Jump to content

squeezer

Members
  • Content count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About squeezer

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

310 profile views
  1. squeezer

    Panasonic Lumix DC-TZ95, supported?

    Panasonic Down load site?? I have not found one, only independent (expensive) software dealer sites Dave
  2. squeezer

    Panasonic Lumix DC-TZ95, supported?

    Chris, kirbo, I am not so sure, that what you say is correct if other software, and I have found silkypix, load the raw files up as the same way affinity develop does my Nikon files, with a good initial rendition of the image then with the right camera support affinity develop should do so too. At the moment affinity develop is loading such a maladjusted image that it clearly is not making the most of the available data in the file, and develop's range of manual adjustment is insufficient to make a useful start point for affinity proper. It also shows that the raw file has all the data that is needed to make a good initial image.
  3. squeezer

    Panasonic Lumix DC-TZ95, supported?

    Chris, I have been playing with a couple of other programs, and I may have a very inconvenient and temporary solution. How often does Serif look at updating its support listing? any idea when or what might get done? Dave
  4. squeezer

    Panasonic Lumix DC-TZ95, supported?

    My thanks Gnobelix, unfortunately I have already activated the development assistant, and tried all the various switch combinations with no improvement. I always shoot in RAW, but I may have to revert to JPG for a while, defeats the objective of buying this Camera. I know that Affinity cannot react to new cameras overnight, I can only hope that they do so soon, meanwhile I am forced to look for an alternative RAW processor. Any suggested options? Dave
  5. I have just purchased a new Panasonic Lumix DC-TZ95, when I take the Raw files into the develop module they are desaturated and faded, on wide angle shots they have a strong vignette . This camera has only just been released, so it may not be supported yet, or is it? I attach a raw file, it is not fully wide angle so does not have the vignette effect. thanks Dave P1000102.RW2
  6. I have just used my other camera, again a Nikon, file format: .NRW still on windows 7. The exact same problem, will the new fix encompass this as well as NEF?
  7. Thanks Chris, I appreciate your efforts and look forward to the fix. Dave
  8. seems the developer team are keeping mum on this one, have they picked up the issue?
  9. I have not seen the serif team acknowledging this as an issue yet, has anyone else?
  10. I used my DSLR Nikon D7200 for the fist time since installing .258, when I try to open the file Affinity goes so far then just shuts down, I tried files from last year which previous builds had opened, same effect. I have 112 Gig of free disc space, I use windows 7 and have 8 gig of ram. one time I had the error message below. can you help please.
  11. Ron, Perhaps you ought to review this thread, my comment was in reaction to someone else talking about how I should of known about what beta is and what is meant by 'production'. People brought up in the software industry or are young enough to have been taught software jargon at school would immediately have understood. The Seriff assumption is that everyone has these advantages. To non software tech people, or people from different environments or educations the jargon is not obvious. Perhaps a more generic phrase my have helped? 'for community testing and comment, may have bugs, do not use for important work' Either way I understand now. I don't think the situation was handled incorrectly, I have had to learn, presumably there are a lot of others like me out there. There was miss communication based upon the use of jargon which I did not interpret the way it was intended, I had no reason to question what was going off, I skimmed over the disclaimer and it rang no alarm bells to me. I wiped out 1.6 because I thought I had to so I had no workable Affinity Photo. My system did not crash, look at my first posts, 'Develop is not working properly'. the flag of a problem, I got a work around which I found irritating as 1.6 did not have the problem. Then everyone seemed to start scoring points. I went back to 1.6. Another beta release came out with a long list of fixes, but not addressing what to me was a fundamental issue, frustration. I have now found that yet another beta has been released today fixing my bugbear, excellent! I shall revert to 1.7 but with eyes wide open.
  12. Mark, Your comments about disclaimers is just hiding behind jargon, how many of us amateur photographers think of what we do as 'production'? I certainly had no inkling what what was meant, nor what what was implied by the the term beta. but put all that aside, this colour profile issue affects 100% of all the users using affinity to work up raw images. the other items fixed may affect a small percentage of users, so why was this develop person issue not prioritised? Dave
  13. Andy, I went on line, and just downloaded 1.6 without removing the beta, I now have both! As to your other comment about knocking on in years, so am I, my computer skills are, well, questioned by my kids. Next time I play with beta versions I shall at least understand what I am getting into. I do wish a rough timescale was available Dave
  14. I am a bit more philosophical, we all know that sh1t happens, no one would willingly degrade something in front of customers, nor would a good management punish as you suggest, you want a team that will explore boundaries and take balanced risks. In my experience at the sharp end, it is how you react in communication to those affected and then in both speed and thoroughness of the fix. Affinity have acknowledged the issue, have said there will be a fix in the next beta. My mistake was in not realising the full implications or what a beta is and my frustration is around not knowing the time to fix. To the chap who quoted wiki, you need to know you have a gap in knowledge to want to look something up, and wiki is not what I would call 100% authoritative of references.
×