No packaging of Affinity Publisher files?

[wonderings]

Unless I am missing how Affinity does it, I see no way to package a file. This is a VERY important function in my opinion. Please add this as a priority along with bleed guides. 

There is no way I would work on a live job that I could not package and pull all the fonts and linked images into a neat organized folder. This has been around for ages with Quark and Indesign. 

[mac_heibu]

It isn’t for actual Publisher, because even if you „unembed“ the assets, they remain within the file. No need for packaging. (The images have to remain in the file, because of interoperability with Affinity Photo, which you will see in one of the next updates).

Packaging fonts always was a shady, semi-legal thing. Transfering fonts in most cases is forbidden for copyright reasons. I know, that QuarkXpress and InDesign do it, but …

On the other hand: It is real no big action to collect the used fonts manually. This normally is done in a minute.

[wonderings]

20 minutes ago, mac_heibu said:

It isn’t for actual Publisher, because even if you „unembed“ the assets, they remain within the file. No need for packaging. (The images have to remain in the file, because of interoperability with Affinity Photo, which you will see in one of the next updates).

Packaging fonts always was a shady, semi-legal thing. Transfering fonts in most cases is forbidden for copyright reasons. I know, that QuarkXpress and InDesign do it, but …

On the other hand: It is real no big action to collect the used fonts manually. This normally is done in a minute.

Quark and Indesign have been doing it for years with no legal issues. There is an initial dialogue box that warns you of the legality and you can choose to ignore in the future. 

Why make it an extra task to find them and put them together in a job when it can be done simply? All you are doing is creating more work for the end user, even if it only takes "1 min". 

Not sure how I feel about the image being embedded file types, will take some time to know if I prefer that over linked files being accustomed to it for so many years. I know I like having all file assets in one place and can easily grab it for another piece that is part of the same print package and use it without needing to open the one file and copy and paste as well as grab it elsewhere. Most images are unique for a specific job (outside of the obvious ones like payment logos and social media) and would be best put together within a folder for that job. Again it feels like it is creating more work for me to keep things organized and together when Adobe and Quark have solved this years ago and made my life easier in this regard. 

[mac_heibu]

This „Files in one place“ only works for people with a special workflow. If you, for example, compose images using other source artwork, you probably want to keep these assets together. Packaging the final result separates the result from its sources, if you don’t want to have two instances. If you want the assets and sources in one place – why not doing this from the beginning? So you don’t need to collect them afterwards. And collecting assets for print – who does this any more? Are there really people out there, who send source data to the printer and not a PDF?

Your opinion concerning fonts: "Quark and Indesign have been doing it for years with no legal issues. There is an initial dialogue box that warns you of the legality and you can choose to ignore in the future.“ Don’t think, you really mean this! Or would you accept this: „I send my copy of QuarkXpress to a friend of mine with a statement that warns him of the legality and he can choose to ignore in the future.“  And: The statement of Quark and Adobe is no „warning“, as you might think. It states very clear, that you only are allowd to hand over fonts to someone else, if you have the legal right to do so, and if your font license allows you to do so. Most font companies don’t allow this. By the way: Even the Adobe owned TypeKit company doesn’t allow to hand over fonts via packaging:

Quote

„The Typekit Services Agreement does not permit fonts synced from Typekit to be transferred to another user or computer. The printer needs to have their own license for the fonts, either through Typekit or as a perpetual desktop license purchase."

But I don’t want convince you of my opinion. I only want to make clear, why I think – especially in regard to „Publisher“ – packaging is of minor importance, and there are much more important things to do.

[Patrick Connor]

Moving to the suggestions forum, thank you

[MikeW]

There is zero legal issue as regards packaging and including fonts. The legal bit is what one intends to do with a package.

I use ID's Package & QXP's Collect for Output all the time. It gathers the exact assets needed for if I ever need to reprint or edit. I can make sure the fonts are the same revision that way and this helps that reflow won't happen. Updated fonts often have changes and those made to kerning will cause reflow. As well, it is these folders used int he process that I use for back-up purposes.

What I do not do with these folders is share them. I've never sent native files off so there is zero legal implications when used for archival purposes.

There is also zero legal implications when a designer chooses to send the original files off to a service bureau (or anyone else) so long as they also have a license for the fonts used--and that license can be for an older or newer version, a different format (PS T1, OTF, TTF) than what they receive.

