Keith Reeder
-
Posts
285 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Keith Reeder
-
-
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...
-
Generally, I would recommend 'as much as is necessary' to give you the image you want as far as image quality is concerned.
^^ This. ^^
A lot.
-
Only a couple of changes were made to the RAW image then it was developed into a JPEG for further work.
My question as complete novice is - why were not all the changes made to the RAW image.
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.
The way I think of a RAW file is that it's just unprocessed sensor data from the camera. The only thing that needs done to "that" data are simple adjustments for exposure and/or noise in order to bring out as much information as possible from the sensor.
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.
-
-
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?
-
It is just an excuse to raise the prices.
Adobe doesn't need an "excuse", it doesn't need it to be OK with us, and it doesn't need our permission.
-
I wouldn't call lieing for 3 years honest. Sorry being lied to is a thing I take very serious.
Did Serif make a specific, binding personal promise to you about delivery time?
No, thought not...
-
So where have they said that? If they did (whoever "they" might be) I missed it.
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.
-
My point was more meant for Keith, namely that I'm not going to make any feature request in this regard,
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.
-
-
So I rather fail to understand your comment kodiak.
As you've gathered by now, that's because it was entirely uninformed.
-
Of course not and that is no omission since the RAW data can't be modified…
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 have different opinion. When you have to get editor with explorer inside app Lightroom is the good choice. You can catalogue photos etc, but take a moment and ask where is lack his funcionality. When you need remove object, add text, using mask you have to switch to Photoshop to deal with this job. I watch first 14 video of AP turorial, read 1/6 of manual and I see how many killer function in comparision to Lightroom Affinity Photo does.
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.
-
Photoshop Elements is first of all a pixel editor too, which provides image organization and RAW conversion capabilities (even batch processing of RAWs and non-RAWs to some degree).
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.
-
Today most RAW converters all have their own individual batch processing implementation
Indeed - but Photo is not a "Raw converter". It's a pixel editor that happens to provide a Raw conversion capability.
-
I think this is a very serious, if not crippling, omission from Affinity Photo.
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.
-
I am very annoyed that I have to reset -organise my workspace on 2 monitors so frequently, pull your socks up designers/developers :(
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:
it saves a lot of time especially when you charge by the hour
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).
-
-
Linux desktop usage is currently growing extremely fast. ( growing info: https://tinyurl.com/jf7kbjs )
Affinity, just make a build for Linux and the Linux market is yours (Adobe is not there)! Let's go!!! Now before it's too late!
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...
RAW Images Open Up Too Dark
in Pre-V2 Archive of Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
Maybe you could answer my question, Mizuhito?