Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jorismak

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

625 profile views
  1. got the same errors right now, with the latest release. It was a file that started with 'new from clipboard'. I _did_ try to save to a networked-folder first. But after the first error I tried saving in my home folder ('desktop' is one of the most _open_ folders in Windows by the way). I can't save any file now, _anywhere_. It creates 0-bytes files.
  2. (getting the thread back alive) Maybe I can turn the question around into the problem he seems to be _really_ having: The 'soft proof' for Affinity Photo gives very different results to the soft-proof of Photoshop. Particularly, the blacks seem to be at least gray with my printer-profile in the soft-proof, while Photoshop still displays a pretty-much-black. So both are set to 'relative' intent, and both with black-point-compensation, yet the result is clearly different. Also, if I enable the 'gamut warning' in Photoshop, I can push the saturation of the image _way_ higher before Photoshop starts giving out-of-gamut warnings.. but if I check 'gamut check' in Affinity Photo, it gives a lot of gamut-warnings almost straight out of the box, and I can't push the saturation at all without getting more gamut warnings... This is all on the same (Mac) machine, with the same display-profile loaded and with the same printer ICC profile. Particularly the out-of-gamut warnings which seem to be given waay to early make it impossible to do any real soft-proofing with Affinity Photo on my setup.
  3. DxO still host the last free version I was told. It should be somewhere on the site . It's here https://nikcollection.dxo.com/nik-collection-2012/ Requires an email to download though .
  4. Really ? That can't be true.. I would consider that basic functionality, specially the blend modes..
  5. I decided to give Affinity Photo another go .. my workflow keeps changing / evolving so I thought to just try it to see if it's more usable these days compared to the early 1.5 beta's. I'm running into a few things where I'm thinking that I'm just missing it, or there must be another 'affinity-way' to do it. I can't seem to find a way to set the levels overlay to a specific blackpoint by sampling the image. Like the basic 'black, mid and white point' droppers in the levels-dialogbox. I only need black-point for now, but can't seem to find any of those. Now, I need to open the info tab, add a color sampler to a specific point (maybe even add a blur-fx underneath if I want average values, because the color sampler doesn't seem to have a size control.. the color-picker does, but not the color sampler). I drop it on the point, and I can get RGB values in the 0 - 255 range. But the levels-overlay takes values in percent.. so I need to convert the values from the color sampler to percent by doing (x / 255) * 100, and enter those values manually in the R, G and B channels in the levels-overlay... quite a bit of work! The other thing that I can't seem to find (and must surely exist somewhere) is the 'Divide' blending mode. I hovered over all the blending modes but none do what I expect from 'Divide' , so it doesn't seem to be a simple naming-difference. Now, I have to duplicate a channel and use 'Apply image' with another layer and enter 'DR / SR', 'DG / SG' and 'DB / SB' in the formulas to divide one layer by another layer. Not as slow as the levels-black-point but still a lot harder than just selecting the Divide blend mode and keep on going... Where are those functions in Affinity (I'm on and / or what are they called because I can't seem to find them.
  6. I believe this is because the cropping (And other stuff) can be 'non-destructive'. Pick the layer you're working on / working with, right click it and try 'rasterize'. See if the picture 'received' by Color Efex now matches more.
  7. Same here. Switching blend mode to 'add' crashes it. (had a source layer dragged into it, enabled the 'equations checkmark' but didn't change any value yet. Blend mode to 'add' -> crash. This is in On a related note, can someone point me in the direction to do the same as the following Photoshop apply-screen (note the 'invert', 'add' blending and the scale of 2) Basically, I want to compare to layers and to make the 'difference' between the two, so that I can set the new 'difference' layer to 'linear light' and apply the changes that way. (So, compare two layers to make the difference between those two, then apply those differences to a completely different layer) (and no, I can't use the built-in frequency-separation, I'm using this for something else).
