AlejandroJ

Walt, As you said, I found a solution that worked for me. Which does not mean that I prefer not to be in need of changing/switching the dictionary every time I open the program and open my first text frame. But I think I found a solution for that as well: I opened the program and created a new document, then I opened a text frame, I switched languages, deleted the text frame and after doing all that, I set this as my default (through “Edit” > “Defaults” > “Save”). It seems to be working. Anyway, now that I managed to have my spelling corrected, I think I am tempted to buy Publisher as to complete the triad (Photo, Design and Publisher). Nevertheless, I will probably keep using PagePlus when in need, as I am very familiarized with it and I think it’s great and very powerful even for today’s standards. Your guess is probably right. At first, I had difficulties even to find my way around GitHub’s web-site, so I won’t discard that I might have wrongly downloaded and/or installed the dictionary/dictionaries. For what you say and for my personal experience, not a very intuitive downloading and installing procedure I dare to say. Anyway, I won’t be needing to keep on trying now that I found an alternative solution to which was my problem. The language settings I changed (or I am now changing) are the ones that ought to be changed. My fault on that one. I searched in Publisher’s Manual for “dictionary” and from there, under “installing Hyphenation dictionaries” where no reference is made on how to switch dictionaries. It happens to be that the explanation on how to do it, was under “character panel”, but it says there in the Manual that the “character panel allows you to apply local formatting to individual letters, words, sentences, and photographs as well as entire stories”, not mentioning that it is there that the option to switch dictionaries is, and it did not occur to me that such option would be under “character” (way down the scrollable options there), as a character is not even a word. Therefore, I searched within the program were my common sense dictated, under “edit” > “preferences”, within the “text” menu and everywhere else, except under “character”. So then I searched throughout the forum on how to do it and followed different/varied and sometimes complicated explanations on how to switch languages that were probably more related to switching to languages that were not included within the program (that do not directly come with the program). It is in the same place as in PagePlus, but PagePlus automatically set the dictionary to Spanish (to an “es-ES_tradnl” dictionary for what I have just checked) when I installed it, and I never needed to change it to a different language (all the work I have ever done with PagePlus has been in Spanish). Nevertheless, I ought to recognize my own clumsiness. Sorry for that.

Thank you Alfred and Walt. I tried the first option suggested by Walt. I downloaded from LibreOffice’s GitHub an es_AR dictionary (it does exist), and installed it and then tried downloading an es_ES dictionary and tried with it, and then I changed its name to es_AR and tried again, but the program always (as a default) returns to choose to look for a es_AR dictionary which it does not find (no matter if it is installed in the folder where it is supposed to be as indicated in the Manual). Anyway, what you explained me, helped me to find my way to a solution. I found out that what I ought to do, is to change the language every time I open the program, and set it to “Español (España, internacional), and that works. No big deal. Thanks

Thank you Walt for answering. I don't need a dictionary to correct Spanish as spoken in Argentina, just one that corrects plain Spanish and another one that corrects English. I would think that if I have the dictionary set to say Spanish, if I write in English, all words ought to be identified as wrongly spelled. That does not happen either. I will attach a screen video recording of what happens when I write and try to have the text checked, with the program as is (as it installed itself with me doing nothing). This recording does not show anything of what I have tried to see if I could manage to make a spell checking work. Spelling checker.mp4

I have kept trying to find out how to install and make work a dictionary with no luck. I have as well followed the instructions on the Affinity Publisher’s Manual, but ended up with the same result (no result). I have Affinity Design and Photo, and thought Publisher might have been a nice addition to the package as they all complement each other, not that I felt I needed Publisher. I still use Serif Page Plus 9, and it’s awesome and fulfils my needs in regards to what it does. If I can’t manage to install in Publisher the dictionaries I need (Spanish and English), it would be of very little use for me. It seems I might have to stick with Page Plus and forget about Publisher. What intrigues me is, why PagePlus came with dictionaries and the spelling checking works flawlessly and Publisher doesn’t? And why is it so complicated to install a dictionary in Publisher? And I ought to think that it is being difficult not only for me, because as I have said in my previous post, I found (searching) lots of people asking the same as me in several threads at this same forum. Or maybe I’m the problem... I think that programs ought to be intuitive and simple for those who want to use them for the main purpose for which they were created, many of whom might not necessarily be techno wizards nor techno orientated.

