Asser82

Hi all, just to let you know, I'm now in contact with DxO. Hopefully between us we can sort some of these issues out.

Nice work,

Hopefully GPU acceleration on windows will also get some love in the future.
In addition a Lightroom like app would be cool, where a virtual copy of a raw file could be edited in Photo via Studio Link.
 
 
 

There is a keynote in two days. There we will see, what comes next after Publisher. At least it is announced that way.

Perhaps offer two denoise algorithms:
1) Fast and ordinary one (default)
2) Slow and perfect one (option)
The ones, who select 2) have time to wait. The ones who do not care (1)), have fast develop times. Same strategy works well in DxO PhotoLab with ordinary denoise and prime denoise.

Perhaps offer two denoise algorithms:
1) Fast and ordinary one (default)
2) Slow and perfect one (option)
The ones, who select 2) have time to wait. The ones who do not care (1)), have fast develop times. Same strategy works well in DxO PhotoLab with ordinary denoise and prime denoise.

Perhaps offer two denoise algorithms:
1) Fast and ordinary one (default)
2) Slow and perfect one (option)
The ones, who select 2) have time to wait. The ones who do not care (1)), have fast develop times. Same strategy works well in DxO PhotoLab with ordinary denoise and prime denoise.

Perhaps offer two denoise algorithms:
1) Fast and ordinary one (default)
2) Slow and perfect one (option)
The ones, who select 2) have time to wait. The ones who do not care (1)), have fast develop times. Same strategy works well in DxO PhotoLab with ordinary denoise and prime denoise.

Perhaps offer two denoise algorithms:
1) Fast and ordinary one (default)
2) Slow and perfect one (option)
The ones, who select 2) have time to wait. The ones who do not care (1)), have fast develop times. Same strategy works well in DxO PhotoLab with ordinary denoise and prime denoise.

I have also written to a resposive forum moderator to shortcut you to the NIK department, so hopefully things will go the right way. At least we will now, which side has work to do :-)

I have already reposted the current progress here.
https://feedback.dxo.com/t/maybe-improved-nik-support-in-affinity-incoming/7907
But speaking developer to developer would speed up things.

I have already reposted the current progress here.
https://feedback.dxo.com/t/maybe-improved-nik-support-in-affinity-incoming/7907
But speaking developer to developer would speed up things.

I've just finished implementing ICC profile support in plugins, so check out the next beta and let me know how you get on...

Sadly the development speed of Affinity Photo for Windows started to feel very slow. If someone, like me, is not interested in Apple products in general, then the last release (not beta) in the photo domain was 1.6.5 from August 22, 2018. It is almost 9 months now. Time for a new baby :-)

Or you buy AcdSee Pro for around 50€/$. It replaces Lightroom very well in terms of DAM for me and the payed amount is a one time fee for many years.

DxO is becomeing more customer oriented. There is a public feature request board available. You can now vote for official Affinity support for NIK here:
https://feedback.dxo.com/t/official-support-of-nik-plugins-with-affinity-software/3283/1

First my heart jumped...because I thought spotlight might be the Affinity lightroom. But thinking about it, I remembered, that I read a RAW vs JPEG article on spotlight yesterday, which was great. So, thx for this.

The more interesting question is, why the Affinity guys comment things on sundays, instead of turning their steaks on the grill. Hopefully this does not end in burnouts. 

First my heart jumped...because I thought spotlight might be the Affinity lightroom. But thinking about it, I remembered, that I read a RAW vs JPEG article on spotlight yesterday, which was great. So, thx for this.

The more interesting question is, why the Affinity guys comment things on sundays, instead of turning their steaks on the grill. Hopefully this does not end in burnouts. 

If something gets updated, it is not a new installation. Hence, the configuration is not necessary. Just look at it like on an update to your browser or your office package. You can't place it on each update into a new folder. If there were no disabled fields, the desire to change something wouldn't be there. So hiding the disabled items is the simplest solution to avoid unintended feature requests, which saves development time to work on real problems. So the beta run had a sense already.
 
Btw. having these fields active and functional would not be an improvement, because it would make the user think, whether the destination is the same he used last time. He would have to open the windows explorer or the available file dialog to compare the paths, which is an ugly thing. My guess is that 99% would like to replace the existing beta, the others can do a clean install.
 
 

If something gets updated, it is not a new installation. Hence, the configuration is not necessary. Just look at it like on an update to your browser or your office package. You can't place it on each update into a new folder. If there were no disabled fields, the desire to change something wouldn't be there. So hiding the disabled items is the simplest solution to avoid unintended feature requests, which saves development time to work on real problems. So the beta run had a sense already.
 
Btw. having these fields active and functional would not be an improvement, because it would make the user think, whether the destination is the same he used last time. He would have to open the windows explorer or the available file dialog to compare the paths, which is an ugly thing. My guess is that 99% would like to replace the existing beta, the others can do a clean install.
 
 

If something gets updated, it is not a new installation. Hence, the configuration is not necessary. Just look at it like on an update to your browser or your office package. You can't place it on each update into a new folder. If there were no disabled fields, the desire to change something wouldn't be there. So hiding the disabled items is the simplest solution to avoid unintended feature requests, which saves development time to work on real problems. So the beta run had a sense already.
 
Btw. having these fields active and functional would not be an improvement, because it would make the user think, whether the destination is the same he used last time. He would have to open the windows explorer or the available file dialog to compare the paths, which is an ugly thing. My guess is that 99% would like to replace the existing beta, the others can do a clean install.
 
 

If something gets updated, it is not a new installation. Hence, the configuration is not necessary. Just look at it like on an update to your browser or your office package. You can't place it on each update into a new folder. If there were no disabled fields, the desire to change something wouldn't be there. So hiding the disabled items is the simplest solution to avoid unintended feature requests, which saves development time to work on real problems. So the beta run had a sense already.
 
Btw. having these fields active and functional would not be an improvement, because it would make the user think, whether the destination is the same he used last time. He would have to open the windows explorer or the available file dialog to compare the paths, which is an ugly thing. My guess is that 99% would like to replace the existing beta, the others can do a clean install.
 
 

If something gets updated, it is not a new installation. Hence, the configuration is not necessary. Just look at it like on an update to your browser or your office package. You can't place it on each update into a new folder. If there were no disabled fields, the desire to change something wouldn't be there. So hiding the disabled items is the simplest solution to avoid unintended feature requests, which saves development time to work on real problems. So the beta run had a sense already.
 
Btw. having these fields active and functional would not be an improvement, because it would make the user think, whether the destination is the same he used last time. He would have to open the windows explorer or the available file dialog to compare the paths, which is an ugly thing. My guess is that 99% would like to replace the existing beta, the others can do a clean install.
 
 

If something gets updated, it is not a new installation. Hence, the configuration is not necessary. Just look at it like on an update to your browser or your office package. You can't place it on each update into a new folder. If there were no disabled fields, the desire to change something wouldn't be there. So hiding the disabled items is the simplest solution to avoid unintended feature requests, which saves development time to work on real problems. So the beta run had a sense already.
 
Btw. having these fields active and functional would not be an improvement, because it would make the user think, whether the destination is the same he used last time. He would have to open the windows explorer or the available file dialog to compare the paths, which is an ugly thing. My guess is that 99% would like to replace the existing beta, the others can do a clean install.