  8. Where do you see to 'convert to 8 bit' ?? I never touched 8bit mode in Affinity since the very first Windows beta.
  9. Although i congratulate you on the release for the iPad version, can you share something about the how the development teams are allocated within Sherif? Seeing an iPad release kinda stings with me seeing the poor state the Affinity Photo release 1.5 is in (and 1.6 betas not showing much improvement). If it are separate development teams, then I have nothing to whine about. If resources actually went from Affinity Designer / Photo windows towards an iPad version I have serious doubts about the future commitment to that project... That being said, I don't use the Mac version of course, is Affinity Photo 1.5 and 1.6 beta having as much issues on Mac as it is on Windows?
  10. I know a lot of people that want to 'start' with the jpeg-output in a RAW editor, and tweak it from there. That is what I meant. The same with all the (early) x-trans users that just plain liked the jpeg output more but couldn't get ACR to match it closely :). Anyway, it was just a way to explain _what_ was happening, and that it is not a fault _in theory_. But you absolutely have a point that 'more pleasing out of the box' will help, specially when people start comparing raw converters. It's nice that it can produce great results, but if you need a lot of tweaking to get there, people tend to start using other stuff. Specially in the pro world, where the mantra of 'time is money' is simply true. A raw converter that needs 3 sliders tweaked a little bit vs a raw converter that doesn't is very clear in my mind :). I also think the 'pleasing from the start' comes from supporting different camera's and raw files. Some people have been complaining that their raw files start out way too dark and it appears a new (Beta) update fixed it. I believe (as an example) people not thinking the raw development was OK from Olympus OM-D E-M5 mark2 files, but my OM-D E-M10 mark1 files came out great from the start. So it depends on camera body and everything. Maybe make an official 'support' request with a sample raw file from you so they can tweak the default response? Wouldn't be the first time they did that from what I read on the forum.
  11. It means that the output C1 and ACR create are most often not at all what your camera would create if it was set to jpeg. C1 and ACR don't try to clone the look of your camera, they develop the raw how they think it should be developed, and that means it can look different. Most notably, C1 uses a film-like curve by default that gives the images some extra 'pop' from the get-go, and ACR also has a tone-curve applied that is more meant to normalize the output of all the sensors out there, so they all come out pretty similar in response. In other words, ACR (in 2012+ mode any way) applies a tone curve and leaves the output to be 'neutral'. Both the C1 and ACR method give lower contrast around the levels of well-exposed skintones (let's say around 55% to 65% IRE) why they often seem 'brighter' in the mids. That all being said, AP does little to nothing to make the images 'pleasing' with default values. It's rather bare-bones and straight shooting in the RAW development -> does little to the data so you can tweak it any way you want to. Yes, that means you might have to apply a curve that has a slight s-curve to it. This will will make the image pop a bit more and boost anything from 50% and higher, giving you the brightness in the mids you seem lacking. And if the curve is applied in luminance-only mode (something like LAB mode) that means your brightness increases and gives pop, but the color intensities stay the same. I'm betting that if you brighten that image you see the colors don't seem so saturated anymore. Since they're darker, you see more of the color. If you add white (make it brighter) the color seems less intense. So, you're absolutely right in what you see, but I don't think it's viewed as 'an issue', just a different output by default. And like I said, AP does way less to your files 'by default' then other programs like C1 and ACR do. ACR does a lot to your file that you can't turn off :). Maybe the other way of viewing things is like this: There is no 'one correct way' of developing the RAW data, only multiple ways to do it, and you can choose which you find more pleasing or takes the less work to get to a pleasing result. Most often photographers want the RAW converter to match the camera's JPEG output by default (Since that is what they saw on the display when they took the picture :)) but like I said, there is no one 'correct' way. Your camera is just one way to deal with the sensor data, programs do other stuff with it. Did you ever took a look at the (Free / opensource) Rawtherapee? It gives you _all_ the options. There are like 6 options to set brightness+contrast in there. Normal programs pick one, but there are multiple ways to do things.
