stuck

PS the reason it helps is that I can now copy NKwide.icm into 'C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color' and that then means (temporarily, when I'm processing scans) I can set Photo to use that as it's working colour space and Photo correctly handles my scans.

@Dan C Yes it does help, thank you! It's also embarrassing though because now you point me at 'C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Nikon\Profiles', you're right 'NKwide.icm' is there. I wonder why my search missed it? I also wonder how I failed to find that path when I was searching on-line. Plus how I couldn't find NKwide.icm for download either! Moving swiftly on... When you log this with the developers, please can you include a request that when Photo opens a file and meets a profile conflict that it doesn't automatically convert the file to Photo's working colour space but, like Photoshop, provides options (in PS these are under 'color settings') that allow the user to control what happens.

Hi @Dan C , Thank you for the quick response. I looked in: C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color which is where I expected to find the Nikon profile but it wasn't there. I next ran a search for '*.ic*' on my 'C:' drive and again didn't find anything. I've also done a Google search and not found it (yet). Thus at the moment the best I can offer you is this JPEG which has the Nikon profile embedded in it. Does this help?

I have a Nikon CoolScan V ED film scanner. If I set its working colour space to 'Wide Gamut RGB' then the colour profile of the output scans is described as 'Nikon AdobeWide RGB 4.0.0.3001'. If I open such a scan in Photoshop, with Photoshop's working colour space set to 'AdobeWide RGB' then the file opens with no warnings. If I set Photoshop's working colour space to anything other than 'AdobeWide RGB' then Photoshop warns of the profile mismatch. So far so as expected because 'Nikon AdobeWide RGB 4.0.0.3001' is identical to 'AdobeWide RGB'. If I open such a scan in Photo 2, with Photo 2's working colour space set to 'AdobeWide RGB' then the file opens with a notification that Photo has converted the file to the working colour space of AdobeWide RGB. I can see why Photo does that (the profile names are different) but should it not, like Photoshop, be clever enough to know that 'Nikon AbobeWide RGB 4.0.0.3001' is identical to 'AdobeWide RGB' and thus open the file without any notification?

Thank you!

Both the pano and HDR merge features allow you to select RAW files as the source images. If you do that, what does Photo actually do? Does it: silently use the Develop persona, i.e. demosiac the data by applying some built in settings, and then merge that auto-converted RAW data simply extract the embedded JPEG from the RAW file and merge that data some other magic Thanks

Be sure to look at every option in Photo 2's print dialog, in particular the one for colour management. I missed that section at first and although I had set all the options at the top correctly, the printer profile in that section was wrong. Unsurprisingly my print was wrong, it was way too dark.

Yes, it makes sense that you can't record a macro if there is no image loaded but it's a bit restrictive to not be able to import a macro, with no image open. I mean that's like not being able to put a new saw into your toolbox unless you had a bit of wood already mounted in a vice ready to be cut by the saw. I suspect this minor irritation is not going to change though but I can cope, now I know I must have my bit of wood ready before I buy a new saw 😀

Ah ha! I'd missed that subtlety. Thank you, I've got the macro back now in both v1 and v2. One other thing I discovered. To get the 'Import' option to work you MUST first have an image open.

I using Win 10. I have a macro (that I downloaded from somewhere, can't remember where). It used to be visible and work in Photo 1. I wanted to try and use the macro in Photo 2 but it wasn't in the Library. "Reasonable", thinks I, "v2 is a new version so I guess I have to import it." However, when I try to import the macro, having browsed to the folder that holds a master / backup copy of it, it does not show in the import dialog box. This appears to be because the macro has a '.afmacro' (singular) extension but the dialog box is expecting a file extension of 'afmacros' (plural). "OK", thinks I, "Perhaps v1 macros are not compatible with v2. No problem, I'll just fire up v1 and use it there." Except the macro is no longer available in v1 either and again I can't reimport it because the import dialog only allows the extension 'afmacros' (plural). What am I doing wrong? Why has v1 lost access to the macro it used to run without any problems?

If you still have Photo 1 installed, and it sounds like you do, then it would make sense to keep it up to date. If you just open Photo 1, without any image, it should reoffer you the update.