I have Affinity Photo and Designer. I have installed the trial version of Affinity Publisher in order to try it. When intending to do a check spelling I get a popup windows that says: “El documento contiene idiomas (es-AR) para los que no hay ningún diccionario instalado” (which translated to English would be: “document contains languages (es-Ar) for which no dictionary is installed”). This, no matter if I wrote a text in Spanish, in English or wrote no text. I tried to install (following the procedure suggested in an old thread in this same forum) the dictionaries I have for PagePlus 9 (which I have) but it did not work. I tried to find how to solve my case problem (how to install an English and a Spanish dictionary) searching though the forum, and I founds lots of threads about the subject, but they give different solutions and recommendations. Some of the recomendations which I found are a bit confusing (or maybe too technical for my knowledge) as they suggest to download a dictionary from whichever web site mentioned by name or some other, but when I google the site (because it might be mentioned but no link indicated) I can’t find my whereabouts on from where an how to download a dictionary nor the ones I’m interested in. Therefore, I am asking for help on how (and from where) can I download an English and a Spanish dictionary and how do I ought to install it. Thanks

Not really for what I know (though I might be mistaken). The editing would be “destructive” in Photo Persona if instead of using an Adjustment Layer or a non-destructive Filter, you choose to use a destructive filter. But adjustments in Develop Persona are non-destructive, you can go back and forth with your adjustments with no problem. Even more, there is no pixel image to affect or to be destructive with. Just data that can’t be edited. Of course, once you “develop”, what you get is the result of what you processed till developing and once done, it's done (though you can open again the same raw file and begin all over again from start). But this is because the program (this program) does not have the ability to keep a register (as could be through generating a sidecar file as might do other programs specialized on just developing Raw) of the adjustments made. Maybe this is what you meant. But this does not mean that the adjustments made in Develop Persona are destructive. Not at least for what I understand or believe.

Basically, as it is usually recommended, it is better to correct the white balance (if needed) while processing your raw file. It is also better dealing with noise when processing raw. And definitely, you can recover shadows (information from the shadows) and lower down exceeded highlights while processing raw. Once you “develop” your raw file (that will keep as is and will not be modified), the information from the extremes of the tonal range that you did not recover while processing the file, won’t be there for editing in the Photo Persona. A raw file has the data of what the sensor of your camera captured (all of it, in up to usually 12 or 14 bits), and the program or developing module of a program (Develop Persona in the case of Affinity Photo) ought to interpret it (and this interpretation will not be the same as the one that the camera does when it generates a jpg inside the camera itself if not using a/the program supplied by the camera's maker). While developing a raw file, you can adjust or alter (mostly globally) that initial interpretation that a program (Develop Persona) does of that data. A raw file is not an image, but once developed, what you get is a pixel image as developed (not necessarily having made use of all the information that was at your disposal in the raw file if you didn’t make use of it). Observe that once you develop your raw file, what opens in Photo Persona is a pixel layer, which you can then further edit and manipulate in 16 bits (per channel, in reference to the RGB channels). With other raw developing programs, you might be exporting to an image file, and that you will normally do to a 16 bits tiff file (to allow you to work with a “wider color space spectrum” as V_kir explained, with a wider and richer tonal range that gives you more editing verstility and tolerance to manipulation, than if working with an 8 bits file as are for example the jpg files). There is a lot much to it (if you google you can find lots of articles about the subject) and my explanation is probably not very technical nor maybe precise, but I hope it helps you to understand that there are benefits in processing (working on) your raw file before developing it.

