Jump to content
Gabe Logan

How can I open Indesign (indd and idml) Files in Publisher?

Recommended Posts

On 8/30/2018 at 5:02 PM, mark-h said:

I need to be able to deliver editable layouts in a commonly-accepted format. PDFs won't always suffice, sadly.

I prefer to send pre-press work to the print house complete... all in a PDF file format so that it cannot be messed with. Fonts I have bought remain useable under my licence. I don't want my final output to be adjusted by anyone. Ironic that it is in Adobe's proprietary format too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 1:35 PM, David Simpson said:

I was also concerned about importing all of my old InDesign files - but found that importing a PDF exported from InDesign worked amazingly well with Affinity Publisher. I can start editing right away and make as many changes as I like, and save the file as an .afpub file.

Very impressive, and immediately useful to me.

I, like many, can appreciate the amount of work that has already gone into creating Affinity Publisher Beta and I'm sure they will continue their work on the .indd import. In the meantime after running a few tests (both simple and complicated) I too have my workaround when need arises as @David Simpson has already stated in order to open an already finished InDesign document for further simple editing when necessary. Simply exporting the .indd into a PDF format imports quite surprisingly tidy into AP with editing possibilities that are fine for my needs.

As well, exporting from InDesign into an .eps file imports nicely although the text comes in as shapes so is not editable. Between both ways, this works for simple edits on an already finished .indd document. I wouldn't be switching to AP in the middle of a ID project anyways, so the finished .indd versions -> PDF is fine until AP gets the update for importing and hopefully exporting to .indd or at least .idml formats. 

I understand a lot of the criticism at this point, yet still think Affinity deserves a good round of applause for taking on such a giant and I'm confident they will listen to their community (which personally I feel Adobe does not) and will produce their updates. I already like AP and am well excited to see where it goes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just observation from somebody who switched from Adobe software completely to Affinity for both Photoshop and Illustrator. Same surely will apply for Publisher. In the beginning you will need (and look for) that Adobe "crutches". Old files, clients sending something in known file format and so on. My advice is - weed out Adobe software from your workflow and move entirely to Affinity. Affinity works best with native formats - you can start by making new jobs entirely in Affinity software and after a while you will notice you don't need to look back - why would you? Transition may not be as smooth as one would desire but it is worth it.

Treating Affinity software as something that should work seamlessly with Adobe isn't the way in my experience. When Publisher will reach certain maturity - work within it. Instead of "but in Indesign I could do this! When it will be possible in Publisher" be little more flexible. Indesign was released in what? 2002? And was build up on PageMaker from 90's, right? Imagine all the time they had to polish it (and in my opinion they still failed at one very important thing - making it pleasure to work with). We will get there, but not with first beta ;) Publisher is not made to kill everything that exists for years now at release. It is beginning and for what I see - it will pay up to support Affinity. Because they managed to make daily work (almost :D) a pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 9:02 AM, mark-h said:

My next question is: do you think it will it ever be able to export to an InDesign format like it can a PSD? Unless industry standards change I need to be able to deliver editable layouts in a commonly-accepted format. PDFs won't always suffice, sadly.

Exactly. A PDF won't include your styles sheets and edits from InDesign. PDFs are generally part of a proof and print workflow. Without the ability to import InDesign documents more or less intact, Publisher will be dead in the water. If you can't migrate from InDesign, Publisher is useless as an InDesign alternative. Once it can handle InDesign docs, then Katy bar the door. Why to you think Adobe offers their Photo Package, including Lightroom and Photoshop, so inexpensively? Obviously they are feeling the heat. It will be interesting to see if InDesign comes down in price once Publisher is cutting their water. If you need InDesign's e-publishing features no doubt you hope so. Otherwise, Publisher looks great. If you have not done so already, take a look at their online tutorials. They cover Publisher pretty thoroughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Whitedog said:

Without the ability to import InDesign documents more or less intact, Publisher will be dead in the water. If you can't migrate from InDesign, Publisher is useless as an InDesign alternative.

