I had to reinstall Windows. GRRR
where to I access my copy of CGS 2018?
That's the thing I really hate about download-only software. It's a good idea to back-up the original download installer file. Hindsight is 20/20 vision though. I can log into my Corel account and see several past registered versions of CorelDRAW along with their serial numbers. But Corel doesn't let you directly access the main installer file, just the patches. I seem to remember being able to download the main installer files from the downloads page in the past.I don't understand this policy. If you, the customer, bought a copy of CorelDRAW, registered and activated it then that should be enough to be granted access to download the main installer file (as well as the updates for that version). When you reinstall the software you have to sign into your Corel account, enter the serial number and activate it. This whole "we need a proof of purchase" email thing makes no sense.I just did an overhaul of an old personal notebook (new 1TB SSD and upgrade from 8 to 16GB of RAM). Put Win 10 Pro in it clean. I installed Adobe Creative Cloud on it (for now until I buy the new notebook I'm planning to buy). All I needed was my user name and password to get running. I installed personal copies of X8 and CDR 2020 on this old notebook; thankfully I had the ZIP installer files, patches, etc.
Great fear of piracy, weaponized against the actual customers.
I wasn't planning on this. I was supposed to be a 10 min job adding ram. I didn't know it would blow out into killing off and actually deleting my software, emails, passwords... Unbootable is unbootable... you would think after 30 year Microsoft would have managed a repair utility that worked. I think it has something to do with the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI). I doubt if Windows can get inside that to fix anything. If it could that would potentially be a security risk.
I've downloaded 10 years of Paypal as CVS, found the Corel transaction, given it to them raw with the "", explained that it was an issue at the time as I was updating the post beta. Which didn't matter as I'd owned the copy before. Said it is urgent and screwing me over on a job, which it is. Told them to talk directly to Gérard Métrailler.
That was 10 hours ago. I'd say 24 hours was long enough for them to sort it out. That's about how long it will take me to get everything reloaded that I need for the job.
I'm very intolerant of people who say "that can't possibly be done". But I will try to just let this proceed without contacting support again. And I'll feedback what happens.
You are correct, you should be able to download the software at call. Things happen! Computers are stolen, HD go US, you buy a new computer... and you can do that. But if you have paid for something and you are not on Corel's DB then it isn't really your problem is it!
It "feels like" call centre bullshit from the telco. I had a classic this week. A customer with 4 emails that are jamming his email feed that I can't delete no matter what I do. I've had to wait 2 months while they developed the covid safe call centre.
Yani "Well if you can't do this by accessing his account and deleting the emails on the server then delete the whole account and recreate it."
Tech Support "Creating an email account is a sales job and it will take 2 days."
2 days for 1 minute of effort! Support can't even create an email account for an existing customer?
This is some bullshit attitude I've never been allowed. I'll bet ya most of us have done all nighters to meet a deadline, worked weekends without overtime, done our share of author's corrections and dared not complain. I thought that was called the "real world". Maybe I just got it all *** about face again. In the "real world" it takes 2 days to set up an email. Which is about the same amount of effort as to fix my license on the server.
I can't say I'm impressed with the bugs I'm reading here or the overall lack of activity on the boards. Looking around here it feels like all the fire has gone. That might indicate a lack of bugs or a lack of users.
I do download the trials as they appear for new versions and look for improvements to core features and issues that I've asked to be addressed. I see new bits but not the needed changed to curves, bit depth or interactions between PP and Draw.
Surely it isn't that hard to enable base point corrections on curves. IE set white and black points without creating a point on the curve.
Or to recognise that in computers with 8GB min of RAM, that preloaded PP in slack time and improving the connection so only one instance of PP is required is, well, a must.
It feels like we are in a era where development is driven by marketing, "add features" and not "add functional improvements". And you can blame the various "software reviewers" for that. They don't use the software or review it, they look only at a features list that Corel provide because they are nothing if not lazy journalists looking for a quick story.
If I had 100 images to correct as part of a shoot, I'd immediately fire up the $15 Adobe subscription.
Because after a month I still haven't got a working sub. for anything Corel.
Because GIMP is different enough to have a learning curve I'm not completed.
Because the curves function in Photoshop is excellent and fast to use.
In PS you mouse to what you claim is white or black, that point is marked on the curve and you pull that to the base line without touching the curves dialogue. If that takes 5 second in PS, and it takes 60 seconds in PP, you have added 100 minutes to a job by using PP. Few jobs have less than 100 images.