I have just done a kind of comparative benchmark with different photo editing programs I a have (though I don’t necessarily use them all). It was not very scientifically done as it was me with a chronometer, starting to count when double-clicking the icon to trigger the program and stopping when the program was fully opened (which can’t be considered as a very exact parameter, so give or take to the measurements a few seconds). My laptop computer is a bit outdated I guess, but maybe valid (or maybe not) anyway for doing some kind of comparison. Not that I care much if a program takes some time to initiate, I do mind how it performs after that. If a program takes more than a minute to start, I might go and use the time to make myself a coffee. Affinity Photo: 54 seconds (12 seconds if closed and opened again) PhotoPLus x8: 25 seconds DxO PhotoLab 3: 55 seconds Capture One Express for Sony: 1 minute and 14 seconds Corel PaintShop Pro: 53 seconds ACDSee Ultimate (for the browser): 18 seconds Sony’s Imaging Edge Edit: 5 seconds Topaz Labs Studio 2: 59 seconds RawTherapee: 22 seconds I don’t really mind if a program takes a few more seconds to start (specially if being for the first time after rebooting). But I know that lots of people do. Is it that important? RawTherapee (which I downloaded and installed to see how it was) starts for me in only 22 seconds whilst DxO PhotoLab takes more than the double time, but I wouldn’t stop using DxO’s in behalf of RawTherapee just for that (no way), I don’t even consider how long a program takes to open to judge it (but that is me of course).

Do you mean Photo Mechanics from Camera Bits? I have just checked their website and the basic version of their program (not the plus one) costs 139 U$S. Obviously, you already have it, but there are browsers which are even for free that can see Affinity files. Maybe somebody can clear a doubt I have. How come that if Affinity has a closed format that does not allow other programs/browsers to see their files, it happens that there are paid and free programs and browsers that can see their files? It does not sound logical to me, but maybe there is a reason and an explanation for this. Does somebody know and could explain?

Do you mean that you can’t see the files with the browser you are using? If I save a file as an Affinity Photo File, I’m able to see the file and a thumbnail of the image in which I worked simply if browsing with the Windows’ browser (with mine at least) but I can’t see a thumbnail of a file saved with ACDSee, whilst with the ACDSee’s browser I can see a thumbnail of any file saved as an Affinity Photo file. But maybe you have a Mac and then I don’t know how does it behave. There might be problems to visualize Affinity Photo files with some browsers (as for example, in my machine, Corel’s PaintShop browser seem not to be able to see files saved as an Affinity Photo File, nor DxO’s browser is able to see Affinity Photo, Paintshop or ACDSee files), but not with all of them. Tiff, jpg or raw files I can see with any of the programs or browsers mentioned.

I don’t work on a Mac (I use windows) and I don’t know much about computer systems, but I read in a forum (the one from Topaz Labs) about some having problems with Big Sur and read the comments here as well, so I became interested in getting to know what was going on in relation to the subject and googled a bit. I found out that lots of people are complaining that they are having problems (and others say they are not) after updating to Big Sur, with programs such as the AI ones from Topaz, Nick Collection from DxO, DxO’s PhotoLab itself, PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements, Corel Draw, Corel Paint, and Capture One (which were the ones I read about because those were the ones I googled for).

I erased what I first wrote here because at first I misunderstood your question (and therefore, what I originally wrote made no sense). Sorry (my post is now edited). Anyway, I checked in my Affinity Photo and I have nothing of the kind, just the plugins I have installed (and that I know I installed) are shown.

I have read in several threads in several forums that Viveza (the one from the new DxO’s version of Nick Collection) also gives problems to most people when trying to open it as a plugin in Affinity. I have downloaded the old Nick Collection (google’s) and at least with this one, Viveza shows a problem in the way it renders colour (I don’t know if this is the correct way of describing the problem) when I open an image with it within Affinity Photo. It works fine if opening an image using it as a standalone (in which manner it opens if dragging the file to the programs’ direct access icon), if being triggered from DxO PhotoLab of which I have version 3 (yes, the google version works fine and is recognized by the program), and if opened as a plugin in ACDSee. I don’t know about Nik Collection’s Perspective plugin (the google version does not have it), but I have DxO ViewPoint 2 and it doesn’t work as a plugin within Affinity Photo either. Never had bothered to find out if this can be fixed though, because it works fine within DxO PhotoLab and if I have to correct a perspective of something in a photo, I would usually do it while processing my raw file.

