Sharkey

For the reasons MEB mentioned, I do not think printed manuals would help much. What I think would is publicly accessible online versions of the built-in help files. Since they are already in html format, this would not be overly hard for Serif to do. They would be relatively easy to update as the apps gain new features, & this would cost much less than providing printed manuals, particularly versions for each supported language.
 
This would leverage the power of 'smart' search engine algorithms like Google or Bing use, which would help when searching for a term or technique users know by a different name & even more when they don't know exactly what to search for. There is no way a manual could include all the terms or references users might be looking for -- some of them are unique to a particular industry or craft, or refer to technologies that have evolved over as much as several centuries & will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
 
Apart from that, this would enable forum users to link to specific help topics in posts instead of trying to explain where other users can find them & make it easier to identify any that need to be improved.

The trouble is the trend towards help files was OK a few years ago and for a time, because most people were upgrading and could simply find the newest features in the help file or learn from someone.    THAT DOES NOT WORK WITH NEW USERS FOR A NEW PROGRAM !!!!!!!!!!   I have lived and worked through it from Photoshop 3 to now. I was a full time user and could build on my knowledge over the years. It was my job. There are also plenty of training courses in the trade for Photoshop or absolutely anywhere for something like MS office.   I once ran a Photoshop training course at a college and asked why businesses always bought Microsoft when there were free or cheap alternatives. The answer was that they could send them to a college and get an "instant expert". That was not an option with Open Office. Still isn't 20 years later which is why most businesses still buy MS Office.   Something like Affinity is so sophisticated (read COMPLEX) that even I had a lot of problems, just migrating, despite decades of experience.   What the Affinity team seems to have totally failed to grasp is that most users are keen amateurs (which is good) and/or NEW TO IMAGE EDITING. They might have bought a digital camera for the first time or are taking pictures on a mobile and have seen clever stuff done online but that is no good. Most wouldn't know the difference between DPI,  PPi or LPI like the poor chap who designed a fantastic pineapple for screen printing but didn't know what resolution to start with.   Your help files are virtually useless and the trouble is, there is no Google backup. I wanted to cut out a difficult image using the pen. Clipping path?, cutting out?, pen selections ? Try and find how to do that in either the help files on the videos or on Google (I dare you), yet Affinity is brilliant at that. And who would look for vignetting under Gaussian blur? Yet that sort of compositing thing is such a common task.   My local night college gives classes in Photoshop. There are loads of books, reference tombs and "how to" books, Classroom in a book, etc. Yet, unlike Affinity, because Photoshop has been around so long you can also Google anything (pretty much) and find a how to. But Affinity ? How do you Google the contents of a video?   The help files should be about three times the size and backed up with a PDF manual and ideally a project book. Maybe in version 3 you could go back to a PDF manual. Look at Xara studio. A great PDF manual with an option to buy a printed copy.   I have seen it written by a member of staff it that Affinity is not designed to be a direct competitor for Photoshop. So what's it for? It's far too complex and hard to learn for most average users, despite its incredible value for money. So you are left with us Internet geeks and very keen enthusiasts fed up with Adobe pricing. Simply read this forum.   Many Photoshop users will find it too hard to migrate without documentation and as professionals it would be too expensive in time and fraught with difficulties if it doesn't do what they expect in Photoshop, of they can't find it. I saw someone complaining that Affinity couldn't do channel masks, yet there is great way to do that in Affinity. It's NOT called channel masking.. No ability to select a colour range within a selected area. Easy enough to do but a new from Photoshop user wouldn't know how, and if he had to do it under commercial pressure (and there is lots of that in the trade) he would simply revert to Photoshop. It's not that expensive.   Fantastic software, I can't praise the software team enough but invest some money and pay someone to write a manual.    Sorry. Rant over :)

As an example, this is only fun stuff, but where are the instructions on cutting out with text or shapes? And don't get me started on Channel Masking.
 

 
Cutting out and vignetting shapes?
 

