smadell

Hi, @Callum and @deeds. I need to add my voice to this choir. I have had ongoing issues with lagging in Affinity Photo, and it seems to be worse in version 2. I am shooting with a Nikon Z7ii, so I am creating 45 MP images. I normally develop the raw files in Capture One, and use Affinity Photo to finish up using TIFF's exported from Capture One. Response time from AP suffers (sometimes greatly) if (i) there is more than 1 document open at the same time, even as few as 2 or 3 will slow things down quite a bit; (ii) virtually ANY use of live filter layers slows responses down to a crawl, even if only 1 or 2 are used in a document; (iii) longer editing sessions, on the order of 30 minutes or more, show degradation of the response time as the session gets longer.
I just recently purchased a Mac Studio with an M2 Max, 2 TB SSD, 64 GB of RAM, and am currently using macOS Ventura 13.4. I am running version 2.1.1 of Affinity Photo, which is the most recent available retail version. I am including a screenshot of my Performance settings, as you requested of @deeds above.

Please note that I have turned Metal compute acceleration OFF, and have turned the Display to OpenGL (instead of the Metal option). These settings are definitely better, as using Metal in ANY capacity slows things down to a crawl and makes me want to tear my hair out. But, still, the lag seems to get worse and worse over time, and is really annoying with any documents that introduce any real degree of complexity.
I am not tech-savvy enough to even guess what to do next. Do I turn off system stuff that runs in the background (things like Dropbox, Little Snitch, etc)? I'm not at a point where I want to toss Affinity Photo and try to find something else; I am way too invested in AP and way too happy with everything about it other than its speed. I eagerly look for suggestions.

I also took a stab at this. I'm attaching a JPG and the .afphoto file. I addressed the face, ignored the background, and took some of the darkness and contrast out of the shirt. Like @v_kyr said, pulling detail out of the existing shirt is not going to be possible without some type of AI tool – it's just too blurred.
I first made the photo black and white, and worked from there. At the end, I added a very slight color grade to give it back some of the original color cast. See what you think.

vpkumar edit.afphoto

Thank you!

Adding grain to a photo is a nice way to emulate vintage images, especially older black and white photos. It has always bothered me a bit that Affinity Photo does not include a mechanism to introduce grain, other than to use the “Add Noise” filter. While adding noise is nice, it adds such a fine amount of variation that it is often quite literally unnoticeable.
I have admired the Film Grain effect that is available in other software, such as Nik’s Silver Efex. These filters can often vary grain size and intensity; sometimes grain can be added to shadows, midtones, and highlights in differing amounts.
What I’ve attached is an .afmacros file called Film Grain. This is a macros Category and should be imported into the Library panel. It includes two macros. The first is called Add Film Grain - simple. It allows the user to add grain with 2 parameters – intensity and size.
Grain - Intensity
The grain intensity defaults to 100%, but can be set to any value between 0 and 100. At 0% intensity, the grain effectively disappears. To understand intensity, think “contrast.”
Grain - Size
The size slider accepts values between 0 and 1, with the default being 0.2. The appropriate value will differ based on the image being treated, and the same perceived size might need higher values when the overall dimensions of the image are larger. Also note that values above 0.8 are rounded down to 0.8 (and this forms an effective upper limit to the slider). This is done primarily because the math breaks down at higher values.
The second macro is called Add Film Grain - by tonal range. It includes the same intensity and size parameters, but also lets the user set opacity levels for highlights, midtones, and shadows separately.
Grain Opacity - Highlights, Midtones, and Shadows
There are three separate sliders for highlights, midtones, and shadows respectively. Each defaults to 100%, but can be set to values between 0 and 100. While the “simple” macro creates a single Film Grain layer, the “tonal range” version creates a group containing 3 layers, one each for the three tonal ranges. The Grain Opacity sliders simply vary the opacity of the corresponding layers within that group.
Finishing Touches
When each of the macros finishes, the Blend Range for the result (the Film Grain layer in the case of the “simple” macro, and the Group in the case of the “tonal range” macro) is set to diminish the effect of the grain on the highlights slightly. This is an aesthetic choice on my part, and I think you will agree. However, you can set the Blend Range to anything you might like, as desired.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
For most users, the “simple” macro will be enough. It lets the editor vary the Intensity of the grain and also the Size. I have always liked adding grain that was a bit larger, because it becomes more noticeable.
For other users, the “tonal range” macro will allow you to add some additional nuance to the grain, by letting you emphasize grain in the shadows, midtones and highlights. Do this by first setting a global Intensity and Size, and then adjusting the opacity of the 3 tone ranges as desired.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Here are samples of the two macros, along with the settings as applied. The differences between the two results is quite subtle, but might be worth the effort in some cases.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
As with all the macros I have posted, I have tested these on one computer under a limited number of conditions. I cannot guarantee anything, but I have no reason to think they will not work for you just as they have for me. The macros are free, with the suggestion to “pay it forward.” As you become more proficient, be sure to share your experience and your work with others.
By the way, happy holidays to everyone. Here’s hoping that 2021 is a more positive, uplifting year than 2020. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to ring in 2022 in a crowd without any masks!
Film Grain.afmacros

