Keith Reeder

Sticky settings (not just in crop) are definitely needed, and we're assured by Serif that they're coming.

Indeed - and thank the Lord for that. Photo is a fantastic alternative to PS for many of us, but the idea of a PS "killer" implies the addition of a plethora of functionality which - let's be honest - most PS users (much less Photo users) neither use nor want: it's axiomatic that very many PS users who are photographers (not "digital artists", "retouchers", "image manipulators", etc.) use only a limited subset of PS' capabilities, and Photo being designed and developed to reflect that focused (bad pun intended) use case is a damn' good thing.

I'm going to suggest that the names "Photo" and "Designer" were chosen advisedly to reflect specific use cases and target audiences: I, for one - for all I know a typical user of Photo (that is, a digital photographer, pure and simple) - have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a combined solution: to me that'd just be a giant stride towards the kind of bloat that the lack of makes Photo so appealing to photographers. That's really, deeply patronising: I personally know professional wildlife and sport photographers who use Affinity Photo in their production environments, right now.

Yep - but then some folk would have less to whine about...

I'd like to think that most Windows users wouldn't be that childish.

From your online account:

http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/

You need to calm down, fella. And Affinity what? Photo? Designer? Less ranting, more info...

And they're the zealots. If image processing, rather than their obsession with their operating system, was really their priority, they'd accept that Windows or Mac will give them immediate access to Affinity Photo, and simply choose and use one - you don't have to have a childish emotional attachment to your operating system in order to appreciate what it can do for you... But no, it has to be on their (arbitrary) choice of OS. So it's clear that winning the OS argument is more important to them than actually getting access to Affinity Photo, which is otherwise available to them right now. Just not on Linux. Oh - and "thousands of designers"? "Regularly asking"? Proof of these statements might make the case for Linux more convincing...

Why does that matter? It won't have the result the Linux zealots are hoping for.

We do - I'm not entirely convinced you do though, as you've referenced it completely out of context.

No - the codec pack fixes the Operating System preview thumbnail issue Jojoba complains about.

That makes no sense either. You're basically saying that you "need" - and that you know you "need" - functionality that doesn't even exist yet.

That's patently nonsense on its face - pretty much everything considered "standard" in image editors these days was in PS first.

That's the point - most of us don't. A minority of congenital malcontents don't speak for the majority, no matter how hard they try to position themselves as "us".

You don't speak for "all" customers, and you have no business presenting yourself as if your opinions are the opinions of every other Affinity customer.

To be fair, your individual circumstances probably aren't representative of most Affinity customers - hard to imagine then, that the developers would wish to make this request a priority. Or - you could just use an operating system the software is designed to run on...

All Raw converters behave the same way, in that they do not affect the Raw file - in all cases a new image file is generated from the Raw original, containing any adjustments you've made at the "Develop" stage.

Yep, painfully limited - which is why some of us elected, many moons ago, to bite the bullet and buy the Fast Picture Viewer codec, since when I've never had a bit of trouble with any thumbnails.

Please do a forum search. DAM - and Seriif's position on it - has been asked and answered umpteen times.

And I'm sure that the developers will appreciate your report. Bear in mind that there are far more plugins out there than there are hours in the day for Serif to test them all: it's a given really, that they will concentrate most of their resources on the most popular commercial offerings like the Topaz filters and the Nik Collection.

Which OS are you using? I ask, because on my Win 8.1 machine I don't seem to be able to open a Raw file in anything other than the Develop Persona - Photo recognises the Raw format and automatically opens in Develop, and I can only get to the Photo Persona by exporting the Raw to a "pixel" format.

It was irrelevant because Elements has Bridge, and Photo doesn't - so it's a completely unbalanced comparison: you're comparing something specifically designed to do a certain thing, with something specifically not designed to do that thing, and then wondering why the thing that doesn't do it, doesn't do it. You might as well have cited Lightroom rather than Elements.

I recommend that you check - most modern cameras have an equivalent to the Canon HTP setting, and the symptoms you describe exactly match what would happen if your camera is in a highlight protection mode.

It'd probably help if you mentioned which camera...