Jump to content
Gabe Logan

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

Recommended Posts

On 9/24/2018 at 9:25 AM, Whitedog said:

Can you tell me what advantage IDML has over a standard ID package, which includes linked images?

Advantage of IDML:

Its filesize is very small by omitting all the cached previews of placed images. (several kilobytes instead of tens of megabytes)

And it includes the original references to linked files, while an package updates the links to the new, collected location. Packages are most times an advantage (for archiving), but sometimes, like transitioning a project to another App, you want the links to be intact by still pointing to the old assets-folders which will be many years/projects in (re-)use.

 

I like the idea of source-files taking only several kilobytes, like html-files for example. This helps in keeping several versions on disk for experimenting, and can be used as a backup-strategy


  • Production-System: iMac (21,5-inch, Late 2013), 16GB RAM, 2TB nvme-SSD, running on 10.14.4 Mojave;
  • Display Setup: 27" Thunderbolt Display primary + 21,5" iMac-Display secondary for palettes;
  • Keyboard-Layout: German apple extended keyboard (aluminum);

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2018 at 6:54 PM, nwhit said:

Sadly, the ability to copy/paste from ID files apparently no longer works after the last beta (58) and newest (128) updates. Now get all text as singles lines of text and not the ID text blocks. Same happens when using Place with a PDF. Can't even select a single ID text block and copy/paste. End up with multiple lines of text as a "group" but not functioning as a text frame (block).

Opening a PDF does keep most text blocks intact, although it also ties multiple blocks together that don't belong together. I hope they get this fixed since we can't really proceed with much testing since everything we do is related to past ID docs needing updating or serving as a template, etc. 

Running Sierra on iMac.

With the latest Beta of Publisher, 1.7.0.133, I still have the ability to open a PDF in Publisher and have all the elements and effects intact (yes, some of the text is grouped in blocks, but that's an easy fix) and I can still copy the entire contents of an InDesign CS5 file and paste it into a new blank Publisher file with the same results (content, effects, etc.). I'm also able to open a 100 page magazine PDF file with bleeds in Publisher with only a few font replacement issues. As I refuse to subscribe to Adobe, I can't vouch that this works with any later version of InDesign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dannyg9 said:

With the latest Beta of Publisher, 1.7.0.133, I still have the ability to open a PDF in Publisher and have all the elements and effects intact (yes, some of the text is grouped in blocks, but that's an easy fix) and I can still copy the entire contents of an InDesign CS5 file and paste it into a new blank Publisher file with the same results (content, effects, etc.). I'm also able to open a 100 page magazine PDF file with bleeds in Publisher with only a few font replacement issues. As I refuse to subscribe to Adobe, I can't vouch that this works with any later version of InDesign.

Yes, I can Open a pdf and get most of everything coming through okay. However, I cannot copy/paste any text blocks from ID-CS5 into APub. All text blocks paste as individual lines of text and not in blocks, making it useless since the process to redo all the text in anything but a business card would be too much. 

Are you getting the same thing? It's not clear in your post if you are copying/pasting or Opening a PDF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nwhit said:

Yes, I can Open a pdf and get most of everything coming through okay. However, I cannot copy/paste any text blocks from ID-CS5 into APub. All text blocks paste as individual lines of text and not in blocks, making it useless since the process to redo all the text in anything but a business card would be too much. 

Are you getting the same thing? It's not clear in your post if you are copying/pasting or Opening a PDF. 

Opening a PDF retains 99% of formatting, including individual text boxes (including linked boxes). Cutting and pasting from CS5 to Publisher, in some instances, is creating individual boxes of text for each line. I think it may depend if there are hard returns in the original InDesign file. I've found it much easier to clean up whatever shortcomings there are right now (the 100 page Magazine for example), than to reinvent the wheel. As we're still in beta mode, there will be obstacles, but the fact that it can "read" the placement and overall formatting of a "cut and paste" and pretty reliably recreate 100 pages of placement, styling, formatting and effects is pretty impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone doubting the usefulness of IDML import versus PDF import, let's create a list of advantages and drawbacks. I am comparing Affinity Publisher with the (free) open source DTP software Scribus, which indeed DOES import InDesign IDML files.

