Affinity Photo Editor
Nikonians Team Member
John
www.jtmcgphotos.com
|
-
#1. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Thu 08-Dec-16 07:41 PMI bought it when it came out for Mac, mostly to support a non-Adobe ecosystem. I don't use it often. However, it does seem to be pretty complete, excepting things like stacking, HDR and pano. But for editing, compositing, and the like, it seems to work pretty well and I had little trouble figuring out how to use it after years of Photoshop.
I still use Photoshop CS6, mostly because I can. If for some reason I can't continue using my CS6 license, I will almost certainly switch to Affinity with little regret other than having to find plug-ins for stacking and maybe a few other things. (HDR and Pano are now in LR.)_____
Brian... -
#2. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
photphil Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2004Fri 09-Dec-16 09:14 AMJohn
Have been learning how to use Affinity Photo(Mac) for past several months. It has so many features and is much more complex than NX2. Since I never used Lightroom or Photoshop, I am studying their tutorials to get up to speed with this software. Lots to learn but I'm confident that I will be very happy using it as my editor. Looking forward to a DAM from Serif sometime in the future-seems like a great company. Hope it gets widely adopted, especially once their Windows version is finalized.Phil
Visit my Nikonians gallery. -
#3. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
Mannheim62 Registered since 21st Dec 2009Fri 09-Dec-16 09:15 AM>Just released for Windows. Has anyone used the Mac version.
>If so what do you think of it?
Hi John,
I've heard of it but haven't used it yet. I did a quick search and YouTube has a 1 hour tutorial you might find interesting. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR0j-qVLJ5o
MikeVisit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#4. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Fri 09-Dec-16 06:48 PMAlmost as soon as I said that it didn't have those features... v1.5 popped into my system. And that release adds both HDR and focus stacking, in addition to a fairly long list of new stuff. Since it just downloaded about ten minutes ago, I obviously haven't test-driven the new features, but it was definitely a pleasant surprise._____
Brian... -
#5. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
been using it for about 6 months, its not photoshop but they are working on it and it does a pretty good job, I do my pano with it as ON1 can't do it and can almost do my full workflow with it. like every products they also have to deal with bugs, i don't know about ghe windows version though. -
#6. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
Pouncer Registered since 22nd Jan 2009Mon 12-Dec-16 09:34 PMI am also interested if others have used the updated Windows version. I am strongly considering buying Affinity (for the panorama stitching/HDR/focus stacking) instead of upgrading from LR5 to LR6.
GarrettThis is my Nikonians gallery.
-
#7. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
bhiggins Nikonian since 04th Jan 2015Sun 18-Dec-16 02:10 PMJohn - I purchased for Mac it because it was so inexpensive and figured if it had one or two good features the less than plugin price was worth the try. It tries to mimic Photoshop and in many ways does well with that but the work flow for PS users requires a bit of re-thinking which slows the learning curve. Also if you are a plugin in user there is limited support for 3rd party plugins. they also have great video tutorials which you can view for free. I don't use it much but continue to watch its development....if they could smooth out the cobble stones they would have a great road <smile>. As a side I find ON1 Photo RAW to have a bit of a learning curve as well but not as tough as Affinity Photo. If you want to avoid CC subscriptions it is a way to go but has a way to go.Barry
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
See my portfolio. -
#8. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
pb2013 Registered since 22nd Nov 2013Sun 18-Dec-16 11:37 PMAs others have noted, version 1.5 added HDR, pano, dehaze, and many other new features for both Mac and Windows. Here is a pair of screen shots showing the full set of available adjustment layers and filters:
I have been experimenting with Affinity Photo (AP) since I would like to move away from Adobe - e.g. with a combination of Photo Mechanic and AP.
It does have a learning curve although Serif (the manufacturer) has a really extensive set of tutorial videos that I find immensely helpful. Their index:
https://affinity.serif.com/forum/index.php?/topic/10119-in-house-affinity-photo-video-tutorials/
After a week or so of work things seem to be clicking and I'm making a lot more progress. Key for me was starting to understand their approach to layers, selections, and masks.
There are bugs but the team seems really responsive in their forums and in bringing out new releases.
