The AP data was highly structured, which lent itself to automation. Putting it together each day would take one of the artists about 90 minutes to extract the information and build the map in Illustrator or (before that, Aldus FreeHand). I used it extensively when I worked at a newspaper.Įach day, we needed to assemble a color weather forecast map from weather data supplied to us by the Associated Press (AP). I missed several things about Quark that InDesign just didn’t do.įor example, Quark had an obscure feature that could import tagged data and automatically apply custom Quark styles to the data. When InDesign was released, I eagerly began using it. I could easily go off on a tangent about them, but that’s for another time.
I think it would be it as that would be my personal specialty. Maybe it’s the lack of long doc features which put me off. I didn’t get that with Affinity Publisher. Īnd each step felt like a huge improvement. I went from Quark to Corel Publisher to InDesign. There’s just something that does not sit with me with Publisher. I don’t know if I can take credit for this feature there was a few looking for it.īut Affinity team responded swiftly and applied the update, which was nice. Just wondering did this embeding vs linking affect the performance. One of the features was the images automatically embedded.Īnd it’s now a feature to optionally link images. I don’t use all the guff in ps and ai to actually contribute.īut I could with publisher. I didn’t really get involved with ai or ps version of affinity as I can accomplish 99.9999 percent of what I need with PS1 a f ai version 1.
#Affinity photo sale pdf#
As you know adobe is the author of pdf so is there a point in recreating a software that may or may not adhere to all the pdf modules? We all know 3rd party pdf reader (non adobe) are all pretty iffy.ĭont forget with cc sub you get more than 3 apps even if you never touch them, plus access to thousands of fonts and an integrated stock library, share for reviews, publish online and lots more shite. Yeh they likely may not have their own version of acrobat maybe they will who knows.
Then again, I’m so entrenched in the Adobe ecosystem that I’m probably underestimating how difficult it might be to extract myself from it. If the Affinity products mature a little more, I’d probably be tempted to save some money and abandon my CC subscription, even if the cost of the software doubles. I still prefer Adobe’s CC suite, but a lot of that is due to habit - sort of like my preference for the macOS over Windows. I’m not even sure they could develop a viable competitor to Acrobat since Adobe essentially owns the technology and all the patents associated with it. Their lack of an Acrobat equivalent is a pretty big Achilles heel. Either Adobe is overcharging, or Affinity is undercharging. The cost is a small fraction of what Adobe charges, yet their apps are arguably comparable in most ways and better in some - especially integration between the products. I don’t know how Affinity (well, Serif) makes money on their software. I’m not sure, but honestly, that was my only complaint about Publisher - at least after I got used to it.
Perhaps it would have performed better with 32 GB.
#Affinity photo sale mac#
This was on a Mac loaded with 16 GB of memory and lots of scratch space.
#Affinity photo sale free#
I’d sometimes need to close the file and open it up again to free up memory. My biggest annoyance was that it began to bog down on a 100-plus-page full-color book with lots of placed items. I’ve used Publisher for a couple of big projects and liked it.
0 kommentar(er)