oops…

Talk about "too much information"! I assume (since you are thinking about moving over from Photoshop) that your Affinity application of choice will be Affinity Photo. And, to answer your question in the simplest manner, what you want to do is exquisitely simple. You can start Affinity Photo with the "sublime" and progress all the way to "the ridiculous" (not really ridiculous, but AP is certainly capable of things such that no single person would need all of them). Since a picture's worth a thousand words, watch this…

Simple Edit.mp4    

I agree with @fde101 wholeheartedly. There is an inherent difference between a product and a service. A product is something for which a one-time purchase is appropriate; a service could very easily warrant an ongoing contractual payment. The very phrase SaaS (Software "as" a Service) belies the fact that companies like Adobe recognize this; they are desperately trying to re-invent themselves as a "service" rather than a "product" to increase their cash flow and bump up their stock prices. Granted, they have accomplished both, but they have done so on the backs of those who are trapped in their ecosystems. I, too, have an ideological phobia about subscription software, and feel strongly about not compromising that stance. If it comes at the expense of slower development, that's a hardship I'm willing to endure.

They haven't, but a Keystone filter (on its own or, perhaps, as an addition to the Perspective filter) would be wonderful. Even it only handled a pair of verticals or a pair of horizontals, that would work well. If, in addition, such a keystoning filter could apply itself as a "percentage" of the stated correction (in order to leave a little bit of keystoning in order to look more natural) that would even be better!

Hi @smadell,
Thanks for reporting this.
I've just logged this with the Developers to resolve  

I wanted to keep my aperture tight (for depth of field purposes) and my ISO low. I took a few series of shots like this that day. This one had 15 stacked images; another used 35 images. The more images in the stack, the smoother the result. Also, on that particular day there were very choppy waves, so smoothing all that out required more images in the stack. If I had used a longer exposure, I could have relied on fewer images. The number of images-to-smoothness ratio would have changed significantly!

As another example, I was in Daytona Beach last year and did not have an ND filter. I wanted to take some "long exposure" photos at the shore. For this particular shot, I put my camera on a tripod and took 15 exposures similar to this one (below). It was taken at f/22, ISO 64, and 1/40 second. So, nothing fancy about the camera settings.

Later on, at home, I stacked all 15 photos (used "Mean" as the mode) and did some extra editing to soften it up. The result is nice and "creamy smooth" and I was really happy with it.

I wanted to keep my aperture tight (for depth of field purposes) and my ISO low. I took a few series of shots like this that day. This one had 15 stacked images; another used 35 images. The more images in the stack, the smoother the result. Also, on that particular day there were very choppy waves, so smoothing all that out required more images in the stack. If I had used a longer exposure, I could have relied on fewer images. The number of images-to-smoothness ratio would have changed significantly!

As another example, I was in Daytona Beach last year and did not have an ND filter. I wanted to take some "long exposure" photos at the shore. For this particular shot, I put my camera on a tripod and took 15 exposures similar to this one (below). It was taken at f/22, ISO 64, and 1/40 second. So, nothing fancy about the camera settings.

Later on, at home, I stacked all 15 photos (used "Mean" as the mode) and did some extra editing to soften it up. The result is nice and "creamy smooth" and I was really happy with it.

If you are trying to emulate an ND filter, stacking is your best option (setting the mode to Mean or Median). If you are taking 6 second exposures, your ISO is probably already pretty low, which would minimize noise. Also, the mere act of stacking multiple images would mitigate noise on its own. Long story short, turn OFF the camera’s Long Exposure Noise Reduction. If your camera has a built-in intervalometer or the equivalent, use it. Your goal should be to have as little time between exposures as possible. That should let you avoid the “clumping.” (Also, from past attempts at ND emulation with clouds, using more than 6 images is often better!)

