Publisher. Why should I use Picture Frame? What benefits?

[Robocat]

In InDesign, you don't need a Picture Frame, and it doesn't even have one(?). You can crop an image without any tools, etc. In Publisher, you have to use Picture Frame so you can easily crop the image, or just import the image and use the Vector Crop Tool to crop the image, which is quite painful - maybe 🤔

Why can't it be the same as in InDesign?

How can I change the size of the image (inside the frame) without the slider (the one below the image)?

[walt.farrell]

36 minutes ago, Robocat said:

In Publisher, you have to use Picture Frame so you can easily crop the image, or just import the image and use the Vector Crop Tool to crop the image, which is quite painful - maybe 🤔

I have no problem using the Vector Crop Tool on an image in a Publisher document that is not inside a Picture Frame. What problems are you having?

37 minutes ago, Robocat said:

How can I change the size of the image (inside the frame) without the slider (the one below the image)?

Why don't you want to use the slider?

---

But to try to answer your question of "why use Picture Frames": They allow you to layout your page and arrange everything to the proper size and location without worrying about having the image there. Then, when you Place the image into the frame, you already know the size it must be. In many cases all you will need to do is adjust the Picture Frame properties to choose minimum or maximum fit, or set it to None to simply crop the image to the frame size. And you can then slide the image around in the frame to adjust how it is positioned.

But if you don't want to use them, that's fine, too. The Vector Crop should also work well.

[Robocat]

8 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Why don't you want to use the slider?

'm not used to it after years of using InDesign 🙂

[Oufti]

1 hour ago, Robocat said:

How can I change the size of the image (inside the frame) without the slider (the one below the image)?

Double-click on the image (or select it in the Layers panel instead of the Image frame) and use the handles, or the Transform panel if you prefer.
(If the behaviour seems strange to you, apply momentarily a background to the Image frame. At least, this helped me to understand visually the relation between frame and image.) 

[Robocat]

1 minute ago, Oufti said:

Double-click on the image (or select it in the Layers panel instead of the Image frame) and use the handles, or the Transform panel if you prefer.
(If the behaviour seems strange to you, apply momentarily a background to the Image frame. At least, this helped me to understand visually the relation between frame and image.) 

Thanks!

[bbrother]

9 hours ago, Robocat said:

In InDesign, you don't need a Picture Frame, and it doesn't even have one(?).

It's not quite what you imagine. Indesign simply uses the term frame, not picture frame as in APub.
When you place an image in Indesign the frame for it is automaticaly created.

 

9 hours ago, Robocat said:

Why can't it be the same as in InDesign?

And why it should be the same? APub (Affinity Publisher) it's a different program which uses a different concept.
It's not as productive as in Indesign, but it's not a disaster either.

The big question, why to use or where are the benefits?
Agree or not but Picture frames simply make working with images faster. You simply place the frames in your document, resize them, change the image scaling and fitting options everything to fit the layout in advance, and then simply insert the images into them. They have usefull options that make the scalling, fitting easy to do. Using handles is not always a productive and convienient way to resize images., when there's al lot of them.
I don't see any reason not to use them in projects that use many images.

Finally, I don't know if you know, but in an image frame in APub you can place not only compatible image files, but also:

• a PDF file,
• an Indesign IDML document,
• or an Affinity Photo, Designer or Publisher document.

In my opinion they are quite useful.😁

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, Robocat said:

In InDesign, you don't need a Picture Frame, and it doesn't even have one(?)

I think in ID every image gets placed automatically inside a kind of "picture frame", so ID would rather not have the Affinity "image frame".

2 hours ago, Robocat said:

In Publisher, you have to use Picture Frame so you can easily crop the image, or just import the image and use the Vector Crop Tool to crop the image, which is quite painful

One main difference between an image layer masked by a cropping rectangle (e.g. via Vector Crop Tool) and a Picture Frame is their different layer hierarchy. The cropping rectangle has advantages depending on your workflow. For instance its parent layer contains the image and its file name which may make it easier to handle in the layers panel. Also this allows to handle its masking shape separately because it is the child layer, for instance by blurring the mask and thus achieving a soft edge for the image without blurring the image itself. Applied to a Picture Frame this would blur the image, too. – Or you can use a blurred masking shape for quick layout composing.

