Muffindell

Does anyone else have issues with AP2 slowing down or even locking up when there are 20-30 image tabs open and you're processing one of them? It can't be a resource thing I have loads of RAM and a 12 core CPU

So using your much needed references: Many raw file formats, including IIQ (Phase One), 3FR (Hasselblad), DCR, K25, KDC (Kodak), CRW CR2 CR3 (Canon), ERF (Epson), MEF (Mamiya), MOS (Leaf), NEF NRW (Nikon), ORF (Olympus), PEF (Pentax), RW2 (Panasonic) and ARW, SRF, SR2 (Sony), are based on TIFF ISO 14496 coding of audio-visual objects, base media file: Yes, believe it or not a stills camera is a visual product and comes under the ISO standard base file format. Since you generally rely upon Wiki as your knowledge base try this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_system As you say, I've discussed this enough and really can't be bothered anymore, all I wanted is Affinity to work as it should out of the box with RAW images

You are totally wrong, try ISO/IEC 14496-12, there are standards with regards to everything including light sensitivity starting back in the 80's, prior to this ASA was common a film spec from the late 19th century plus others of the same era, every camera ever made using ISO or ASA (which covers around 140 years) uses this standard. That is what an app developer uses for baseline input/output; that is the reason if you set the exposure triangle to the same on 100 cameras of different manufacture and specification they will all produce pretty much the same image likeness regardless of what file format is used, where it is viewed or medium printed. Yeah, I know what a RAW image is, the background development has been part of my 39 year career in cutting edge publishing and photography. What you are talking about is again standardised. RAW CR3 follows the ISO Base Media File Format (ISO/IEC 14496-12), with custom tags to give varying model functionality, but the base file in the main is the same. A CR2 file is actually a modified TIFF whereas the CR3 file is really more a CIFF, RAW is just a generic name for a sensor captured, lossless uncompressed and unprocessed file; although there are variations in what differing manufactures apply, I remember Nikon auto applying noise correction at RAW stage which had astrophotographers up in arms for a while. DTP encompasses all apps used to produce a published product, Illustrator, Quark, InDesign, Photoshop are the most common used in the past and present; and yes I remember using the first editions of Quark as a page layout app in 1987 and Photoshop a few years later which was the start of the demise of traditional layout sheets, glue, typesetting galleys and film planning.

Yippeee! you finally got it, the default starting point is standardised across all DTP applications and is predefined by the manufacturer who created a particular file format for their products. Software, such as Affinity allows you to take that data (image) and manipulate it as you wish.

We can discuss the values of metadata, file formats for hours; ultimately I would just like to load my files into Affinity and for the engine to display them correctly as intended instead of looking completely muddy and unuseable, it's not a lot to ask from what is a editing/image manipulation piece of software that is promoted to do exactly that.

You are correct, with regards to RAW data from differing manufacturers, the point of standardisation is purely for an output device where everything is in balance

Now you're applying your own individual preference against the accepted international standardisation of what is correctly exposed, which is what application software allows you to do in a post situation. However, standardisation is a given so you have repeatability across all areas of the industry.

A correct image is one that is displayed as intended; or technically a combination of settings between aperture, shutter speed and ISO speed to produce a perfectly exposed image; or purely viewing from the point of an histogram, when nothing is blown out (highlights) or lost in shadow areas of an image: or if you get creative, points 2 and 3 don't necessarily apply!

If you pitch yourself against the main player in the marketplace then users would benefit from not having too large a learning curve. Affinity has in the main succeeded in this, but pure fundamentals of how images are meant to be displayed and are indeed expected to be displayed should be totally consistent. The fact Serif customer care are involved does show that the intended image display differs from actual image displayed and that there must be an issue which requires investigation. With regards to DPP, it's always been slow and glitchy, it's slow on my 24 threaded machine. However, it does display images correctly and you can open a folder full of images in one go, apply a recipe, tweek a little, save, and 'Close All' without having to go through every image to close as in Affinity, goodness it's so boring I want to kill myself, Serif I hope that you are listening!

Metadata is either a separate data tag or one that is included within the image data, it is purely for information and has no bearing on how an image is displayed. A CR2 metadata file attributes from say a canon 550D is no different from the one stored in a canon 1DX, that is how software is able to look in the same place to determine say lens data, or exposure. The point is that it is consistent across all cameras using that file format. In my own case, we are talking about two different file formats behaving unexpectedly in a similar manor. This can only point to an application software issue and how it incorrectly processes the image information; this is confirmed by the fact that the major competitor produces software that does not have this problem and interprets the information as intended first time, every time without user intervention. I'm a great fan of Serif and have used lots of software produced by them over the years, usually with much success. Unfortunately, Affinity seems to have a major bug in it's programming that should have been picked up at it's inception. That said, a company should always be judged by how quickly that it resolves problems brought to its attention, especially fundamental issues such as importing a RAW image file and displaying it as intended. However, I see little to inspire me, since several users on this forum raising the same issues in November 2021 have obviously made no impact in the form of a patch, work around or disclaimer. Just saying 'we are working to resolving this issue' is totally unacceptable, especially since Affinity is meant to be wooing customers from the market leader. Having had over 6 months to figure the problem out and come up with a solution it's about time users had a fully working product.

As I understand it, Lensfun is solely used for lens correction data, it is not a RAW processing engine, but I am happy to be corrected on this

You would have thought so, CR2 was released in 2004 and CR3 in 2018, however Affinity just doesn't cope with it out of the box and I don't know why such a longstanding file format is not automatically accommodated, let alone the newer CR3 format; it surely can't be an oversight. I find it difficult to believe that there haven't been loads of complaints, is everyone using JPG's for their work? I'm a professional photographer and have accumulated plenty of knowledge since 1986 when DTP started to make a move against traditional hand litho methods and drum scanning, I remember using the first Digital cameras where batteries would last no more than 20 shots, hopefully Serif customer services will come up with the goods rapidly

Any update to this problem, my Canon 5Dmk2 and R6 has the same problem, it's seems to look like the gamma is all wrong?

Yeah, I've noticed the same when viewing a cr2 file in Photoshop 6 Vs Affinity Photo 1.10.4. The colours are totally different yet use the same calibrated monitor profile. It's the one thing that is preventing me from using it in my workflow, that is until the problem is solved