As another example, I was in Daytona Beach last year and did not have an ND filter. I wanted to take some "long exposure" photos at the shore. For this particular shot, I put my camera on a tripod and took 15 exposures similar to this one (below). It was taken at f/22, ISO 64, and 1/40 second. So, nothing fancy about the camera settings.

Later on, at home, I stacked all 15 photos (used "Mean" as the mode) and did some extra editing to soften it up. The result is nice and "creamy smooth" and I was really happy with it.

If you are trying to emulate an ND filter, stacking is your best option (setting the mode to Mean or Median). If you are taking 6 second exposures, your ISO is probably already pretty low, which would minimize noise. Also, the mere act of stacking multiple images would mitigate noise on its own. Long story short, turn OFF the camera’s Long Exposure Noise Reduction. If your camera has a built-in intervalometer or the equivalent, use it. Your goal should be to have as little time between exposures as possible. That should let you avoid the “clumping.” (Also, from past attempts at ND emulation with clouds, using more than 6 images is often better!)

That's really not a fair statement, William, since 32 of those replies are from you.

I hesitate to suggest that this post be “report(ed) to the moderators,” but it remains true that @William Overington has posted quite a number of times regarding so-called “Localizable Sentences” and I have never quite understood why.
1 These sentences seem to be not appreciably different from simply writing in any foreign language. Although this “language” is written in graphic symbols rather than alphanumeric glyphs, why invent a new language when there are so many others that would suffice?
2 The OP is consistently the author of the majority of the posts in any of these threads. Often, days or weeks go by with only post after post from him alone.
3 I am baffled by the number of responses that these posts do generate. These graphically encapsulated sentences really don’t seem (to my mind) to have any significant benefit. Why not just write in English (or French, or Greek, etc.)? If I have to learn a new language to understand what is being written, why not learn an established language which is already spoken by many thousands (or millions) of people?
4 Most confusing of all, what does any of this have to do with any Affinity product?
I apologize for seeming to disparage Mr. Overington’s obvious passion. I don’t understand its importance, but the list of things I don’t understand is quite lengthy indeed. Perhaps the only thing I would ask is that he explain (in “layman’s terms”) why the average Affinity software user needs to know about any of this.

I hesitate to suggest that this post be “report(ed) to the moderators,” but it remains true that @William Overington has posted quite a number of times regarding so-called “Localizable Sentences” and I have never quite understood why.
1 These sentences seem to be not appreciably different from simply writing in any foreign language. Although this “language” is written in graphic symbols rather than alphanumeric glyphs, why invent a new language when there are so many others that would suffice?
2 The OP is consistently the author of the majority of the posts in any of these threads. Often, days or weeks go by with only post after post from him alone.
3 I am baffled by the number of responses that these posts do generate. These graphically encapsulated sentences really don’t seem (to my mind) to have any significant benefit. Why not just write in English (or French, or Greek, etc.)? If I have to learn a new language to understand what is being written, why not learn an established language which is already spoken by many thousands (or millions) of people?
4 Most confusing of all, what does any of this have to do with any Affinity product?
I apologize for seeming to disparage Mr. Overington’s obvious passion. I don’t understand its importance, but the list of things I don’t understand is quite lengthy indeed. Perhaps the only thing I would ask is that he explain (in “layman’s terms”) why the average Affinity software user needs to know about any of this.

I hesitate to suggest that this post be “report(ed) to the moderators,” but it remains true that @William Overington has posted quite a number of times regarding so-called “Localizable Sentences” and I have never quite understood why.
1 These sentences seem to be not appreciably different from simply writing in any foreign language. Although this “language” is written in graphic symbols rather than alphanumeric glyphs, why invent a new language when there are so many others that would suffice?
2 The OP is consistently the author of the majority of the posts in any of these threads. Often, days or weeks go by with only post after post from him alone.
3 I am baffled by the number of responses that these posts do generate. These graphically encapsulated sentences really don’t seem (to my mind) to have any significant benefit. Why not just write in English (or French, or Greek, etc.)? If I have to learn a new language to understand what is being written, why not learn an established language which is already spoken by many thousands (or millions) of people?
4 Most confusing of all, what does any of this have to do with any Affinity product?
I apologize for seeming to disparage Mr. Overington’s obvious passion. I don’t understand its importance, but the list of things I don’t understand is quite lengthy indeed. Perhaps the only thing I would ask is that he explain (in “layman’s terms”) why the average Affinity software user needs to know about any of this.