You are too dramatic. Just use the software, that is migration enough. Ability to open InDy files is just a bonus when it comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 5:38 PM, pet_r said:

I think you need particularly the import from InDesign CS6 format. Many users do survive with this last perpetual version hoping and praying to be able to finally switch

Affinity should prioritize basic geometry import via IDML (aka textboxes, picture-boxes with absolutely correct measures, cmyk-color!) both on pages and master-pages wich should be "easy" and would serve us very well in reopening older documents as templates to reshape/refill them for the current job.

and only then move its way up to the more complex tasks 2) textstyles with correct hierarchy 

and finally 3) content (text, linked images)

 

and yes IMPORT is absolutely first. to EXPORT an indesign-file correctly so that your client/printshop/businesss-partner will not run into any issues will need very much more work and I would not want to rely on such a thing. Heck, Apple Pages exports DOCX-Files, but they never show up correctly at my client's windows-machine.. .


  • System: MacBook Pro (13-inch, Early 2011), 8GB RAM, 2TB SSD, running on 10.12.6 Sierra;
  • Display Setup: 27" Thunderbolt Display primary + 24" LED Cinema Display secondary for palettes;
  • Keyboard-Layout: German apple extended keyboard (aluminum);

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 6:20 AM, Chris_K said:

I can't give any timelines for this. It's being worked and will be in an update when it is considered working and relatively stable. But I would be talking more than a few weeks in not months, It's not a simple thing to just implement 

It's worth noting that InDesign cannot open Word docs directly. I used an old version of Pages to open my (old) long document from AppleWorks. Then I exported the document to MS Word. After which I cut and pasted it into InDesign. What amazed me is that my style sheets survived the process more or less in tack. The issue might be for Publisher to do as well, recognizing InDesign style sheets and page layouts when text is cut and pasted from one to the other (and Word docs too). Actually opening InDesign and Word documents may be a bridge too far.

Another reason I'm interested in Publisher is that InDesign CS6 is 32bit only, if you can believe it. Whereas Photoshop CS6 is 64bit—and cannot be run in 32bit mode, as Photoshop CS5 can. The whole CS6 suite is equally schizophrenic, including numerous 32 and 64bit apps. The next version of the macOS after 10.14 Mojave will be 64 bit only. The Mojave beta throws up a warning the first time you launch a 32 bit app that it is not optimized for 10.14. macOS 10.15 won't be out till late next year, and even then no one will be compelled to upgrade their OS, but the handwriting is on the wall. InDesign CS6 is approaching EOL.

So, $50 for a standalone version of Publisher, as opposed to $20 a month for an InDesign CC subscription, is a no brainer. I looked at the online demos for Publisher and it is impressive. As well, the learning curve will apparently not be too steep.

One note of caution—and I'll post this as well on the features request forum—is that Apple's Pages now has a new and improved way to link text boxes. For a long time it lacked text box linking. Apple cut it out way back when. Well, in the latest version of Pages text box linking is back with a vengeance. Instead of the traditional lines linking boxes, which can get tedious to use to say the least, Pages now links text boxes by the numbers, with different threads with different color tabs so you can easily tell what you are linking to. You can change the numbers to move boxes around and even change thread colors. This may be one of the greatest innovations in desktop publishing in years. IMO Serif would do well to sit up and take notice of this new approach. Who knows if Adobe will. And, at this point, who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Whitedog said:

Exactly. A PDF won't include your styles sheets and edits from InDesign. PDFs are generally part of a proof and print workflow. Without the ability to import InDesign documents more or less intact, Publisher will be dead in the water. If you can't migrate from InDesign, Publisher is useless as an InDesign alternative. Once it can handle InDesign docs, then Katy bar the door. Why to you think Adobe offers their Photo Package, including Lightroom and Photoshop, so inexpensively? Obviously they are feeling the heat. It will be interesting to see if InDesign comes down in price once Publisher is cutting their water. If you need InDesign's e-publishing features no doubt you hope so. Otherwise, Publisher looks great. If you have not done so already, take a look at their online tutorials. They cover Publisher pretty thoroughly.

