John Rostron

There is no definitive visualisation of a raw (or dng) file. That is why it is called a raw file. Different photo-editors make their own 'best guess' at what you might like. You then tweak the image to your own liking. The reason why the develop button is active is that you are in the develop persona. As soon as you click it, you move to another persona, so that button is not relevant, and not active. John

On window, if you save your scanned image as (say) tiff, and if Affinity is the default program for tiffs, then following the save, it will open automatically in Affinity. Not much different from scanning from within Affinity! John

True, but that would probably not be much use to the OP, @pomme27. John

Have you tried using Perlin Noise to generste the clouds? This generates random clouds, but you can repeat it until you get one you like. Joh

It was Malwarebytes in my case. I was not implying that it was in yours. If it is Photo's memory use that is increasing then I cannot really help! Your best bet is to do as @DWright says and try the new beta. It is working well for me so far. John

I had this problem and it was a memory leak from Malwarebytes. If you are on windows, open the Task Manager (Ctrl-Alt-Del) before you do anything else. Then you can see what memory various processes are using. If one of these is getting bigger and bigger, that is the culprit. In my case, I installed an updated version of Malwarebytes and that fixed it. John

Here is the same image processed in Photo (latest Beta) using the defaults. Moving the sliders did not seem to make any improvements. John

You would need to have your text as a rasterized image and comprising the entire document in photo. You could then use Filters > Distort > Equations. Enter: x=x y=y*a*(w-x)/w You then adjust the a parameter to control the lower slope. Obviously this only works for a particular bespoke distortion. Edit: In fact it does not work at all. Having tried it in earnest, it seems to do the opposite of what I think it ought to be doing. I have filed a bug report on this behaviour. John

I take it that what you show is after processing with enfuse. My only suggestion is to stack all your bracketed images with auto-align, with the final enfuse on top, and then see if you have one image which shows the curtains without the halo. You could then try cloning from this image, or else try a bit of judicious masking to allow the unhaloed image to show. You would need to ungroup the stack first. John1

I would probably agree in this case. I used this image as I was using it as a subject for trying masking to combine de-noising and sharpening. My overall impression over a variety of other slide scans is that Nik is marginally better. I attach three jpegs of the original image only slightly cropped around the edges. Click an image and select the full size option. The original image: The image after Dfine: The image after Neat Image V8: John

I had this problem a while back, though with only a small number of .cdr files. I found that for some objects .pdf worked best, and for others, .svg. However, between them I got what I wanted. John

Yes, Affinity can handle raw files, but in moderation. I have had no problems with loading a dozen or more raw files into a stack, but I do acknowledge that there are some situations (such as macro- and micro-photography) where you need to stack many more. You need to acknowledge that the images from the raw files cannot be stacked until they have been developed, and this is probably one reason why it is taking so long. The scroll bars in your message helped, but could you possibly just insert some return/enter keys after around 100 characters or so? John

I have just done a comparison of Dfine and Neat image on a scanned slide of a sea anemone. I have cropped the image to just the background plus a tentacle. All images are the original resolution (not re-sized). In both cases, I used the a region in the area shown as the training area for the denoising. Original image as scanned (and cropped): Using Nik Dfine: Using Neat Image Reduce Noise V8: Both have reduced the scanning noise without unduly affecting the detail on the tentacle. It would be hard to choose which is the best. John

The macro recorder needs to know the explicit relationship between start and finish. When you try to move, you should get a dialogue box asking where or how you want to move your layer, typically something like 'one down' or 'one up from the bottom'. Just tick the appropriate box. You might also find it helps to name your layers. The macro recorder can recognize names and act on named layers. I had this problem myself, which was solved by the oracles on this forum. John

What I would like to see is the abiity of AP to process 1-bit scans. John

Both VueScan and Silverfast support 16-bit output as tiff. It does depend, though, on whether your scanner performs in 16-bit. Most scan at 10- or 12-bit. John

I should point out that most of my noise removal is done on scanned slides rather than high-ISO digital images. Dfine seems to do well at removing the resisual film grain. John

Could I ask ask you to reduce the length of your lines in your postings. Your long lines are difficult to read, and I need to scroll sideways. John

I would guess that you are pushing your resources too far, even with 16Gb. One thing you could try is to monitor your memory usage as the stacking proceeds. Use the Task Manager. If it approaches your memory limit, it would also indicate you are pushing it too far It is worth trying to stack jpeg images. If this works, then that would probably confirm it is a memory issue. John

Conversion of a rectangular image to polar co-ordinates using Equations is not straightforward. A major problem is that the origin of the rectangular Cartesian co-ordinates is the top left, whereas for a polar display, you would typically want the origin on the midline, probably near the bottom. The following equations assume that the origin is in the midline along the x-axis, and at or near the bottom on the y-axis. First select Filter > Distort > Equations and enter: x=w*atan((x-w/2)/(h/a-y))/100+w/2 y=h-sqrt((x-w/2)^2+(h-y)^2) The expression (x-w/2) displaces the horizontal origin to the centre, and the expression (h-y) displaces the vertical origin to the bottom. In the first formula, for x, there is a parameter a, which allows you to scale the polar transformation; reducing the parameter a stretches the image around the circle. The 100 is an arbitrary scaling parameter which seems to work. The expression +w/2 at the end re-centres the image. This seems to be necessary, but I am not sure why. I would have expected to deduct w/2 rather than add it! Here is an original image of the Quantum Leap statue in Shrewsbury: With this transform using the default parameter a, this produces a quadrant. And with the parameter set to approximately 0.6: Here is the Macro: PolarQuadrant.afmacro The first thing the macro does is to unlock the image. I tend to do this automatically in macros. It is probably unnecessary. I ought to be able to give the adjustable parameter a, a name, but I have not been able to do this. John

I find that Neat Image works quite well, but I agree that Dfine is probably the best. John

A few questions: How many images are you trying to stack? Loading large numbers of raw files may be straining your system resources. Have you tried developing the imges first and saving as jpegs, then loading these into the focus stack? This would put less strain on your memory. At least one major focus stacking program relies only on jpegs. At which point did it crash? Did it load all your files? Did you get any progress information? What is your operating system? How much memory do you have? (It helps to put this information as a footline to your postings.) What kind of raw files are they? What camera did you use? John

If you ungroup the stack, the various layers are exposed. You can then edit individual layers, or even delete them. John

@MartinsRibeiro, I wrote some macros to do this. They are described here: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/52019-resize-an-image-to-a-fixed-maximum-size/ John

Were these images originally taken in portrait mode? There is an Exif flag which some software recognizes. Try clicking on the Reset button on the AP context toolbar. This resets this flag. You may have to save and reload the image for it to be made permanent. Alternatively, if you have an Exif editor, you could do it there. John