Affinity PDF Import Advantages:

  • keeps the exact (99%) of visual fidelity, including visual effects.
  • text lines are grouped as paragraphs.

Affinity PDF Import Disadvantages:

  • original source file's layer structure is not maintained. This leads to almost unmanageable layer situations (try importing a PDF with a table).
    Layers are a complete mess, completely unstructured.
  • paragraph and character styles are lost, which makes it impossible to quickly adjust text formatting for complex documents, and even for simple documents such as flyers the user will have to manually recreate all the paragraph and character styles.
  • tables are lost and converted to graphical objects consisting of hundreds, if not thousands of elements for more complex tables.
  • images running over page folds in a spread are cut into separate elements. This means it is almost impossible to adjust a crop, for example.
  • external links to images are lost.
  • master pages are lost, and have to be recreated: an impossible task for more complex jobs, like magazines.
  • guides are lost
  • text threading is lost. This means a text edit in an article will not adjust the text flow across all pages for any given threaded article or story.
  • images are cut to crop size. Originals are lost.

Scribus IDML import Advantages:

  • Master pages are maintained (the name of each master page is not).
  • Paragraph and character styles are maintained.
  • Layer structure is maintained across the entire file.
  • Tables are maintained (see caveats below).
  • external image links are maintained.
  • Images crossing the fold are kept intact as singular objects.
  • Text threading is maintained.
  • Named colour swatches are maintained.
  • Anchored objects are maintained (with some caveats due to Scribus' method of anchored objects).
  • Original images are maintained. Cropped content is accessible.

Scribus IDML import Disadvantages:

  • Visual fidelity is more or less maintained, but it depends heavily on the complexity of the original InDesign document.
    Some documents require heavy editing to restore the original's visual appearance.
  • Table styles are not maintained, nor is the visual formatting.
  • Guides are not maintained.

In short, PDFs lose the original source file's structure - completely. This can't be helped, because PDF is meant as a final publication format, and not really meant for any serious editing, although nowadays many users tend to view PDF as a type of intermediate format (which is rather a bad idea). Which explains why the Affinity Devs decided to focus on PDF import, rather than a solid IDML importer. That, and the fact that PDF being what it is, it retains the exact visual quality in most cases when imported through an existing PDF framework. Just less work. And initially a nicer workflow, because it retains the visual affinity (no pun intended). Probing a bit deeper, and we find that the PDF import workflow yields an utterly unstructured mess.

For structured long documentation and publications it goes without saying that PDF import is pretty much entirely useless for anything beyond slight and superficial editing work or simple brochures, flyers, and such. But we could do that work in Affinity Designer. Publisher is meant for more structured and complex jobs - at least I hope that is what the developers are striving for.

Even with its drawbacks and limitations in regards to keeping the visual fidelity, if I was asked to edit and heavily modify an existing technical manual of 100 pages and was given the choice between a PDF and an IDML file for import and conversion, I'd never even consider importing the PDF. I would open the IDML in Scribus (or another DTP app with IDML import like Quark), and keep the PDF as a visual reference. Because fixing visual effects and other outliers is FAR less work than attempting to do work with an unstructured and messy PDF conversion with no master pages, text styles, external links, tables, and the broken text threading. It would be an impossible job, and I would have to start from scratch. It is just not a feasible proposition.

Even for simple work, such as formatting a table, or a booklet with ~30 pages and lots of text, an IDML file will at the very least keep the structure and text threading. Yes, it may take extra work to fix the visual formatting, but a PDF imported in Affinity Publisher will have lost any clue as to its former structure: both text as well as images.

For any serious editing work IDML import is a must.

Now, the thing is that IDML is a reasonably simple to understand and interpretable open file format, and I was somewhat surprised (understatement) to discover that Publisher can't import them. If Publisher had had scripting integrated, I am sure someone in the community would have taken up the challenge to write an IDML importer, just as what happened with Scribus.

To me the lack of scripting in Publisher is a far greater issue and its main Achilles' heel. I am pretty sure, had scripting been available from the beginning, we would have already seen a first alpha version of an IDML importer. Yet the reality is sombering, and I do hope the lack of scripting will be fixed by version 2. The devs well and truly shot themselves in the feet when they decided to exclude a scripting API.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Medical Officer Bones PDF is createad from various kinds of apps and is used for distribution purposes. Because it is not a native format of any app, you just can’t open it and continue to work with it easy way. But because of that, A-team is working on it to make the PDF import filter better and better to allow all users to recreate their documents in Affinity apps as easier as possible.