One big concern for me is file size. Say you start with a RAW file. You can do almost everything nondestructively by ignoring the AP "Develop" persona (translate as mode) and working in photo mode with layers. But AP then saves your work in a .afphoto project file that includes a bit map of the image. (The .nef file is untouched.) Starting with a D7200 raw file of 27MB to 32MB I've seen the .afphoto file vary from 150MB to 300MB. Sure hard drives are cheap but that's a big burden.
I've posted an inquiry in the AP forum about file size to see what they say.
Overall AP is really impressive to me as an alternative to Lightroom and Photoshop (but no LR cataloging functions) and I'm hoping they can reduce project file size.
Pete
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
-
-
#10. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 8
pb2013 Registered since 22nd Nov 2013Fri 30-Dec-16 05:46 PMA follow-up note: I've explored the issue of file size for the .afphoto project file on the Affinity Photo forum.
The file size issue I described in my previous post seems pretty much permanent. It stems from Photo being a pixel editor more like Photoshop than Lightroom.
Photo has some extremely good features and I found it easier to learn than Photoshop. But the very large .afphoto file size means I won't be able to replace Lightroom. I will continue using Photo as my alternate editor when I want Photo's advanced features and pixel-level editing.
Photo can import your raw files directly. If they have been edited, though - say in Lightroom - then you will need to export a TIFF or JPEG with the edits baked in, and then read that TIFF or JPG into Photo.
Pete-
#11. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 10
photphil Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2004Fri 30-Dec-16 07:20 PMPete,
I'm also trying to use Affinity Photo-to replace NX2 which I have been using for several years. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't want sign on to Adobe's subscription plan and was hoping Af Photo was a good choice.. I may revert to using Apple Photos for raw conversion and then AfPhoto as a plug in, once I can no longer use NX2. I like the program(Affinity) and the on-line support-it offers me so many capabilities that I didn't have before. Your news about file size is definitely a drawback. The company, Serif, seems to be working hard to create an alternative to Photoshop so I hope they succeed and it gets widely adopted.Phil
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
-
-
#31. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 8
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Tue 23-May-17 06:34 PMPete, I just realized something with Affinity. The huge file sizes are only when you start with a huge (RAW) file. Starting with a tiny jpg and saving in .afphoto the result was a tiny 287K file!
I guess this should have been "obvious" but I just tripped over it as I rarely edit anything other than large RAW files.-
#32. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 31
pb2013 Registered since 22nd Nov 2013Tue 23-May-17 06:58 PMYes, this is because the file size comes from Affinity Photo storing a bit map of the original image inside the .afphoto project file. A bit map of a small JPEG takes far less space than a bit map of a rendered RAW file.
-
#12. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
I do work on a high end new machine based using SSD drives (and a 4K monitor) so it's very fast, however opening NEF raw files is *slow* (several seconds).
The .afphoto format size of files doesn't bother me, I don't save much in their format. I always save the original raw files and I generate final JPEG images. Usually I only use .afphoto format as a temporary save while I'm working on an image (and want to do more in another session later). (my .afphoto file sizes have been running 100 to 500 MB each) As far as I know, there is no other software that does a "non-destructive" save - you literally can reload a session and still be able to "undo" changes.
The *best* feature of Affinity Photo are the free training tutorials. These are nice short videos, two minutes to ten minutes, that demonstrate usage of various features and often give you an idea of a new concept to try on your photos. Overall I'd say Affinity Photo is the easiest to learn and use full featured, high end software. The price is great too!
I do still use Aftershot Pro 3 for rapidly reviewing and rating photos, but for actually editing photos, Affinity Photo has become my primary editing software.
-
#13. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 12
pb2013 Registered since 22nd Nov 2013Wed 15-Mar-17 02:59 PMHi John,
I share all your thoughts about Affinity Photo except about importance of afphoto file size although that is based on our differing workflows. I typically keep the edits on hand so that I can go back to the original raw image at any time. When I create a JPG it is for sharing/printing and that gets deleted after sharing/printing. So for my workflow all .afphoto files would be kept and therefore the .afphoto file size is a real factor.
Adobe Lightroom is one very popular application that does everything non-destructively. The edits are saved in a very small (usually less than 15 KB and almost always less than 100 KB - yes, kilobytes) .xmp sidecar file. It is so small since it only holds the edits, keywords, etc. (no bit map of the image) and Lightroom reapplies those editing instructions to the original file (raw, JPG, or any other supported format) whenever you want to view it.
