pb2016

I posted an item about this in the customer release forum at the link below: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/31890-ap-afphoto-file-size-large/ Since the conversation seems to be continuing here I'll add thoughts. I certainly realize the .afphoto file is a project file. So is the .XMP file Adobe Lightroom generates. The .XMP file allows complete nondestructive editing, reversibility of editing, and snapshots. But the two apps have rather different design approaches. The XMP file is just instructions, uses the original image file that is not touched, and is usually smaller than 10KB and almost always smaller than 100KB. As Len pointed out, the .afphoto file contains a version of the original image file and is much larger. So the image overhead in AP can be 5 to 10 times the size of the original file whereas in Lightroom the overhead is usually a small fraction of the size of the original image. I very much want to find a way to make AP my standard editor, perhaps complemented by something like Photo Mechanic for cataloging, key words, etc. But starting with a 30MB D7200 raw file and adding a .afphoto project file ranging from 150MB to 300MB (actual numbers I've seen) is simply not practical. I come back to my original question: Is it possible to dramatically reduce the size of the .afphoto project file? Perhaps by "re-using" the original image file as does Lightroom? If so I would very much like to know a timeframe. If not, I'd very much like to know that as well since most regrettably it means I will only be able to make limited use of AP and will have to continue using Adobe Lightroom. Thanks, Pete

I'm unsure whether to post this as a bug or a feature request. If it's in the wrong place, moderators please move as needed. I mostly process Nikon D7200 RAW images. The image files mostly are between 27MB and 34MB. I notice that in AP 1.5.0.45, as in the betas before, a saved .afphoto project file is about 154MB, or about five times the original .nef raw image file. On the plus side I notice that adding snapshots and using 32-bit RGB color do not increase the size of the afphoto file. On the negative side, that's a big file. By comparison, Adobe Lightroom (which I am trying to get away from) just creates the very small .xmp file along with the original raw image file. (With Lightroom I do not routinely convert to DNG.) So the overhead added storage per image is frequently less than 10KB and almost always less than 100KB. I understand that AP stores a bitmap in the afphoto project file and assume this causes a lot of the large file size. Nonetheless, that is a large pill to swallow. If I have, say, 250 images to edit from a trip this creates a lot of extra hard drive space. And at the moment I have about 11,000 images total in my Lightroom catalog. Adding 154MB per image is a lot. Is the file size as expected from a design perspective? If not, can it be fixed? If it is as designed, is there any hope of somehow using the original raw file rather than a bitmap, not incorporating a bitmap in the project file, and reducing the added storage per image to, say, 10MB? Thanks, Pete

The original question here was about .afphoto files becoming much larger than the original image file. For example starting with a 20MB to 30MB raw image file and getting .afphoto project files ranging from 150MB to more than 400MB. There also was mention on 20 November by a moderator that this was a bug to be fixed in the next beta. As I mentioned earlier, it is still present in the 1.5.0.42 beta. I would very much like to hear from Affinity Photo designers whether this large file size issue is still considered a bug that is scheduled for a fix.

I am still experiencing this problem with the 1.5.0.42 beta. Working with Nikon D7200 RAW files that are about 29 MB. Just edited a file in Photo Persona, included three adjustment layers and one mask layer. Saved the file and the .afphoto file is 170 MB. I hope this can be fixed. It seems random. Most .afphoto files I save are about the same size as the RAW image file. added: I'm not sure if this is in the same category: I just stitched five RAW images into a panorama. I then had AP fill the blank areas and had to fix one area with inpainting. The saved .afphoto file is 535 MB. Lightroom saved the same panorama with a 251 MB .dng file. Pete

With the latest 1.5.0.42 beta Help still is not working. I no longer get a script error. But I see this behavior: * Entering a search term produces no results. * Clicking a link, say filter by painting, just causes the display to jump back to the top of the entries. No help information is displayed. In case it helps: Windows 7 64-bit system.

Several requests focused on ease of use: Brush size: Rather than having to go to the toolbar, let me press, say, ALT and drag my mouse to change size. Show the changing size as I drag my mouse so I can quickly and easily get the size brush needed. The request is similar to how one can change brush size in Lightroom. Changing zoom factor: There are some screens where it seems I cannot change zoom factor without leaving the tool in use. Let the zoom change work at any time in the midst of any tool without having to leave the tool. Pete

Hi James, Your explanations do help, thanks. They also generate more questions! Please pardon my questions. I hope to clarify these aspects and determine practicality for my post-processing work before investing a lot of time working with the beta. And I really want to find an alternative to Adobe products! My starting premise is a strong desire for non-destructive (perhaps better called impermanent or reversible?) editing. It seems I could create a mostly or perhaps entirely non-destructive editing environment by minimizing use of the Develop persona and frequently creating snapshots. I am open to your thoughts and rationale about why I should "get over it" and be OK with destructive editing. Perhaps there is a white paper on this? The D7200 I presently use is a 24 MP camera so I assume the .afphoto file would typically be about 1.5 * 120 MB = 180 MB. Ouch. Hard drives are inexpensive, but... Lightroom, for example, just adds the one small sidecar file and leaves the NEF file size alone. This could be a significant factor preventing my adopting Affinity Photo - I'll have to give it more thought. You mentioned using 32-bit output in Develop instead of 16-bit. Would this double the size of a .afphoto document file? Does saving snapshots add about 120 MB (for the "base case" with 16 MP image files) for each snapshot? Or is only editing information stored to allow recreating the snapshot? If the former then this limits the practicality of using many snapshots to achieve virtually non-destructive editing. It also seems, though, that I may need only one or two snapshots to achieve virtually non-destructive editing. Namely, before and at the end of the Develop persona work. I'm saying this assuming in the Photo persona I do almost all work using layers that may be left in the history for later changes. Is this reasonably accurate? Thanks, Pete

Thanks, Mark. It probably does not matter but since it was mentioned that CPU and number of cores is relevant my Dell workstation has an Intel Xeon E5530 CPU operating at 2.4 GHz with 8 cores. Pete

Loading a Nikon D7200 raw (.NEF) image takes about 12 seconds from an internal Solid State Drive. The files are about 27MB to 30MB. This seems rather slow and could be painful when editing a large batch if images. Is it to be expected? Any chance of speeding it up? Pete

Thanks for making the Photo Windows beta available. I look forward to testing it. I even forced myself to switch to an Aero UI to allow using the Beta. I am presently a Lightroom user and thus accustomed to fully non-destructive editing. In case it is relevant I edit Nikon RAW images, and usually export to JPG or TIFF. So I would normally start in the Develop persona. I'd like to clarify what editing is and is not non-destructive within Affinity Photo. Is this accurate: Anything done with an adjustment layer is non-destructive. Are filter layers also non-destructive? Is everything else destructive in the sense of getting baked into the image when done so it cannot later be undone? If the above is accurate then I gather the entire Develop module is destructive? If I save to an Affinity Photo document is it accurate that everything is effectively non-destructive in that the document can be re-opened, previous edits adjusted or deleted, and a new versioin of an image exported? Is the Affinity Photo document large - i.e. does it contain a copy of the image or is it only the editing instructions similar to a Lightroom .XMP sidecar file? Thanks, Pete