Grumpy Hec

Thanks Walt. Interesting and logical. I'll do some more tests including comparing to afphoto as a matter of interest. In terms of a way to use a DAM to manage my 100K plus images with AP2, going down the tiff route is looking increasingly like the best option. Assuming that is the case the next step, of finding a DAM which I can convert to from LR, is the real challenge. Lots of collections, smart collections and keywords to export/import which has proven to be a challenge. In many ways the DAM issue is the real deal breaker in adopting AP2 after LR/PS if you have a large portfolio. Rumour has it that if you stop your Adobe subscription you can still use LR as a DAM only (Library module)without all the other modules. If that is still the case that may well be the answer whilst using AP2 with tiff files. All good fun. Thanks again for your input. cheers Martin

Many thanks for the responses. I was aware that .afphoto is a closed format and as such I'm searching for a way of using AP2 with a DAM ( e.g. ACDSee, Photosupreme) ) in a similar way, as far as is possible at least, to the LR/PS relationship. Whilst some 3rd party DAMs can see a thumbnail of .afphoto none, as far as I know, can provide a viewable full screen view or even an enlarged view. The two most obvious options are a) to use .afphoto but always partner with a JPG which would provide the viewable format for the DAM, albeit with a bit of an annoying need to do a seperate export each time you save a new version of the .afphoto or b) to use .tiff which , as you say, provides a viewable format via the embedded .afphoto. As far as my tests show the tiff file has no obvious disadvantages/shortcomings over the afphoto as all layers/adjustments are available to continue processing when the file is reopened. This is the point at which my question came in as I wondered if anybody knew of the various differences/advantages of the two formats in this context to confirm that I have not missed anything. Needless to say if Serif had a DAM in their portfolio this would not be an issue and I would certainly have switched to using AP by now. As it is my decision is still uncertain. Thanks guys

In my continuing evaluating of AP2 with a view to moving from LS/PS the old question of the lack of a fully compatible DAM is a perennial problem. In particular the fact that, so far, I have not identified a DAM which can fully view a .afphoto file and zoom right in and fully interact is a similar way that you can with .psd in LR. On way round this is to use .tiff as the format and export rather than just save the .afphoto file. Whilst this is not as convenient it does seem to work reasonably well in that layers are preserved. One question that arises is, "what is the full list of differences between .afphoto and .tiff"? This may have been answered elsewhere but I have not managed to find a concise and definitive answer so far. It boils down to asking if I would be missing some advantage of .afphoto by using .tiff? cheers Martin

Ah. That sounds worth exploring. Many, many thanks for that steer.

Thanks Mike. Thought that was the case but worth asking just in case.

I pretty sure I know the answer to this but I may have missed something so here goes. Is there a way of making export default to using the source folder automatically rather than having to browse? The reason for asking is that I want to create a macro that a) saves in affinity format as normal and b) saves a full size JPG along with it to the same source folder. This, if you haven't guessed already, is to enable any DAM to see a decent size image, which reflects any work done in AP2, rather than just, at best, a small thumbnail in those DAMs which show even that. cheers Hec

Thanks Len. I was aware of that method to discover the full path but unfortunately that does no address the permissions problem. That is a swine as I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about current Windows versions to feel at ease altering security settings to enable third party programmes to read & execute. Sadly it is not like Unix which was a joy in that area. The idea of creating a .bat file has some merit although I thought I'd left those behind years ago!. I also suspect that some third party applications will expect to be pointed at a .exe so will not accept a .bat anyway. It also, of course, still leaves the basic lack of a DAM although I fully accept that there are options out there. It is just that they involve going backward in terms of integration compared to how LRc & PS work together. Some people will be fine with that which is excellent but it is a deal breaker for me even though my first impressions on trying AP V2 are very favourable. Hector

Agree with all the comments on this decision. Back in 2020 I had a very serious look at APV1 but after a great deal of investigation I decided not to switch for three reasons. 1) - insufficient luminosity/zone/colour/saturation/vibrance masks 2) - not convinced about the Raw Editor 3) - a lack of Affinity DAM and the lack of adequate .asphoto support in other DAM applications including Bridge. Number 1 has been largely resolved and is in fact very good at first glance. Number 2 I'm still unconvinced. Number 3 though is now even more of a problem as the lack of support for the affinity file format is compounded by the fact that I cannot now even point Bridge at the .exe to get it to use it at the editor due to it not being visible. Add the fact that, unless there have been substantial changes since 2020 which of course may well be the case, I cannot find a DAM which meets my needs and it amounts to a deal breaker for me. So, inspite of really liking AP V2 and thinking it is better in a whole range of ways than PS, I am probably going to uninstall my trial version of V2 as it is clumsy to use in the real, day to day, world, especially if, like me , you have grown use to the high level of integration I enjoy with the LRc/PS combination. This is such a shame as I really do want to make the change but slowing down my workflow from it's current position is not a positive step forward. Please, please Serif. Get a DAM sorted either inhouse or by working with another software house. At the very least sort this Windows App v programme file silliness out. In the absence of either action I will abandon any thought of switching.

