IanSG

9 different focal points sounds too many. I'd start by finding how small an aperture you can use without seeing diffraction effects and then do some hyperfocal distance calculations to see how many exposures you need. My guess would be only 2 or 3.

I may be misremembering, but I thought digiKam didn't show AP previews or, worse, allow external editors?

XnView MP is a popular choice - it's free and it's able to display the image previews embedded in .afphoto files. If you're going to try it, make sure you've enabled embedded previews (Edit / Preferences / General / Save thumbnails with documents).

Where did you buy AP? The macro pack is an add-on, so it appears you haven't downloaded AP yet.

I've no idea when that camera will be supported, but you can use Adobe's DNG converter as a stop-gap solution, or even a permanent one!

I've just tried converting a Canon 80D .cr2 to DND using the Adobe converter. With the .cr2 file, AP and RawTherapee produced different results - the RT image looked about a stop brighter. With the DNG files, both AP and RT produced results identical to AP's handling of the .cr2.

Seeing them in context might help.

Yes - the feature request forum is here. It's a good idea to see if it's already been requested - it avoids multiple strings for the same topic, and maybe someone's come up with a workround.

I see <original file name>.afphoto - exporting gives me <original file name>.<appropriate extension>. Merging / stacking gives me "untitled.afphoto".

??? V1.7 is still in beta - 1.8 isn't available. I see the same difference between AP and Raw Therapee. It's a bit less than 1 stop.

Are you saying the image itself is too dark or the histogram is too far to the left? If it's the histogram, it's a long standing issue that's fixed in V1.7

Mais non - it's "bookies", not "bookie". It should be "bookie's" for the betting shop, but "bookie" is always the person. It's in the same vein as visiting the grocer's or the butcher's. I recently confused (ish) an American friend by talking about being "in hospital" rather than "in the hospital".

It might help to know why it's necessary to do whatever is being asked for.

Check that you're working on a pixel layer and that you haven't taken the opacity or flow down to zero. If one of those isn't the problem you may have to reset the program - hold <ctrl> down while it's starting and then select "Clear" on the pop-up. I've found this fixes most of these "oddities", but it does undo any customisation you've made.

A friend of mine does most of her astrophotography with a 175mm Starfire on a Software Bisque Paramount in one of her three (3) observatories!!! The accesories are similarly high end. But then she's not married! There are times I wonder....

I was all set to react, when you wrote Best stick to a Scotch mount - cheap and easily replaced! I've no experience of processing deep sky images, but I've found working in LAB makes a huge difference to my Milky Way shots.

The course histogram warning in the Develop Persona reappears after it's been clicked. It behaves correctly in the Photo Persona.

That's hard to answer - once you know / understand how to do something it's hard to remember why it was ever difficult. Can you remember what it was like being unable to read, or ride a bicycle? I think the problem is that (some) people see the gradient filter as just a digital version of a glass ND filter, so it should be just as straightforward to use, and just as inflexible.

I've said the same thing myself! If you combine @firstdefence's excellent instructions with the old adage that "black conceals, white reveals" it might make things clearer. I found using the gradient tools was one of the least intuitive things in AP, but once the penny drops it's an amazingly powerful tool - maybe this is a case of no pain, no gain?

Login to your account on the Affinity Store and then select "Downloads and product keys".

<expletive deleted>!! I'd forgotten about the mipmaps! It looks like there's still a bug though - the first set of images I posted were JPEG exports, not screen grabs. I've just tried again, doing everything at 100%, and the merged image has lost some of the sharpening.

I tried playing with Filters, rather than Live Filter Layers. I used a different image but set the same sharpening values i.e. Radius 5px and Factor 4 This is what it looked like before I pressed "Apply" And this is what it looked like afterwards. This time the difference is much more apparent before the uploads!

I can't rule out that possibility, but I must be doing the same thing because I can reproduce the problem! It's not losing all the sharpening in the merged image, but it's losing enough to be easily noticed. This doesn't seem to have any effect - I get the same results with them switched on or off. This is the original, sharpened image. And this is the merged version. The difference is more apparent before they're resized and uploaded (but that might just be because I can blink compare them).

Nice! That's just the sort of effect I was trying to achieve! I had exactly the same problem, but I didn't realise how bad it was until I got home - I learned a lot from my mistakes on this expedition! Since I was using a tripod I should be able to use the same techniques used for removing ghosts in order to get the best exposure. The game plan for my next trip is to make sure I've got at least one good shot of the window, and then take a set of exposures to get an HDR of the choir stalls etc.

No, but I can't remember what it's called - possibly Bishop Langton's Chapel. I'd thought about going back and trying focus stacking, and it's still on the cards, but the first thing I'm going to do is add a ball head to my gorilla pod so that I can adjust the camera position without worrying about the whole thing falling over! If I can get permission to use a "real" tripod, so much the better.