On the other side IDML files are created only from InDesign.


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
6 hours ago, Petar Petrenko said:

@Medical Officer Bones PDF is createad from various kinds of apps and is used for distribution purposes. Because it is not a native format of any app, you just can’t open it and continue to work with it easy way. But because of that, A-team is working on it to make the PDF import filter better and better to allow all users to recreate their documents in Affinity apps as easier as possible.

On the other side IDML files are created only from InDesign.

Thank you for comments.  Peter

Share this post


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

On the other side IDML files are created only from InDesign.

Well, not strictly true. Viva Designer Pro, which has a decent (good) IDML import also has an equally good IDML export.

I cannot remember whether Scribus can also export IDML as I haven't needed it for a job for a few years and haven't updated since then.


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
6 hours ago, Petar Petrenko said:

@Medical Officer Bones PDF is createad from various kinds of apps and is used for distribution purposes. Because it is not a native format of any app, you just can’t open it and continue to work with it easy way. But because of that, A-team is working on it to make the PDF import filter better and better to allow all users to recreate their documents in Affinity apps as easier as possible.

On the other side IDML files are created only from InDesign.

I think you are missing the point I made: as you say, PDF is meant as a (final) export file format. As such, all the original structure and organization of the original file is lost, and while having the option to import PDF is great (in particular for singular pages and designs), the Publisher developers seem to treat PDF as a sort of intermediate format that they assume can be made to work as a viable alternative such as IDML: a true intermediate format that retains the structure for the most part.

And IDML is the only existing candidate file format which is already used as an intermediate DTP file format by various layout software, if perhaps mostly for import. What I am saying here is that IDML is really the only viable option, even if it is an Adobe format, because it is an open standard and relatively easy to support.

PDF can never work as an intermediate format for longer complex layout documents. Not if the user intends to heavily modify them. That is why I view Affinity Publisher and PhotoLine (which has supported the import of entire PDF documents for editing in a similar way) as capable PDF editors, but not as editors which can work with PDF-based structured documents. That is just not possible. And that is aside from all the other issues which I listed in the earlier post. Try editing a table after importing it via PDF.

Here is a question for you: would you prefer a PSD or a PDF of the same layered file to work with? Most users will probably opt for the PSD, because it retains the structure of the original. More, it IS the original. PSD import and export is supported by most image editors, even if many native PS features are not.

Or what about a Word file or a PDF version of that same Word file? A preposterous question, of course: anyone who wants to edit a document knows that the PDF is nigh on useless for this, and will choose the Word file. All word processing software worth its salt support Word import and export.

Likewise, IDML is a worthy candidate as a intermediate file format, and is indeed already supported as a general import format by most DTP layout software. Which is why I think IDML should not only be importable in Publisher, but also exportable.

@MikeW Scribus supports IDML import only at this time. The community is thinking about integrating IDML export as well. Viva Designer Pro supports my argument here: that company is smart enough to understand the simple concept that InDesign is the industry standard, and that IDML is a good intermediate format. Supporting it is the way to go. PDF is just not a viable alternative for all the reasons I explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Medical Officer Bones said:

...

@MikeW Scribus supports IDML import only at this time. The community is thinking about integrating IDML export as well. Viva Designer Pro supports my argument here: that company is smart enough to understand the simple concept that InDesign is the industry standard, and that IDML is a good intermediate format. Supporting it is the way to go. PDF is just not a viable alternative for all the reasons I explained.

Thanks for the info, Medical.

I do agree about the IDML vehicle for at least importing if one is fully moving to a new layout application and/or IDML export if moving out of a layout application. Depending upon the simplicity to complexity of one's work, IDML export really ought to be run through the exact version of what one is needed for collaboration and fixed as export to IDML is at best as good as import--which means there are things needing fixed.

In general, though, in a collaborative environment, one really ought to be using the same application & version as those one is collaborating with.

Mike


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
5 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Thanks for the info, Medical.

