Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wumpus

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks Walt. I do accept that, but if I was doing the book, I would budget to revise sections periodically to incorporate new features, like some other companies do. Yes, it costs more, and this is a younger, smaller company without insane funding, but it would help keep the book project current and even more relevant. That's all that's held me back from buying it, and in this day of short-run publications (plus access to some of the greatest desktop publishing software), you no longer need to do print runs of 5,000 minimum. However, that's entirely their choice, and I respect that. I was just hoping for a response from Affinity one way or the other, rather than expecting me to act on speculation. Yes, there is some excellent documentation in the Help Files and Tutorials, but it's not always complete or current, and I've spent a lot of time looking through those trying to figure some things out, which were not adequately addressed in those references you mentioned. It always seems to fall to the diligent and caring users or employees to try to address them. Unfortunately, while always extremely well meaning, the responses in the fora are often not totally relevant or bearing any authority. I could very well chime in on every user's post requesting help, and tell them that whistling Dixie and rubbing their belly after sucking on a lemon will resolve everything. Maybe it did for me. But if everyone is entirely dependent on the well-meaning of others, and lacking the authority of trained support personnel (even when the response isn't what they wished to hear), then that's a serious gap. I hope I'm not being foolish expecting the Help Files and Tutorials to document all the product's advertised functionalities. This seems to be a recurring pattern with Affinity, and one that I hope improves. I try my best to tolerate it, because I wish them well, and to succeed. I couldn't get anyone to address my issues as a presales question, so I bought the product, thinking it would then be taken seriously, though half a year later, I am still struggling to get that addressed. I say this with respect and high expectations earned by my experiences with this very high quality product, and as someone that toiled in tech support for an imaging company for years, before eventually running the contact centre. Many things can be delegated, but in my opinion, some things need ownership when inadequately addressed. And thank you for all your contributions here, which have been superb. I mean this as no slight on the huge volume of knowledge you have imparted. I hope I managed to convey my point (not always the case!).
  2. That's super kind and professional to follow-up, @Chris B! Really, really appreciated. I just shot a parade, and had to go beyond what the camera can normally manage for colour photos (don't laugh: 400-800 ISO!), and so was forced to fall back to BW (unexpected blockages stopped me from using my tripod, so I had to deal with 450mm and motion and smoke bombs, hand-held on my toes!). I'm getting better at AP's workflow, and I hope its BW gets improved so I can stay within AP for my BW images. I've attached a better one to play with. Congrats on the new platform that lets you dynamically switch Affinity apps according to the context of your work. That (from the Affinity Live video) was impressive, and will really help the brand's success. SDIM6813.X3F
  3. Based on no other responses, I take it that I'm safe to assume that there has historically been no periodic updates to the book, and that there are none forthcoming in the short term. As well, we're all comfortable that some of the existing functionality will remain undocumented.
  4. Wumpus

    Still no Sigma X3F-Raw support

    The Kalpanika software mentioned two messages previous to the post from #fde101 is open source, was reverse engineered, has been available for years, and it does a very nice job. DC Raw does similarly, and is built into Corel Photo, the Gimp, and a few others, but can be a bit harder to tease the colours out, depending on the particular Sigma camera model. The newest versions of AP do a good job now of bringing in Merrill RAWs without adding noise in the demosaicing process, which is a great step forward. They're currently working on being able to properly open BW Merrill images, which will be another great step. SD14 images can already be opened in the same quality as SigmaPhotoPro, but need more effort to pull the colours out. I can try an SD15 image for you, if you like. In general, IMHO, I found I needed to accept that because it has such a unique method and hardware, that over the years (autocorrect had insightfully switched years to tears), you need to master not only finding the best white point source in an image, but then develop further expertise managing greens and magentas balance in both mid tone and shadow areas. It will always be necessary for the RAW engine to be good enough to bring in something you can then work with, but it will usually be harder to achieve that Foveon goodness. .
