Rich

I, too, switched back to Photoshop last month. This was my fourth try over a period of five years with Affinity Photo, and even though it is getting better for professional workflows, it is still not quite there yet. I am willing to make a few compromises, but too many means my job is harder and projects take more time. In addition to several issues like the one my thread is about, I have also noticed that the frequency of bugs In AP seems to be increasing on the Windoz version, which was the main reason I wanted to get away from Photoslop. My hope for AP is for it to be fast (not bloated), customizable UI, conducive to a common sense workflow for photographers/compositors, and most important, reliable (no surprises when pushing a project deadline). Maybe in version 2.x? I will check back again next year.

Glad my post helped to solve an AP problem, but unfortunately not my own. I was hoping for more information than to just go find the answer myself via my own testing. Doesn't anyone else care about non-destructive image editing? Most professionals do. Thanks.

Thanks David and Bruce. Coming from Photoshop, the Image layers vs. Pixel layers for various editing functions in AP is new to me. I used the example of copy/paste earlier, but my main concern is how does this conversion affect final image quality in subtle areas like smooth gradients, micro-contrast, tonal rendition or anywhere else. I was hoping this was a topic already well known in the Affinity community that could be answered to save me a few hours of testing and pixel peeping. Thanks.

I am editing high-rez 16-bit AdobeRGB photo images. I see that in order to copy/paste a selection from such an image I must first convert the Image layer to a Pixel layer. When doing this is there any change of image quality, such as in the smoothness of gradients or in the overall tonal quality? Thanks.

When I open an image file I need to know at a glance: dimension (in units of my choice), file size (mb), colour profile and bit depth. This information quickly tells me what I need to do for whatever purpose the image is intended for. That is simply efficient workflow design, relative to looking in two panels or activating certain tools just to gather the various image data I need. Also, I do not need to know my memory efficiency or pressure -- ever. But maybe some people need to know memory efficiency/pressure (on their 8GB systems) and other people need to know other information to facilitate their own workflow. The solution: Give the user a choice of what information is displayed in the Info Panel via a simple "Info Options" dialogue box where you just tic boxes next to various file information types. (Now, where have we seen that?) Such a feature would enhance the value and efficiency of Affinity Photo for each user, and shouldn't require Affinity to rip up too much of their existing code to implement it.

I agree entirely. When I open an image file I need to know at a glance; dimension (in units of my choice), file size (mb), colour profile and bit depth. This information quickly tells me what I need to do for whatever purpose the image is intended for. That is just efficient workflow design, relative to having to look in other panels or have certain tools active to gather the various image data together. Also, I do not need to know my RAM memory efficiency or pressure -- ever. But maybe some people need to know memory efficiency/pressure (on their 8GB systems) and other people need to know other information to facilitate their own workflow. The solution: Give the user a choice of what information is displayed in the Info Panel via a simple "Info Options" dialogue where you just tic boxes next to various file information types. This would enhance the value and efficiency of Affinity Photo for each user.

Thanks. Not as simple and direct as Photoshop (where info relative to editing is in the Info Panel) without having to go look for it in another panel (Metadata) or have a specific tool active (View Tool). And even then, I still can not find ppi resolution anywhere except when I go to Resize. Metadata is most useful when comparing a photo to other shots in order to decide which is best to edit, not in the actual editing process. That is why a Digital Asset Manager (DAM) is used in most pro workflows prior to editing. I reluctantly use Adobe Bridge because Affinity still does not provide a DAM. I guess the presence of a Metadata panel, complete with star rating, is Serif's attempt to compensate slightly for not having a DAM available for purchase that can present RAW and .afphoto files at full resolution with full EXIF Metadata for comparison, rating and searching. Maybe in the near future?

Coming over to AP from Photoshop, I noticed a lack of info about document size, dimensions and ppi in the Info Panel (see below). In Photoshop you can select what information appears in the Info Panel (Info Panel Options). Does Affinity Photo have this feature? If not, how can I check the size, dimension and ppi for my document? Thanks.

Yes, this lacking in Affinity Photo (not fully compatible with DAM's) has been the greatest deterrent for me in switching to AP from Photoshop/Bridge. It's just too disruptive to my workflow. Every year, I try for a while, then go back to using Adobe. Hopefully, this limitation that Serif is imposing upon its users (and potential users) means that they have plans to publish their own DAM. If so, I encourage them to do it quickly. It would significantly increase their user base and satisfy their existing users enough to fully recommend Affinity products for professional use.

Thanks Bill. I found that iMatch will show .ifphoto files, but only as small rez jpeg files and w/o any metadata. That was a deal breaker for me. Can XnView display the original rez & metadata of an .ifphoto flie? Can keywords be assigned to files and then later searched. Those are my main needs. Thanks again.

Thanks Fixx. I seriously considered doing that prior to building my present PC workstation. The main concern I had was hearing that every time Apple issued a new OS update (once a year) many people had to troubleshoot, patch & tweak their "Hackintoshes." I just don't have time for that, but for those who do, it sounds like a great option. Windows OS is a constant pain to use compared to MacOS.

Thanks John. I was just checking out iMatch a few days ago. Lots of good reviews. I wasn't able to get on their forum to ask about stacking, but thanks to you now I know. My other concern is that iMatch runs on PC only. I have been a Mac guy, but recently built my own PC workstation since I can't afford $20k for a decently configured Mac Pro. My other two computers are Macs. So, I would prefer a dual-platform DAM. But now iMatch is certainly on my short list of options.

Thanks John. The Save History option sounds useful. What I may look into is creating an action that will save my edited file as both .afphoto and TIFF format. Then I will stack them together in Bridge, with the TIFF file on top so I can see the image, not just an AP icon. Besides viewing, the TIFF file can also serve as a backup of the edited composite image I am creating.

Well, I hope it's manageable for me as a temporary solution. Ultimately, like many other Affinity users, I am hopeful that Serif will publish their own "Bridge-like" DAM. Then there will be no question of compatibility, as with other multi-platform DAM software. And when their RAW Develop Module evolves further, then there will be little reason for photographers to continue enduring Photoslop & Lightsloth.

Thanks Walt. My initial tests showed me that the variety of layers I originally saved as a .afphoto test file were preserved and still editable in AP after being exported as a "TIFF with Layers" file. Just wasn't sure if I was missing some disadvantage for me in doing this. I now plan on using Affinity Photo exclusively. Being able to use Bridge was the final issue for me that I had to resolve in switching to Affinity Photo from Photoslop. I work almost exclusively in multi-image HDR/Pano sets, and Adopy Bridge (free) is the only DAM I have been able to find that will automatically stack these image sets together (see below). This saves me hours each week compared to manually tagging & grouping each of hundreds of multi-image sets.