"Dead in the water" is a bit melodramatic. I constantly have state this, alternative does not mean competitor. Never once have the good people touted their software as a feature to feature replacement of Adobe's products. Goals and objectives are different in very organization, they may just be looking for a piece of the pie not the whole  bakery. There are many many persons in the field that it will suit their needs just fine. Frankly expecting a $50 (US) one time purchase software to match a $600(US) Per year subscription base feature for feature is a tad unrealistic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people mistaken "alternative to..." with "cheaper version of...". Affinity is offering software in its own rights. Publisher is not InDesign in disguise. Also - do you think Adobe is gladly offering specification for their proprietary file types? Thats why we cant import .ai files to Designer if saved without pdf component. Not because Affinity team was lazy but because Adobe is guarding their secrets that would make you use their software.

23 hours ago, Whitedog said:

If you can't migrate from InDesign, Publisher is useless as an InDesign alternative.

Perfect example of what I am talking about. Just start doing new jobs natively in Publisher. You will not need old files indefinitely, do you? I migrated this way from both Photoshop and Illustrator to Affinity. It took some time, I had to re-save some ai files etc. But if you are actively working then after few months all new files are native. "Alternative" means that you are using it instead other software, not that you are "kind of, sort of using new one but really mainly to open old files made in another software". That doesnt make sense and indeed is useless. You jump from one ship to another, not standing with one leg on each board, hanging between them. And if Publisher does not suit your needs yet - give it some time. Dont expect beta of totally new software to beat or match functionality of something that was being polished for 2 decades...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am one of the many Quark Xpress users who would like to open legacy files from some years back. However, a stable version of Affinity Publisher would sell like hot cakes and I would certainly buy it once they get it working properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These replies do not relate to my latest post. The three different Affinity apps have different issues relative to their Adobe equivalents. With Illustrator you pretty much have to start over. The same goes for Lightroom. There is no way to open there proprietary files while preserving your edits. Photoshop is a different matter. PSD is a widely accessible format that many apps can handle. And TIFFs are even more widely supported.

As for how InDesign deals with other file types, it appears that I am a bit rusty. While it can't open those files directly, it can place a variety of file types, including doc and docx, PDF and RTF files, and probably others as well. So Publisher will need to be able to do the same. The ability to do so is vital for Publisher, in my opinion. Not everybody is willing to make a clean break, as is required with Illustrator and Lightroom. For those who are, good for you. But most people aren't willing to disrupt their workflow so dramatically. Even so, Adobe has dropped the price for Photoshop and Lightroom CC dramatically. Perhaps they see Serif in their rearview mirror. Illustrator, though, is apparently holding its own.

On the other hand, if Publisher can enable a smooth transition from InDesign it is far more likely to be adopted quickly. The price advantage Publisher will have over InDesign, assuming Serif maintains their current price structure, will be substantial.

Relative to the question of feature parity between InDesign and Publisher, of course it's unlikely to be exact. Just as InDesign isn't a clone of Quark XPress. But the work they do is largely the same, however they may go about it somewhat differently. The requirements of desktop publishing have long been established. So the marks Publisher has to reach are not new. As well, the more Publisher is like InDesign the easier it will be to learn how to us it, if you are migrating. Too much difference is a disincentive. From what I've seen Publisher is close enough.

I first learned how to use PageMaker back in the day at my local junior collage. Later I took classes in Quark XPress. When InDesign came out I needed no class to learn how to use it. A few reference books was all I required. Because a page layout program was a page layout program was a page layout program. I expect the same to be the case with Publisher. And now, of course, online tutorials offer help when it's needed.

The one area Publisher is likely to lag behind is e-publishing. And that's fine with me. But then I'm something of a troglodyte. Even so, it will eventually probably have to learn those skills as well. But hey, InDesign wasn't built in a day. ;-)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, woefi said:

Affinity should prioritize basic geometry import via IDML (aka textboxes, picture-boxes with absolutely correct measures, cmyk-color!) both on pages and master-pages wich should be "easy" and would serve us very well in reopening older documents as templates to reshape/refill them for the current job.

and only then move its way up to the more complex tasks 2) textstyles with correct hierarchy 

and finally 3) content (text, linked images)

 

and yes IMPORT is absolutely first. to EXPORT an indesign-file correctly so that your client/printshop/businesss-partner will not run into any issues will need very much more work and I would not want to rely on such a thing. Heck, Apple Pages exports DOCX-Files, but they never show up correctly at my client's windows-machine.. .

