Keith Reeder

Sorry I'm only replying now: Win 8.1, AMD FX-4300 Quad Core 3.8GHz, Radeon R7260X, 16 gb RAM. Processing and saving to full-sized 16-bit tiffs from a Canon 7D mk II.

So what was this? Only 2 users in this thread have done this, for the simple reason that most will be happily using Photo without problems, with no interest in contributing data points to a thread about problems

That's because you're not thinking about Lightroom in the right way. Although some people use it this way (and are severely limiting themselves), it was never originally intended as a one-stop workflow solution: from v1 the idea was to use it for your conversion and basic adjustments and then hand off further post-processing to PhotoShop or similar solution, pushing a lossless-format converted file to the pixel editor. The fact that Lightroom's adjustment capabilities have been substantially increased over the years doesn't change the logic here: and you can do this right now, even if you decide to drop Lightroom - just export your files as full-sized 16 bit tiffs, or whatever other format you want to use, then you can do whatever you want with them in Photo, going forward. Photo is analogous to PhotoShop, not Lightroom. You "rent" pretty much any software, including Photo. All you're granted is permission to use it, and you no more "own" Photo than you do Lightroom, and if you want to stay current on an ongoing basis, you'll be giving money to Serif for the long haul, just as you would Adobe: https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/license/

Like your phone contract. And your water supply. And your gas and electricity. And your internet access. What are you doing abut them, then? Oh, nonsense. Does PhotoShop lock your files do that no other software can access them?

£8 UK for PhotoShop and Lightroom. Divide by 2.

I count several professional UK bird photographers as personal (flesh-and-blood) friends (Nigel Blake, for example, who speaks to me as an equal), and not one of them would claim that their work on an image is done once the Raw conversion is finished. It is a fact (not an opinion based on a constituency of one) that Raw conversion (even given the image manipulation options available in many Raw converters these days) is the start, not the end, of the workflow as far as most photographers - and certainly many pros - is concerned. If that were not true, they wouldn't be expert in the use of PhotoShop to the extent they are - and they all are - because there'd be no need for that expertise. Just to make this point: Art Morris isn't a personal friend, but he makes prodigious use of the post-processing opportunities afforded downstream of the Raw conversion stage of his workflow. And the results speak for themselves. Likewise Robert O'Toole. another pro - he actually sells Photoshop guides. And there are plenty more where these came from... It is beyond any sensible debate that the best results come from a full, well-developed workflow which includes pixel editing of the sort Affinity Photo provides for. As to this forum: I am concerned about the possibility that it might become the kind of pointless, needy "please say something nice about my picture..." platform that pervades the internet - this isn't Facebook. I'd argue that it needs to be a showcase for the capabilities of Affinity Photo in providing an end-result which equals or improves on the "the competition". By definition that implies that if AP hasn't significantly contributed to the end-result, the picture doesn't belong here. But I don't think the "before and after" approach really works (I've seen it fail elsewhere). The problem is simple: which "before" do we talk about? Do we mean the image as the camera might have rendered it? Or the flat, unimpressive, charmless, unenhanced base Raw conversion? Or the conversion after the application of the numerous adjustments available within the Raw converter of choice (which might, depending on the converter, involve some or all of cropping, highlight/shadows adjustment, noise reduction, sharpening, white balance, colour work, selective adjustments, object removal, and more)? Personally (I'm quite happy to cite my personal experience in order to make the point, because I know that I speak for many) I do rather a lot of "processing" within my Raw converter of choice (Photo Ninja, these days - although I've used most of 'em, and have beta tested DxO Optics Pro and Capture One, and was on the Adobe Certified Professional program before ending my relationship with Adobe, all of which I mention purely to demonstrate that I have some credibility! ;) You don't have to call yourself a pro to produce professional-quality images) but I still hand off everything that I want to finish, to - now - Affinity Photo. But it would be very hard in any given case to separate out the aspects attributable to the converter from those which are purely down to Photo: probably a fool's errand to try, really. In my view, the best we can achieve is to post "finished" images, explain what was done in Photo, and let the results speak for themselves. It's arguably enough in itself for an experienced photographer to be able to say "this is as good (or better than) as the end result I get from PhotoShop". It might generate some meaningful conversation too, if a viewer has a specific question about how a particular aspect of the result was achieved. The viewer can then decide whether Photo is contributing to the quality of the end results being displayed. I think you'll find it's obvious that it does...

Thanks, RamaBot. Stonechats are remarkably photographer-friendly: as long as you don't do anything to make them nervous, they do honestly seem as if they're happy to strike poses!

0% here too:

OK, I'll ask differently. I've used PhotoShop for years; tried Photoline; and was on PaintShop Pro before PhotoShop. I've taken hundreds of thousands of bird/sport/aviation/motor sport images, and I have never - not once - needed to do whatever you're asking for here: "scaling one thing in relation to another" is simply not a use-case I recognise. So - in case I'm missing something I'd benefit from - why would this be a good thing for a photographer, who is using Affinity Photo to edit (not manipulate) his images, to have? Make this live for me. Because as it stands, I'm not seeing why this would be useful in AP: and I bet I'm pretty typical.

