Does anyone use Designer for doing basic layouts?

[MikeW]

You know DPI and PPI aren't the same, right?  :ph34r:  :lol:

 

:o  :lol:

 

Mike

[KipV]

I am a little confused as to how Affinity's resize image works also. When you click resample and then increase the DPI the number of pixels starts increasing along with the DPI. It is as if I am upscaling the image rather then increasing the pixel density (which is what I want to do.)

[MikeW]

Kip, if that image needs to be edited in an image editing application, just select it, then export it out at the size it is on the page with the export set to just export the selection. Do your edits, bring it into AD AND just move the original just in case it will be needed in the future or until you are assured the replacement is fine.

 

I believe one can go back and forth with AD and AP. Seems like I read something to that effect. I am using the Windows Beta so cannot currently test that work-flow.

 

All ID is doing (assuming a linked image) is starting PS with the image name and path. Once exported from AD, that image can be opened and manipulated without much hassle. Tell ya the truth, I have never used that capability in ID, QXP, etc. I always link images, I usually am running three application when doing layout--the layout application, a vector editor and an image editor. It's not much hassle to "manually" open the required assets and edit them, then update the link in the layout application (what do you think I am doing between typing responses :lol: ...).

 

Best regards, Mike

[MikeW]

I am a little confused as to how Affinity's resize image works also. When you click resample and then increase the DPI the number of pixels starts increasing along with the DPI. It is as if I am upscaling the image rather then increasing the pixel density (which is what I want to do.)

 

Why are you resampling (which is what is happening)?

 

But the answer is that the number of pixels are changing when resampling is done (I almost never resample in anything). What is happening is that as an original image, there are only X number of pixels. In order to increase the DPI during resampling, pixels are added to fill in the spaces that would other wise be created if the pixels remained a fixed number--they would be further apart without image data).

 

These additional (new) pixels are interpolated from the neighboring pixels (their size and colorant values). The important bit is that those new pixels are made up. They didn't exist in the non-resampled image. Generally a resampled image will never print as sharply as the original. Not even if unsharp mask and/or sharpening is performed following resampling. There are applications dedicated to enlarging an image that have better routines for guessing what to do and where in an image when resampling, as well as the sharpening processes. While I have used them in an "emergency," it is best to not do it without understanding the consequences, the print technology (assuming a print job), etc.

 

Mike

[KipV]

Interesting, when I exported that image it exported as 300 DPI with the dimensions of the image reduced to account for apparently increasing the pixel density!? So maybe it did increase the density? If a staff member is reading this like MEB could they give me an idea what is going on with how resolution works?

[KipV]

Why are you resampling (which is what is happening)?

 

I think I am using the wrong term. What I am trying to do is take the existing pixels and move them closer together without adding to the pixel count. I am just trying to increase the density. In this case the pixel size of 1.5 x 2.5 is enough for what I need.

[MikeW]

Just making the image smaller is "compacting" the existing pixels--they are getting smaller, closer together. That is why the effective resolution gets larger when an image is sized downward from 100% of its native size. Your image evidently has 300+ DPI, that's more than sufficient.

 

Here's a screen shot of a quickie spreadsheet showing the effect on PPI/DPI when resizing an image.

 

 

The above is not adding nor subtracting pixels. It is simply showing that either the pixels get larger (above 100% size) or smaller (below 100%) when simply sizing an image.

[Petar Petrenko]

Hi guys,

Just to clarify something. The resoultion of the image is its size (e.g. 4000x3000 pixels) and dpi means just how many dots are packed in one inch. More dots -- better quality in printing.  :)

[ronnyb]

Petar, my understanding is that the resolution of an image is not its size. I think a more accurate statement would be that an imahe's dimensions correlate to it's size; An image's resolution, however, is the generic term or label for the more the specific metric: dpi/ppi. Think about the term resolution and to be able to resolve something visually. Resolution refers to amount of detail in a given area, not it's physical size. Hope this makes sense... 

 

 

 

Hi guys,

Just to clarify something. The resoultion of the image is its size (e.g. 4000x3000 pixels) and dpi means just how many dots are packed in one inch. More dots -- better quality in printing.  :)

[R C-R]

While DPI & PPI are often used interchangeably they are not the same thing. Without repeating the same comments about this that have appeared on this & many other forums for forever, the simplest way to explain it is "dot" is an ambiguous term that really only has a specific meaning when applied to a specific printing process or to hard copy.

 

"Pixel" is an unambiguous term referring to a "picture element" of an image. If the element is a physical pixel group on a display screen it has an effective physical size, otherwise not.

 

So for example, a virtual pixel of an image file can be rendered on a display of a given physical PPI at different display sizes, or printed at different physical print sizes, depending on the software used to convert that virtual element into something tangible.

[Petar Petrenko]

Petar, my understanding is that the resolution of an image is not its size. I think a more accurate statement would be that an imahe's dimensions correlate to it's size; An image's resolution, however, is the generic term or label for the more the specific metric: dpi/ppi. Think about the term resolution and to be able to resolve something visually. Resolution refers to amount of detail in a given area, not it's physical size. Hope this makes sense... 

