Keith Reeder

Maybe you could answer my question, Mizuhito?

Discussed many times already, Spidermurph - try a forum search for "export"

Have you enabled a highlight protection option in camera - something like Canon's Highlight Tone Priority?

Is it still 1980? The only reason to strip Exif out of an image to post online was to help with internet connection speeds measured in double-figure kbps...

^^ This. ^^ A lot.

The main reason is that currently, the Develop persona has only relatively few adjustment tools compared to the Photo persona - simply put, you can do far to the image after export (I'd advise exporting to tiff, rather than to jpeg, incidentally) than while in the Develop persona. Not exactly. In fact a number of Raw converters today (Lightroom Capture One, for example) provide so many "image editor" adjustment tools that many users find them entirely sufficient in themselves, without any need for further processing in an image editor. Indeed, a number of adjustments to an image are far better done during the Raw conversion stage than afterwards - white balance, highlight and shadow adjustments, exposure compensation, lens distortion, CA fixing - are all best performed on the Raw data. Funnily enough, there's far less of an advantage to dealing with noise at the Raw stage, if you then intend to further post process the file in an image editor.

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/13598-affinity-photo-actions/?p=98273

Yep, add mine as another voice in favour of people having the courtesy to indicate in the post title which software they're talking about...

In Designer? Photo? Other?

Adobe doesn't need an "excuse", it doesn't need it to be OK with us, and it doesn't need our permission.

Did Serif make a specific, binding personal promise to you about delivery time? No, thought not...

This might be an appropriate point at which to suggest you stop feeding the troll...

Adobe isn't a charity - it exists only to make money, and can charge whatever the hell it wants to charge - and it isn't holding a gun to your head to force you to use its software. Whiny Adobe-bashers just look like victims.

Well technically, anything not explicitly manual - like Aperture and Shutter mode - is an "Auto" exposure. It does the same thing with my Canon image files, if that's any comfort, while the full exposure mode shows properly in other viewers like Irfanview. It must just be how Photo parses the Exif in the relevant field - arguably not a bug as such, but it could be more accurately presented, for sure. I assume that Serif uses a Open Source Exif implementation (Exiftool, maybe?) So there might be a flag in the code which would allow the actual exposure mode to be properly displayed.

And I really don't care what you do - I responded to you in good faith, because the point you made about PhotoShop Elements was irrelevant to the discussion.

http://www.miguelboto.com/affinity/photo/plugins-support/

As you've gathered by now, that's because it was entirely uninformed.

Jeez... So how are users supposed to know which Raw file they're opening in Photo, then? Of course it's an omission - no, it's a potential show-stopper - not to be able to see Raw thumbnails in the Open dialogue. How on earth could it be anything else than a serious problem? Lucky that some here actually know what they're talking about: Yes. Raw thumbnails in Photo.

I don't dispute that it would be a useful thing to have, but my point is that you seem to expect that it should already have this ability, and that's clearly not Serif's current design ambition. There are other Raw processing priorities that Photo needs to square away before I'd argue there's a case for bulk Raw conversion capability: 1 Vastly improved conversion speed. At the moment it takes many users tens of seconds to just open one Raw file in the Develop Persona: this is clearly something that need to addressed and significantly improved upon before we can speak seriously about batch-converting hundreds of files; and 2 Conversion quality. Photo's conversions aren't bad, but they're a very long way from being a match for established converters like Photo Ninja and Capture One: it'd be madness for Serif to concentrate limited development resources on creating a batch conversion function before its conversion results match those of current conversion solutions. So - as I say in the reply above - call this a feature request, but don't be surprised that it's not currently part of Serif's design intentions for Photo.

Primarily because PSE has a cut-down Adobe Bridge - something specifically designed for this kind of job. Photo isn't PSE, and it makes no pretence of providing an equivalent of, or an alternative to, Bridge. Until this happens -- and it might - my point is that it's a waste of time and energy to complain about the lack of something that Photo is clearly not currently designed to do. Make it a feature request by all means, but don't waste your energy by getting bent out of shape about Photo not doing what it's clearly not meant to do.

Indeed - but Photo is not a "Raw converter". It's a pixel editor that happens to provide a Raw conversion capability.

But it's not, is it? It's pretty clear that Photo's Raw support model is not intended to be a replacement for dedicated Raw converters which are designed to function in a bulk conversion/processing "production" context. Use a tool designed for the job. That's obviously not Photo.

If that's the worst complaint you can make about Affinity's software, it's a bit "First World Problem", isn't it? I imagine that the designers/developers - socks dutifully pulled up to regulation height - are extremely busy on important stuff... But as a sop to your righteous indignation, Serif is already working on "sticky settings", which will presumably include saving workspace settings. Oh - and a question for you, as you seem to have a pretty high opinion of yourself, and you seem to know a great deal about everything. You say: By which I imagine we're meant to be cowed by the fact that you're (oooh!) a "professional". What kind of "professional" chooses to use software that is costing him - and by extension, his client - money? I wouldn't hire a "professional" that behaves so obviously unprofessionally... (Executive Summary: less self-opinionated pomposity might equate to more traction for your opinions, Digiteyez. Nobody here cares about, or is impressed by, your - or Alex' - claims of professionalism. You're just another customer, and your "professional" opinions are worth no more than anyone else's).

That's clearly not what he said. It is a fact that Mac OS is a far more locked-down, closed - limited - environment than Linux. No debating that, and it's true of Windows, too.

Even if Linux desktop was growing "extremely fast" (and I don't think your link proves that at all), what proportion of that growth involves photographers? And of that number, how big a subset is actually interested in changing their current solution? And of that subset, how many would actually buy Affinity Photo? I'm not anti-Linux: I've got a couple of ex Windows laptops that I've had Linux on for years, and I dabble regularly: but I'm a photographer first, and an OS fanboy not at all (I also have devices which use Android and Chrome OS, and appreciate them all): but I use what I need to use to achieve what I want to achieve. And for me, that means Windows when it comes to photography. It strikes me as utter madness that anyone would wear the hair-shirt of OS zealotry to the extent that they would choose to deny themselves the benefits of Photo simply because of their self-inflicted hang-ups about the OS' on which Photo works. What's your priority? An efficient, effective photography workflow which includes Affinity Photo? Or a masochistic obsession with wilfully denying yourself what you clearly want - which is Photo - simply because you're unwilling to accept the the reality of the situation, and refuse to use an operating system which will give you access to Photo? Here's the thing. The very fact that some of you will not use Photo unless it's on your narrow terms sends a really clear message that you're not really interested in Photo per se, but in winning an argument about operating systems. That screams "no real market", to me...