I have LiteCam HD. I tried the Movavi one but didn't like it and I think LiteCam is better. It is not free. It is available for Windows or Android. Versions are: LiteCam Game, LiteCam Android, LiteCam HD and LiteCam Pro (LiteCam HD + LiteCam Android).

For what I know (or I think I knew), corrections can’t be applied to the original raw data (raw data can’t be altered nor edited), but corrections of values (reassignment of values?) done during the development of the raw file will be applied to the image / file that will result from the development process (or something like that). The programs that I know that are specific or specialized in developing raw files, either add information to the raw file to let the program know what “corrections” (ok, they are not corrections because a raw file is not an image, but I don’t know how to put it in other words) have been applied, or others create a subsidiary file (I think it is called a “sidecar”) containing the information of what have been done regarding how the raw file ought to be developed, and this information is kept (separately, nor affecting the information of the raw file itself) so one can go back and forth applying “corrections” to the raw file or even close the program and open it again and go to the same raw file and the program remembers the “corrections” done, but the data of the raw file has not been nor will be altered. What you are seeing when you are opening a raw file is an interpretation of the data, not an image. (Did I get it right?). But once you have developed the raw file, the result is a pixel image, being it a tiff or jpg or whichever file format you chose the exportation to be done to (an image), or a pixel layer in Photo Persona in Affinity after developing the file (again, an image to which you can apply non-destructive edits before exporting it as edited, but though it being a 16 bits per channel or whichever value, an image nevertheless, not the data of the shot as perceived by the sensor and as registered by the camera in a raw format file). (Is this correct or sort of?). Therefore, if what I have said is correct (and I have always thought it is, but I am opened to accept a different explanation), developing a raw file is obviously not the same as editing an image file. Which doesn’t mean that maybe, if one fiddles with colour (hue, saturation and/or luminosity) while editing a 16 bits per channel image file or pixel layer, there might be not a lost or not that much of a lost of image quality (as could be noise being added, or banding, or whatever) or maybe it is better for the resulting quality of an image to fiddle with colour while processing the raw file or maybe it is indistinct to do it one way or the other. And I don’t know because I have never tried not to do as much as I could in this respect while processing a raw file and everything I have been able to find on the internet refers to the differences of processing a raw file against editing a jpg 8 bits image file, but not which are the differences between the former, and editing a 16 bits per channel image file (although some are obvious, as the fact that all the information, as could be the details in the shadows or in the bright areas, that is not taken advantage of or is not “rescued” when developing the raw file, can’t be used once it has been developed simply because it won’t be there, that much I know). And I don’t have enough knowledge about the subject so as to be able to deduce it myself, nor to deduce which are all the differences in every respect (so, therefore, the reason for my original question in this thread). I think you have made your point. I myself would also like to have HSL included to the Develop Persona some time in the future, so I support your requirement. Maybe it would be added or maybe not. But I think (and as for everything, I could be wrong) that if there is or if there is no difference, makes a difference. If there is no difference, maybe HSL might be included in Develop Persona anyway some time, but it won’t be a priority for many, and not for Serif. Other improvements might be added earlier (not that it won’t be done, but who knows). If there is a difference or a substantial difference, perhaps it might become more of a priority. Meanwhile and for the time being, I will stick to Psenda’s recommendation regarding my particular case (which is not yours of course, so I understand and support your wish). PS., And sorry if I might not be sufficiently clear when trying to express what I intend to say, English is not my native language.

Thank you very much for your answer. And I bet the developers of the program will improve the Develop Persona over time.

