John Rostron

Are you viewing your image at 100% in both Develop and Photo personas? Any other size is unreliable for this purpose. If you wish to post screenshots for us to see, then first capture the screen at 100%, then clip the captured images to (say) 640 by 480 and export as .png files. Do not resize! This will ensure that your posted images are not re-scaled by the forum software. John

Thanks, I should really have known that, having been in education myself up to my retirement twelve years ago. John

Was the image you used free of copyright? This image would probably be OK but you really should check. John

This is because it is opening a raw file. You will find that all photo editors do this, although the label might be different. Photoshop opens raw files in Adobe Camera Raw. But they are not! That is why they need developing. The structure of a raw file is more complex and is very camera dependent. You will find that such software displays the embedded jpeg and not the raw file. John

Your formula is incorrect. It should be sqrt(a^2-b^2/4). John

You seem to be asking for a combined effort of Capture 1 developers and Affinity Photo developers. This would be a highly improbable scenario. What is the problem with the current situation? It must take you about 30 seconds to export from C1, then import into AP as HDR or a Panorama. John

Yes, but they then get converted to the current unit of choice, and get baked in, so that they do not work in macros. Or has this changed in the latest 1.7. Versions? John

Do not confuse the graph of sine wave frequency (=1/wavelenth) on the horizontal, against frequency (=abundance) of that frequency/wavelength) on the vertical scale, with the two-dimensional representation of the image detail expressed as the sum of sine waves of different frequencies. What frequency separation does is to separate those parts of the two-dimensional image that can be represented by a the high frequencies (of both x and y) from those represented by the lower frequencies in each of the x and y axes. John

My guess is that there are too many soft edges (clouds, waves) and not enough hard edges (rocks, mountains) for the auto alignment to work properly. (Or at least in Affinity Photo.) There seems to be a related problem in auto aligning astronomical images. John

There are postings on this forum that have used over a hundred images (usually microscope images). I typically use up to twenty for macro stacks. John

It is difficult to assess these differences from screenshots unless the image is displayed onscreen at 100%. Even then it could well be compressed by the forum software. You could upload both your original raw file and the developed image (preferably in a lossless format such as png). Or you can take screenshots of the 100% view but cropped to (say) 640 x 480 pixels and save these as png images. John

What happens if you click on 'Why am I seeing this?' John

Have you tried removing this Pixellator program? John

The advantage of loading images/files into a stack is that it offers you the auto-align facility. If you don't need this, then you can simply develop the three raws and cut and paste two of them onto the third. It is then a matter of some judicious masking, which is what I presume you had in mind. John

I currently use Blumenthal's WebBuilder. It is not WYSIWIG, but it does have an effective Preview facility. It works well using a local Web Server (I use Abyss) or using the built-in FTP. I use it for PHP development. John