Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

jorismak

Members
  • Posts

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jorismak

  1. Although correct on the PNG things, as far as I know there is such a thing as official layered TIFFs. The Adobe metadata is used to store things such as blending mode and opacity which isn't normal spec. Normal layered TIFFs are saved as a multipage-tiff with a tag to indicate the multiple pages are in fact layers instead of multiple pages. What's more, Imagemagick seems to handle them just fine and they're normally very quick to say "it's not official spec, not doing work on it" :). Then again, I guess it's not really about the TIFF support in this case. People just want a way to save simple layers (just the pixel information) from PS into Photo _and back again_ (Or from PhotoPlus into Photo or PS and back). Just some format to export something with layers into (most) other programs. I guess an option to save all layers as _different files_ with some automatic mode (if it's not there already) could also help. You type the base filename, for example 'myexport'. And Photo automatically creates a 'myexport_bg.png', 'myexport_0.png', 'myexport_1.png' for (in this example) the 3 layers in the file. Maybe even 'myexport_g0_0.png' for the first layer in the first group? It's nothing official, but very transparent / open and it at least allows people to open the project as layers in different apps (With some manual loading or perhaps a PS-script?)
  2. I tested again with .42, clearly a big difference compared to .39, it seemed to work now: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgtoBEiLfbmcphNUbay_Tndtaqln Can I request something? Is it possible to offer an 'advanced' box for the Bicubic option to change the 'B' and 'C' parameters of the filter? Or in the lanczos case, change the number of taps? Or maybe add a preset box somewhere for the different kinds of Bicubic (Robidoux, Mitchell, CatmullRom, etc..). In it's current setting Bicubic seems (too) sharp compared to Lanczos.
  3. https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgtoBEiLfbmcphLlSAZJcpyccCme I _thought_ I installed .42, but during launch it still shows .39. Maybe I made a mistake. Anyway, this is done with either .39 or .42 :). 'resample' box checked, all the options. I see no difference when flipping through the images, they seem pixel-for-pixel alike.
  4. There have been improvements with the latest few beta builds. 16bit now seems to work (at least in Color Efex for me) and I've read reports of Viveza now working OK. Didn't test Viveza (or whatever) myself, never understood the purpose of the plugin :)
  5. Not knowing photoplus ,isn't export to tiff with layers not an option ? It would mean everything gets rendered down to rasterized pixels but you would have the layers. I don't know if photoplus supports layered tiff files. If not, I doubt their still putting much effort into it. Reading from the forum they should put a massive 'Affinity Photo is not an PhotoPlus upgrade' on the Affinity website :)
  6. Hmm.. you're really expecting something useful to happen when you click cancel ? In most other programs you end up with nothing then and no settings saved. I don't see an issue here with this. 'oh, I clicked cancel by accident. Reopen the file and start again'. In acr it's exactly the same... The way to 'fix' it seems to be then to just close the file if you click cancel instead of showing the raw undeveloped data. It still makes you go 'grrr stupid me should not have clicked cancel' :)
  7. also note that 1.5.0.39 is the version that fixed a bug in the resizing on Windows causing other stuff to happen than you select in the resize dialog. So if you have a previous version, first update :).
