hlarledge

Hi hlarledge,
Thank you for sharing your work with us. It's amazing. While I understand your reasons to not display the original photo it does make clear as water how much work and knownledge it takes to create an image like this. Thanks for posting it as well.

Great job. I wish you could show how you did it. techniques

This photo was taken in my studio. All post work was done with Affinity Photo. No external programs or plug-ins were involved in any way whatsoever.
PLEASE do not share outside of this forum. Thanks!

This photo was taken in my studio. All post work was done with Affinity Photo. No external programs or plug-ins were involved in any way whatsoever.
PLEASE do not share outside of this forum. Thanks!

Hey, I understand man - It was just hard to say how much work went into editing, you know. Thanks for showing it!

This photo was taken in my studio. All post work was done with Affinity Photo. No external programs or plug-ins were involved in any way whatsoever.
PLEASE do not share outside of this forum. Thanks!

I used many of Serif's products over more years than I care to remember but I don't feel overly concerned that they're no longer being supported - they still do what they've always done so I'll carry on with them until my needs change.  If an early version of AP is working for you then that's great - things can only get better!
 
<edit>
 
I contacted Serif a week or so back about recovering some old licenses so that I could reinstall things on my new PC - the support I received was excellent!

Worth remembering that the Plus line went on for a couple of decades up to about version 18 (X8), give or take (X9 for PagePlus, and and the occasional version number jump/skip to keep the whole suite in line), and the change to Affinity was a planned one, not because the company failed or sold out to a competitor who squashed the product or pillaged some of its features.
 
Serif intentionally decided to restart from the ground up rather than continuing to add features to an old development base, so they could have a better base software design/workflow and improved implementation more in line with modern hardware and operating systems, and (as SrPx said) attractive to professional users as well as amateurs. (While remaining inexpensive and even more usable so as to still be attractive to amateurs like myself.)
 
As far as I can see, this has re-invigorated the user base, and the future looks bright!
 
My personal opinions, worth what you paid for them, no refunds, no connection with Serif (except as a customer), etc, etc.

Hah! I remember Deep Paint from my Lightwave days. 
Thanks for your insight, SrPx. I can relate, and your thoughts are much appreciated.

Yup, Deep Paint 2D and 3D... the 2D was given free later on... Once there wasn't the company there anymore... I had purchased the 3D version. (funnily, I'd be very uncomfortable painting with it today, in comparison to just doing it with Blender). It was around 1200 euros (expensive shipment for my country), if i recall it right, as was too long ago...

I learnt to be ready to switch fully my main application in those times...

Hah! I remember Deep Paint from my Lightwave days. 
Thanks for your insight, SrPx. I can relate, and your thoughts are much appreciated.

Hi darklion84,
Welcome to the forums.
 
Currently the Paint Mixer Brush doesn't have an auto clean feature, it has been requested and may be added in the future. To nest an adjustment, filter etc to a single layer (only affects that layer), drag the adjustment over the thumbnail of that layer in the Layers panel. The Imagenomic Portraiture plugin may not work at the moment, however as our plugin support is always under development it may not be long before it does.

Thank you. You are always one of the first to respond. It never occurred to me to search in a tool context for this. I've gone blue in the face checking everything I could in the layers palette!! Works a treat! 

Henry Porcher,
Do you think being so confrontational is going to make everyone here on the forums rush in to help you? Do you think it will also help them to empathize with you as well over your troubles? No it won't. In all likelihood it will put them off. If you are having problems, it can be frustrating but there is no need to be rude. Just state your problems and hopefully one of the staff (who are incredibly nice and helpful) will be able to help you. Sometimes they are busy and so other users will sometimes come to the rescue but I doubt that anyone wants to help someone who rants and complains like you did. Just some advice for you.

I spent 4 times as much money last year on another RAW editing product. After 7 grueling months of pain, I demanded my money back. The product crashed repeatedly.
 
I didn't know until today that some folks consider Affinity Photo a beta. I've been using it a month, and I love it. I'm in heaven compared to last year's attempt at beta testing a less than alpha product.
 
Be thankful for what we have. Trust me. It could be much worse and much more expensive.

I am seeing this same problem in relation to preparing files for 500px and Facebook. Basically, the export quality is always less than Photoshop, Alien Skin Exposure, and other tools I've tested.
 
Additionally, I exported as a TIFF with no compression, then opened the file in Photoshop. In Photoshop, I exported to JPG and the same blocky jagged pixelation appeared in the same area of the image as the AP export. So the problem may lie not in the JPG export but somewhere else in Affinity Photo.

I wish I could find it, F_Kal. I tried after I read your post. No luck, but I am certain they were describing the exact same issue with the white balance. They were also comparing with Apple Raw, which I couldn't test, because I am on Windows.

Hi @hlarledge! Thank you for the feedback! Does the article refer to the white balance issue in particular? I'd be curious to read this review if you happen to know where to point me to!
 
As a sidenote, I've read many reviews/complaints on other photography related sites, but most people who were having issues with the quality of Serif's RAW development engine were referring to some earlier version that would open files flat without applying the slightest adjustments (eg. chromatic noise reduction), thus creating a very coarse (ie raw) and seemingly "ugly" initial result when/if compared to other engines such as Apple Camera RAW or the Olympus Viewer. 
These were unfair comparisons imo though, since those engines out-of-the-box would apply preset adjustments and it was rather easy to achieve a very similar result with Serif's engine during the RAW development process - if only you would tweak the bars.
 
Eventually Serif started applying some subtle and safe initial adjustments to match the results expected by users - for instance any image you open for development starts with preselected 40% chromatic noise reduction and automatic lens correction enabled.
 
So far, I've only detected 3 issues with the RAW engine:
- This particular problem with the white balance 
- Problems with automatic lens correction for specific lenses and cameras (expected to be ironed out in the upcoming beta)
- issues with the demosaicing process (here and maybe here) - even though I'm not sure I prefer with demosaicing in other RAW engines: they sacrifice too much actual information for less high-frequency-noise.

Thanks for posting this, Fotis.
I saw a review on the web where someone was bashing AP because of this problem. I'm curious as to whether someone is working on this.