Another difference gets obvious if you apply a border (stroke) to an Image or/and a Picture Frame. Here are some visual comparisons:

[PaoloT]

7 minutes ago, thomaso said:

I think in ID every image gets placed automatically inside a kind of "picture frame", so ID would rather not have the Affinity "image frame".

Exactly. By default, you work on picture frames. If you want to access the contained image directly, either you double click it, or move the mouse pointer to the center of the frame to make the control ring appear.

The beauty of all page layout programs – starting from QuarkXPress – is that you can draw a mockup of your page, before even starting to insert any content. In Italian, a page mockup is a menabò, meaning something like "drive the oxen (to dig a furrow)". Just to understand how ancient the art of page layout is.

Paolo

 

[Robocat]

I will use Picture Frame from now on. Maybe I'll get used to it 😆

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, Robocat said:

I will use Picture Frame from now on.

While "simple" image frames can have the mentioned advantage in the Layers Panel (-> layer hierarchy -> image = parent layer) the Picture Frames not only offer their special interface but also are required for the mentioned "dummy"-layout (with empty frames). Those also allow the use of the "Smart Master" feature which enables a quick switch between certain layouts. (Note, it is not required to name the involved objects (layers) to use this feature but naming does increase a targeted flexibility.)

This linked post contains three links (2x forum, 1x youtube) with video samples about "smart master" usage:

[Petar Petrenko]

Without picture frames you can have only square or rectangular picture formats. By using picture frames you can create unlimited number of other shapes: oval, triangular, polygonal, free-hand...

[GarryP]

6 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

Without picture frames you can have only square or rectangular picture formats.

You can clip an image inside any shape without needing Picture Frames, but that doesn’t give you all of the other things that Picture Frames give you.

[HCl]

.

[prophet]

On 4/29/2024 at 3:14 PM, walt.farrell said:

adjust the Picture Frame properties

If only we could get some handy key command shortcuts for this.

[Petar Petrenko]

21 hours ago, Petar Petrenko said:

Without picture frames you can have only square or rectangular picture formats.

By this I had in mind picture like it is opened in Photoshop without smart object option. To show only portion of it you must use masks. You can't crop it because you will change the document size. Sadly, Affinity Photo works the same way. Crop tool should work the same way as in Designer and Publisher. It would be even better if we can crop pictures as in InDesign -- just with resing the picture frame, without crop tool.

[PaulEC]

16 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

Crop tool should work the same way as in Designer and Publisher.

No it should not! – It should work the way it does now, with all the extra features of the tool that make it much more versatile than the Crop Tool in Publisher and Designer. Photo is a photo editor, not a page layout programme! As such the main purpose is to edit the image (canvas) itself, not an image inserted into a larger document. 

[Petar Petrenko]

8 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

As such the main purpose is to edit the image (canvas) itself, not an image inserted into a larger document. 

I always define the document size when I create a new document, so the crop tool in Photo(shop) is absolutely useless for me.

It would be much more useful to crop other images placed in the main Photo document beside using cliping shapes.

[PaulEC]

15 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

I always define the document size when I create a new document, so the crop tool in Photo(shop) is absolutely useless for me.

That's up to you! – I don't, I open a photo in Photo to edit the photo. So the Crop Tool, as it is, is very useful. If it was the same as in Pub/Designer it would be useless for me!

Why limit the versatility of the Crop Tool in Photo for the many people who use it as it is, when you can already do what you want with the Crop Tool, working in the way that you prefer, in the other two apps?

[Petar Petrenko]

They could add any modifer key to make it act like in Designer and Publisher.