Having tried the beta, I’m in agreement - especially so having also now read the Medium review (for which thanks, JoRo).
An organisation for whom I have written regularly has used Serif’s PagePlus for a long time, and I have been in a silent sulk with Serif for ages because PagePlus is Windows-only and won’t run in CrossOver, which has made things awkward since I use a Mac. I have had to mock up alternatives using Pages or the rather idiosyncratic PrintWorks. I therefore had high hopes of Affinity Publisher, thinking that it might eliminate these issues.
But I’m quite disappointed by this beta version of Publisher (the other two Affinity products don’t fall into my sphere of interest). I really wanted Affinity Publisher to be an absolutely brilliant desktop publishing solution, especially after the long timespan since it was first trailed by the developer company, but for my purposes I might as well stick to my clunky alternative solutions, because Affinity Publisher doesn’t seem to offer me much more (albeit in a more sophisticated manner, with a lot more bells and whistles than I actually need – and many that I actually find baffling). It seems more like a graphic design application than a desktop publishing application. I was hoping for a long-text-capable solution to play with, to bring back memories of Ventura Publisher, but Affinity Publisher so far doesn’t seem to scratch that itch.
On the plus side, I managed to find out how to get rid of that nasty dark interface that so many applications use nowadays (yes, I am getting old, yes, I have a minor cataract and astigmatism; yes, I struggle to see such small icons on a small laptop screen; yes, I am grumpy). Tweaking a couple of options in Preferences at least renders the interface readable.
That said, it’s good to see another application in this space, and I will watch its progress with interest. Perhaps the long-text capability will expand as the beta test progresses. As it stands now, though, I won’t be buying. In fact, I’m not sure that I understand what the actual selling point is, other than the mantra “don’t buy Adobe” (which I wasn’t planning on doing anyway). I would have bought a reasonably-priced fully-fledged long-text DTP system like a shot, just for the sake of having it in my armoury, but it looks as though I am not Affinity’s target market.
My first look at an Affinity app. Strangely placed, I think, with an anachronistic aesthetic that looks as if it was conceived by Windows 95. What era is that splash screen from, let alone the tutorial videos with their démodé supercar graphics? The eighties? Feels like a time warp: the kind of software given away with computer magazines or bundled into low-end Microsoft suites in decades past.
There’s no evidence of original thinking in terms of the interface or programming, and it feels as if it has been fabricated from old parts, rather than designed from the ground up as a new concept. It certainly doesn’t have the look or response or precision of a native Mac app, so I found my time with it to be unpleasant and jarring.
That said, it will surely suit users who can ignore its form and make do with its limited functions, while saving themselves from Adobe’s claws. Good enough for SOHO users who produce short publications with low print runs. I could imagine a small arts company or a community project producing flyers and programmes and newsletters with it.
Its functions may improve in time, but its core aesthetic and programming aren’t going to change.
Such a shame that it is a curate’s egg, not a Fabergé.
The latest Affinity Publisher beta (1.7.0.58) now shows bleeds, and has fixed some issues.
I used PagePlus for my novels of 300+ pages. It can be a bit quirky at times, but I can produce the required PDF X/3 documents the PODs want, and I get perfect results.
Using the AP Beta, I’ve been trying to recreate my latest novel. It’s been unbelievably difficult! Of course, it’s still a Beta. Someone mentioned the difficult interface. I agree. It’s hard to find what you need, and there are so many settings to get right before things work. Master pages are strange beasts in AP. They sort of work, but not really. The “Promote From Master” feature of PagePlus does not exist in AP, making it necessary to create an Asset item which can be dragged onto EACH page. You also have to watch how you export your project to PDF, because it will create spreads instead of pages on output–two facing pages together as one PDF page, which will not work for POD. You must be sure to change the output to Pages before you create the PDF.
I’m hoping the final version of AP will be at least as good as PagePlus, because it’s the perfect platform to go from Scrivener to publishing.