You can't pull back market share without functional improvements to known areas of lack of function. Professional users just aren't that stupid. Corel will be left with professional evangelists talking in tongues and new suckers for the next release. At this rate by the time the need for functional improvements are realised it will be too late. It's very sad and unnecessary.
All the following applies to testing for any software.
You assume that the bugs in the general release were not found in BETA 1. You assume the things you've said has not been said by the testers. You assume the new features are brought forward via a user input process. Wrong!
Don't assume that there's any logical global corporate thought process. I no longer test for anyone, for 2 core reasons, 1 the cost in lost billing hours and 2 the insulting nature of the process. I've been doing what I do for decades, my clients have hundreds of employees and are National and International multi hundred million dollars companies. My clients abuse me regularly but they pay damn well for the privilege.
You're correct the forum has a near zero professional level activity. I rarely post anything except my hobby stuff.
Today using Corel reminds me of the V4 days and soon after. You'd get books by Coburn, Huss or Bain , page through them and laugh because NONE of the instructions for high end features worked.
I watched a pixel demonstration for Draw, even though they know better, the instructions do not work. I watched 2 webinars, with the one for cooperative work flow. I found 2 serious technical issues with the process. Do you know how I know I was right? They had no answers.
The 2nd webinar was for image editing, it was ok to see how a different person used tools but the work was awful on multiple levels. An example was how to get rid of sensor spots, they had tons of them. Why use software instead of just cleaning the camera?
This is the quality of instruction and it's reflected everywhere and today it's not just software, its everywhere.
David Milisock said:An example was how to get rid of sensor spots, they had tons of them. Why use software instead of just cleaning the camera?
That's caught me a few times. When it is video you are right screwed. It can happen with a change of lens.
It's much worse on the Sony mirrorless cameras as there is no mirror to protect the sensor. I shoot a section of clear sky and check it every time I use the camera.
I watched the videos and thought the same. Not pushing it near far enough.
I don't know about recent beta testing. I do know that when all bugs are confirmed within the beta process by non Corel staff that frees up Corel staff to have better focus on issues.
When Draw 1.0 came out, it had a video VHS and that video was a huge accelerator to understanding. It didn't have the same scope of things that needed to be covered. I thought the dude that did the X6 video did a good job. I think the videos need to follow the evolution of the product. Draw 1.0 explained the difference between a group and a combine. There is still a need to cover basic stuff for new users.
Secrets and what is unsaid are a problem. The Beta and A/C groups, if they exist, should be told what is impossible because of known patents by others so time isn't wasted making impossible suggestions.
Example
Y: Can't we do curves like Photoshop?C: There are patents that prevent us doing certain things see this.Y: OK then, why can't we do that as macros that are not from Corel, free and avoid that drama?
Object Data, that was added at the request of someone of note.
That's been there for years like a sleeping dog. It has huge potential when combined with the macro system.
Say you are doing web graphics. There about 20 items you have draw in Draw.
You can set Object Data to whatever.
File Name: logo.pngHeight: 80pxWidth: 200pxProportion: fixed/width/height
So you have done this for your 20 objects. Now to export you can use a macro.
[pseudocode]
Make array of objects with dataSet export format to *.??? as per file nameSet proportion as per dataSet size as per data according to proportionExport all as bitmapBingo 20 objects exported to bitmap at size. Change and repeat as required.
I'd call that a functional improvement as it doesn't add any "new" feature.
A bit of separation is needed in thinking about this as functional improvements and features. You don't know what features might be added in 2 versions time but you can list the functional improvement that need to be listed for work.
Being responsive and proactive are not corporate traits and really bad at Corel.
The required breadth of work for a graphic designer today requires that the requirement for core features and technologies be understood by the developers. I don't see that. Of course it could be said that few designers understand this and therefore few know to push the requests to developers.
As an example in pixel workflow for web work a designer must export their graphics at very specific sizes, if they create a 60 pixel x 85 pixel graphic with a stroke it must export at those sizes with the proper stroke.
Draw allows the stroke position in relation to the bounding box to be set properly but those setting are also bound by color model. I.E. you can set RGB strokes to inside the bounding as required by web work and CMYK stroke to split the bounding box ascrequired for manual trapped print.
However to do this you must work from templates because some controls are split between the application controls and the customizable document settings.
