Affinity Publisher, embed, link

[Iztok]

I want to make linked - I set the name of the photo, and I axpect to find in coose, I like in finder, but can't find anything, so how?

Also I missed option in resource manager - open photo in Affinity Pphoto, because I like to work in affinity, amby also option to photoshop or other bitmap app.

[Old Bruce]

What is going to happen is that your Embedded file "Happy New Year 88 2.tif" is going to be saved whereever you choose to save it.

For some reason you have decided to search for a folder named "happy new year". I will wager there is no folder on your hard drive that has those words in its name. Clear the "happy new year" from the search and just navigate to whereever you want to put the file that is currently embedded in your Publisher Document.

[Iztok]

I have photo in document in resource manager neither linked neither embeded

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, Iztok said:

I have photo in document in resource manager neither linked neither embeded

In this case it is a layer of type "Pixel". Those aren't handled like resources and don't appear in the Resource Manager.

You can turn a "Pixel" layer into an "Image" layer via right-click on the item in the layout window -> "Convert to Image Resource". Then it appears in the Resource Manager where you can use "Make Linked" and choose a file path again (without searching for a non-existent item in this dialog window, as @OldBruce mentioned).

Unfortunately, Affinity opens images as "Pixel" layers named "Background", ignoring their original file names and file paths. As workaround I prefer to avoid the procedure via right-click, convert and finder menu folder path selection (or search) but simply delete such a new "Background" layer + place it again via one of the "Place" options, i.e. tool button or menu or just by dragging from a finder window onto the empty canvas (not onto pasteboard or UI panels). Then it is an entry in the Resource Manger, additionally it maintains its file name as layer name even if I convert this "Image" layer into a "Pixel" layer for editing.

[Iztok]

Thank you for explanation, but from the user's perspective, this is confusing. Should every user now need to know that this is happening? This seems like an unnecessary adjustment without a clear purpose. What is its function, and can't the program itself detect the pixel layer with the image? I believe this could be corrected automatically.

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, Iztok said:

Should every user now need to know that this is happening? This seems like an unnecessary adjustment without a clear purpose. What is its function, and can't the program itself detect the pixel layer with the image?

Of course yes. Like the difference between vector & pixel, between frame text & art text & text curves, between RGB & CMYK, also the difference between "image" & "pixel" layers can be fundamental, but it need not be important. It is useful because it supports a more non-destructive workflow through its various attributes, each having an advantage or disadvantage depending on the user's goal and/or individual preferences. – For example, an "Image" layer can store its original resolution, colour space and colour profile, which can be a relevant advantage when a resource is used but not edited.

2 hours ago, Iztok said:

I believe this could be corrected automatically.

Affinity has a few automatism for "Image" layers already, they my feel welcome or cumbersome, again depending on the user's goal and preferred habits and also depending on the user' app settings: There is an automatism when a resource gets placed (-> 'image') or opened (-> 'pixel') (<- the latter seems to be automatically happened in your case), and there is a preference to get an 'image' layer automatically converted into a 'pixel' layer as soon the use of an according tool requires a pixel layer. And, for instance, rasterizing a layer ('image' and 'pixel'), automatically converts the resource to the current document resolution in this process.

However, I don't know if V2 got an option to open a rasterized file as 'Image', not as 'Pixel' layer. As mentioned, I would prefer this.
And, afaik, there is no automatic conversion into an "Image" layer, as you seem to request. – But how could that be defined?

[Iztok]

All pictures are bitmap, I know very well diference between vector and bitmap, but I have picture and in resource menager doesn't recognize it. I woek in photoshop from 1995 and with InDesign from when it start, so in InDesign was simple, picture is picture  and vector is vector, avaery picture was  in basic linked and recognizible in manager, why not simplifize, InDesign was good because of prediction and logic of designer, this should be better has some potencial aspecialy with vector graphic I could import so much vector graphic as in InDesign was imposible- eps instead.