  8. What happens is that you didn't develop your image, so you end up with the raw pixel data without any tonemapping applied, so it seems very much like an image in linear-space-viewing-in-srgb. You actually see kinda how it works behind the scenes. The raw is opened as a sort of 32bit HDR image, you apply tone mapping to get it to 'normal 16bit' or 8bit. If you cancel the Develop persona, you're stuck in the 32bit HDR space without any auto-brightness, so all the data available in the raw file displayed, pure, without any gamma correction or other stuff :)
  9. One Bicubic isn't the other Bicubic :P. There are two parameters to the algorithm commonly known as 'bicubic' resize, which can have a pronounced affect on the amount of blurring, sharpness, haloing, ringing.. If Affinity picks settings that are 'too sharp' compared to Photoshop's it will jump out. But to be honest, Lanczos is often even sharper (and more ringing). You are viewing at 200% and the images look the same size, so I expect your windows scaling is set at the regular 100% (i.e. not scaled). That means that both Affinity and Photoshop are blowing up the image when viewing. How do they blow it up? You know that? Because I'm betting there is the difference. I'm guessing Affinity blows up the image by using regular point-resize in this case, in other words, duplicating of pixels, which causes the very pixelated look (but stays kinda true to what is actually in your image data). Photoshop is zooming in by using some Bilinear or Bicubic algorithm, so it appears better, but it's fake! That's not your image at all. One of the reasons they always say to judge when at 100%. Downsizing / upsizing causes artifacts... or less strong: There is no perfect downsizing or upsizing, there is always some thing 'off' or 'made up'. So when you're judging images at 200%, you're actually judging the zoom-in-preview effect from Photoshop vs the zoom-in-preview effect from Affinity... You're not judging your image's pixels at all! As a proof of point (and I'm hoping I'm actually right in this :P ) try saving both result-images as .tif files, and load them in another program like IrfanView. View them there at 200%. Now you're using the same viewing-tool, and I bet they suddenly look a lot more similar. (maybe I'll try this test for myself now :)) EDIT: That's a whole lot of text I was typing, but while it all might be true (ahem), it's apparently not the problem in this case. I just did my own test (after installing latest .38 beta) and indeed something is off. The output of Affinity seems way more pixelated than it should be, even when saved and viewing the result in the same program. 1st is Affinity 'Bicubic': 2nd is Photoshop 'Bicubic sharper': Both are 300% crops, so both are a bit pixelated, but the Affinity one is just _too_ sharp for a simple resize! As if there is some unsharp masking done after the resize, or the 'b,c' parameters from Bicubic are set way too high. The black line inside the white hand actually ends up _thinner_ than the original... this is way too much sharpening-effect for a resize / resample.
  10. Just for curiousity, do you mind sharing the raw file or is it not free-to-share? Just to see what might be causing this or what I can do with it from within Affinity Photo.. Like I said, I never encountered an ARW file where the in-camera DRO setting had an effect on the raw data. When I use dcraw to output raw untouched unbayered pixels (to a monochrome 16bit file) the files look exactly the same with two shots back to back (one with DRO on heavy, on with it off). I'm just thinking Affinity doesn't set the black levels correctly (or needs a bit of 'thresholding' on the lower blackpoints). When looking at the ACR histograms and the others, it seems to read the exact same data, only it places everything +/- 50% gray and upwards, so +/- 50% and downwards is 'bogus' causing the pure black flecks.
  11. DRO setting has no influence on the RAW files, at least not in my sony camera's. And it doesn't explain why the same file is yielding good results in other editors but not in Affinity. @Pollux: Did you try messing with the black point, raising it? Look at the histograms, look at what ACR produces with zero correction and look at what Affinity does. Affinity detects some kind of signal that is close to 100% black and wants to preserve it. Raising the black point till the histrograms are somewhat similar should get you a much better starting point, to then work with the highlights and shadows to correct the image.
  12. Still means I can't get true 1:1 pixel view with my scaling set to 128% :). And that zoom-pixelsize has nothing to do with pixelsize apparently.
  13. Was asking the OP :). But since you're bringing it up: You say '100% preview' otherwise some settings are disabled (nothing special or new in that).. but how does that work with your zoom-scale which takes Windows DPI / scaling into account?! It means you start enabling some effects to be viewed at 1:1, but at 100% the scaling on my screen might not be 1:1 device pixels since the use of 'logical' scaling? Still doesn't seem weird to you to not use device pixels ? :)
  14. I wasn't saying it's indefinite.. at least didn't mean to :). I stand by my point that raw files are 'colorprofile-less', and it's up for interpretation what yo get out of it. This is the difference between al the the RAW profiles, and _if_ they support files made by your camera. Of course you just can't make any random colorprofile from a RAW file -> if your sensor doesn't capture it, you can't really. But the interface-thing I highlighted is the place where you choose _into what_ profile the Affinity RAW converter converts your raw file. Basically, the profile you want the file to be in when you're working. If that's your working profile or your intented output profile or not, is up to the user. Color-profile is another can of worms in itself :). But open your raw file, and while still in the develop persona go the bottom in the right develop-panel and you'll see 'output profile'. Then when you hit the develop button in the top-left, you'll go to the photo persona with pixels in the profile you selected. How to go from there, you should know as a user which works with colorspaces :). If the included camera-profiles used for raw developing are correct or even present for your camera, I don't know of course. The camera profiles should be there and working already. If it's looking wrong to you, request the feature or report it as a bug I guess. What do you mean with 'import the camera curves' and 'image white-balance settings' !? Which curves?? Import from what? If you just open your raw file you get the white balance as shot, like in any other raw converter. What do you mean with 'white-balance settings' ??.