  5. Resolved: Can confirm has full control over noise removal, especially chroma noise (working since recent betas: thank you so much), and is fully usable now on Sigma Merrill cameras. Also, only as of 404RC2 is EXIF and focus reliably consistent. Outstanding: BW images still open as colour: no benefits from in-camera BW captured images. Additionally, some BW images shot at higher than base ISO open like linear exposure (super dark). Quick test images (apologies for quality): 6745, ISO100, BW: in and .404RC2 has EXIF and focus info, but recent prior betas were partially missing EXIF & focus metadata. In all versions, these open as colour (should be BW). 6742, ISO800, BW: Very difficult trying to extract a workable image from these RAWs (shot higher than base ISO). Opens fine in other RAW editors. Why Not Use Normal Colour to BW (Post-processing Conversion): The key issue behind this is that the Foveon Merrill can capture the full spectrum at every single 'pixel' (photosite), and output it in BW (like a Leica M Monochrom). No demosaicing is required (or ever wanted). When these are shot as BW in the camera, Affinity Photo opens them as normal colour images, and loses all their benefits. For instance, Foveons also normally capture full spectrum at every 'pixel', and when all treated as BW, you can get 3 times as much sampling per pixel as the monochrome Leica, for improved noise. See earlier post (Issue #1): https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/80333-med-resolution-images-auto-upsampled-to-high-bw-images-import-as-colour/ SDIM6745.X3F SDIM6742.X3F
  6. Just an update after doing some testing last night with, and the ongoing denoising/demosaicing issues (not sure which was causing the problem) which made Merrill (SD and DP Merrill series cameras) barely usable, now appears significantly improved. Before, there was so much noise evident (mostly chroma, but also some luminance) even with reasonably well exposed images, that to get rid of sufficient noise resulted in also removing so much detail that the output almost looked like a stylized cellphone oilpainting filter. NOTE: this problem only occurred with the Sigma Merrill cameras, and did not affect earlier Sigma cameras, which performed normally. Now, it is possible (for well lit areas within an image) to adjust the denoising so that you can just apply enough to get rid of widespread noise, but through the currently available controls, selectively adjust the extent applied such that a balanced amount of detail can be retained (meaningful noise:detail tradeoffs). It still needs a fairly bright exposure, but it is no longer prohibitive. I don't know if this was due to the hard work of Affinity or LibRaw, but thank you very much. I ran out of time, but images captured as pure BW may still be opening in AP as colour. I will test with .390 this weekend. But this is a huge quality improvement for all Merrill users.
  7. Thanks so much. I do understand Clipped Highlights and Shadows, which to me were pretty standard concepts for all digital photography, but Clipped MidTones isn't a commonplace concept (at least for me), and I didn't feel it had been sufficiently addressed in either the published docs or the forums, other than a vague description which doesn't really make sense. If the book is still almost 100% relevant, it could be good, but I wish I new if it was being updated in a few months, as I'd rather lose the sale price but gain more current feature inclusion. Thanks though.
  8. I'd like to buy this, but it's been out for a while, and I would love a reference that covers all the newest materials (for example, there's never been any documentation added concerning "Clipped Tones" toggle button). Thanks!
  9. Thank you Chris. As an update, the new beta version exhibits the same behaviour as After uploading the image last night, I reviewed several others. However, upon looking through them, several which had demonstrated the problem, most of those no longer show that same problem. All I'm seeing now are the occasional incorrect EXIF data, and I'm having a hard time trying to find all those incomplete EXIF files. I now think it's because I upgraded Affinity Photo Beta and resumed testing without restarting my computer. Perhaps some temp files weren't cleaned up and read by the new install, and were incorrectly parsing the EXIF, resulting in missing chunks of the EXIF dataset. So please lower the importance and urgency of this item to EXIF wrong lenses reported, rather than incomplete EXIF. While I haven't exhaustively checked through my files, it was very easy to find problem examples before, and now it's not, and the EXIF data, even when it's wrong, seems now to be complete. If anyone has the same issue, I suggest having them restart rather than upgrading betas. I do still hope the raw import for the SD1 camera can be improved (don't know if it's some kind of LibRaw demosaicing or some other issue) as it still requires so much denoising (especially colour noise removal) as to render the images looking like they have undergone some kind of painterly detail-reducing effect. I have been reporting that since end of last year. Thank you again.