I'm glad to hear that Affinity Photo works so well for you. I just wish they could rework their approach to shrink the .afphoto file size but they seem to not consider it a problem.
Pete-
#14. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 13
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Wed 15-Mar-17 03:56 PM | edited Wed 15-Mar-17 03:56 PM by MithelPete, I certainly agree that it would be great if the .afphoto format didn't generate these monster files! I'd love to save all my .afphoto files but due to the huge sizes I adopted a workflow that doesn't require them (other than temporarily and only for a few photos).
There are a lot of factors associated with file size concerns. Many of us save every RAW file and those gobble up a ton of space too. We accept that we need huge drives to store them. Photoshop and other native formats are not exactly small either and people have more or less accepted that.
If we were to edit every photo we shoot then this would be a major problem. But considering that out of 500 shots we might only edit a dozen the actual storage of the .afphoto files isn't all that much compared to storing the original raw files.
Aftershot Pro 3 is very much like Lightroom and does the same thing by saving settings in a tiny .xmp file. However, that is only a small subset (although perhaps the most important tasks) of what Affinity Photo does. Lightroom and Aftershot don't story any "history" of settings you've tried before. Affinity actually saves your complete undo history! It's "power" vs "file size" and Affinity has chosen to give us power. It's a decision I can live with. I don't quite understand why they need quite so large of files though, they could just store a (compressed) copy of the RAW file and "instructions" for manipulating it and then "replay" the instructions when the file is loaded. However that probably would result in slow loading (might not be acceptable to some people).
We could argue that if you save a .afphoto file then you could delete the original RAW file. But I'm not ready to adopt that yet. Maybe it's time to buy another hard drive? {smile} (that's still less expensive than using Photoshop!)-
#15. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 14
pb2013 Registered since 22nd Nov 2013Wed 15-Mar-17 04:49 PMJohn - I'm in the same place about the original raw file. As good as Affinity Photo is, I'm not ready to delete the raw file.
You raise an interesting point about hard drives. If we assume 320 MB per file for a raw image plus their .afphoto file and a catalog of 20,000 images - an arbitrary number slightly larger than my current catalog - a 6.4 TB drive would suffice. Two so you have a backup. Probably manageable but just more than I'm ready to do at this point. Perhaps in time I'll come around to this.
Pete-
#16. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 15
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Wed 15-Mar-17 06:21 PMPete, are you doing post processing on *every* photo you shoot?
Certainly the number of photos is going to vary dramatically from photographer to photographer. I've cut back my shooting. So now if I do a photo shoot twice a month generating 500 images each that's 1000 images. If I post process 25 of those, that's 300 photos per year that I might want .afphoto files for. Let's round that up to make the numbers easy and call it 500 per year.
Now 500 x 500 MB = 250 GB - so a 2 TB drive (more or less dirt cheap these days would hold eight years of photos (not counting raw originals - but I built in enough buffer that I could save those too).
Seems "okay" to me.
The situation would be different if I was a full time pro photographer editing say ten photos per *day* (which would need nearly ten times the storage of the above figures).
Naturally the situation will change over time as cameras shoot larger and larger photos and hard drives (and SSD drives) get larger and larger.
-
-
-
#17. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
-
#18. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 17
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Wed 15-Mar-17 06:58 PMAffinity Photo does take some "re-training" to go from Photoshop. However, look at it this way, not only do you have some great abilities that Photoshop doesn't provide but watching the training videos is likely to inspire new ideas to try too.
Watch this one: https://vimeo.com/130966523
Now how easily and quickly can you do that in Photoshop?-
#19. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 18
MaserChief Nikonian since 06th Mar 2017Thu 16-Mar-17 05:53 PM>Affinity Photo does take some "re-training" to go
>from Photoshop. However, look at it this way, not only do you
>have some great abilities that Photoshop doesn't provide but
>watching the training videos is likely to inspire new ideas to
>try too.
>
>Watch this one:
>
>Now how easily and quickly can you do that in Photoshop?
Purchased AF about three months ago. And yes, it does take a bit of "training" to learn the program. The tutorials are a great help. Not being familiar with Photoshop, I am not sure Adobe has tutorials this extensive; although there are some great books available that AP, as yet, does not have.
