Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kirkt

  1. That may be the case in some instances, but my point was that the author of the blog, whose main point is not to use AP for raw conversion, makes his point based on inaccurate statements and an inability to use the software. I processed your image and got similar results using all three raw processors - each one required various adjustments to get the images to look similar in tonal distribution and color, and these were not simply based on boosting exposure and applying noise reduction. I would not necessarily rank AP as the best conversion based on my expectations for raw conversion, but it is not as hopelessly awful as the blog author would make it seem - especially based on the conversion of your extreme underexposure case study. To make a fair comparison, one must know how to identify issues in each conversion and overcome them, if possible, with the tools afforded to the user by the particular application. If you cannot do this, then making a comparison is biased and will result in the kind of description offered in the blog post. For example, if you simply opened your RAF file in Photos and did nothing to it except boosting exposure and brightness, the image is a total mess and no amount of noise reduction will make it salvageable. I leave the exercise to you to salvage it in Photos. Considering Photos and ACR/LR are mature raw converters, I think AP has room to improve for sure. Whatever point the blog author had, hyperbole aside, their basis appears subjective and is no doubt inaccurate. Why don't you post a comparison here of a conversion of your file in Photos, ACR and AP (or any other raw converters) so we can benefit from your experience with these converters? It might be helpful for the developers for you to explain what you see as the deficiencies of the Develop persona so that they can improve. kirk
  2. The article linked above regarding Affinity Photo's suitability for raw conversion is simply factually inaccurate. I have no intimate knowledge of the coding algorithm used in the raw converter in AP, but all one needs to do is conduct a couple of simple experiments to demonstrate that the author of the above article is either ignoring reality or ignorant of how raw conversion works. Most cameras permit setting white balance with camera presets ("Sunny" or "Flash" or "Cloudy, etc.), setting the WB explicitly in degrees Kelvin, or setting a custom WB based on an image (of a neutral target, for example). I used my Canon 5DIII and shot the same scene in slightly overcast daylight from a window and rolled through all of the WB presets, as well as AUTO and the minimum (2500 °K) and maximum (10000 °K) color temp settings. When each raw file was imported into AP, the Develop persona opens with the White Balance section unchecked (not activated) but with a default conversion that preserves the look of the in-camera WB - the white balance that was set in camera - usually referred to in most raw converters as the "As Shot" white balance. This appears to be the AP default. It does not ignore the WB metadata, as the author of the blog post states - it reads the WB metadata and defaults to that as the default WB for the conversion. I do not know the basis for the blog author's assertion that AP ignores WB data. It is commonly known that White Balance values are interpreted differently across all raw converters and it is not uncommon to see color temperature readouts (in Kelvin) that vary across raw converters for the same image. For example, the image shot at a specified (by the camera controls) WB of 2500 °K is reported as 2362 °K in AP and 2459°K in Photos and 2550 °K in ACR; similarly, the image shot with 10000 °K WB is reported as 8892 °K in AP, 9550 °K in Photos and 9900 °K in ACR. ACR and AP permit the user to select a patch of gray with the dropper to set WB (i.e., spatial average) - it does not appear to be possible in Photos, so clicking multiple spots might be useful to establish click-WB in Photos. I do not use Photos, so there may be a way to overcome this limitation. The author of the article also makes a statement about noise and, as discussed above, does not appear to differentiate between a raw converter that applies NR by default versus no NR by default (AP). The author also make the statement: Again, there is no basis for this in the article - I suspect the author of the blog does not understand how to extend the effect of AP NR, by checking the "Extreme" check box. It appears that the AP NR slider gives you fine control in its default setting to target just the right amount of noise without hamhandedly overdoing it, but gives you the "Extreme" option to target excessively noisy images, like the OP's image of the vans in the alley, an excessively underexposed image with obvious chroma noise. If the RAF raw file linked above is opened in AP and ACR and NR is disabled, the images have similar noise characteristics and noise can be addressed in either raw conversion with the converter's NR tools. Incidentally, NR in Photos is off by default, at least when I opened the OP's image in Photos. I would like to understand how the blog author has determined that: The noise is inherent in the image data - in some instances, the demosaic algorithm can create artifact, but I suspect this is not what the blog author is describing. In order to reduce noise inherent in image data, you actually have to use noise reduction. If NR is not enabled by default, you must enable and use it. I posted simply to point out that the blog article linked above is inaccurate - one can simply prove that to one's self with a few simple test shots and comparisons with other raw converters, where the settings in each conversion are made as identical as practicable. The blog's author appears to misunderstand raw conversion, in general, and how AP works, specifically. Here is a link to a composite image of Photos and AP-Develop with the 2500 °K image I shot, with the images opened at their default values. https://kirkt.smugmug.com/Photography/Link-Share/i-Sc62g5k/0/O/comp1.jpg kirk
  3. FYI - the "Efex" Nik plug-ins (Analog, Color, HDR, Sliver) all work on my machines (2011 MBP Mavericks and 2013 MacPro Yosemite). The non-Efex plug-ins (Viveza, Sharpener, DFine) do not, causing the error as previously described. kirk
  4. I have also found that DXO plug-ins (Film Pack5, Viewpoint 2) and MacPhun plug-ins (Intensify, Tonality, etc.) do not as of yet. kirk
  5. I can confirm that Topaz Clarity, DeNoise, Detail and InFocus work on my 2011 MBP running Mavericks (10.9.5). Invoking InFocus has crashed AP though, on occasion. I created a separate folder for Affinity Photo plug-ins (and pointed AP to it) and set the path for the plug-in support to "/" as instructed. The first time the Topaz pug-ins were called, the license was required. kirk
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.