I have been playing around with Beta “162” which is the latest. AP has done a lot of work since the early betas, but still has some issues. Interestingly, it seems to be showing fewer problems in Windows than Mac, based on the beta forum entries. For me, Master Pages are a big problem. They’re hard to work with, and if you don’t design them correctly, they’ll give you some grief. The interface could be improved as well. Page icons are way too big, and can’t be made smaller. Otherwise, it’s beginning to look good. It’s very reminiscent of PagePlus, but lacking some of its nice features. It will be interesting to see what they call the final version.
Affinity Publisher is up to Beta “192.” Serif has been working hard on fixing all the little issues. It’s getting close to production now. As with most betas, it’s down to the little annoying things that are hard to find. Personally, I think it still has a way to go before having all the bells and whistles that PagePlus has, which will take several iterations to get to. Now that I have worked with it more, and discovered its ideosycracies, I’ve learned how to use them to get the job done. Still a bit laggy, but that could be because it’s compiled with debugging features. For anyone new to publishing software, it would be a good start–cheaper overall than Adobe InDesign which is USD 20/month. Let’s remember that this is the first version of a brand new product, and they’ve done a good job of it. I’m still very prejudiced towards PagePlus, but that’s because I’ve been using it for years, and know all its little quirks, so I can work more efficiently. The more I use APub, the quicker I get, and the easier it gets.
I just got an email from Affinity. Publisher is out of beta and will be released on Wednesday, June 19, 2019. Retail will be $49.99. Beta testers can pick it up that day only for $34.99 with five free bonus fonts from RetroSupply. You can preorder. If you’re outside Europe, there’s no VAT.
I went ahead and ordered. Given how badly Adobe has been treating its users recently, I’m playing it safe by having an InDesign replacement in the ready. I’ve already shifted to Affinity Photo for my covers. If you want to check the new app out, here is the U.S. link:
affinity.serif.com/en-us/publisher/
I didn’t see it listed at their store, so pre-ordering may currently be for beta testers only.
Hate to put a wet blanket on their release announcement. I’ve been using the APub Beta from the beginning and have the latest Beta 371 on my system. There are still lots of bugs, and their Master Pages are sadly only dynamic templates. If you add a single page between two pages, the Master Pages are not honoured (as they are in PagePlus), but shift to the next page. This means any margins, headers, footers, and content will shift. Since I write novels, it becomes a huge problem as Master Pages must be reapplied to all subsequent pages and all content frames have to be manually shifted back to within margins. Fine for a layout of a few pages, but not for a 200-300 page novel. They call it a design decision, I call it a deal breaker, so I won’t be taking advantage of the discount. Based on their last Beta release, they’re closer, but they’re rushing the final version. In the end, I think it will bite them.
Some user advise. If they release an optional, extra cost “workbook”, buy it. I have the one for Affinity Photo, and it is an excellent tutorial that can really help acquaint you with all the tools it offers.
All right, so I’m thinking Publisher is primarily for print, since ereaders don’t carry over set fonts so well.
I have become quite adept at using the free paint dot net as my cover creator. Which of your products would I use to replace that?
Well, I answered my own question, above. I purchased all three of the Affinity products, and I am, to say the least, extremely happy.
As regards Publisher, I had some difficulty learning it, but with protracted viewing of online videos from a variety of Publisher experts, I persevered. I produced a Pubisher pdf followed by a cover produced in Affinity Photo. I hied both off to a printer in Toronto and was rewarded with proofs that perfectly match the work of Big-5 publishers in my genres. Except for the author and the output, the print book formatting is identical. My physical product stands up against high-priced output from all of the author-robbing bandits in the print book industry.
Affinity Photo wasn’t that difficult to learn to use, again with the help of several online gurus, most notably Olivio Sarikas and his output. That guy knows his stuff. He’s wordy, and friendly and knows the Affinity products.
I’ve used Affinity Designer to produce several vector-based covers too. Videos were a great help with this also.
In all, to date I’ve saved myself about 1,000 U$D in cover and print pdf productions. The Affinity software suite is worth the money if you are willing to invest the time in learning even more of your craft. If you’re an author, why wouldn’t you? Unless, of course, you’re locked into the Big-5 fantasy.