I hesitate to suggest that this post be “report(ed) to the moderators,” but it remains true that @William Overington has posted quite a number of times regarding so-called “Localizable Sentences” and I have never quite understood why.
1 These sentences seem to be not appreciably different from simply writing in any foreign language. Although this “language” is written in graphic symbols rather than alphanumeric glyphs, why invent a new language when there are so many others that would suffice?
2 The OP is consistently the author of the majority of the posts in any of these threads. Often, days or weeks go by with only post after post from him alone.
3 I am baffled by the number of responses that these posts do generate. These graphically encapsulated sentences really don’t seem (to my mind) to have any significant benefit. Why not just write in English (or French, or Greek, etc.)? If I have to learn a new language to understand what is being written, why not learn an established language which is already spoken by many thousands (or millions) of people?
4 Most confusing of all, what does any of this have to do with any Affinity product?
I apologize for seeming to disparage Mr. Overington’s obvious passion. I don’t understand its importance, but the list of things I don’t understand is quite lengthy indeed. Perhaps the only thing I would ask is that he explain (in “layman’s terms”) why the average Affinity software user needs to know about any of this.

I recently watched one of @dmstraker Dave Straker’s InAffinity tutorials about “Pastel Colour Grading…” and it gave me some ideas. So, thanks to you for the inspiration, Dave!
I’ve attached another macro for creating a specific Artistic Look – this one called a Pastel Watercolor Effect. The attached file is a macro category (even though it only contains a single macro); you can import it into the Library Panel in the Desktop version of Affinity Photo, and it is compatible with the iPad version as well. (In my own preliminary testing, the macro works fairly well on an iPad, although there are some issues with missing items in the dialog box that appears for setting parameters.)
When you click the macro, it creates a number of layers inside of a group. The group is called “Pastel Watercolor Effect” and it can be turned on and off by simply showing or hiding the entire group. When you invoke the macro, you will be presented with a number of options in a dialog:
1-6] Lighten Color - Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Red, Green, Blue
All of these color ranges are initially set to a value of -200%. As you move each of the sliders to the right, that particular color range will be selectively lightened. If you set any of the sliders all the way to 100% then that color range will go to white.
7] Set Amount of Pastel Blurring
This slider defaults to a value of 25 px. Setting it higher or lower will adjust the amount of “smudging” that the pastel layer displays.
8] Set Intensity of Outlines
This slider defaults to a value of 0.7. You can set it to values between 0 and 2, with higher values giving you darker and more intense outlines. If you set the Intensity slider to 0, the black outlines will effectively disappear.
9] Adjust Brightness
Brightness defaults to a value of 20%. You might want to increase it if (i) you have increased the outline intensity significantly, or (ii) to compensate for changes (particularly decreases) you might make to the Contrast.
10] Adjust Contrast
Contrast defaults to 0%. Adjust this to taste.
I’ve attached 2 photos (below) to show Before and After versions using this effect. Included in the photos are the settings that were used (which are a bit different from the default values).

 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
As with all of the macros I have submitted, please note that I am only one person and have tested this on a limited number of images on a single computer. There is no way to have foreseen every possible scenario. I am hopeful (but obviously won’t guarantee) that you’ll like the results.
If you do like the macro, please keep it and enjoy it. This is “pay it forward software,” the happy result of an abundance of learning gleaned from the members of this forum who are so generous with their time and expertise!
Pastel Watercolor Effect.afmacros

I agree with @fde101 wholeheartedly. There is an inherent difference between a product and a service. A product is something for which a one-time purchase is appropriate; a service could very easily warrant an ongoing contractual payment. The very phrase SaaS (Software "as" a Service) belies the fact that companies like Adobe recognize this; they are desperately trying to re-invent themselves as a "service" rather than a "product" to increase their cash flow and bump up their stock prices. Granted, they have accomplished both, but they have done so on the backs of those who are trapped in their ecosystems. I, too, have an ideological phobia about subscription software, and feel strongly about not compromising that stance. If it comes at the expense of slower development, that's a hardship I'm willing to endure.

You made wise decisions, I would have opted pretty much for the same config here.

I agree with @fde101 wholeheartedly. There is an inherent difference between a product and a service. A product is something for which a one-time purchase is appropriate; a service could very easily warrant an ongoing contractual payment. The very phrase SaaS (Software "as" a Service) belies the fact that companies like Adobe recognize this; they are desperately trying to re-invent themselves as a "service" rather than a "product" to increase their cash flow and bump up their stock prices. Granted, they have accomplished both, but they have done so on the backs of those who are trapped in their ecosystems. I, too, have an ideological phobia about subscription software, and feel strongly about not compromising that stance. If it comes at the expense of slower development, that's a hardship I'm willing to endure.