rcsilber

I know this may not be your ideal solution, but if you're in a pinch with a deadline, you may Qimage. You can use it as a trial and avoid going back and forth between two Affinity programs. Only caveat is you will export your Affinity file as a tiff, which is what Qimage needs. Any further tweaks can be added as a layer for a non-destructive approach. I've used Qimage for a long time and actually prefer it to Affinity. Your experience and/or need may differ however. Just a thought.

On my end, AP 2.0.4 is working properly on macOS Ventura. For troubleshooting, I would recommend downloading a new copy from the Affinity site in the event your installed copy has a corruption. Once done, if Affinity is still not working properly, I would perform a Safe Boot on the Mac, then restart your mac once again.

Glad you're on track now... 👍

Naturally, develop your raw either embedded or linked. In Photo, in the layers panel click on the Add Pixel Layer icon in the lower right. That creates a blank layer above your raw embedded layer. Be sure to select Current layer and below for your retouch tool:

Not an expert on AP2 processes, my gut tells me no loss as to dynamic range. The raw file is either being embedded or linked, retaining all of its data, which is why it can be accessed again in Photo. I was accustomed, back in my photoshop days, of doing retouching first in my workflow. I'm going to test developing the raw, then in Photo, completing any further tonal or color adjustments, delaying retouching until I'm certain no further raw or tonal tweaks are necessary. A new learning curve! 😊

jimh12345, to clarify, my adjustments were minor. If major raw adjustments are made under a clone layer, it will show. Obviously, this is something to have in mind as work progresses. Clearly, my developing workflow is still underway... we have to be conscious of what we are doing and how the tools interact.

Yes; that is the intended option. I have tested this as I develop and new non-destructive workflow. I made several "repairs" on a blank layer with both the inpainting brush and clone tool, along with other live filters and adjustment layers. I came back the raw layer and tweaked some settings in the raw base layer, which had the intended consequence on the entire image. As long as one does not create a pixel image layer, i.e. stamping up all layers, you remain in a non-destructive state.

Indeed, editing on an image pixel layer is destructive. However, if you create an empty pixel layer, you can clone and heal on that layer, which is non-destructive. This leaves your raw layer untouched, which can be re-developed if necessary. Win-win 😉.

There does seem to be some confusion, somewhere, about non-destructive RAW editing. Walt has correctly stated that, in the raw develop assistant, one must choose Serif Labs as the RAW engine for non-destructive editing. If you choose Apple and bring in a RAW file this is what you'll see in your toolbar: If you've chosen Serif Labs you will see this in the top toolbar (where you can choose Linked or Embedded: For simplicity of demonstration, once you click develop and go back to the Photo Persona, and what to edit the RAW file again, highlight the RAW file layer and with the Move tool selected your toolbar will look like this: Now you can click Develop Image to return the embedded or linked file to the RAW editor. When editing is complete, click Develop in toolbar again. Note that the Output option is no longer editable: I am readjusting my workflow to only use non-destructive layers above the RAW image file layer. If one must use a third party plugin, and stamp the file up to a new (destructive) layer, changes made to layers below will no longer affect the stamped layer. Hope this is helpful... 😁

This feature alone is worth the price of admission. I've spent a good part of the day with the videos to learn how to use the new features. 😉

I'm not sure what the rationale is for those upset with the price. I was with Adobe products since around 1999-2000, and their update prices were much higher. Not satisfied with their subscription model, where one loses access when payment stops, I had to leave. Affinity however is simply a purchase, and one is able to upgrade or not. Seriously, $40 is a bargain for an upgrade that is as significant as version 2. And let's be fair: research and development is not free. So one should expect and new version at no cost? As stated by Affinity staff: With the great work and quality product that Serif staff is turning out, I will expect another cost when version 3 comes about. It's the cost of business. For me, I'm happy to update a mere $40 for the must-have features that are in Version 2. Your expectations may be different. 😉

You may want to check to be sure the brush opacity is set to 100% and the brush Blend Mode (in the tool bar) is set to normal.

Thanks; you confirmed what I thought I knew. Silly me, I wasn't thinking about creating a redundant raw with the dng, which also explains the difference I see. I do delete the first tiff since it served its purpose.

I noticed that if I use DXO for raw processing, then export to Affinity as a DNG, I see a difference in the image: color, contrast mainly. If I export from DXO as a TIFF, everything looks the same. Either way, in Affinity I end up with a .aphoto file. Since my raw edits are completed in DXO, and am only using Affinity as a pixel editor, am I losing anything by by exporting to Affinity as a TIFF?

I would look back in your original file folder to see if an older (date edited) version exists since you did a "Save As". Better though is looking to your backup. A solid plan calls for backups with files change and regular full backups. Never too late to implement a safety net.