My only complaint (maybe some additional ones later) is that the program is too slow loading (opening RAW files) - takes about 25 - 30 seconds. Others have noted this concern as well, so hope the team can enhance the performance of this program. It does have great potential.-
#20. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 19
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Thu 16-Mar-17 06:58 PMI highly recommend using SSD drives. On my system loading a RAW file into Affinity Photo takes about 5 to 7 seconds. Very slow! But tolerable.
The one benefit that Adobe has in it's favor is a wealth of training materials but most of them you have to pay for. I've had the good fortune of having a Pluralsight subscription provided to me which allowed me to do some training for "free". I far prefer the Affinity Photo tutorials.-
#21. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 20
MaserChief Nikonian since 06th Mar 2017Fri 17-Mar-17 10:33 AM>I highly recommend using SSD drives. On my system loading a
>RAW file into Affinity Photo takes about 5 to 7 seconds. Very
>slow! But tolerable.
>
>The one benefit that Adobe has in it's favor is a wealth of
>training materials but most of them you have to pay for. I've
>had the good fortune of having a Pluralsight subscription
>provided to me which allowed me to do some training for
>"free". I far prefer the Affinity Photo tutorials.
Yes, the SSD drives are faster and I have two in my computer. But my Photos are stored on a 2TB non-SSD drive. I have a 5TB drive that I will be transferring them to in a few days. Think I will invest in an SSD just for the photos to process and then transfer them to the 5TB for storage after processing.
If my photos loaded in 5-7 seconds, I would be very happy.
Dan-
#22. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 21
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Fri 17-Mar-17 11:29 AM | edited Fri 17-Mar-17 11:31 AM by MithelDan, no doubt the loading speed is a factor of both the drive speed and the CPU speed. No doubt Affinity is doing some "number crunching" not just reading the RAW file from the drive. For reference my CPU is a i7-6700K at 4 GHz and I have 32 GB of RAM (and having a top end video card probably isn't hurting either). Irfanview loads the same raw files instantaneously so clearly most of it is overhead that Affinity Photo is doing. My guess is that they will optimize that at some point when they have time to work on it.
While we are on the subject... to be accurate I used a stopwatch to time loading a D810 image into Affinity and it took just over 10 seconds.-
#23. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 22
MaserChief Nikonian since 06th Mar 2017Fri 17-Mar-17 06:21 PM>Dan, no doubt the loading speed is a factor of both the drive
>speed and the CPU speed. No doubt Affinity is doing some
>"number crunching" not just reading the RAW file
>from the drive. For reference my CPU is a i7-6700K at 4 GHz
>and I have 32 GB of RAM (and having a top end video card
>probably isn't hurting either). Irfanview loads the same raw
>files instantaneously so clearly most of it is overhead that
>Affinity Photo is doing. My guess is that they will optimize
>that at some point when they have time to work on it.
Mithel - Your system is a bit faster than mine - AMD FX(tm) - 4100 Quad Core Processor 3.6 GHz with 16 GB of RAM. I tried loading a photo that I transferred to my C drive (SSD) and it took 37 seconds. So, I am hoping for Affinity Photo to improve on this "down the road." I could update my video card - presently using NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2.
As previously mentioned, I still love the program.
Dan
>
>While we are on the subject... to be accurate I used a
>stopwatch to time loading a D810 image into Affinity and it
>took just over 10 seconds.-
#24. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 23
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Fri 17-Mar-17 07:06 PMI searched Affinity's forums and found this:
"We are aware that some RAW files still take some time to load and are working to improve this. If you can post/share to a link to one sample RAW file stored on a cloud service or similar so we can test it ourselves it could be helpful. Thanks."
https://affinity.serif.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33633-raw-openning-too-slowly/
Clearly they are aware of the problem. Maybe it would help to give them more sample files. How on earth can they not be able to generate an "infinite" number of files themselves? It's not like Nikon is some rare camera type. Do other types of RAW formats load faster?