Thank you again for your feedback. In my case, I am not asking if this “affects the need/necessity of HSL adjustments in the Develop Persona, not in the Photo Persona”, Though I thought that what I am asking might be related to the subject. My question is if there is any difference for the final quality that one can get for an image, if for example one changes the hue of a colour while working with a raw file, than if one does it in Photo Persona after having processed a raw file or if loading in Photo Persona a 16 bits tiff file. And I am asking because I don’t know for certain. The thing is that I process my raw files in DxO, convert to tiff and then edit with Affinity. I try to do most of what I can while working with the raw file, even changing the hue of a colour if I need to. I have always thought it is better to fiddle with colours (in every respect), while working with the raw file. But I am not certain if it wouldn’t make any difference, specially if for example I want to change the hue of a colour, if doing so while editing a 16 bits tiff file. I suppose it is not the same, but I am not sure (though I know it is certainly not the same if editing a jpg file). If it is the same, if wanting to change the hue of a colour after I have my tiff file, I could do it directly in Affinity Photo Persona with no fear of loosing quality for the image. If it is not the same, I would rather go back to my raw file and do the whole process all over again (go back to the raw file and process it again). Would it be the same (indistintict) for the final quality of the image if instead of loading a tiff file to Affinity Photo (one developed with DxO), I develop the raw file in Affinity (in Develop Persona instead than in DxO) and then develop the raw directly to Photo Persona and change the hue of a colur there? Would it make any difference in comparison to what I normally do? Would there be a benefit regarding the editing process in Photo Persona? Sorry if I am not making myself clear. Sorry for my ignorance and sorry if I should have asked this in a different thread (is this the case?) Thanks again.

Thank you very much. Very interesting and enlightening article. Although most of the time it is comparing how would or would not affect an image if working with a raw file versus editing a jpg file (not versus editing a 16 bits tiff file after having processed the raw file). Nevertheless, this three paragraphs from the article that I quote below, I think might be providing an answer or a clue to the answer to my question (are they in regards to for example changing the hue of a colour when working with a 16 bits tiff file or when already being in the Photo Persona after having developed the raw file?): “What this all means for the end user is flexibility. A JPEG has already been mapped to a colour space and its white point has already been defined. Any colour values outside of the colour space range (e.g. sRGB/Adobe RGB) will be clipped and discarded. Add to this JPEG quantisation and compression, which further discards detail, and it becomes clear you’re working with a very limited subset of image information. You can only push the tonal information so far, and major alterations such as white balance prove very difficult to achieve. With RAW, you can push colour intensity values much further before clipping them, and changing the white balance produces a more natural, accurate result.” “Having more values -regarding the ones from a raw file- translates to smoother gradients and variations in colour. You’ll notice this with blue skies, especially when you try and push them tonally: 8-bit JPEGs ‘fall apart’ very quickly, with banding becoming quite problematic, whereas 16-bit images maintain fine detail and can withstand heavier tonal work.” “A big factor in shooting RAW is control. You retain ultimate control over your final image; its tone, colours, sharpness and noise profile. You get to decide how cool or warm an image is, bring back or crush shadow detail, saturate or drain the colour and find the best balance between sharpness and noise.”

If applying an HSL variation to a Raw file or to a tiff file affects differently the result you can obtain for an image is something that I would want to know about (as I don’t). When for example changing a colour or the saturation of a colour or its brightness when working with a raw file (with a program that would allow to do so), you are not affecting the colour of an image because there is no image (pixel image) yet, you are just altering the output that you’ll get for the pixel image that will be the result of the development process. (correct me if I’ wrong). But when you apply an HSL variation to a riff file: are you reassigning values or are you changing the colour (pixel values) themselves? Or if asked differently: Is it the same and with equal effects regarding the quality of the image will end up with, if one uses an HLS tool while working with a raw file (with a program that allows to do so) than if working with the HSL tool with a 16 bits tiff file?