 

Maybe you will find this article interesting. Please, read it to the very end:

 

http://www.dpiphoto.eu/dpi.htm

[MikeW]

Maybe you will find this article interesting. Please, read it to the very end:

 

http://www.dpiphoto.eu/dpi.htm

 

As much as I like that web page and have referred others to it, there still is a couple points of misinformation on it. But in general it is a good page to refer others to.

[ronnyb]

Thanks petar; I've read that and I'm familiar w the terms. However resolution is not dimension...

 

Maybe you will find this article interesting. Please, read it to the very end:

 

http://www.dpiphoto.eu/dpi.htm

[Petar Petrenko]

It's up to you, ronnyb.  :)

[KipV]

I have to say I do miss the guide features from InDesign like snap to guides and telling me that something is aligned without even needing to lay out guides. I can still get the job done but those features are really nice touches for doing layouts.

[Ben]

@KipV

 

Can you make a list of these features.  Could we use the existing snapping indicators to show alignment?

[KipV]

Oh wait, Affinity does have guide snapping features! I forgot about that! I was looking under preferences to turn it on which is I think where you turn it on with InDesign. This is the first time I have used Affinity as a layout tool so I forgot about some of those features. That's great you have that feature. So knowing that now the main basic layout features left to add is bringing artboards editing to Photo and text wrap (I realize there is a work around for text wrap but simplifying how this is done would help.)

[KipV]

I am a little uncertain how viewing and hiding the pasteboard works. A while ago I was trying to hide the pasteboard since there was a lot of clutter and now that I somehow got the pasteboard to show I can't figure out how to hide it again!

[Petar Petrenko]

In InDesign there is a toggle "w" to show/hide the pasteboard. Is there anything similar in Designer/Publisher (in the future)?

[Alfred]

In Affinity Designer, choosing 'View > View Mode > Clip to Canvas' (default shortcut '\') toggles the visibility of everything beyond the edges of the canvas.

[Bri-Toon]

In Affinity Designer, choosing 'View > View Mode > Clip to Canvas' (default shortcut '\') toggles the visibility of everything beyond the edges of the canvas.

 

Well I'll be darned.

[Raymondo]

Hi just to let you know I use CS6 (InDesign) and it runs perfectly ok on OS Sierra.

[KipV]

Clip canvas is greyed out for me on both designer and photo. I know I did used the feature accidentally at one point so now I just have to figure out how to do it on purpose. Sometimes when I drag an object to the pasteboard it I can see it and other times it disappears. Strange, must be a bug.

 

@Raymondo

That is great that you got CS6 to work on Sierra but unfortunately others were not as successful. I will probably get Sierra a few months down the road.

[jer]

Hehe, :) when I said distort type I was thinking along the lines of something like this:

 

https://www.behance.net/gallery/22937595/Diversity-cover-art-for-Derwent-Brass-UK

 

These piece was actually done in Affinity Designer and it was done using guides and skewing each letterform individually. In illustrator you'd probably use the Warp>Flag effect to achieve a similar effect...

Wow, love that piece! Colors and style hit my sweet spot for presentation! I couldn't stop looking at it. :o

[KipV]

After doing my first layout project on Affinity I can understand why Serif isn't rushing Publisher out (even though I enjoyed using it for layouts.) There are still a number of basic layout features that need to be added to Designer and Photo to even work well as a basic one page layout software. Why rush out complex layout software before you even have the basics working right? This is the list I have come up with that Affinity should complete before moving to a layout program.

 

- Visible bleeds in the program, not just after exporting the file. There was too much work trying to set up bleeds at a half an inch when I could see an object after it was dragged out into the bleed area. I basically had to draw a half inch box and then drag the object to the size of the box and then delete the box after I no longer needed it.

 

- Adding and editing artboards needs to be done in Photo. If Photo let me edit artboards I could have done my entire book cover layout in Photo (I think) and not had to jump back to Designer each time I needed to make a slight revision. For an example the publisher I was working with said that my book spine needed to be .58" rather then what I previously had it set to which was .5". Such a small adjustment should not require me to go to another app.

 

- I consider text wrap to be a basic tool so this needs to be done without having to rely on a workaround. There is also a feature from InDesign where the text follows along the side an object that I find to be very useful but I can't remember what it is called off the top of my head.

 

- I should be able to select a shape that I want to import an object into. I know there is masking from the layers panel but with InDesign I have gotten used to selecting a shape, selecting place and then having an object get imported in. This object could then show up in the layers panel as a masked item.

 

I think Affinity got off to a good start as a basic layout tool but I really believe that all of these basics need to be done before Publisher comes out. Ideally Publisher should be a solid app right from the first version since so much polishing would have been done to layout tools in Designer and Photo. This way the focus for Publisher can be placed entirely on things like long documents and ebooks rather then adding layout tools that have been out for decades now. Another advantage of placing the focus on Designer and Photo is that people will get comfortable using those programs as solid basic editing apps so when Publisher comes out the transition to the more powerful long document tools will feel more natural since it will be so similar to the programs they already use.

 

PS. I noticed as I was typing this that there is a shortcut for adjusting leading. That is a useful idea. Is anyone else getting this to work? It doesn't work for me. That seems like a much better idea then having to type numbers into a leading box.