 
 
or using an SVG path
 

 
 
And note. Every one of these images is completely editable later down to path nodes, including the text!
 

 
Not important for fun but clipping paths, or whatever you call them, are important, sometimes. I had to put images into text or shapes several times during my career but it's not that easy to find out how in Affinity. Or at least, not easy to find the instructions.

Finally reached the point of - no more understanding!
 
I realise it is my own limitation of intellect but when you cannot understand the questions on this site let alone the answers it is time to give in.
 
Pretty sure I can carry on using AFP for years to come as long as the basics remain solid and not "upgraded" to unusable because they become more "intuitive"!
 
"Intuitive" is probably my most despised word in this techno. age, in that it generalises a completely individual feelin and high lights the lack of real intuitive capabilities in soft and hardware. There is a massive difference between intuitive and usability. One is a beyond memory/intellectual place in users control to an almost blind usage that for reasons unknown or learnable just (nearly quoted Apple) - has the affect desired by the user.
 
I do not believe the intuitive is possible with what we have at our disposal today; maybe down the line.
 
Anywayup, thats it for me. I will fumble around with what I know from now on and concentrate on my pictures.
 
I will update, if it is 'necessarry' but not just for more stuff that needs a 'degree in coding/cybernetics' to use/comprehend.
 
Adjust :- colour, sharpness, crop and the occasional filter for fun - thats my lot. An overstatement I know but you get my drift.
 
Regards.    Sharkey
 
 

Der englische Text stammt von Google-Translate
Fuji Sensoren sind anders auszulesen als sie die meisten anderer Hersteller.
Fuji sensors can be read out differently than most other manufacturers.
DXO hat sich bisher geweigert, Fuji in den RAW-Konverter einzubauen.
DXO has so far refused to incorporate Fuji into the RAW converter.
Ich weiß nicht warum, doch möglicherweise ist dies der Grund für eine schwierigen Vorgang, der noch nicht optimal funktioniert.
I do not know why, but maybe this is the reason for a difficult process that does not yet work optimally.
Nach meinem Wissensstand hat noch kein Hersteller das eigene RAW-Format veröffentlicht.
According to my knowledge, no manufacturer has released their own RAW format.  

Is your Photoshop opening all images at 300ppi ?
 
This is a setting you can change in PS.. Whatever the imbedded info with your image PS. will open it at whatever you have set it to, or if you have not changed from the default at 72ppi.
 
A newspaper (no names) of my acquaintance would angrily call me up because the 6x4 images I was emailing them were not the 300 ppi that they demanded.
 
The picture editor(joke) did not know of the default settings. He blamed - for some time, I add - 'his incompetent :D  photographers'. 
 
This may, of course, have nothing to do with your problem but it was worth telling (I think)
 
Regards.    Sharkey

Is your Photoshop opening all images at 300ppi ?
 
This is a setting you can change in PS.. Whatever the imbedded info with your image PS. will open it at whatever you have set it to, or if you have not changed from the default at 72ppi.
 
A newspaper (no names) of my acquaintance would angrily call me up because the 6x4 images I was emailing them were not the 300 ppi that they demanded.
 
The picture editor(joke) did not know of the default settings. He blamed - for some time, I add - 'his incompetent :D  photographers'. 
 
This may, of course, have nothing to do with your problem but it was worth telling (I think)
 
Regards.    Sharkey

From five (badly messed up images turned into this mashed up digital mayhem.
 
Regards.     Sharkey
 
 

Dust Bunny.
 
To the right is Dunnet Head and left on the horizon would be Scrabster if you could see it.

From five (badly messed up images turned into this mashed up digital mayhem.
 
Regards.     Sharkey
 
 

From five (badly messed up images turned into this mashed up digital mayhem.
 
Regards.     Sharkey
 
 

From five (badly messed up images turned into this mashed up digital mayhem.
 
Regards.     Sharkey
 
 

This my Border Terrier waiting for my wife and myself to let him out. You can just make out the new puppy laying in its cage 'bottom right'.