I don't think you can separate the value of those features. They are all important and will be part of a competent version of Publisher. Though, as you say, export may take longer, if it ever happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Whitedog said:

But most people aren't willing to disrupt their workflow so dramatically.

You have no data to back it up, its just what you think because you wouldn't do that ;) BUT, for sake of argument lets say this is true. Obviously this would be true only for people who already are working for years using other software. However there is huge number of people who are starting. Each year army of students will have a choice. They are not bounded to old software, they have no baggage of old files as they are starting. They dont need to change workflow - they can jump in right away. Thought about that? Its not only about people who were doing it for a long time already but also about new generations of designers (or those "old dogs" who are willing to learn new tricks, like myself :D).

Plus, lets not forget that its not like whatever is in first beta - will always be. Publisher will naturally grow, getting better with each iteration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just copied (a page) from inDesign (select all and copy), opened a new Affinity Publisher Beta document and pasted it. It worked flawlessly. All text is editable all vector work done in inDesign comes in as expected. Not sure how it would work with a multi-page document with linked text boxes but this is actually pretty amazing. This is just fantastic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 8:39 AM, Chris_K said:

@Gabe Logan

Welcome to the Serif Affinity forums

It's not possible yet, plans to be able to in the future

Good to hear. I have lots of InDesign files. Opening .indx would be good, too. I think that's the extension of InDesign Exchange files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publisher will only be a match for InDesign if it can open the files.

By the introduction of InDesign Adobe knew it has te be able to open Quark Express and Pagemaker files.

When this will not be possible it is dead before birth.

 

Publisher works nice and fast, good work. Now compatibly and i will purchase it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henri H said:

Publisher will only be a match for InDesign if it can open the files.

By the introduction of InDesign Adobe knew it has te be able to open Quark Express and Pagemaker files.

When this will not be possible it is dead before birth.

 

Publisher works nice and fast, good work. Now compatibly and i will purchase it.

And ID still can only open QXP 3 & 4 documents and I believe ID CS6 was the last version to open PM files (but hey, if one has a CC license at least they can still install it).

But I get your point. If one of Serif's goals is to take a larger share of Adobe's customers, it will need to open IDML files, which will come. But APub needs to handle more of ID's elements before it is of practical use.


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, zaba said:

I have just copied (a page) from inDesign (select all and copy), opened a new Affinity Publisher Beta document and pasted it. It worked flawlessly. All text is editable all vector work done in inDesign comes in as expected. Not sure how it would work with a multi-page document with linked text boxes but this is actually pretty amazing. This is just fantastic!

Thanks for the info!! I was finishing up a business card (2-sided) in ID, but based on your post, copied and pasted to APub. Seems to have copied without any issues! Not sure if I dare send this output to the printer, however! Might be some other little surprises we all might find since this is a beta!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

if Markzware can work with ID and Quark native files to convert them between each other, I don't see any problem why A-team can't do that, too. But, we must be patient. Time is needed to do that:

https://markzware.com/products/

Meanwhile, importing of ID and Quark files into Publisher can be done in two ways while waiting the import features:

  1. open PDF files, if you need the original layout, then link the pages and recreate styles;
  2. if you prefer to keep the styles then export the text from ID or Quark into RTF, import it into Publisher and recreate the layout.

Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nwhit said:

Thanks for the info!! I was finishing up a business card (2-sided) in ID, but based on your post, copied and pasted to APub. Seems to have copied without any issues! Not sure if I dare send this output to the printer, however! Might be some other little surprises we all might find since this is a beta!

If you can export it to PDF, most printers can handle that just fine. Indeed, the ones I know prefer PDF—assuming you've proofed it properly. On the other hand, if you want the printer to be able to make adjustments, a native InDesign document is preferable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 12:15 AM, nezumi said:

You have no data to back it up, its just what you think because you wouldn't do that ;) BUT, for sake of argument lets say this is true. Obviously this would be true only for people who already are working for years using other software. However there is huge number of people who are starting. Each year army of students will have a choice. They are not bounded to old software, they have no baggage of old files as they are starting. They dont need to change workflow - they can jump in right away. Thought about that? Its not only about people who were doing it for a long time already but also about new generations of designers (or those "old dogs" who are willing to learn new tricks, like myself :D).