I do agree about the IDML vehicle for at least importing if one is fully moving to a new layout application and/or IDML export if moving out of a layout application. Depending upon the simplicity to complexity of one's work, IDML export really ought to be run through the exact version of what one is needed for collaboration and fixed as export to IDML is at best as good as import--which means there are things needing fixed.

In general, though, in a collaborative environment, one really ought to be using the same application & version as those one is collaborating with.

Mike

Well, as numerous people have pointed out: InDesign is the industry standard.  Most would-be customers for Affinity will be existing InDesign users and the companies they collaborate with will be using InDesign. That means that people will be UNABLE to replace InDesign with Affinity and why would they want to run two incompatible packages?  I should have thought it is obvious that file compatibility has to be the there for significant Affinity adoption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, I agree as regards the necessity of importing IDML.

I stick by my comments as regards working in a collaborative environment. IDML export out of a non-ID applicaiton is a recipe for disaster or simply extra work as it still will need fixed in some version of ID.

As regards the "two incompatible packages" thing. This happens all day every day for some when moving to a new application. Even back in the day, I've never had a QuarkXPress or a Pagemaker file open in ID faithfully. I have mostly taken the tack of producing new work in the new layout application. I rarely chose to attempt a conversion. There are exceptions, though. Like Publishers that have one format and insist on completing into a different layout application. For those (most all have been books) it isn't really onerous. But for say a magazine? It's easier to just recreate the template and move on.

Mike


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
9 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Peter, I agree as regards the necessity of importing IDML.

I stick by my comments as regards working in a collaborative environment. IDML export out of a non-ID applicaiton is a recipe for disaster or simply extra work as it still will need fixed in some version of ID.

As regards the "two incompatible packages" thing. This happens all day every day for some when moving to a new application. Even back in the day, I've never had a QuarkXPress or a Pagemaker file open in ID faithfully. I have mostly taken the tack of producing new work in the new layout application. I rarely chose to attempt a conversion. There are exceptions, though. Like Publishers that have one format and insist on completing into a different layout application. For those (most all have been books) it isn't really onerous. But for say a magazine? It's easier to just recreate the template and move on.

Mike

Sure Mike, but why "move to a new application"?  It was very different world when Adobe made me an offer I couldn't refuse for the first (very incomplete) version of Indesign.  Then the market penetration of such packages was minuscule (QuarkXPress was far too expensive to consider for most people, I was using MS Publisher).  Now everyone who needs this sort of software already has it.  Of course, there is certainly potential for another professional package, particularly with smaller users who might feel that Adobe is monopoly-screwing them with the CC licencing but possibly not at the expense of abandoning their existing library of files.  We shall see how it goes in the marketplace.  I certainly really want to jump ship.

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Affinity will not try to make IDML export for 2 reasons:

1. If they make IDML export and import we will have complete ID for 50 EUR, which I think is not good for Affinity.

2. Beside Publisher updates they will have to chase every new version of ID to update import and export filters.

So Publisher goes in a shadow.

IMHO import of IDML files is all we need.


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
3 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

I think that Affinity will not try to make IDML export for 2 reasons:

1. If they make IDML export and import we will have complete ID for 50 EUR, which I think is not good for Affinity.

2. Beside Publisher updates they will have to chase every new version of ID to update import and export filters.

So Publisher goes in a shadow.

IMHO import of IDML files is all we need.

IDML export only has to have the features present in APub, not what the latest CC ID has. That's no difference from Serif updating IDML import as APub's features progress.

There may well be other reasons not to support IDML exporting...such as limiting migration away from APub. But Serif would be smart to include export.


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

There are (at least) two distinct markets for InDesign. The large volume publisher/printer who can account for the expense of a Creative Cloud subscription at marginal cost to their clients, and the small margin pro/sumer market where the expense is hard to manage. Many of these, including myself, have stuck with InDesign (and Photoshop, etc.) CS6 because they cannot afford the ongoing cost of CC. The first group will have little if any incentive to move to another publishing suite. For the rest of us, for whom CC is out of reach, Affinity Publisher will have great appeal, even with possible conversion issues. Taken together with Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer it may easily supplant Adobe in this secondary market. Not that Adobe will mind as they have ceased to care about entry level users.