Anyway, I totally agree with their approach of fixing bugs and stabilizing the software before doing performance enhancement but I hope this is high on their priority list. With Irfanview and Aftershot Pro 3 being able to load them in a "blink" that certainly implies that Affinity Photo could achieve a major improvement.-
#25. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 24
MaserChief Nikonian since 06th Mar 2017Sat 18-Mar-17 10:46 AM>I searched Affinity's forums and found this:
>"We are aware that some RAW files still take some time to
>load and are working to improve this. If you can post/share to
>a link to one sample RAW file stored on a cloud service or
>similar so we can test it ourselves it could be helpful.
>Thanks."
>https://affinity.serif.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33633-raw-openning-too-slowly/
>
>Clearly they are aware of the problem. Maybe it would help to
>give them more sample files. How on earth can they not be able
>to generate an "infinite" number of files
>themselves? It's not like Nikon is some rare camera type. Do
>other types of RAW formats load faster?
>
>Anyway, I totally agree with their approach of fixing bugs and
>stabilizing the software before doing performance enhancement
>but I hope this is high on their priority list. With
>Irfanview and Aftershot Pro 3 being able to load them in a
>"blink" that certainly implies that Affinity Photo
>could achieve a major improvement.
I was already aware of this, but thanks for the link. Until they improve the performance, guess I will have to be patient. At least they are aware of the issue and, hopefully, will work on a solution down the road. As they say, patience is a virtue.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
#26. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
Logically it might make more sense to discuss Affinity on their own forums but it also might be nice to have a smaller sub community here exchanging ideas.
-
#27. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 26
photphil Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2004Tue 28-Mar-17 01:38 PMI have been wondering about the same idea. Given the features and complexity (at least to me) of Affinity Photo, I know I would benefit from having a discussion thread on Nikonians. I'm sure many others would, too. Not sure how or when the moderators add a new thread?Phil
Visit my Nikonians gallery.-
#28. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 27
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Tue 28-Mar-17 01:44 PMMaking a new "thread" should be as easy as just clicking "Post Message". But I'm assuming a moderator / admin would have to create a new folder / forum within this forum.
Maybe I'll give it a try by starting a new thread / message and see what kind of response we get.-
#29. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 28
MaserChief Nikonian since 06th Mar 2017Tue 28-Mar-17 05:33 PM>Making a new "thread" should be as easy as just
>clicking "Post Message". But I'm assuming a
>moderator / admin would have to create a new folder / forum
>within this forum.
>
>Maybe I'll give it a try by starting a new thread / message
>and see what kind of response we get.
The ball is in your court Mithel, so I concur with your idea and will chime in so I can better learn this program. Just hope Affinity does not drop the ball on the next update and continues to improve - especially in the performance (read "speed") categopry.-
#30. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 29
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Fri 31-Mar-17 06:46 PMFor those struggling with the load times of RAW files: I just turned off all the "Develop Assistant" options and load time was twice as fast (half the time)! Someone might want to independently verify that!
-
-
-
#33. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
-
#34. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 33
chroaz Registered since 26th Apr 2009Sat 01-Jul-17 05:44 PM | edited Sat 01-Jul-17 05:49 PM by chroazThis is probably not the right place for this post - so Moderators please move it if you think fit - but I just came across this post and it fits right into my current "dilemma".
Once there was just Adobe out there for "pro" photographers. There was also Freeware for those who were technically minded and liked tinkering under the hood. Then there were the Plugin options, and specialist stand alone programs for things like Monochrome conversions, HDR and other manipulated "looks and effects".
But Adobe seemed to hang onto their following and their RAW converter seemed to be the industry standard. Then "hardware" focussed companies entered the arena such as Capture One and DXO Labs etc., with their own RAW converters, which some would say (and I agree) were superior to Adobe's or the Apple engine. Also of course the "organizers/ingesters" such as Photomechanic etc.
Meanwhile Phone Photography came along and took the consumer market by storm, offering "instant" effects (Instagram etc) and that appealed to the other photo-app developers spawning a deluge of "presets" providers that could be added in to all sorts of Apps, and this approach was adopted by both Adobe and Capture One, DXO etc. as well. Quick and Easy, no skill required!
Now all of this has come together in a number of Apps that try to combine everything (well almost everything), offer quick fixes, and which try to appeal to the amateur and professional alike.
Affinity is one of those which has chosen to meet Adobe head on with companion Apps such as Designer etc. Then ON1 entered the foray with is all-in-one App Photo RAW; then Topaz took a similar approach with Topaz Studio; and now MacPhun with Luminar Neptune. True, they all have different pricing, licensing and marketing models - but essentially they are trying to be the one stop shop for professionals and amateurs alike.