Plus, lets not forget that its not like whatever is in first beta - will always be. Publisher will naturally grow, getting better with each iteration.

You have no data on which to base the assertion that I have no data. Circular reasoning at it's worst. As it happens I know quite a few graphic design professionals (and I am one such) and they universally resent the seeming necessity of updating the OS and their established workflow apps as regularly as Apple and Adobe would have them do. Of course, for people moving into e-pub work keeping up with InDesign or Quark is essential, as well as upgrading to the operating systems that support those apps. Without e-pub capability Publisher will hold no value for these folks at all. This issue goes double for people working in a business environment where continuity is vital. New software means new problems and thus is not popular. This goes for printers as well, whose workflow is even more constrained than their customers'.

You're right that there are innumerable young artists coming up. But for the time being they will be taught the traditional design apps. Schools are reluctant to adopt new, untested software because of what such changes do to their curriculum and because of the cost of adding or changing software. Serif has a solution to the cost problem, at least. But adoption by schools can be expected to be slow in the main.

Now some "old dogs", presumably working on their own, have the liberty to try new things. If that suits them, there's nothing stopping them from doing so—assuming they don't actually make a living in graphic design and hence have time to spare.

The very fact I am on this forum indicates that I have an interest in and may have time to spend trying out Publisher, though I, too, am a way old dog. Nevertheless, I even have the Mojave beta running on an external partition for testing purposes. In particular I am looking for an alternative to InDesign CC because InDesign CS6 is only 32bit and macOS will be sunsetting 32bit apps next year. And because InDesign CC costs $240 a year. Yuck!

So I have nothing against Publisher. And I hope it will become popular in the near future, undercutting Adobe and their pricy subscription software. But I am skeptical about how soon and to what extent this may happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Whitedog said:

So I have nothing against Publisher. And I hope it will become popular in the near future, undercutting Adobe and their pricy subscription software. But I am skeptical about how soon and to what extent this may happen.

Big companies are the last to adopt anything new. It always starts from smaller businesses.

Remember Quark? Unassailable king of the publishing industry? And who's laughing now.

There is every chance for Publisher to succeed in this business now more than ever before because there is a need for something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Whitedog said:

If you can export it to PDF, most printers can handle that just fine. Indeed, the ones I know prefer PDF—assuming you've proofed it properly. On the other hand, if you want the printer to be able to make adjustments, a native InDesign document is preferable.

Yes, very familiar with workflow. Our media production company does a lot of it. But I am also concerned as to whether the APub PDF output will have the fidelity required or any other issues. Although we use Photo and Designer, we've never sent any of their PDF exports to a printing company, so not real interested in possibly blowing a print job for a client. On screen, the APub pdf looks fine, but you never know. May decide to wait until others have done it without issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Whitedog said:

You have no data on which to base the assertion that I have no data. Circular reasoning at it's worst.

I know people who switched to Affinity software and I did it myself. That in itself tells me that there are clearly people who will switch on a professional level. I still see many people looking at Affinity as lesser software made for hobbyist market. But most of them just haven't even tried it.

11 hours ago, Whitedog said:

As it happens I know quite a few graphic design professionals (and I am one such) and they universally resent the seeming necessity of updating the OS and their established workflow apps as regularly as Apple and Adobe would have them do.

I was starting making first graphic editing on C-64, later on Deluxe Paint on Amiga. I used Adobe Software since Photoshop 4. I may know thing or two about this business and a few people too. I completely agree with not updating everything ASAP. I am still on win7 myself - everything just works. Slowly thinking about update to win10 but I don't see enough profits of doing so. As for software - I tend to update it because many times there's a lot of bug fixes.  Last Affinity update for example fixed crashes I was experiencing when using pen tool so it was really cool. But yes - one has to be very careful with updates because after all your livelihood depends on it. Another thing that makes Affinity better then Adobe - public beta. You can have your stable version and test beta installed at the same time. Adobe just rolls the update and you have to deal with it.

