Asha

I don’t do much DTP anymore, but buying and supporting Serif is a no brainer! I got it yesterday, and couldn’t be happier for having a high quality program to complete the suite! Congrats and well done!

Yay!!! Insta-buy!!! <3 Congratulations Serif team!!

I just saw an article today stating that NIK will no longer be supported, so all the components are now frozen in time. See the banner at the top of the NIK page: https://www.google.com/nikcollection/

Congrats Serif team! A super release with many new features--great work!

Link to another thread on this topic: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/29566-focus-stack-feedback/ Mods, please merge the threads, if possible.

TheLostVortex, Thanks so much for linking to your thread. I wish I had seen that before I started a new one--perhaps the mods can merge the two threads. I also appreciate that you've been putting Affinity through some major exercises with respect to focus stacking. I only work at 1x, so having somebody testing with higher magnification and bigger stacks is super. Thanks also for pointing out that Affinity uses the pyramid algorithm. Like you, I had watched the video and heard the narrator speak of "density maps" as the stack processed, so I assumed "Dmap". If I have time, I'll reprocess my stack with the pyramid algorithm in my software and post the results. Regarding my stack, it is pretty old, probably one of the first I did. In that time frame, I was doing both focus-by-ring and focus-by-rail with a Panasonic m43 camera, and I don't really remember what I did with this particular setup. However, I think I see what you're getting at--if I had been smarter in building my stack, I could have minimized artifacts regardless of what algorithm is being used in the stack processing. Regarding RAW--well, I just see it as an advantage to process in RAW for a RAW workflow, so it is a personal preference, especially if I want something quick. Plus, RAW files are much more compact than 16-bit TIFF. I hope some day to have a composition that is good enough to warrant committing to a batch RAW development and massive hard drive space to store the TIFFs, lol.

I finally had a chance to put the Affinity focus stacking tool to work today with RC1. I did a fairly modest 16-layer stack, and processed both from RAW files and from 16-bit TIFF files. Below are the results of this test, compared with output from an "other" dedicated focus stacking software. For the most part, I find the processing time slightly faster for Affinity than the "other" software. In both softwares, processing from RAW was slower than from 16-bit TIFF, even though the TIFF files are several orders of magnitude larger than the RAW. Final resolution and quality of detail was roughly the same on both, however, Affinity had more artifacts. This is balanced by the fact that Affinity has high ease of editing from any one of the source images. What I missed most in the Affinity tool is the capability to customize the stacking process. In the "other" software, I can select one of three algorithms, whereas Affinity has only one default algorithm. For this test, I chose depth map in the "other" software, because I think that is what Affinity is using, and I wanted a consistent comparison. In the "other" software, I can also adjust the algorithm parameters, which sometimes helps the artifacting--Affinity does not have this feature. I also did not see a way to select the RAW engine for focus stacking in Affinity, but that is something I would like to have since the different RAW engines may produce more pleasing results. Generally, the RAW processing seemed more streamlined in Affinity. The "other" software opened Adobe DNG converter for every single slice of my stack, which is somewhat laughable, however, the unretouched result was the best from RAW processing through the "other" software. One more thing that I have seen in dedicated software is the ability to process from top-down or bottom-up of the stack. This is a very helpful option since (again) it can reduce artifacting. This would be a nice improvement to the Affinity tool. While my stack was rather benign, I've seen some crazy high-magnification macro stacks with several times the number of files I used. Those might not do as well with Affinity, due to the lack of adjustability. Having said that, Affinity is the most accessible and affordable software I've seen with this advanced capability, and I have nothing but the highest praise for the Serif team. To summarize, here is my wish list for Affinity's new focus stacking capability based on this test: --Ability to choose from different algorithms --Ability to choose algorithm parameters --Ability to choose the RAW engine that is invoked when using RAW source files --Ability to choose the order of stack processing (top-bottom, bottom-top) File legend: Macro Roses from RAW--Affinity processed from Panasonic RAW format files Macro Roses from RAW HF wDMap--"other" software processed from Panasonic RAW format files Macro Roses from Tiff16--Affinity processed from 16-bit TIFF files Macro Roses from Tiff16 HF wDMap--"other" software processed from 16-bit TIFF files

For what it's worth, I've been having trouble with Nik, even in Photoshop. Sometimes it hangs up in the processing and appears to do everything except save the image and return me to PS. The only way out is a hard reboot of my computer. I'm sure that there is limited development going on since they made Nik free to everyone, so who knows if they are addressing performance bugs...