Many thanks for your comments and pointers to macros that go some way to addressing the shortcoming. For me I confess it is too late as I have decided that I will stay with Adobe CC. My reasons are varied and do include this sort of limitation plus some of the bugs, e.g. non working Ctrl+alt+r-Clck & drag to change size and hardness of brush, but also, crucially, the lack of a DAM to properly work with AP without spending a lot of money. I did try ACDSee which has many good aspects but the keyword handling was, to say the least, messy and the .afphoto thumbnail would not expand into full screen. If there was an Affinity Dam which could import all collections (including collection sets and smart collections) from LR, I have 75K images with a large collection hierarchy to organise them so that is critical for me, I may have decided to stick with AP. The truth is I really wanted to as I find much of AP to be excellent with a great look and feel and some superb tools and workflow. It is just lacking in a few areas, such as mask refining and luminosity masks, which even some of the excellent areas, such as bend ranges,built in frequency separation/live filters/excellent focus stacking to name but a few, cannot fully balance for me. This is purely personal of course and others will undoubtedly disagree which is fair enough. I intend to keep my copy and watch developments in AP with a view to reviewing the situation again in the future as I really want to convert. thanks all Grumpy Hec

Hi I'm converting myself from a PS user to AP. So far looking very good. Inevitably however I am running into things I don't understand. Most of the time I can find answers but I have a question now regarding refining a mask which has me stumped. I have a reasonable mask, actually made using select colour as it is plant shot against a white background, which requires some work to make it better. Specifically the black part of the mask has some grey areas which I need to intensify to black. In PS I would work on the mask using the paint brush set to black with the actual brush in overlay blend mode. That would then have the almost magical effect of allowing painting black where I need to not having to worry about the white areas as overlay mode prevents painting the white. Thus you can clean the mask very efficiently and precisely. Of course you can also clean the white areas up in a similar way using white. This overlay trick does not seem to work in AP. Is there another way of doing this, cleaning the mask that is, in AP or is it one of the differences. Grumpy Hec

Thanks for the heads up on Neofinder. Since my last post I have had to do a complete OS vanilla build plus all software so I am nice and clean again. Tedious but always a good idea. One spinoff from this was that it prompted me to look at ACDSee again and re-do the config/catalouge stage by splitting it into small chunks. This worked much better so I now have a full conversion from LR to ACDSee which has excellent speed, much better than LR. on that basis and also that it has so many options, few of which I have properly explored let alone mastered, I have purchased a copy at an offer price. So I am now Adobe free. Loving AP and I am already liking ACDSee now that I have it set up correctly. Grumpy Hec

Many thanks for all the responses. I have looked at ACDSee and installed the free trial. Sadly it is very slow and resource hungry in daily use, and indeed during it's indexing phase which took 60+ hours and consumed 50% cpu whilst doing that, and I have dismissed it as an alternative. Darktable I find very messy and confusing to use so again I have crossed that off the list. XnView I'm still looking at so will reserve judgement for now. PhotoSupreme and iMatch both look OK in theory but the $130 bill for each rather negates the overall reasons for moving away from Adobe in the first place. At the moment I have to say that it looks like I will retain the use of LR Classic, assuming that it does still work as a DAM after the subscription expires a stated, with some workrounds. The other alternative is Bridge which does most of what I would like but again required workrounds to use with AP. Grumpy Hec

Some interesting suggestions for which I say thank you. As someone who has recently decided, for various reasons but principally cost saving, that after many years I am going to switch from LS/PS to Affinity Photo the question of which DAM to use is very significant. Needless to say the preference would be an Affinity DAM with the obvious opportunity of it being a Persona and hence part of Photo/Publisher/Designer and thus completing the set as part of Studio Link. However, from what I can gather from my very short time delving into the Affinity world, there is little or no prospect of that happening soon or indeed at all which is a great shame. Therefore the search for a DAM to enable me to continue to use the excellent collections/smart collections in LR continues. There is Bridge which is free to anyone and after looking at some of the options it does look very competitive. However if you have had an Adobe subscription for LR Classic it turns out you can continue using it even after your subscription runs out. Needles to say things which plug into the wider Adobe CC world cease to function but the pure DAM side is alleged to continue working. If that is indeed the case I will probably stick to that for now whilst I look for sensibly priced, by that I mean free in an ideal world, alternative or the Affinity DAM does materialise. There are downsides to both Bridge and LR in that neither recognize afphoto and hence you have to use tiff or export a JPG to provide a thumbnail but that is doable albeit a bit of a pain. As an aside I of the opinion, that after my brief time using Affinity Photo, I am starting to find it better than PS in many ways. Some of what I initially thought were negatives simply turn out to be different and/or the way AP works is such that essential steps in PS are simply not required. For example smart objects in PS are important but in AP seem to be almost redundant as a concept. So on with my decision making as to which DAM to use. Grumpy Hec