So to achieve this in any productive fashion all RGB work will have strokes set to the inside the bounding box and all CMYK work set to split the bounding box.
So to generate a simple work flow Corel needs to create proper templates for novice users, I use 3, 1 for web work with all the core settings, 1 for wide gamut digital with 150 DPI rendering and 1 for high res CMYK at 400 DPI rendering.
I haven't working in CMYK for 10 years. Why would I do that? Maybe for black that is underpinned with CM. It would only happen if I was given a tint to match. It's just old fashion and CMYK profiles work.
I just worked with 5 different users, 3 in the Eastern hemisphere and 2 in the Western. I proved to them that even the best CMYK profiles in many cases are only ok.
The practical understanding of the use of CMYK is extremely detailed however it's use for CorelDRAW users can be distilled to a few simple actions.
The key points are understanding that CMYK output that looks great on paper when printed by a press, in many cases look poor on screen and possibly really poor in a browser. If it looks good in a browser it will almost always print poorly.
The below in equal importance.
1. A quality display, in general about $1,000 US. minimum and controlled lighting in the working environment.
2. A color calibration system about $200 US.
3. In Draw working in CMYK always use CMYK mode and set soft proofing on and proof your CMYK profile. This is because Draw in CMYK mode usesRGB to render all transparency on screen until exported. Then effects are converted to CMYK.
4. The choice of a CMYK profile has 2 requirements, the (TIC) and the gray balance. The TIC must be equal to or less than the one recommended by the printer and produce a gray transition that appeals to you.
4. Be cautious and avoid any vendor that requires PDF X anything, it's an indication of an environment controlled by the significantly technically challenged.
5. There is a diminishing return with RGB content sent to press. The higher the quality press equipment chosen for CMYK output, the less that high quality will be realized on paper if you allow an automated conversion from RGB to CMYK. A very large percentage of images require adjustments to the CMYK color after conversion to realize top quality on paper. In some rare cases multiple attempts at RGB adjustments are required before a good CMYK conversion can be done.
How do I know this? 45 years experiance. For the last 25 years 99% of my print is for high end architectural clients. I happened to be on a press proof for my job, at the same time a design team and one member of my clients team were proofing another job. These jobs shared multiple images that were supplied to me by that design team. When my client saw the difference in how the same imag3s printed he made changes.
Suffice to say their job was pulled, all the images were sent to me for correcting and conversion in Photo-PAINT, then sent back to the designer. Since then I've done all the print images for this architectural firm, many sent to be printed internationally.
Thankfully for my own work case most of our large format print output happens under our roof, making quality control a little easier. Some work still has to be jobbed out. We don't have the space for a pair of grand format printers to run off billboard faces.At any rate, some large format RIPs do a better job with reliably printing CMYK, doing RGB to CMYK conversion and simulating Pantone spot colors than other large format RIPs. Onyx is very good at printing to our HP Latex printers. We have headaches from time to time with RasterLink Pro in conjunction with our Mimaki flatbed printer.The applications and their color profiles are obviously a big variable. Sometimes a EPS or PDF generated from CorelDRAW will work fine. In other cases I end up having to round-trip the art through Adobe Illustrator and generate the EPS or PDF files there. Anything heavy with gradients and transparency effects will usually get proofed and edited in Adobe Illustrator before getting ingested by the RIP.
Ink jet work by me in CorelDRAW is always done as wide gamut, I use spot color, RGB, grayscale and CMYK in the same file.
Unlike Illustrator that only works in RGB or CMYK Draw works in all four color models simultaneously. Fountain fills, transparency and complex fills required a choice by Corel for display as only one model can be used they chose RGB. This is why for accurate creation of CMYK effects soft proofing needs to be activated to your CMYK profile.
Conversions depend on the quality of the rip conversion process and the operator who set it up and created the media profiles. Ink jet device media profiles are color reactive to the resolution setting for output as well as the input resolution of raster data sent to the rip. Quality repeatable color requires critical attention to the profile honoring processes of the rip then creating files that are compatible. Most Adobe and Corel users are sRGB users who lack the ability to utilize higher quality processes.
I use PDF only for all output, inkjet devices, rasterlynk, onyx are the main rips for these devices, we also have a versaworks 4 that does a nice job. I haven't had any issues with complex fills or transparency in output for these devices.