There was a time when you could get Adobe programs with a student discount and continue to use them until you established yourself professionally and needed an upgrade. Now, when you are no longer a student, you are stuck with the full cost of a CC subscription immediately, whether you can afford it or not. Adobe no doubt sees this as a way to hold on to customers; their customers may see it as an incentive to find an alternative to Adobe as soon as possible. That would seem to be a perfect niche for Affinity. The ex-student will have a modest investment in Adobe centered assets; migrating to Affinity will be relatively easy and certainly far less expensive. As far as I know, the Affinity suite is the only substantial alternative to Adobe's publishing and design programs. To replace Dreamweaver there are innumerable web design apps, including the ever more popular WordPress; for audio and video there are powerful programs from Apple that can compete with Premier, et al. This won't help those using Windows PCs, but they probably have alternatives of which I am unaware.

It is my humble hope that Serif will help break up the Adobe monopoly among creative amateurs and professionals alike. May the force be with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

I think that Affinity will not try to make IDML export for 2 reasons:

1. If they make IDML export and import we will have complete ID for 50 EUR, which I think is not good for Affinity.

2. Beside Publisher updates they will have to chase every new version of ID to update import and export filters.

So Publisher goes in a shadow.

IMHO import of IDML files is all we need.

In my case, Petar I am only really interested in importing InDesign files.
 

Peter.

 

4 minutes ago, Whitedog said:

There are (at least) two distinct markets for InDesign. The large volume publisher/printer who can account for the expense of a Creative Cloud subscription at marginal cost to their clients, and the small margin pro/sumer market where the expense is hard to manage. Many of these, including myself, have stuck with InDesign (and Photoshop, etc.) CS6 because they cannot afford the ongoing cost of CC. The first group will have little if any incentive to move to another publishing suite. For the rest of us, for whom CC is out of reach, Affinity Publisher will have great appeal, even with possible conversion issues. Taken together with Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer it may easily supplant Adobe in this secondary market. Not that Adobe will mind as they have ceased to care about entry level users.

There was a time when you could get Adobe programs with a student discount and continue to use them until you established yourself professionally and needed an upgrade. Now, when you are no longer a student, you are stuck with the full cost of a CC subscription immediately, whether you can afford it or not. Adobe no doubt sees this as a way to hold on to customers; their customers may see it as an incentive to find an alternative to Adobe as soon as possible. That would seem to be a perfect niche for Affinity. The ex-student will have a modest investment in Adobe centered assets; migrating to Affinity will be relatively easy and certainly far less expensive. As far as I know, the Affinity suite is the only substantial alternative to Adobe's publishing and design programs. To replace Dreamweaver there are innumerable web design apps, including the ever more popular WordPress; for audio and video there are powerful programs from Apple that can compete with Premier, et al. This won't help those using Windows PCs, but they probably have alternatives of which I am unaware.

It is my humble hope that Serif will help break up the Adobe monopoly among creative amateurs and professionals alike. May the force be with them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

I think that Affinity will not try to make IDML export for 2 reasons:

1. If they make IDML export and import we will have complete ID for 50 EUR, which I think is not good for Affinity.

2. Beside Publisher updates they will have to chase every new version of ID to update import and export filters.

So Publisher goes in a shadow.

IMHO import of IDML files is all we need.

I agree that the facility to import IDML files is all that is necessary (along with Word, rtf and plain text). But I disagree with your reasoning for not exporting IDML. If it could be done it would be a great advantage to Affinity, rather than a a disadvantage. But it is probably not practical.

As for what formats Publisher should support, besides PDF, it will eventually need to support ePub, though that may be down the road. And, of course, the native Affinity format. While it used to be expensive for a print shop to adopt new software, Affinity's apps are well within reach, no subscription required. Anyway, in most cases a PDF is sufficient, as long as it has been proofed properly.

Share this post


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

There are (at least) two distinct markets for InDesign. The large volume publisher/printer who can account for the expense of a Creative Cloud subscription at marginal cost to their clients, and the small margin pro/sumer market where the expense is hard to manage. Many of these, including myself, have stuck with InDesign (and Photoshop, etc.) CS6 because they cannot afford the ongoing cost of CC. The first group will have little if any incentive to move to another publishing suite. For the rest of us, for whom CC is out of reach, Affinity Publisher will have great appeal, even with possible conversion issues. Taken together with Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer it may easily supplant Adobe in this secondary market. Not that Adobe will mind as they have ceased to care about entry level users.