It wasn't "without warning" - Affinity made it very clear indeed, across numerous channels, that the lower price was a temporary introductory offer - they actually called it a "Launch Offer". And every third party website that mentioned AP's release also made it clear that this was a time-bound offer. Not being a jerk at it, but even at full price it's astonishing value for money. Well worth the extra $10.

Windows 8.1 here: I use FastPictureViewer's Codec pack too...

Oh, I know Kirk - I've been using my own choice of DAM solution across all sorts Raw converters and image processors for years (that's why I like a stand-alone DAM solution - it allows you to be software agnostic). My point was the OP was suggesting that a Mac only solution be bundled up with AP, which is a bit - y'know - selfish! ;)

Thanks, Richard. Glad you picked up on the compositional aspect - that's important to me. Even though these were actually close to "full frame" (I've got pretty good fieldcraft and was able to get satisfyingly close to the birds), I did crop the images to get a better compositional result, and as you say, many folk simply don't get the importance of compositional considerations in order to make an image more than just a snapshot. I'm a big fan of shooting hand-held (until last year I used to shoot with a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS and 2x converter, and did pretty well - the Turnstone in my first post, for example), but gimbals are a God-send for long lens work - I look forward to checking the PG out! Looking again at these images, it does occur to me that the white neck feathers on the first shot are a bit grey against the white of the forum: they're spot-on in AP, but this background makes them look a bit darker than is ideal. Still, they were very "hot" off the camera, so this is a good indication of how well AP's tool can tame unruly highlights. I have noticed that it's best to move the Range slider significantly to the left before increasing the strength of the tool, to limit the global scope of the effect, but it's very good used this way... Thanks again, Richard.

It doesn't really "lack" a DAM solution - it's simply not designed that way. Affinity is already working on a separate cataloguing solution though - that way Windows users get the opportunity too.

This is an honest question - when would you use these capabilities in Photo?

The underlying point of my last post is that your personal opinions of Adobe/PhotoShop/subscription pricing are irrelevant to the point of this topic (and arguably off-topic for the entire forum) SrPx and brunzenstein. I get it - you're not fans. It's simply not relevant to the matter this thread is discussing; and - honestly - after all this time, this continued Adobe-bashing is pretty tiresome. But since we're here... Wanna bet? SaaS - like it or not - is what the future looks like, and you're probably using the model right now - many of us have online backup/recovery services for example, and they're the same model. Or - although it's not software - you do exactly the same thing to get access to the internet; use your telephone; have water, gas and electricity in your house; and keep a roof over your head. Great that Affinity isn't taking that approach, but it's happening all over, more and more: the fact that its introduction by Adobe has been such an enormous success will not have gone unnoticed. Both Phase One and ACD Systems introduced a subscription option after Adobe's success. Oh, and unless this "mandarin" is standing there with a gun to your head, nobody "forces" you to subscribe.

Last May I found myself in the company of this very obliging pair of European Stonechats on a coastal farm near where I live. A favourite bird for photographers thanks to their habit of perching conspicuously rather than skulking, I spent a very successful couple of hours with them: important as it is to get things right "in camera", Photo has again allowed me to really bring out the best in these images: Stonechat (male) Stonechat (female) Stonechat (male) All taken using the Canon 7D Mk II and 100-400mm + Canon Mk II 1.4x converter, 560mm handheld. The Raw files were converted in either Lightroom or Photo Ninja: editing in AP consisted of DeHaze (there was no haze, but I like what the tool does); highlight management (I'm really getting to like the Highlights filter tool); plentiful use of the Inpainting brush; selective detail enhancement in the Topaz Detail plugin; and adding some warmth with the Warmth slider in the Nik Viveza plugin. Aside from that though, these are pretty much as is - the light was superb.

And probably just as many - like me - who have no problem with Adobe, and who think the subscription deal is a fantastic thing. The only reason I've moved to Photo from PhotoShop CC is that it does what I need of it. You undersell it by implying that the only (or the main) merit of Photo is that it provides a way out of Adobe's subscription charging.

Just FYI, this isn't happening in 51 here; guys - files open on a dark grey background as expected.

Would it not be a good thing to have a separate Feature Request forum for Photo and for Designer?

Wondered the same thing myself, Curio - and for the same reasons. It'd be interesting to know whether this is design or oversight...

Very nicely done, Richard - colours (and balance) are fine, and the processing is particularly well executed. It would print extremely well.

I think you missed "in my opinion" from that post, Kodiak... You're overly fond of telling other people what you think they've done wrong (couching your opinion as fact) when - based on what I've seen of your work - you're really in no position to lecture others. I let it go when you did it to me, and I don't need to see it in every other post with a bird in it...

Agreed - the first time. But is anyone still confused after the first time? That's kinda my point. I agree that it's not ideal, but is it a problem? I mean - really? Isn't it obvious enough that "Affinity Files" in this context simply means "Files Affinity can process"? It's not that different to calling an RTF file a Word document. It's not exactly right, but nobody's going to melt down trying to figure it out..! ;)

Me too. In fact, not having used the Nik Collection until I plugged it into AP, I didn't know there were brushes!