Mike

[mac_heibu]

Ok, believe it …

[wonderings]

1 hour ago, mac_heibu said:

This „Files in one place“ only works for people with a special workflow. If you, for example, compose images using other source artwork, you probably want to keep these assets together. Packaging the final result separates the result from its sources, if you don’t want to have two instances. If you want the assets and sources in one place – why not doing this from the beginning? So you don’t need to collect them afterwards. And collecting assets for print – who does this any more? Are there really people out there, who send source data to the printer and not a PDF?

Your opinion concerning fonts: "Quark and Indesign have been doing it for years with no legal issues. There is an initial dialogue box that warns you of the legality and you can choose to ignore in the future.“ Don’t think, you really mean this! Or would you accept this: „I send my copy of QuarkXpress to a friend of mine with a statement that warns him of the legality and he can choose to ignore in the future.“  And: The statement of Quark and Adobe is no „warning“, as you might think. It states very clear, that you only are allowd to hand over fonts to someone else, if you have the legal right to do so, and if your font license allows you to do so. Most font companies don’t allow this. By the way: Even the Adobe owned TypeKit company doesn’t allow to hand over fonts via packaging:

But I don’t want convince you of my opinion. I only want to make clear, why I think – especially in regard to „Publisher“ – packaging is of minor importance, and there are much more important things to do.

Why would you not package a file once done? It is the easiest way to keep all assets associated with that job in one place and not have to maintain a second library of supporting files. Also fonts are handled very well with Adobe CC, I rarely even use my font management software as a properly packaged file opens perfect with the fonts in the font folder.

Yes there are still people who send working files, I personally would prefer PDF's but a few of our clients have us make changes after the fact. 

I also do not package fonts to hand them to anyone it is again to keep everything necessary to run that job together. I do not need to worry if I deleted something elsewhere because it is all there properly packaged in one complete set. Adobe TypeKit works well for what it is because if anyone is using Adobe CC they will all have the exact same fonts. Now I rarely use fonts from there as I find the library a bit limited, but the idea is fantastic in the framework of the subscription model Adobe has (and I hate). 

In the end whatever works for you is great, but there are many printers and designers though who organize like myself and keep jobs packaged. It was even recently added to Illustrator. If Affinity chooses to decide for its users how their workflow should work well I do see them having a lot of people unwilling to adopt. I would prefer choice to work how I need. You could do it your way with Indesign and I could do it my way, they would have 2 happy customers in that instance. 

[mac_heibu]

I already told, why I personally(!) don‘t package files:

In most cases, a file, I place in layout has many predecessors and/or support files: originals, edited and colour corrected variants, RGB and CMYK versions. If I package my layout file, only the placed assets will be gathered, what means, they are (a) separed from their related files and (b) they are doublettes. 

My alternative: I keep my assets together with my layout files within a long time approved folder system, which is always the same for every print product (documents, placed files, support files, text, PDFs, customer correspondence, …)

Thus all project files are kept together, packaging isn‘t necessary. The print company doesn‘t get any native files, only PDFs.

But as I said: This is my workflow. For others packaging is certainly more important.

[eeeveee]

Is there a way to build this function (to collect all used images and graphics in a new folder) in one of the next versions?

For me it's really important. My workflow is like: I get tonnes of pictures, have to select the preferred for the layout, build it, change for corrections, than I collect with the final version of the layout all pictures and graphics to add the preferred color profile to the files, which is for every job different.

Please add this option!

[Sodapop]

I am surprised this is not there. Making packages is our best back up for filing projects in a right way, it speeds up the process and prevents errors and time searching for missing files. It is also a great way of cleaning up a messy image folder. This is not an option for the future, it is an absoluut MUST in a professional high speed design and DTP workflow. It is out of date to search for a missing links, copy files to a folder before or during lay-outing or searching it all together before a project is stored on a server.  Not only Indesign does it but also in 3D it a secure way collect linked textures . Each application that works with linked files has this option, if not, it should and I think it even should be an automated function to prevent human errors.

[Mr. Doodlezz]

Hey guys,

I agree, this function is very much needed.

Especially for sharing/working different machines that aren't connected via a server or else.
It's a very simple and convenient way to gather all the use materials in one tidy folder with
according sub folders like Images or Fonts.

And if you want – and you're like me – you can still add your own Drafts/Versions, Inspiration/Mood,
Exports or else folders and move the remaining, unlinked but related files and tying up the whole
project in one clean place.

Maybe there'll be something like a separate Package or Bundle Persona with different options,
or maybe it get's integrated in a Export Persona like the one we got in Designer? 

Anyway – count me in, I'd very much like to see this option in the (near) future!

Cheers and have a nice weekend
MrDoodlezz