So I have a problem! Where do I go, what do I do with all these choices?
6 main things have become important to me in Post Processing:
(1) The ability to organize, catalogue and search my photo libraries
(2) A RAW converter that is faithful to the data it is presented with and renders it with optical fidelity
(3) Camera Support
(4) The ability to "correct", adjust, convert and apply effects and or "mood" to an image in a simple and intuitive manner (thus working with layers is important)
(5) Full control of what I do with the image after the mods have been made (always preserving the original RAW file) so that my image can be distributed in the appropriate format and color space for which it is intended
(6) Reasonable, affordable pricing wiith an acceptable updating strategy - no more built-in obsolescence/incompatibilities.
Over the last few years I have been working mostly in Lightroom with occasional forays into Photoshop (when I had CC, which I have since ditched, settling for just LR6), various ON 1, Topaz and Macphun Modules, Optics Pro and Silver EFEX PRO.
So, could the new entrants with their "all-in-one" approach simplify my workflow and meet my 6 key pre-requisites? I tried them out to see.
I invested in ON1 Photo RAW 2017.
I was already using DXO's Optics Pro 10 so I upgraded to vs. 11 as it supported the modules for my new OMD E-M1 Mk II.
I downloaded a trial of Capture One.
I downloaded the free version of Topaz Studio
I was given a copy of Affinity to work with
As I was already using a couple of Macphun plugins, I downloaded (at a smoking deal - $59) Luminar Neptune.
Well, since "playing" with all these apps, the answer to my question (So, could the new entrants with their "all-in-one" approach simplify my workflow and meet my 6 key pre-requisites?) is .... "No .....not yet"! A brief synopsis/overview:-
- Capture One: Clearly (to me) the best RAW converter, but not price competitive and feature rich for my use
- DXO Optics Pro 11: A very close 2nd as a RAW converter; The BEST at optical corrections and deNoising, but does not have a DAM ....yet! It is not a true editor.
- Affinity: Very affordable and a legitmate Photoshop contender. But I found it to be rather slow, have lacklustre RAW conversions and its "personnas" and its work flow were a bit confusing, and well, "different" for me - a steep learnig curve from what I have been used to. No DAM either ... Yet!
- Luminar: Surpisingly capable and what at first might seem like a consumer approach to adjustments with all the Presets it offers, it actually is very comprehensive and gives control over just about everything. Weak on batch processing, and a so-so RAW converter (which I think might be the same as Affinity's - not sure though), and no DAM ....yet? It's also very quick and intuitive to use with its "add filter" approach
- Photo RAW 2017: Also capable, but I have found it to be quite slow, and here again so-so as a RAW converter
- Topaz Studio: With access to much of Topaz's Creative Kit this will be a convenient solution to Topaz plugin users. Certainly an emphasis on ease of use, and very attractive as a free download with a a host of included adjustments built in. But not sure I like the idea of having to go out and purchase additional adjustments as and when I might need them - some will, though, I suspect (although you can buy the whole "pack" at once). Studio seems to be a capable jack of all trades, not really a standout master of any one of them.
So what indeed do I do now? Here for what it's worth is a simplified overview what I have decided on - at least until DAM is added to some of the contenders:
- I will continue to use LR 6 to import my RAW photos - Those photos for which I think the RAW conversion to be critical (Architectural, Print Work, High ISO, Large DR etc) I will round trip to Optics PRO (via the LR Plugin) to convert, adjust and bring back into LR6.
- Depending on my objective for the photo I will process in LR6
- For Pixel editing, adding some effects and other clean up work I will round trip to Luminar, and then use LR6 to output the final image to its final destination.
- For a quick and easy, non commercial "Happy Snaps", I will do the whole process in Luminar and the photos will still live in my Main Photo Library, using the same filing and naming convention I use for all imports in LR6
So essentially I am using Lightroom primarily, though not exclusvely, for its DAM capability.
NOTE: This approach dramatically increases file size, so a system/machine with a good processor (CPU and Graphics) and lots of RAM (I have 16Gb which is fine.. at the moment) is essential. And, one other thing, unlike many photogs, I use a very aggressive culling approach to my captures. Not only does this force me to be hyper critical over what I select as keepers (which in turn improves my technique in the field), it also assists in keeping my storage capacity needs reasonable.
