Keith Reeder

But not in photography-orientated "pixel editors". While I don't have a problem with the Export dialogue, I see no logic in having to "export" a file to 16 bit tiff when I could just as easily Save As a 16 bit tiff. Like PhotoShop. Or PaintShop Pro. Or (IIRC - it's been a while) Photoline, to name three programs broadly similar to Photo. Yep, that one bugs me too. Let's keep some sense of perspective though, Thomas - Photo is still a baby in development terms. The developers are extremely responsive to these things though, and - resources permitting (I imagine that's always going to be the stumbling block) - will fix these niggles as quickly as they can. So a little "lack of polish" is both understandable and forgiveable.

Agreed - I've had more than one experience of someone insisting they "need" a DAM, when all they actually needed is a proper understanding of what their OS can do for them. (Not saying that's true of DC, but it's a conversation I've had quite a lot...)

Errrr... Doesn't the Selection brush in Photo do exactly this?

Why on earth would anyone want Photo to be a Paint-alike? I bought Photo for the things Paint can't do.

Hi DC, note that I didn't actually say "proper" DAM (although that would depend on personal requirements anyway) but in Windows Explorer, one can display pretty much any Exif or IPTC metadata tag attached to an image file: It follows that once you have access to these data (this isn't remotely an exhaustive list of the headings available - you can display IPTC notes too, for example) it is a simple matter to use the search in Win Explorer to (for example) find all of the files processed by Photo Ninja; or all the 5-star rated images (you can actually rate your images from within, and with, Explorer); or every image taken with my Canon 7D Mk II; or all the files of 1000 ISO; or all the files tagged in the metadata with the word "eagle"; and so on. What can be done is pretty much only limited by the imagination of the user; and for my DAM requirements (which may or may not be simpler than those of other photographers) this approach (tweaked a bit to play in Excel and VBA as a one-stop control layer over this functionality) it works every bit as well as commercial offerings. To display these tags, simply right-click on the column header and select "More..." from the context menu.

The latest version is 1.5.1.54 - so if you've got that, you're good.

Yep, you can do the same in Windows - and (if it's your thing - it is mine) - you can also do a lot of Exif/IPTC-based management too, as Windows can display/sort/search by pretty much any Exif or IPTC field you can think of..

Impossible for anyone else to answer that for you, Rowena (thought doubtless people will try) because only you know what you need from an image editor. I will say that for my purposes - as a bird/wildlife/motor sport photographer - Photo does everything I need, even though I'm a big fan of PhotoShop. But whether my experience chimes with your needs - who knows?

Bridge isn't really a DAM, though - it's just a file manager/browser. Faststone Image Viewer - or even Google Picasa - would do that job as well, not to mention being much easier to actually get hold of.

Already discussed numerous times, Mithel - "sticky" settings/defaults are coming.

This - let's have the bugs, performance and plugin compatibility issues sorted out first...

Exactly.

Oh,dearie me... Seriously? I have a different opinion to you, so I'm ignorant on the subject? Nice attempt at pulling rank - but it doesn't fly. I've used Lightroom from release 1. Until I stopped using it (which I only did because Photo Ninja became my converter of choice - the Adobe subscription payment model is brilliant value for money) I was on the Adobe Certified Professional (Lightroom) programme; I've used Capture One since release 3, and I'm still active on the Phase One forums. (I can also add that I was an official DxO Optics Pro beta tester on releases 9 and 10, if those aren't sufficient credentials for you - oh, and the DAM I use is one I created myself in Excel/VBA and my OS, which matches commercial offerings in terms of my cataloguing requirements. Don't imagine that I don't understand DAM, I do. I even understand when it's not needed...) You need to read what I said properly: if someone simply wants to group a set of similar images together in order to - in essence - batch process them in Photo, that's as easily achieved at the OS as it is with a DAM. "Necessary" clearly means something different to what you think it means: it is absolutely not "necessary" to use a DAM/catalogue in order to achieve that stated purpose - and there's no debate about this. One last point: the OP clearly wants a DAM solution embedded in Photo: bad idea, as a standalone allows the user to be converter/pixel-editor agnostic, as Affinity has recognised.

I'd really like a pdf Help as well - I can read it when away from Affinity/my desktop machine.

An in-Affinity DAM/cataloguing solution won't help with that any more than would sorting "like" files into a folder using your computer OS, and then bulk processing the files in that folder...

No, "we" don't.

Yep, that's why I drew out the fact that I was using CR2s - it was just another data point. Odd that the "brand" of Raw file would matter particularly. Oh - and the OP is on Mac.

Not exactly like-for-like (Canon CR2s, Windows machine), but I can load my Raw files from SD into Photo, accessing them from within Photo.

Gaaah! I hunted all over for an announcement - but didn't think to look in the "Bugs" forum. Something for the News and Information forum, surely?

The question has nothing to do with Raw converter vs. pixel editor - the question isn't even about Raw conversion. :huh: Ian, Photo deals with applying the same settings to multiple files in a similar way to PhotoShop - the application of a pre-defined macro, which can be run as a batch job against a number of selected files.

Nik is great - especially for the price - but if you really want superlative results, I'd strongly recommend Topaz DeNoise. Or - what I do now - Raw conversion with Photo Ninja: I've literally not used DeNoise once since I made Photo Ninja my default Raw converter.

Depends on how much customer interest there is, I suppose...

The good news is that Topaz DeNoise runs perfectly in Photo, as does (the free) Nik DFine...

Just for clarity though, some of us aren't posting images up because we're seeking to "improve" by doing so. If I post a picture up, it's simply to demonstrate the quality of end-result that can be achieved using Photo, not to seek approval for the image, or opinions about what I could do better - especially as I've noticed that some of the forum members quickest to "critique" others are, based on the quality of the work they've posted up, the last people I'd seek advice from.

More like a cross between an autobiography and an advert - maybe move it to "introduce yourself"?