There was a time when you could get Adobe programs with a student discount and continue to use them until you established yourself professionally and needed an upgrade. Now, when you are no longer a student, you are stuck with the full cost of a CC subscription immediately, whether you can afford it or not. Adobe no doubt sees this as a way to hold on to customers; their customers may see it as an incentive to find an alternative to Adobe as soon as possible. That would seem to be a perfect niche for Affinity. The ex-student will have a modest investment in Adobe centered assets; migrating to Affinity will be relatively easy and certainly far less expensive. As far as I know, the Affinity suite is the only substantial alternative to Adobe's publishing and design programs. To replace Dreamweaver there are innumerable web design apps, including the ever more popular WordPress; for audio and video there are powerful programs from Apple that can compete with Premier, et al. This won't help those using Windows PCs, but they probably have alternatives of which I am unaware.

It is my humble hope that Serif will help break up the Adobe monopoly among creative amateurs and professionals alike. May the force be with them.

Very nicely summed up.  Your're right, there are good alternatives for everything except InDesign.  I was concerned about Lightroom which I used for running a catalogue of several tens of thousand photographs but found a far more capable product in ACDSee with which I am delighted - note that I was able to import my catalogue and settings seamlessly from Adobe Lightroom.  I am also one of the users of Adobe Muse abandoned by Adobe which has unapologetically walked away leaving users locked into their proprietary file structure.  I will go the Affinity route as soon as practicable. 

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Peter Jackson said:

they probably have alternatives of which I am unaware

Resolve for example covers both platforms and becomes increasingly more powerful and impressive with each release.  There is also the Avid lineup... Adobe hardly has a monopoly in the video world, though they are still popular for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Peter Jackson said:

Very nicely summed up.  Your're right, there are good alternatives for everything except InDesign.  I was concerned about Lightroom which I used for running a catalogue of several tens of thousand photographs but found a far more capable product in ACDSee with which I am delighted - note that I was able to import my catalogue and settings seamlessly from Adobe Lightroom.  I am also one of the users of Adobe Muse abandoned by Adobe which has unapologetically walked away leaving users locked into their proprietary file structure.  I will go the Affinity route as soon as practicable. 

Peter.

I took a look at ACDSee some years ago but it was new and underdeveloped at the time. If you like it you should post a review on MacUpdate because most reviews are not favorable. Maybe I'll check out the demo again. That said, I like Lightroom just fine.

Share this post


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

I took a look at ACDSee some years ago but it was new and underdeveloped at the time. If you like it you should post a review on MacUpdate because most reviews are not favorable. Maybe I'll check out the demo again. That said, I like Lightroom just fine.

Ah, sorry but I'm in the majority Windows world (and before that it was CP/M, TRSDOS and finally QDOS/MS-DOS in those far-off days before the Xerox Alto introduced the idea of a mouse-driven GUI in the '70s).  Actually, I only use the cataloguing function of ACDSee not photo-editing (I didn't use Lightroom's editing either).

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whitedog said:

I agree that the facility to import IDML files is all that is necessary (along with Word, rtf and plain text). But I disagree with your reasoning for not exporting IDML. If it could be done it would be a great advantage to Affinity, rather than a a disadvantage. But it is probably not practical.

As for what formats Publisher should support, besides PDF, it will eventually need to support ePub, though that may be down the road. And, of course, the native Affinity format. While it used to be expensive for a print shop to adopt new software, Affinity's apps are well within reach, no subscription required. Anyway, in most cases a PDF is sufficient, as long as it has been proofed properly.

Even tho it's been voiced many times before on this forum, including by myself, a seamless, Apub import capability is also needed for Quark files.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, lettergothic said:

Even tho it's been voiced many times before on this forum, including by myself, a seamless, Apub import capability is also needed for Quark files.  

The ability to export IDML from Q is on the current wish list. I don't know if it'll be added or not.

Currently, the only means of exchange would be using tagged text. Which I would welcome in APub. 

But getting at the native format presents the same challenges as opening native ID files. It's a moving target.


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

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

×