  15. Yeah, me to. I'm still trying and testing for now in 8bit mode just to get a feel for the app. I really want to like it (no, I _do_ like it). There is just something that 'clicks' with the interface and me. From the second I tried it out it worked and I understood how the application is given shape and such. I don't know. I really _want_ to switch from PS to this, but that means finding alternatives to from PS-stuff that might be lacking, _and_ leaving behind all my paid-for plugins. That's a big step to take. If the PS plugins work fine somewhere down the line (I understand it's still a beta now) it makes it a much smoother switch. Heck, for their asking pirce I'm ok with buying it and slowly switching to it if it matures, but if not, not too bad. For that kind of money it's an awesome tool to have. If it really can replace PS for me I would be very happy :).
  16. I've got thumbnail generation disabled system wide.. never relied on it or used it. Then again, I now realize I most often have some sort of tool in front of Photoshop, with a filmstrip view (DxO, FastRawViewer, Adobe Bridge) which helps me in filtering. After that is done, I don't get what the picture looks like, I already decided 'to keep it' / 'to use it' :). But If Affinity does a rather simple 'file open' dialog, I guess it's not much they can do (wrong or good) about it and it's something system related. I often use IrfanView to go through all the files in a folder to fin a specific one. It just displays the image fullsize, but it uses the embedded preview-jpgs so it's fast. I can just hit (And holD) spacebar to skip to the next, till I find the image I want and I drag it into Photoshop or drag it into Affinity. And Win10 'ready for production'. Hmm. In my mind, it's no different than Win7 or 8 (or Vista even). It's Windows 6.x. I have Classic Shell installed to get the start menu to my liking and I never see any of the 'app' sections to it's a regular desktop with regular Windows programs... no different. But the little sneaky changes may be enough to trip someone up who is _Really_ used to a certain way of working.
  17. it's not 'fully functional', it's even listed on the mac forum as having a few issues (HDR and Viveza in particular). Also, no 16bit so that useful inside of a heavy workflow.
  18. You can't carry changes from raw-program to raw-program, since the engines in the programs are different. The changes aren't "applied to the ORF", they are kept somewhere in a database for Oly Viewer. The only real way is to export to something like a 16bit-TIFF and work from that in Affinity (or whatever other program). The only program that I know of that can actually apply stuff to a raw file and then export to a linear-DNG so other photo-programs can do the highlight recovery and stuff like that is DxO, but that's also not a very newb-friendly-workflow. Develop in Affinity itself, or develop in Oly viewer and then export as tiff or something (I'm assuming Oly Viewer has support for it, I didn't even install the application)
  19. Just guessing here, but since you're talking about a Home edition (Even if it's the Insider preview) is it 64bit? Affinity runs fine an my Windows 10 Pro Insider preview, but it's an older build that I haven't updated in a while so probably not the same as yours.
  20. And I wonder if I have my Windows scaling to something like 132% if I can zoom to exactly 75.7575757575757575756% to get the 1:1 preview :P :P. As said in another thread about this, _at least_ an unscaled 1:1 device-pixels mode must be there somewhere, easy accessible. Or in the options make an option to scale / view logical size or device size. Adhering to the Windows scaling factor for a gfx application is just.. weird :)
  21. Do you mean that you set noise reduction, develop, go back and the number is different in the slider. Or do you actually _see_ differences when you press 'develop' and how the photo looks in the photo persona?
  22. yeah, forgot to post the update but my EM-10 mark1 files open just fine.. although with zero support for the built-in corrections (so some wider lenses suddenly have lots of distortion where the jpgs or the raw opened in ACR / DXO don't). My Sony A65 ARW files seem to crash at random points though, but that's another topic :)
  23. Don't forget that PS / Cameraraw also 'reconstructs' the top end of the highlights from the channels that are not clipped. So it really 'generates' more detail at the top, which you then pull back. No other programs (or not many) do this, so it will often have an edge up in this case. The tone-curve really is the key to get everything out of it in Affinity (which I like to work in linear space)
  24. Knowing that what you're looking at is 1:1 _unscaled_ device pixels is crucial sometimes in judging certain things. There are lot of posts around that tell you in programs like PS to only make certain decisions when at 100%, because any scaling affects what you're seeing. The choice to display as logical pixels is - no pun intended - logical and can be nice a lot of times (like you say, as long as monitors report their dpi / true-size OK, it makes it easy to view two things at the exact same physical size, even if one monitor is larger than the other). but in image editing it can be unwanted too, and probably more important. Which is the default I'm not going into right now, but using device pixels (and specially, unscaled device pixels) is something that needs to be unavailable.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.