Produced from NEF file in AP.

Produced from NEF file in AP.

Minor, very minor question.
 
Would it be OK to have two SYW forum places. 
 
The more users, the more posts, the easier two becomes to view.
 
I know go back to sleep :rolleyes: .
 
Regards.   Sharkey

I think that is a great idea!  As an AP user who does not own AD and has little in interest in AD or vector graphic editing, a split would allow me to more easily find AP content that would interest me.

You know what?
 
I have no idea what on earth you are all writing about!
 
Not unusual nowadays with me but it is fun trying.
 
Really hope I can still use AP when you all get it doing what you need  :lol: .
 
Regards.   Sharkey

Hi Sharkey,
 
The FujiFilm X-T2 is listed on our supported RAW list, I also checked opening a sample file. Len corrections are applied automatically, however it can be turned off in the Develop Assistant panel.

You know what?
 
I have no idea what on earth you are all writing about!
 
Not unusual nowadays with me but it is fun trying.
 
Really hope I can still use AP when you all get it doing what you need  :lol: .
 
Regards.   Sharkey

You know what?
 
I have no idea what on earth you are all writing about!
 
Not unusual nowadays with me but it is fun trying.
 
Really hope I can still use AP when you all get it doing what you need  :lol: .
 
Regards.   Sharkey

Application development on a Windows OS is, from my experience, inherently less reliable. With exception of gaming software of which I have no knowledge almost all of the applications that I have used that run on Apple OS and Widows OS have been almost without exception more stable on the Apple platform. The consequence of this for me is that although the Windows machine gave the impression of cutting edge speed the regular failure to be reliable and the need for more maintenance input makes them, in reality, slower.
 
My longtime collaborator in photography was a diehard Windows man and our differences on the subject had to be well buried (by mutual consent) to allow for a good and fun working partnership. His frustrations when using his laptop at the same desk as I with mine were palpable. With both of us using Photoshop CS4 on our respective, similarly powered machines his day was markedly more frustrating than mine despite his admitted higher skill factor and experience with the product.
 
I suppose what I am trying to illustrate is not so much that one OS was better than another but that one has to be all things to all machines while the other can be tuned more finely to the limited hardware it has to operate in. I am sorry if this is 'teaching granny to suck eggs' but it is fundamental to the stability/speed question.
 
Working with base NEF file of 75MB my finished tiffs. can be in excess of 1.5Gb. and so far the MBP (2013) that I am now using simply glides along. My conclusion is that for me anyway, AP is as stable as anything I have ever used before including Pixelmator, C1 and CS6..
 
The one part of AP that has caused me concern is the Macro and any bulk work I get lumbered with by my wife  :angry: . This type of job is, almost by definition, a real drain on the hardware. Allowing one process to run while trying to get on with my own projects always causes me to grind my teeth a little. I have to remind myself of days when my Windows machine would die after a couple of minutes of this so that I can appreciate the reliable efforts of the Apple/Affinity partnership that it is easy sometimes to pick holes in if historical comparisons are forgotten.
 
There will always be things that need fixing and things to make faster but it is good to reflect on what is working well now so as not to be continually down on the tools we use to make our living (past tense in my case).
 
 Sorry if this is a bit off topic - just started me thinking :huh:.
 
Regards    Sharkey

Hello MEB, yes exactly so I mean that.
Is much less work for same many pictures! How is this now?
And later, a function in the DAM can be used for images syncronize.
In addition, Macro for Develop Persona (all Persona) would be great.
Greeting Dieter

Hi affwin,
I'm not sure i've understood you correctly. I believe you want to have a single (global) preset that includes the settings from all panels (Basic, Lens, Details and Tones) in Develop Persona so you can apply it with a single click to your images. Basically you want to create a single preset with all settings from all tabs for each camera you use. Is this correct?

You are teasing the man. Why don't you link some training videos about basic compositing.