Quality high end CMYK press output has become an art form today. So few printers even understand their own processes I usually contact their support person from their rip manufacturer to understand their process. Every printer I use as a vendor uses samples of my work to show perspective clients. It's a shame, printing used to be such a quality profession.
Late binding... you are going to apply a profile somewhere in the chain. If the images are CMYK then they have been through a profile on the way from RGB > CMYK.CMYK has a low gamut, a lot is missing and that can never be returned by apply a profile a second time. Even the best CMYK profile is still CMYK.The best results from the Windows driver to an Epson (and I say other printers) is no profile at all. Let the driver sort that out unless you deliberately want to get a flat print that is an attempt to simulate the press. If you have to do a simulation then do it profile in Draw. Never apply a profile in the driver. IMO not any profile! A profile in the printer driver means the profile understand ink, printer and paper. Even when I've generated profiles with the eyeone they have been crap. Do a test print and use the color controls in the driver as required.
ALL devices apply a media profile at output. Early binding, (converting in the design to a designated color space before output) late binding, (converting to the destination space in the output device) .
Early binding is best for press work, late binding I find can be better for many on digital devices specifically ink jet units because the final media profiles are device proprietary and not usable in applications.
Color critical work is not possible with driver based non postscript devices. Ok is the best you'll get. Driver based postscript devices can have better color management but it still lacks far behind digital frontend processing.
For output to non-postscript device all file content after you hit print is rasterized to RGB. Non color managed non postscript processes all assume sRGB. Some devices allow the uses of specific source and destination profiles but they all suffer from the rasterization to an RGB space at the beginning. The sRGB choice is limiting as many CMYK colors exist outside the sRGB color space.
Driver based postscript devices do not suffer from the rasterization to RGB process at the beginning, they can rasterized to the native color space, some simply straight to CMYK, however they lack the sophistication in their color conversion processes of a RIP based digital front end.
THE PROPER WAY for presses.
ALL (no matter where in the world you are) RIP based plate or film setters use an ink limit, linearization, dot gain curve that is applied to the final data that is imaged to the plate or film. This is not an ICC color profile but it does have a (TIC) total ink coverage limit which is key for the designer. It is used to linearize the press output and compress the input data to the ink limit of the press. So the reality is that there is always a final conversion but the process if handled properly is a minimal to zero compression.
The RIP processing software has a base set of, RGB, grayscale and CMYK ICC profiles used as source and destination profiles for non-tagged data to provide conversions of non CMYK data before being sent to the plate or film setter. This software also has specific look up tables to convert spot colors to CMYK.
HERE'S THE KEY PROCESS! Why early binding is better for presses
All CMYK data tagged with an ICC profile or untagged is handled as UNTAGGED, simply passing the CMYK color numbers along to the final data curve un altered.
HERE'S the key for quality for the designer.
As long as you use a CMYK profile that is equal to or less than the TIC of the press you CAN USE any CMYK profile you like, because the process simply passes CMYK number to the setter.
WHY do we want to do this? Use Photo-PAINT or some other image editor capable of displaying document color manages images set the application to use the embedded profile
Demonstrate this to yourself. Pick a complicated RGB image, save as before each conversion and convert the same RGB image to US SWOP coated, ISO V2, GRACO 2006 and any other profile you want to test.
Now open each allowing Photo-PAINT to view each image in it's color space and view them simultaneously and you'll see the differences. Those differences are because of the profile TIC BUT MAINLY because of how the profile handles gray balance.
That gray balance is passed along through to the plate or film setter, so YOU CONTROL the look of your CMYK images. Late binding takes that control away from you.
Now to the PEAK of RIP based CMYK quality.
I've been doing this since before the beginning of the digital technology. In my experience 98% of CMYK images require color editing after conversion. What that means is that those using late binding 98% of the time could have done better.
How much better is the question, in my opinion 10% to 20% better for the average complex image. As images become more complex and the quality of the paper and print process goes up that percentage changes to 100%.
What is a complex image and what is a quality output process?
A quality output process is a coated paper #100 LB text US, 400 line AM screening or FM screened. A complex image may start as an RGB image from a carnival with prophoto gamut. However most likely a prophoto gamut image with multiple dark transitions in browns, greens, blues and grays. Extremely difficult to reproduce with a high degree of color definition. 100% of all these types of images will need manual conversion. You'll see these in high end country club brochures, architectural brochures and financial institutional work.