There's a fine line between being sure that you are not getting into problems and stagnation. Do the good testing, make sure new software gives you what you need but dont afraid to change your workflow. Since Adobe introduced subscription model some updates are ridiculously small ( I am sure you know this). They will get your money anyways so why bother. Specially true for Illustrator - updates are laughable. Why you think they are always turning off comments under their videos? ;) And always doing this tricks - showing all things they updated saying "these are my favorite changes" like there's anything else. In the end of video there's always "...and much more!" even though there's literally nothing more. I hate when companies are treating me like idiot. Plus - if you don't pay them you will not be even able to open old files and make some minimal fixes. I don't want to be hold hostage - so even if Affinity software may have some work to do when it comes to functionality - ironically enough I feel more free using it.

As for your "old dog" comment - I do make a living on graphic design. All my adult life actually. Recently more and more in 3d but still need that 2D stuff. And yes, I would love to see deeper integration of Affinity with say Zbrush (some things are working some not) but I understand that it has to grow and its a little price to pay. Man, like I said - Adobe is not offering enough anymore to justify being on their leash. I had to change workflow due to some features missing in Designer (namely automatic tracing of bitmaps or deforming objects - both of which I am making in Inkscape for now) but it was honestly change for the better.

I see where you're coming from - I guess we have more in common then we think. And I am glad youre here :) Publisher isnt my main point of interest but it has things that will help me greatly so I am definitely getting it. My friend needs only tables, but he is picking it up also just to support Affinity. We need that good old competition going.
I sense that you did much more publishing work then I did (I do regularly do work for print but not big things. I have put together literally one book. All the rest is like 4 pages brochure, maybe little catalog sometimes. So you surely will see more 
shortages. I actually believe that you can contribute more to the future of Publisher because you have bigger needs then I do and you can point out things I wouldn't even saw. All I am saying - give it a good try. Lets be optimistic. I cant wait to see how Publisher integrates with the rest of Affinity.

Have a great day, stay around, test some things and help Publisher to be great. It may take some time but we are not going anywhere, right? These old dogs are still having some fangs to show :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, nezumi said:

I know people who switched to Affinity software and I did it myself. That in itself tells me that there are clearly people who will switch on a professional level. I still see many people looking at Affinity as lesser software made for hobbyist market. But most of them just haven't even tried it.

Fine. Just be careful about what you don't know. I've been careless from time to time and it can be embarrassing.

I was starting making first graphic editing on C-64, later on Deluxe Paint on Amiga. I used Adobe Software since Photoshop 4. I may know thing or two about this business and a few people too. I completely agree with not updating everything ASAP. I am still on win7 myself - everything just works. Slowly thinking about update to win10 but I don't see enough profits of doing so. As for software - I tend to update it because many times there's a lot of bug fixes.  Last Affinity update for example fixed crashes I was experiencing when using pen tool so it was really cool. But yes - one has to be very careful with updates because after all your livelihood depends on it. Another thing that makes Affinity better then Adobe - public beta. You can have your stable version and test beta installed at the same time. Adobe just rolls the update and you have to deal with it.

One of the differences between us is that you're on Windows and I'm on a Mac. So we've used different software, at least in the beginning. I started with Photoshop 2.5 and Claris (Apple) Works. AppleWorks was somewhat like Microsoft Works back in the day.

Adobe got around to offering beta software for awhile before they went all CC. In particular, Lightroom started out as a free beta and undercut Apple's Aperture. And even when I had to pay for Lightroom it was $100 cheaper than Aperture. Apple finally had to cut the price and offer refunds to early adopters. But by that time it was too late. Lightroom already had major mindshare and Apple never caught up. So Adobe did some things right before they screwed it up with subscriptions. Still, Lightroom and Photoshop for $10 a month is a pretty good deal.

There's a fine line between being sure that you are not getting into problems and stagnation.

I don't think that line is so fine. Stagnation is in the eye of the beholder. After all, you're still using Windows 7. ;-) I upgraded to Windows 10 (running in emulation in Parallels Desktop) while it was a free upgrade. For me that was a no brainer. It was the easiest Windows upgrade I've ever done. The Windows 10 installer recognized my Windows 7 license without a hitch. Of course other people found the upgrade less salubrious. Windows kept badgering them to upgrade and, if they weren't paying attention, would upgrade them in the background. Not nice. But Windows 8 was a fine example of a dumb idea to be avoided. Steve Balmars' parting gift to Microsoft.