So, although spoiled for choice, this is the path I'm heading down.
Any comments, suggestions, advice, corrections, ideas etc would be much appreciated!
Cheers,
ChrisWhen words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.
- Ansel Adams
www.throughmeyelens.smugmug.com-
#35. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 34
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Sat 01-Jul-17 06:08 PMChris, I very much appreciate your post. It's wonderful when someone gives multiple pieces of software a try and reports their "pros and cons" of each in comparison to the others.
Since this is an Affinity thread, I'd love to hear you elaborate on what you liked or didn't like about Affinity and why / how you prefer a different piece of software for some specific feature.
My guess is that you find Affinity's work flow confusing because you are more familiar with the other products. Affinity being far more logical than Photoshop, as well as having over a hundred tutorial videos are aspects I very much appreciate about Affinity.
I don't find Affinity's learning curve to be "steep" (because of the tutorial videos), but it does require an investment in time and every week I learn it better and better. I'm sure that is true of virtually any software however I haven't found another option that has all those wonderful tutorials (yes there are a ton of Photoshop and Lightroom tutorials but unorganized or presented as expensive classes to take - and what I've taken has been week compared to what is available for learning Affinity for free).
Affinity is far from perfect and I'm looking forward to a lot of improvements. On my PC the only thing slow about it is importing RAW files.-
#36. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 35
chroaz Registered since 26th Apr 2009Sat 01-Jul-17 08:44 PM | edited Sat 01-Jul-17 11:27 PM by chroazJohn - yes, you are right, initially I found Affinty's complexity to be quite daunting and so I did spend some time referencing their enormous library of tutorials - which were very helpful (and also conducted in my native language too - I'm a Brit!!). That's why I made the remark about it being a capable Photoshop opponent. But the truth is I didn't use photoshop much (partly because of the learning curve involved) and I was a bit leary of having to go back to school with Affinity as my pixel editor.
My comments in my post were not meant to be a review of each App, and a comparison of their various features head to head - in that regard Affinity would probably come out as the most feature rich - but more of a way to find what I felt I needed to meet those 6 key requirements I referenced.
So my reasons for not including Affinity in my work flow at the moment were (1) I felt I needed to invest a lot of time in truly being able to harness its power and use it correctly - and their on line videos would of course help with this. (2) I was not particularly impressed by its RAW converter, and so would have to go outside the app to meet my expectations for the conversion, (3) I did find it slow to load my images, (4) the lack of DAM and finally (5) I didn't find it did any of the "normal" adjustments better than the other Aps I was trying. So it wouldn't, at least for me, be an all-in-one solution.
That said, for anyone wishing to put in the time to master all of its power, it is a very powerful pixel editor indeed, and I do underatnd a DAM is in the works.
So, as for individual features of the different software my picks are!
- Optics Pro 11 for RAW conversion, optical corrections, Light Adjustments and De-Noising (Prime is amazing - though slow)
- LR6 for ingesting and cataloguing my library, adding meta data, naming, key words etc (presets) and exporting with presets - also for developing where not much correction, or addded effect, is required
- Luminar, as my main plugin for effects, masking, pixel editing and other work on layers - and for iPhonography.
I didn't find the others did anything particular better than this combo, which is why I am going (at the moment) this route. Also .... very little learning curve in any of it!
Cheers,
ChrisWhen words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.
- Ansel Adams
www.throughmeyelens.smugmug.com-
#37. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 36
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Sat 01-Jul-17 11:08 PMThanks for the follow up Chris. I'm probably favorable toward Affinity because I'm okay with slowly building expertise with it. I'm not sure at what rate I'm actually watching the tutorials but I like to watch a few every few days so I find it fairly painless learning.
Have you tried "Photo Mechanic" for doing the digital asset management? Everyone speaks very highly of it but I haven't yet fired it up.
I suspect many of us are frustrated that no single product (or even combination of two products) is "perfect". There always seems to be some feature that one piece of software has that nobody else has (at least not as good or easy to use).