Umm, an update on this problem. It appears that user error is an key component of the matter While in the Develop persona I had levelled the horizon using the 'straighten' feature in the crop tool. The rotation involved was tiny. What I then failed to do was adjust the crop to take account of the rotation. I made that mistake because I am more familiar the horizon tool in DxO Photolab and in that application the default behaviour is to automatically crop in keeping with the rotation. It turns out it is this failure to crop the rotated image that causes SEfx to choke and not scale the image correctly, i.e. if I don't tweak the horizon at all, or I do tweak it and crop accordingly, the SEfx behaves as expected. I've yet to go back to Photo 1 to double check how rotation & lack of cropping is handled in that version.

Neither, the RAW was passed to the Photo Persona as a pixel layer, i.e. I made Photo 2 behave the same way as Photo 1, to ensure I was making a direct comparison.

As another note on this. If I process the same .CR3 file in Photo 1, save it as a .afphoto file and then pass it to SEfx, everything works as expected. Conclusion: Photo 2 is a step too far for my old version of SEfx.

Yes, but that doesn't make my comment wrong 🤪

Yes, it's what Marketing call 'progress' 🙃

Don't know, I've not yet applied anything in SEfx to see what happens when the image returns to Photo 2 but regardless of the end result, it's nigh on impossible to use SEfx with small image like this so even if it does work it's not really a practical workflow. I guess the moral is, I shouldn't invoke my NIK plugins on a ,afphoto file but always export to TIFF first. PS I've never bothered to update my NIK Collection because, for me, it's not value for money plus I'm not convinced the debacle that was the release of DxO's version 4 of the collection has been fully resolved. I estimate it will be v9 of the collection before it stops being a beta product. From there, applying the 'nothing's right until v3' rule means that it won't be until v11 that it will be worth spending money on 😀

I'm on Win 10. I have a .CR3 file that I developed in Photo 2 and then saved as .afphoto. The layer stack is only one layer, for levels. If I then pass this image (via Photo's menu commands: Filters | Plugins | etc.) to Silver Efex (the version that comes with the first version of the NIK Collection released by DxO, i.e. the version where they took the collection they bought from Google and simply fixed a couple of 64 bit problems didn't do much else), then it takes a very long time for it to appear in SEfx and when it does, it is not right, it's only about a quarter the size it should be. Plus all the preset previews are tiny as well: Yet, if I first export the .afphoto file to a TIFF and then open that TIFF in Photo 2 and pass it to SEfx, it opens much more quickly and everything is OK: If this is a 'known issue' I apologise for not finding it in the forum. Otherwise, has anyone else seen this behaviour?

Both of my screen shots were taken after resetting everything, i.e. in both cases I held down the CTRL key and then ticked all the boxes in the resulting dialog. Also, when Photo 2 asked me if I wanted to import stuff from Photo I said no. In other words, to the best of my knowledge, these two screen shots show the default prefs as set by Serif. Correct and yes, it is a baffling choice and not at all an improvement.

On my Win 10 PC, in Photo 1, the default colour prefs look like: However, in Photo 2 the defaults are subtly different, here the option to 'convert opened files to working space' is not ticked: Is having that option UNticked by default a deliberate design decision?

Yes, it is strange and yes, there must be something in the request for payment that goes to the card provider that triggers some sort of check for approval of a recurring payment and when that approval is NOT present, the transaction is declined. Meanwhile, I am pleased to report that @Patrick Connor went way, way, beyond his job description and although he couldn't fix the failed transaction, he has waved a magic wand and I do now have an activated copy of Photo 2.

True but my credit card provider has explicitly told me that this transaction fails because Serif are trying to process it as a recurring transaction not a one off purchase. That implies Serif are storing old card details but I can find no record of any card details in my Serif account. Meanwhile, I can make purchases with out any problem using the same browser and card on other sites, which again suggeststhe fault is with the way Serif are handling this transaction, not anything I'm doing. Despite this, Serif are unwilling / unable to try and find out why their system is unable to deal with my transaction.

@SFurniss Despite several email exchanges with Adam on Affinity Support, where my last message sent on Monday and which said: So Serif are content to leave me as a dissatisfied customer, unable to buy your products ,and likely to pass on my bad experience to anyone and everyone I know with even a vague interest in photography? I find that a very strange approach to customer service and support. There must be a reason why your website is not handling my card details correctly so even if you can’t help, surely you can escalate this problem to someone more senior? has not been answered, I remain unable to buy Photo 2. EDITED to highlight that this sad story does have a happy ending after all, see below at: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/179734-declined-transactions/#comment-1042364

So does, "An app. a day keep the doc. away?"

@Patrick Connor That's because the email address of my Affinity Store account is different to the one for my forum account. I have sent you a private message (subject 'failed transaction') giving you my Affinity Store email address.