Keith Reeder

Gotcha, Paul - thanks for the clarification.
 
John, it takes about ten seconds to open my 7D Mk II files too - and about 8 seconds to convert to a tiff for post processing: but that's still faster than Optics Pro 10 (which I don't use any more, but is a useful reference point for "slow"), and we put up with the sluggishness of Optics Pro for years.
 
But yeah, AP needs to be faster: Capture One opens and saves a file in a tiny fraction of the time we're talking about here, to use it as a reference point for "quick".

And nothing about that arrangement will make for a better or more efficient user experience than would be provided by using the software on its native platform(s) - so what's the point except tedious OS zealotry?
 
 
Not Affinity's job.
 
 
You haven't provided a single good reason for Affinity to do this - your personal dislike of certain operating systems isn't a reason.

Herbert123,
 
You have been asked, politely, not to continutally pedal PhotoLine on these boards.
 
We of course invite users to point out differences between our application and those produced by others - good or bad - but when a cursory search of the internet reveals a user whose sole purpose appears to be posting on nearly all PhotoLine competitor forums, posting only about the supposed advantages of PhotoLine over the application supported by that board (often with factually incorrect / contrived examples of its superiority), we will draw the line..
 
PhotoLine is indeed a genuine competitor for Affinity Photo, along with numerous other applications - their success or lack of it should be defined by the capability of their applications and the quality / reach of their marketing - not by paid / zealot users filing the forums of their competition with half-truths and misdirection.
 
I do not believe that what we are asking is unreasonable - please respect our request.
 
Andy.

i wonder what creative value does working on linux add which is not possible with mac or windows because usability can not be the reason.

This is a myth based on the fact that a few production houses use Linux for big rendering farms. Rendering is a highly specialised field, and requires so many machines that there's a cost benefit associated with using a free OS, especially one that's specifically designed for servers.
 
Creative software is used on more traditional workstations, not servers, and most creatives are generalists (in terms of software tools used) and therefore have a myriad of apps they rely on that simply are not available on Linux.
 
Illustrative software is a generalised field, but Affinity's strength is their custom rendering engine, and that's the weakest aspect of their main rival, which is Illustrator. On a Mac, Illustrator runs like an incalcitrant donkey on a hunger strike.
 
The cost of porting that rendering engine and then building a new kind of UI drawing mechanism and the subsequent slowdown in development inherent with supporting two unique platforms would not only be incredibly costly, but SLOW THINGS DOWN.
 
That's why I make the case that anyone positing the porting is trolling. They're wasting the time of the developers. Not only is it impossible to predict any kind of market worth focusing on of creatives using Linux as a workstation anytime soon, it would greatly bog down their streamlined iterative processes when focused on just one tight OS that has a proven and demonstrable need for a superior drawing experience.
 
Linux is rarely (if ever) used for production as a workstation platform. That is almost always Windows based because it's simply easier to install and configure, and runs well enough, plus has ALL creative software available to work with.
 
Linux has a very small portion of creative software available for it.
 
Most creative generalists use Mac and/or Windows.
 
As to your comments about steam attempting to justify the effort, consider this...
 
Linux users aren't the majority of creatives. The majority of Linux users are not creative people, and the majority of creative people can't be bothered figuring out how to install Linux on their machines. They want to be creative, not system administrators. 
 
That's just a cold hard fact of life.
 
And it's not going to change anytime soon, nor will Affinity be able to change that.
 
And, as has been previously pointed out, they estimate the cost of porting AD at well more than $500k.
 
If there is a true demand for AD on Linux, the Linux community (which seems to pride itself on being a community) would best be served by creating a commercial incentive via a kickstarter or similar to cover those costs publicly stated costs.
The chances of that happening are slim.
If it were to happen I'd say the chances of a kickstarter style campaign raising that kind of money for a commercial illustrative app is probably right next to zero.

Yep - but it needed to be ruled out that we weren't talking at cross purposes about where the error was actually appearing.

Gotcha, Paul - thanks for the clarification.
 
John, it takes about ten seconds to open my 7D Mk II files too - and about 8 seconds to convert to a tiff for post processing: but that's still faster than Optics Pro 10 (which I don't use any more, but is a useful reference point for "slow"), and we put up with the sluggishness of Optics Pro for years.
 
But yeah, AP needs to be faster: Capture One opens and saves a file in a tiny fraction of the time we're talking about here, to use it as a reference point for "quick".

I'd really like to see no. 6 implemented, Timo - in fact, I'd prefer to be able to set my choice of interpolation method permanently as a preference.