher]

@Bit Arts Lovely points and it was nice to read these anecdotes. So much to think about in one post.


On the topic, I tend to work on high DPI illustrations that I sometimes translate to vector out of program... then export for laser cutters/assets for designers... and then output assets for websites. My images will tend to be very small scale... or rather large. I do also sometimes resize difficult images for a much smaller size and I will fill in/render the details back in by hand to fix any problem areas. I used to be able to do all of this in Photoshop, but have since learned with Affinity I need to do these touch ups in Clip Studio due to lack of a pressure-based opacity in the Brush tool. Edit: I point this out because I find that working both extremes of the scale can sometimes unearth different problems

Anyway, I also use tones and patterned texture a lot in my designs and when comparing both programs, the disparity in AA curves rather shows up pretty clearly when exporting the same curves at small sizes. An example I created:



Left: Illustrator     Right: Affinity

I post this example not to say whether I think one is worse or better. I post this to show that they are indeed a significant difference in terms of how AA/output is handled by both programs. I would say that Affinity's reads blurrier, as I've said before, because 1) it appears to utilize a linear AA "curve" which is effectively a subpixel black to transparent gradient that is more akin to "Outer Glow" or feathering and 2) thus the AA tends to be teeter out too fast compared to other implementations. Fonts that are not well hinted to begin with for screens at smaller point sizes or display type that has a lot of edge detail will be impacted the most. Of course it is distracting as well if we lay an image with heavy AA'ed type nearby a paragraph of text in a web browser rendered at high DPI... then the difference in quality will be much more apparent..

Other programs appear to apply a heavier weight to the edge details and this is perhaps because the AA/output curve is hand-tweaked by the designers of the program and thus gives a more "hinted" appearance (which increases clarity) on output, but also legibility for smaller points of type... the other thing to consider, how many fonts across the web were "tested" or even designed from within Adobe programs... therefore, their hinting algorithms/curves could be seen as something of a benchmark in some cases...

Perhaps this could be helped if Coverage Map were fixed and/or we had an option to control AA at a application setting/document level, or just having access to specialized AA for text... I care for this greatly, because for web, little details like this go a long way push an icon or a site's logo to the next level. Of course there is always SVG, but that is not always an option, especially if the text has artwork embedded within it...

Edit: Attached single samples:

Edit: clarity

[Designer1]

The export quality in Affinity Designer has not yet been improved. However, the problem of export quality has been known for years. Adobe delivers professional export quality and Affinity unfortunately does not. What use are new functions such as a spiral tool that I hardly ever use if the export quality is simply not right? Serif obviously doesn't realise how important flawless export quality is.

[debraspicher]

I can't think immediately of any technological reason for this, but it's a surprising result. And can explain why some people have different complaints regarding the appearance(s) of text in their exported documents with re: PNG... particularly if they rely on the matte setting versus adding a plain white background the old school method.

If I have a background with white, make another layer with text and export. The AA gives a light result... it's like it has more feathering...

If I decide to use Export Persona and export the layers separately, apply the white matte using a PNG preset, the AA is certainly much heavier (in appearance). Same with File>Export... with white bg layer turned off.

I was testing samples of Coverage Map and I notice the very heaviest setting was even heavier with the white matte. It looks pixelated.

I thought maybe it was down to the resample method perhaps in the way the white background layer was being applied to the text. But trying all methods, checking preview and floating images over one another and applying "Difference" Layer blend mode in PS, it showed no difference....

Here is an image I made with the differences in AA through both export methods... to be clear, the top result is "normal" Coverage map (Anti-aliasing curve) and the other two rows below are using a progressively steeper curve to give a more bold result... I show the differences on the right:

Indeed, I turned off Document>"Transparent background" in Photo to remove the checkerboard pattern and could see that the result of the AA in the text indeed does change when I enable/disable the white background in my document.

Edit: Changing Blend Gamma of the text layer to 2.2 resolves the disparity, it seems.

[Designer1]

8 hours ago, debraspicher said:

I can't think immediately of any technological reason for this, but it's a surprising result. And can explain why some people have different complaints regarding the appearance(s) of text in their exported documents with re: PNG... particularly if they rely on the matte setting versus adding a plain white background the old school method.

If I have a background with white, make another layer with text and export. The AA gives a light result... it's like it has more feathering...

If I decide to use Export Persona and export the layers separately, apply the white matte using a PNG preset, the AA is certainly much heavier. Same with File>Export... with white bg layer turned off.

I was testing samples of Coverage Map and I notice the very heaviest setting was even heavier with the white matte. It looks pixelated.