Do the good testing, make sure new software gives you what you need but dont afraid to change your workflow.

It's not so much a matter of fear as it is of need. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Like, you know, Windows 7.

Since Adobe introduced subscription model some updates are ridiculously small ( I am sure you know this). They will get your money anyways so why bother. Specially true for Illustrator - updates are laughable.

Perhaps, but they are also painless, something you couldn't say about their standalone apps. Participating on the Adobe forums I found out that they can, in fact, offer new features with subscription software that they can't with standalone products. There's actually a federal law preventing them from doing so. That's why some features, like the Dehaze filter in Lightroom, never made it into CS6. If you shoot landscapes, Dehaze can be quite useful. More important, perhaps, is that Adobe now offers a version of Lightroom that works on an iPhone and in the cloud. Since so many people now take pictures with their phones, this is something of a breakthrough. Of course it encourages you to use the Adobe cloud, which past a certain point costs money. But it makes round-tripping you photos a breeze. Other software may not have improved so dramatically. But InDesign has, with expanded features for e-publishing (so has Quark XPress). Even Photoshop has constantly improving Camera RAW support. I don't use Illustrator any more so I can't speak to changes there. On the other hand, some earlier versions of Illustrator were buggy as Hell. If all they do is fix bugs that can be worth the candle, if you can afford it. Which I cannot.

I haven't actually tried InDesign CC—can't afford it. But CS6 is not without its problems, so I would upgrade if I could. Which brings us to Publisher. For instance, table manipulation looks to be a breeze. Like I said, I watched all the demo videos.

Why you think they are always turning off comments under their videos? ;) And always doing this tricks - showing all things they updated saying "these are my favorite changes" like there's anything else. In the end of video there's always "...and much more!" even though there's literally nothing more. I hate when companies are treating me like idiot. Plus - if you don't pay them you will not be even able to open old files and make some minimal fixes. I don't want to be hold hostage - so even if Affinity software may have some work to do when it comes to functionality - ironically enough I feel more free using it.

That, of course, is the major problem with the Creative Cloud. Once you subscribe, you're stuck. So Serif has a big advantage in that their Affinity software is updated for free—so far, at least. And the price of admission is small.

As for your "old dog" comment - I do make a living on graphic design. All my adult life actually. Recently more and more in 3d but still need that 2D stuff. And yes, I would love to see deeper integration of Affinity with say Zbrush (some things are working some not) but I understand that it has to grow and its a little price to pay. Man, like I said - Adobe is not offering enough anymore to justify being on their leash. I had to change workflow due to some features missing in Designer (namely automatic tracing of bitmaps or deforming objects - both of which I am making in Inkscape for now) but it was honestly change for the better.

I see where you're coming from - I guess we have more in common then we think. And I am glad youre here :) Publisher isnt my main point of interest but it has things that will help me greatly so I am definitely getting it. My friend needs only tables, but he is picking it up also just to support Affinity.

Publisher handles tables quite well.

We need that good old competition going.

That's for sure. While I don't hate Adobe, I think they've gotten too high-handed. Some real competition will certainly do them good. It's already forced them to offer a bargain price for Photoshop and Lightroom.


I sense that you did much more publishing work then I did (I do regularly do work for print but not big things. I have put together literally one book. All the rest is like 4 pages brochure, maybe little catalog sometimes. So you surely will see more shortages. I actually believe that you can contribute more to the future of Publisher because you have bigger needs then I do and you can point out things I wouldn't even saw. All I am saying - give it a good try. Lets be optimistic. I cant wait to see how Publisher integrates with the rest of Affinity.

I'm sure there are other's who would like to break with InDesign. Because it doesn't have the difficulties that Illustrator and Lightroom users face, I expect it will do quite well once they sort out the import problems.

Have a great day, stay around, test some things and help Publisher to be great. It may take some time but we are not going anywhere, right? These old dogs are still having some fangs to show :D

I'll be here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×