Woot, can't wait to try the focus stacking! I have some mean stacks that will put it to the test >;>

Focus merging was shown as a feature! I'm stoked for the iPad version AND for getting the focus merge on the desktop!

I wonder if this news means that there will be no further development on Nik...

TinPianoMan, looks like you're on your way! :D You should check with the T-shirt printer to see what thickness of line they can hold. Usually T-shirts are screened, and the ink is really thick and goopy, so super fine detail is not achievable. You might need bigger "cracks" in your texture in order for it to show up correctly.

Thanks Seneca--I have seen much more derogatory language in other threads, which I think is not called for.

Apple Pencil on iPad Pro is my favorite stylus/iPad combo. Previously I had iPad Air 1 with bluetooth styluses--that combo didn't really compare. For anybody looking at the smaller form factor, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the smaller version of iPad Pro, assuming it works similarly to the current one.

You should be able to create a brush from a texture that you collect yourself. That way whatever you end up with will be individualized to your design.

killwilly, none of the DxO products currently work with AP, but all can be used as standalone. It might help if you send a request to DxO to make their products compatible with AP. If more people do this, we will eventually get some attention!

I think AP and AD are phenomenal. Based on what I can see, and what I've seen from other users, everything is there for the majority of every day tasks. I wonder if the people complaining are the ones who didn't know Adobe when it was Illustrator 88, 8-bit PS 1.0, and no DTP solution.

magicmarker--are you talking about having a kind of "alpha lock" feature on any given layer? The equivalent in PS is "Create Clipping Mask" in the layer contextual menu.

Make a new pixel layer, and in the channels panel, lock each of the R, G and B composite channels by deselecting the little pencil icon to the right of the eyeball icon. Then, with your new pixel layer active, you can make a selection and use the paint bucket to fill it. If you are only painting on the alpha, it always goes to white regardless of what color you have selected (even if black or gray) because you are basically making a 100% alpha of the filled area. You can also paint with black, white or any shade of gray on your pixel layer by locking the R, G or B channels you don't want to paint on. It will add color value only from the active channel. This thread may also be helpful: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/17438-using-channels-as-non-destructive-way-to-color-wallcovering-patterns/?hl=channels

I think this is a case where creating a pixel layer with Hue blending mode can help non-destructively remove the background color that shows through the lace

I was disappointed too--it really would need to be much more than it currently is for me to pay $99 per year.

Something similar can be done in PS, but only on individual colors, not the composite. In the PS tool, the colors can be squeezed or expanded. If this is something you would like to see in AP, it might be worthwhile to post in the Request Feature board ;)

Layer Adjustments > HSL There is a Saturation slider in the HSL control I don't know why you can't change the slider--can you attach a screen shot?

I finally got off my lazy butt and opened a DNG in both CS6 and CC2015--I see what you mean. There is both a Lens Correction and a Camera Profile. The Lens Correction is the thing I had trouble with, but it looks like Adobe added the ability to turn it off in the latest versions. It has been so long since I switched to DxO that I didn't even bother to try PS. I'm glad they finally fixed that issue! So, back to AP--I'm saying I don't want Lens Correction to be automatically turned on without some kind of toggle to turn it off!

I've never heard the term "squeezing", but I have heard "crushing" as pertaining to contrast. For that you can use Curves or Levels, both of which are available as a non-destructive layer adjustment. You can apply the effect to each channel, or to the master composite.