Whatever works. Keep on writing and learning.
I own (but have uninstalled) copies of Affinity Designer and Photo. Both are great app - easy to use and feature rich. My experience with them is such that I assume Publisher is also excellent.
I’ve uninstalled them, because without an alternative to Lightroom, I still need an Adobe subscription. I used to use Aperture for that, but Apple killed it and Apple Photos is a toy. I also need Adobe for Premiere but Final Cut would probably do if Affinity put a decent photo catalogue / development package together. Until then, if I’m paying for Adobe CC anyway, I might as well have Photoshop and Illustrator - not as easy to use, but still the industry standard for a reason.
Fortunately, I am one who has no need whatsoever for the Adobe tax. I find I can do what I need to to with the Affinity Suite of programs, which are now on a Black Friday sale (November 2020). I highly recommend all three, if only for the pricing. If you can only spring for two, I suggest Photo if you wish to learn to do your own covers. Publisher, if you do Amazon, Ingram Spark, or B&N POD print submissions.
I won’t go into why. Those of you who put in the time and do the work will understand.
There are plenty of videos available on using the software.
After years of sending manuscripts off to other people and letting them deal with the actual publishing part, I’m starting to dip my toes in the self-publishing waters. For the short term, I’m looking at non-fiction newsletter/zine type material: some illustrations, maybe a pull quote or two, probably 8-16 pages altogether. Text created in Scrivener, of course.
I have Word. I know how to use Word, though I haven’t done much with its more complicated layout features. (And also will need to pay for a more recent version if I start using it extensively.) Will trying to do a project like this in Word cause me to smash my computer into tiny bits? Would you more experienced folks recommend diving into “real” publishing software right away, or puttering along with Word until its limitations become obvious? (Causing me to want to smash my computer into tiny bits.)
And is Affinity Publisher an appropriate tool for a complete n00b?
Thanks!
Katherine
Affinity Publisher exports to pdf, which is what many print shops use. I can’t speak to zines or any other types of publications beyond completing several print books for export to pdf. Amazon KDP and other indie publishers will take the pdf and use it for POD printing. That’s fine for me.
Affinity has quite a number of videos that explain their processes. Here’s a link to Publisher’s videos: affinity.serif.com/en-us/publisher/
There are quite a few youtube videos on using Publisher. I recommend checking them out first. It took me a solid day of watching videos (which I hasten to add, I hate watching instructional videos). It had to be done. I came at it fresh the next day and completed my first pbook pdf. Success!
I recommend Photo as well, unless you have access to another photo editing program. Affinity’s black Friday sale runs until the 6th, I believe. Pick Photo up too if you have cash to spare.
affinityspotlight.com/article/h … Newsletter
affinity.serif.com/en-us/tutori … 337466797/
No matter what you want to do with Publisher, there are many videos available beyond those offered by Affinity. I had to search beyond Affinity for my pbook pdfs.
There is an Affinity forum as well: forum.affinity.serif.com/
I think Affinity offers a 14-day free trial for each of the Affinity products.
In case you can’t tell, I’m tickled pink that I picked up the three Affinity products on a sale. Sure there was a learning curve, but I conquered that and I’m far from a rocket scientist. They may work for you. They may not. As I mentioned, I build pbook pdfs with Publisher. I use Photo to make my pbook and ebook covers both now. The videos I watched out of interest on preparing magazine spreads and brochures and zines intrigued me, but I’m not into that, unfortunately.
Edited to add: I see you’re on a Mac. I recommend buying direct from Affinity rather than from the Apple store. You’ll get the updates a lot sooner when they come out.
Katherine,
For self-publishing, you might also want to take a look at the open source program Scribus https://www.scribus.net/.
I’ve used the beta versions of Scribus and Scrivener for publishing. Over the past few years my wife and I have published a dozen books – some ours, most by New England authors – using Scribus and Scrivener.
1 Like
As of January 19, Affinity has a 50%-off sale. Still not convinced? In that case, try the more than generous 90-day free trial offer.