  12. MEB replied on April 30 already.. just sayin' :)
  13. If you switch from Develop to Photo then back to Develop, you're not working on your RAW data when you switch back to Develop, you're working with the pixel data developed the first time. It's like opening your file in ACR, saving it as a tif, then opening that tif again in ACR. It's not as big a problem as it sounds, but it's not what you want probably :). It's also the reason why the histogram displays 'dark' the first time and OK the second time. The first time you're working on RAW pixel data, and the histogram you're seeing (probably, I'm guessing!) has no gamma correction applied to it. It appears to be in linear space. The moment you develop it, it gets gamma corrected so you get a 'normal' picture. Hitting develop again will get you the develop tools, but working on the pixel data from the first develop, so be careful. @ Serif / Affinity team: There are a lot of (newer) camera's which contain lens corrections in the file, and the 'usage' of this metadata has been mentioned in other topics (so I won't go into it here). But the Lensfun database will probably not contain lens corrections for camera's that do the corrections already.. so waiting on corrections in a lensfun database that will probably never appear (at least not soon) doesn't seem like the right path. Rawtherapee (it's opensource right? Doesn't mean you can rip the source right out but maybe you can arrange something or you can recreate something based on the idea) has an interesting feature regarding this: it has an auto-correct button which (Behind the scenes) overlays the embedded jpeg preview file on top of the raw data, and then automatically sets the correction parameters to make the RAW data and the embedded JPEG data to 'line up'. So it doesn't read (or detect) any 'embedded correction' info, it analyzes the preview jpeg to automatically set settings. This is at least a good 'fall back' to make use of correction in camera's (now or newer ones in the future) without having to know the metadata of each and every RAW format. @ the OP: ACR doesn't 'support' to Fuji film-profiles do they? I think Fuji is keeping this close to their chest. There are 3rd party film simulations for ACR, and for Affinity you can use the LUT system and the haldclut film-emulation pack floating around (check rawtherapee's site) or maybe use the LUT functions to try make your own? Use the in-camera RAW processing to create a 'before and after' picture, then use the LUT tools to create a lut that transformers the picture 'before' into the 'picture after', then apply it to your RAW conversions.
  14. Sort of what I said : linear space in 8 bit is wrong and should never be used. But.. linear space in 16 bit is used a lot and completely ignored by Affinity Photo. In 32 bit floating point, linear space is even the standard / norm :).
  15. I asked about this in a previous post somewhere (I called it a bug I believe ). Affinity photo does not support ICC profiles with a linear gamma,while in 8bit / 16 bit. They appear and work fine if working with 32 bit files. I do gamma correction with imagemagick or Photoshop and then work with Affinity photo. OR I load the file in Photoshop, save it as 32bit and then open that in Affinity Photo. Then you can do all the editing you want in linear space (while actually seeing it gamma corrected for your monitor ) and save it back. But you do have a 32 bit file. If you ever want to go back to a linear 16bit file you'd have to use Photoshop or something else again. Another way they explained it to me is that you can open your linear file in Affinity photo , and then add a LUT layer with a 3d LUT loaded to view the file normally on your monitor. Keep that LUT layer always on top, to use as a proofing layer. When saving, remember to disable the LUT layer so you actually save linear data again. Which LUT to use and where to get it depends on your colour profile that you want to work in. My files are linear-adobergb so I use a lut that converts it to normal Adobe RGB while working. A gamma of 2.2 is never exactly correct, but it's often 'close enough'. (sRGB isnt entirely 2.2, there are parts in the shadows there the gamma is different. So not a constant gamma. Adobe RGB is 'constant' but it's more 2.19 than 2.2 (2 + 51/256). I don't know why linear ICC profiles are ignored / removed with 16 bit files. On 8bit I understand (you don't want linear space in 8bit, it will posterize like crazy) but 16 bit is used a lot. Scanner output as a simple example.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.