  10. EXIF data says Sigma 120-300mm DG 2.8 fixed Sport lens, but it is actually a Sigma DC 10-20mm EX 3.5 fixed. Taken with SD14 firmware v.1.08. The Sigma DC 10-20mm F3.5 is in the supported lenses list. SDIM5326.X3F
  11. Could you please post where to upload them, and I can name them accordingly with the "86518" threadname in the title? I had thought all were innocuous but some have personally identifiable information. Thanks!
  12. For some RAWs, the EXIF data is complete and accurate; in some it is incomplete, and in others it is inaccurate. I used RAW images from two bodies and a variety of lenses: the RAW images had the same (long stable) firmware for all the photos being discussed, but the firmware (and models of the two bodies) were different from each other. In the menu bar with "Develop /Cancel" above the file name, the EXIF information may be correct, incorrect lens data, or camera only. For one camera (SD14), it showed only the resolution and size in output megapixels, camera model, and an incorrect lens. For another RAW photo, the information was complete and accurate. For another camera (SD1M), it shows same camera and image info info except zero lens info, and another RAW had complete and accurate (improved details and accurate, even). The Focus sidebar information looks correct, and for the first camera again (SD14) EXIF info appears correct except XML "auxLens" is wrong. Another RAW file was missing about 50-70% of all its XML data. This only occurs on some photos, but on other photos, the information was correct. And in fact, on some photos, it is now more accurate: it is now not only showing the correct tele zoom, but it also indicated "+2x" to show that a 2x tele converter had been installed on the lens. It did not indicate the specific teleconverter used - just the magnification factor. For the missing or inaccurate lens EXIF data RAW files, I couldn't edit the lens correction data. In this version it also seems to take longer to restore the UI when tabbing from a minimized state to a full screen state: the image appears immediately, but outer background takes about 1-2 seconds, then menus filling over top of the background takes an additional 1-2 seconds. And I'm not certain, but I may have had inconsistent information displayed from the same image (accidentally) opened several images later. I had done a lot of tests on the betas two through four versions ago, but not much on this one or the next most recent one version before this current one. It is possible that the same behaviour existed and I didn't see it. However, in the betas prior to these two most recent, I did not see this behaviour, and I had done much more extensive testing (I have an existing beta issue currently being analyzed by the devs, where RAW images from one of the cameras, the SD1M (same as the other Merrill sensor cameras), requires heavy denoising, which throws away an abnormal amount of image detail: whereas the SD14 body processes perfectly noiseless and razor sharp output for well lit images, even when zero sharpening and zero denoising are applied). Thanks!
  13. I am investigating every possible slider for any explanatory effects or explanations. Develop Personas, under Tones, Split Toning, changing Shadow Saturation percent affects the yellow warning in a big way. Detail refinement (under Detail) for larger radii when coupled with larger sharpening amounts also seems to have an impact. Raising (darkening) Blackpoint levels (under Basic) impacts it, whereas lowering it (brightening) makes it go away at slight increases. Therefore, in the spirit of true Wiki-based support, I surmise that it's presence can only be symptomatic of severe transmogrification manifestation levels.
  14. Thanks very much. I do so love the articles in Cambridge in Colour too. I am pretty comfortable working with histograms, and am quite clear on lost shadow detail and clipped highlights, ETRR and blown channels and such, but "clipped tones" seems to be an Affinity-specific warning. It has never been explained by Affinity, aside from the several very generous and considerate musings and conjecture contributed by users here on these forums, but has yet to be confirmed by Affinity, so I was hopeful that someone authoritative might write a sentence about it for the user community.
  15. Show Clipped Tones Would love to understand too. Also checked other forums, including the Workbook, and Betas, but while it's often mentioned, it's never defined in a clear way. Thanks so much!