Some arguments seem to be reaching kind of an aggressive and disrespectful level. CLC, we don’t have a socialist government, and if it interests you, I have not voted for the party which is now in power in my country. So I don’t see which is the point that you are trying to make with what you have said. So,...... you are suggesting that our country and others (if it would be the case), should (ought to) support businesses from a firm (Adobe) of a foreign country? Interesting way or thinking. I bought Affinity when it was half its price plus 35 %, still less than its usual price. Anyway, some of us are way out of what this forum is for. So this will be my last intervention regarding this topic, no matter what. And I apologize to everybody for allowing myself to be driven by some comments that I read throughout this thread and that shocked me a bit

Nop. Not quite so. I have travelled last year to Europe (I visited England, France and Spain) and clothes were there cheaper than in my country (in Euros or pounds) and food about the same. Cars here cost more than double than in USA (in US dollars). For most thing which are imported, we have to pay twice what they cost in USA (even if they are Chinese). And I know this because I often look at prices in Amazon USA or e-bay and compare. I don’t know how much a subscription to PS (just PS) costs in other countries (nor in yours), but I have just entered Adobe’s web page for us, and it costs for us 814 $ per month (which would be something as 10 U$S dollars a month to which we have to add 35 % of tax for spending money abroad, which means 13,5 dollars per month). I don’t know, you tell me if PS is cheaper for us than for you. But it is not important. I (and many others I suppose) simply don’t share your opinion, that you can’t do the job if not having Adobe’s programs and that if you haven’t Adobe’s programs in particular, you are not a professional. No mater from which country (first or third world). But I do think that professionals, even if they do not share your same tastes, deserve a bit of respects. Luckily for Serif and many other program developers, we do not all think the same way. And as somebody said before,....”vive la différence!”

Andy05, If I haven’t understood wrongly, you are saying that those who do not earn good money with what they do, can’t be considered a professional (but correct me if I misunderstood you). I am sorry to say that it seems we live in different worlds or at least, we do think differently. There are lots of countries where there is a lot of unemployment for which reason professionals of any kind are being paid little money. There are countries in which, because of their economic situation, people in general are paid pitiful salaries, and there are countries in which now and again, restrictions to be able to pay in foreign money are imposed (restrictions of the kind might come and go and affect the feasibility to keep paying an engaged rent to a company abroad). I live in one of those countries, so I know what I am talking about. Lots of companies from first world countries or multinationals appeal to professionals (and labourers) from third world countries because, even if them being good professionals, they can be paid little money. My nephew and my wife’s daughter’s boyfriend work (through the internet) for American firms (from the USA) in computer programming (the first one works for an oil company). They are paid a tenth of what somebody in the USA earns for the same job they do here and, because of the coronavirus, although those firms have been firing employees from the USA, they (both) are keeping their works (so they are probably not bad professionals). Just to give an example of the point I am trying to make, I can mention that doctors in my country that work for the public health system earn very little money, and they can be excellent. Luis Federico Leloir received a Nobel Prize in chemistry, and he lived in a very humble way earning little money. Rene Favaloro was the doctor who developed the heart bypass surgery, he received lots of international prizes, and ended up committing suicide overwhelmed by debts. And regarding paying for Adobe’s licensing, though probably not nowadays (it has become more difficult to do in time) most people in my country used to work with pirated software, even in governmental offices. They only paid for a windows licence, but Photoshop, Autocad and even Microsoft Office they hacked. I am against piracy and think that smaller program developers ought to be supported and that it is healthy to do so, so instead of using hacked programs, I went for alternative programs and paid for them (and I have been mocked by my pairs for doing this). And therefore I bought and used Serif’s programs (among others) with which as I have already said before in this thread, I could get my work done and never had a compatibility problem when having to share my work with others (I am not a designer as you Andy, but an architect, urban designer and city planner, and a hobbyist photographer). All of those mentioned being some of the reasons for which I do respect professionals even if they have to struggle for a living, and even if they can’t afford to pay for Adobe’s licence (rent) or even if they opt not to do so for whichever reason. And sorry for this intervention, but this thread seems now and then to lose its way with regards to what this forum I think is supposed to be for (at least in my humble -honestly humble- opinion), and I have lost it myself this time I ought to recognize. So my apologies.