My feeling toward Affinity is that it's fairly easy to get started and do basic good key editing, while having a ton of features that will take months (years?) to master. And at the same time having the support of the training tutorials so that when you know you want to do something you can find a tutorial to give you a start on that particular technique.-
#38. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 37
chroaz Registered since 26th Apr 2009Sat 01-Jul-17 11:25 PMYup, I have had an earlier version of Photo Mechanic which I used when I was on specific journalism assignemnts - for which it was really designed. It's really a browser that delivers a quick way to ingest, preview, cull, watermark, and caption images for uploading to my Editor (not an App!). It was fantastic for that.
My photography has changed now and I don't feel I need it any more. But it's a great tool, and I'm sure it has developed since I last used it.
As for learning, I guess I'm not as patient as I was once!
ChrisWhen words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.
- Ansel Adams
www.throughmeyelens.smugmug.com-
#39. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 38
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Sun 02-Jul-17 08:40 AMIn general, I'm a very patient person, however as the years pass and life becomes busier and busier I do have less patience for learning technology tools. So yes, photo editing software needs to impress me quickly in order to get me hooked on spending more time learning it.-
#40. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 39
chroaz Registered since 26th Apr 2009Sun 02-Jul-17 05:53 PMI'm with you there!
ChrisWhen words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.
- Ansel Adams
www.throughmeyelens.smugmug.com-
#41. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 40
MaserChief Nikonian since 06th Mar 2017Thu 20-Jul-17 10:19 AMSeems that Affinity Photo is trying to improve its software with the release of the new beta version 1.6.0.75. At least the loading time for RAW files has dropped a few seconds - about 3 by my unscientific tests. There are other improvements that you can view here: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/43008-affinity-photo-customer-beta-16075/
I just wish they were a little quicker in there upgrades and improvements for windows. I'm still learning the program, but there is more there than I need. I was happy with Nikon CNX-2 - but time marches on. Hopefully by the end of the year we will see a complete update of AP. If not, I believe many will abandon AP for "happier hunting ground."
Dan-
#42. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 41
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Thu 20-Jul-17 11:12 AMThanks for the update Dan. There are a lot of little things they could do to make Affinity a bit more polished and a nicer experience. I'm still loving it as the "best" option (factoring in low cost as important).-
#43. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 42
MaserChief Nikonian since 06th Mar 2017Thu 20-Jul-17 03:00 PM>Thanks for the update Dan. There are a lot of little things
>they could do to make Affinity a bit more polished and a nicer
>experience. I'm still loving it as the "best"
>option (factoring in low cost as important).
I concur - that's why I am hanging in there - and hoping.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#44. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 43
MaserChief Nikonian since 06th Mar 2017Tue 01-Aug-17 08:05 PMAn updated beta version for Affinity Photo is available here: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/44192-affinity-photo-customer-beta-16076/
I did a quick, unscientific study concerning loading times for RAW files - one with the beta version and another with the released version for windows. I used a RAW file shot with an older D2h camera and another from my D7200:
Beta version for D2h - 5 seconds
Released version for D2h - 9 seconds
Beta version for the D7200 - 20 seconds
Released version for the D7200 - 16 seconds
Remember this is "unscientific," but will give you a general idea. Too, the performance of your computer and software preferences will affect these times.
It does seem, however, Affinity is still working to improve this software. Just wish they were a bit faster.
Cheers,
DanVisit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#45. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 44
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Tue 01-Aug-17 08:39 PMThanks for the report Dan. I haven't had a chance to play with the Affinity Beta.
One thing I've noticed in the released version is that it seems they took away "Bilateral Blur" (it's greyed out in the menu). Odd!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
#46. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 0
At the time I researched it the cost was only $19.99 so it was a no brainer at that price. It works very well on my iPad Pro and I will post some pictures soon.
Rick
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#47. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 46
Mithel Registered since 12th Mar 2017Tue 01-Aug-17 11:02 PMRick, so editing with your finger instead of a mouse works okay? It seems like it wouldn't be very precise.-
#48. "RE: Affinity Photo Editor" | In response to Reply # 47
Shovelhead Registered since 29th Sep 2014Wed 02-Aug-17 06:49 AMI've used my finger but also have the Apple Pencil.
Using your finger I will admit is not ideal but you can get use to it.
The pencil works very well.
RickVisit my Nikonians gallery.
-
G