I thought maybe it was down to the resample method perhaps in the way the white background layer was being applied to the text. But trying all methods, checking preview and floating images over one another and applying "Difference" Layer blend mode in PS, it showed no difference....

Here is an image I made with the differences in AA through both export methods... to be clear, the top result is "normal" Coverage map (Anti-aliasing curve) and the other two rows below are using a progressively steeper curve to give a more bold result... I show the differences on the right:

Indeed, I turned off Document>"Transparent background" in Photo to remove the checkerboard pattern and could see that the result of the AA in the text indeed does change when I enable/disable the white background in my document.

Edit: Changing Blend Gamma of the text layer to 2.2 resolves the disparity, it seems.

In both exported texts, the outlines of the letters in the continuous text are very unclean and pixelated. The result is unsatisfactory. It is reminiscent of inkjet printers with poor print quality. Unfortunately, the gamma setting does not seem to have an improved effect on export quality. This export problem should best be looked at by the Serif staff so that it can hopefully be fixed with an update.

Adobe has various Bicubic export settings that allow for smoother text quality. Unfortunately, Affinity does not have these settings.

Bicubic Smoother: Good for enlarging images based on Bicubic interpolation, but designed to produce smoother results.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/export-artboards-layers.html#export-as

[debraspicher]

On 12/26/2023 at 4:01 AM, Designer1 said:

In both exported texts, the outlines of the letters in the continuous text are very unclean and pixelated. The result is unsatisfactory. It is reminiscent of inkjet printers with poor print quality. Unfortunately, the gamma setting does not seem to have an improved effect on export quality. This export problem should best be looked at by the Serif staff so that it can hopefully be fixed with an update.

Adobe has various Bicubic export settings that allow for smoother text quality. Unfortunately, Affinity does not have these settings.

Bicubic Smoother: Good for enlarging images based on Bicubic interpolation, but designed to produce smoother results.

https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11404917#post11404917

I've been testing multiple programs, that's how I came across the disparity. FWIW, Blend Gamma for text as a default can be changed in Preferences in both programs and when I checked, PS also handles the PNG matte in the same way (though the contrast isn't as stark). Anyway, I post this for the benefit of others who come across looking for a solution to some issue, and I'm not sure if the behavior should be changed if the person is working purely in transparency, then they should not have seen a different result if they had the checkerboard disabled (faux white board) ((Edit) Though this might be more of an issue with Artboards where checkerboard can't be hidden... sigh...) it only becomes a problem if a background is used during the design (a possibility with overlapped Artboards, not sure it they will layer differently or not), but then they output the transparent version...

Having the Bicubic options would not have helped if nothing was being resampled. Only the AA dropdown in the top toolbar when working with Type has options to affect the quality.

Edited December 27, 2023 by debraspicher
Artboards...

[debraspicher]

Can you tell which program did which? Feel to rank and critique. I will reveal the programs/settings I used to output these later... Obviously, save & view these outside of your browser... (they are numerically listed, it's just very light in the bottom right under the paragraph)

[Designer1]

23 hours ago, debraspicher said:

Can you tell which program did which? Feel to rank and critique. I will reveal the programs/settings I used to output these later... Obviously, save & view these outside of your browser... (they are numerically listed, it's just very light in the bottom right under the paragraph)

The text quality is already better here. For the export, I tested Illustrator, Corel Draw and the free Inkscape. All three programmes deliver a much better export quality than Affinity. Affinity can only export text well if it has been rasterized beforehand, preferably at 600 dpi or more. The problem therefore lies in the anti-aliasing of the text.

[debraspicher]

6 hours ago, Designer1 said:

The text quality is already better here. For the export, I tested Illustrator, Corel Draw and the free Inkscape. All three programmes deliver a much better export quality than Affinity. Affinity can only export text well if it has been rasterized beforehand, preferably at 600 dpi or more. The problem therefore lies in the anti-aliasing of the text.

Do you have a website with your illustrations or a LinkedIn profile? It would be interesting to see your work.

You do realize Affinity is in that graphic, right?...

[Designer1]

1 hour ago, debraspicher said:

You do realize Affinity is in that graphic, right?...

I don't know how you exported the text. But I need a slightly better export quality for my work/presentations. It needs to be at a very high level.

 

[debraspicher]

3 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

I don't know how you exported the text. But I need a slightly better export quality for my work/presentations. It needs to be at a very high level.

Ok.

[Designer1]

1 hour ago, debraspicher said:

Ok.

On the Affinity website you can see several works, graphics. All these works have been exported in an excellent quality. Try exporting in such great quality.

https://affinity.serif.com/de/designer/