Mark, you have a point. I think that Pdf files might be an example of what you are saying. They are a standard. When I was working (I have retired this year) I used to submit my reports in pdf format. But I made them using Serif PagePlus, and I made my draft drawings using Serif DrawPlus, for technical drawing I used TurboCad instead of AutoCad, and I used Corel Write (from Corel Office) instead of Microsoft Word, and PhotoPlus instead of Photoshop. I never had a problem and if I needed to share what I had done in its raw format, I would either submit a pdf or a dwg file (if being just a thecnical drawing) that anybody would be able to open and edit. Nevertheless, not everybody needs to submit their work to others with the inclusion of how it was developed. For example, I would imagine that most photographers end up submitting a tiff file or a jpg file or a print to their clients, not a psd file. I don’t know, I could be wrong. Perhaps, referring to a Ferrari was not the best way of making a point. And perhaps, referring to Facebook or Twitter isn’t either. They are both for free (well, one has to cope with publicity in Facebook). I wonder if most people would keep using them if they had to pay every month for being allowed to do so, in which case I would bet they might be tempted to move to other platforms. Anyway, I think there is enough people in the world, enough variety of needs and/or tastes, enough different ways of dealing with even the same kind of jobs, so as to allow more than one program of the kind to coexist. It would be terrible if Adobe’s programs where the only ones of the kind around and if they had no competition. It would be terrible if any company (Adobe or whichever) had no competition. What has been said in this thread might be an example of how good it is when there is competition, as it has been implied that Adobe has felt the need to improve their program to be able to compete with Affinity 🙂

I suppose that Serif ought to be proud that people are debating about if their products are equal or would be surpassed in the near future by Adobe’s products. Is almost everybody saying then that no matter in which position, the Serif combo is among the two best and more professional programs of the kind? Regarding photo editing (because I am now much more into it than designing or drawing or making reports as I used to be), there are as well lots of other programs that cost more than Affinity Photo but are not as good (and some of them are even kind of too amateurish for what they cost). There are also some free programs (which I have tried for curiosity) that are not as good either, for which reason I wonder why somebody would prefer to use them instead of buying AP, being it affordable as it is. My point being that maybe Serif is not only competing with Adobe (not that they aren’t) and that probably they are not necessarily targeting at the same spectrum of users. I suppose that how well is Serif doing with sales would be the rod to measure if they are in the right track. Regarding myself, I don’t know how does Photoshop compare with Affinity Photo, but no mater what, I would never go for the former. I don’t like and it does not suit me to pay a rent to be able to use a program, and I don’t trust Adobe’s commercial policies and their loyalty to their customers (maybe just a prejudice of mine). Nevertheless, as somebody said, a Ferrari might be a nice car, but I have a Nissan, and I am very happy with it, and if in some future I decide to change it for a different car, it won’t be for a Ferrari (which I feel I don’t need and is not the car for me, even if I could afford it, .....that I can’t).

I think the poll is not necessarily going to show the average age and education of Affinity users, but the age of Affinity users that for some particular reason participate in its forum. There might be some that have a brief participation because they want to solve a problem they are facing or because they want to get to know how to do something, but that’s all, and others might participate because they enjoy learning from the knowledge of the ones that know better and/or want to share their experience in a forum. I am on the side of the quite grown up ones that prefer to participate in forums, keep learning and learning through thoroughly written articles or books, take my time when I want to write something to express myself, and I prefer to get to know about the news reading newspapers. But most of the young people I know seem to prefer to watch videos from Youtube rather than read articles, to write and read telegraphic messages in whatsapp and/or get to know the news through Twitter, but not that much participating in forums. Not meaning with this that there will not be as well those who live in both worlds or in an alternative one. But anyway, my point is that I think the poll is not necessarily going to reflect the age of Affinity users. It will reflect something else, whatever it might be.