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/90-day-affinity-trial/
I just finished another print book cover using Photo. Once again I’ll be using Publisher to do the formatting for PDF print to be submitted to Amazon and Ingram Spark.
Thanks to Publisher’s Master Page system, creating a print PDF is easy-peasy with templates I designed for 5.25x8 and 6x9 formats, depending on number of pages. I load a .docx, do a bit of formatting, and wham, bam, thank you Affinity, done and submitted.
I’ve asked this other times in other forums, but I still can’t get an answer focusing on the reasons why Aperture is superior to today’s Photos.
As for organizational features, it seems to me that Photos is more modern and powerful.
As for editing capabilities, I’ve seen that people seems to ignore that having Affinity Photo installed also adds many of its sophisticate photo retouching functions. If these are not lesser than the ones in Photoshop, I guess they can make Photos on a par with Lightroom.
Paolo
1 Like
The difference comes down to who the programmes were designed for, not in what they were designed to do. At face value, both programs (especially given the years of extra development that has gone into Photos since Aperture’s expiration) would seem to (and indeed for the most part do) fill similar roles… but one (Photos) is designed for general consumers as a cross-platform (dare I say, mobile-first) app, and one (Aperture) was designed for pros on their desktop/laptop machines.
That means a few things. For one, workflow is designed completely differently. Secondly, different feature-sets are prioritised / de-prioritised, especially in terms of their tweakability.
We have no way of knowing what Aperture would look like today if it had benefited from continued development, and I’ve not looked at Photos in such a long time that I’d have no idea whether it’s still a toy or now a perfectly valid choice (actually, I do know it’s still a toy from my experience of the iOS version and from the fact that pros don’t even talk about it), but we can use the two versions of Lightroom as a proxy…
“Lightroom Classic” is Adobe’s equivalent of Aperture: a fully featured power-house of an app designed for pros for use on desktop/laptops. “Lightroom” is Adobe’s equivalent of Photos: a mobile-first cross-platform app designed to appeal to people who’s primary device is an tablet/phone and/or people for whom a synced cross-device experience with cloud storage is critical.
A cursory look at these two programmes (I have both installed) prompts a few conclusions:
- the basic photo editing tools for both are strongly overlapping and the simpler tools in ‘Lightroom’ will be more than sufficient and indeed easier to get good results with for the majority of consumers.
- the organisation tools do a very similar job.
So why is ‘Lightroom’ (and by extrapolation, Photos) a toy and ‘Lightroom Classic’ a powerful tool for pros?
- organisation has a different focus. The ‘toy’ puts things like facial recognition to find your friends, or grouping by vacation / time period up front. The ‘tool’ focuses on projects.
- automation has a different focus. The ‘toy’ has all sorts of things like smart wizards, ai recognition, auto-collections, auto-corrections, filters and such the like. The ‘tool’ assumes the user is better than the computer so doesn’t push these things in your face (where they exist at all), and has much more reliance on user created tags, folders, adjustments, presets etc.
Plus, when all said and done, the pro tool ‘Lightroom Classic’ is simply more powerful and cutting edge. A Photos-plus-Affinity solution will give you a powerful approach, remembering that even Lightroom Classic has editing limitations and utilises a ‘edit-in-photoshop’ option for more powerful or more creative adjustments, although a critical difference here is that EVERY step in Lightroom / Lightroom Classic (and presumably Photos too) uses non-destructive editing designed to protect and preserve your digital negative — something that is lost every time you switch to an external app for additional editing.
So… should you care?
If you don’t care already, no you shouldn’t. Don’t let idiots like me who use deliberately inflammatory words like ‘toy’ and ‘tool’ skew your view of two perfectly excellent classes of programme. Use what works for you. If you’re happy with Photos, use Photos… in the same way that if you’re perfectly happy with the camera on your phone you shouldn’t worry about spending $3000 on a DSLR and lenses, and if you are happy using MS Word, you shouldn’t worry about using a pro writing app like Scrivener… unless and until your use case changes.
2 Likes