• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. KennR >>>> You can buy a 6tb hard drive for ~130usd why, exactly aren't you shooting raw? Simple answer - an extra drive costs $130 - according to you! I can think of several reasons why some people won't shoot RAW. It really depends on what they want to do, and whether they are really "serious" photographers. 1. File size - RAW files are often much larger than jpegs. 2. Transfer times - It takes longer to transfer RAW than jpegs. 3. Running out of space on a camera card - towards the end of a shoot if space is low with shots still to take, turn RAW off. Even jpeg is better than no shot at all sometimes. 4. Speed in the camera - though here I'm not so sure. I often take shots in jpeg+RAW, but with some of my cameras this definitely slows down the time between shots. Perhaps this wouldn't be the case if I shoot in RAW by itself - though then I'd always have to postprocess the RAW if all I wanted was a jpeg. 5. Some shots are simply as a record - e.g photo a scrawled note on a piece of paper - or even a shot on an iPad or iPhone. No real need for RAW for that - though I think iPhones can do RAW now. Since iOS 10. See https://www.imore.com/how-shoot-raw-photos-your-iphone-or-ipad
  2. rafi266 and Kenn I have tried Darktable and RawTherapee already, plus a few others. Indeed I do recommend those for anyone who wants to experiment, but I couldn't say which is better right now. Depends what you want to do I think, and if you do a lot of work in RAW. Possibly even working in Photo (Apple) would be good - at one point I loaded some RAW photos on my iMac and they popped up looking great but I wasn't sure what settings had been used. There's a fix to get a RAW plugin working with GIMP which may be worth checking out. Since then I have tended to opt for convenience and simplicity - though I think there may be problems with Affinity RAW which I've not figured yet.
  3. John i haven't deliberately tried to create a panorama that way, but I discovered that AP can use stacked frames and generate larger images by accident while doing other things - though sometimes it becomes a mess. I have tended to concentrate on focus merge, and HDR merges, and even merges to reduce image noise. dave
  4. You have reminded me. I did go back to the original blogger's site to ask if he'd noticed that the issues he'd raised have been fixed. Other people don't seem so bothered, but it's hard to know without doing the kind of tests that were noted in the original article. If you hear any more please do post again. For me I don't always use RAW, and it's not always so critical, but for some images poor processing can really spoil images. I saw some a few days ago with very significant noise in what should have been blue sky. Although there are tools which can get rid of some of that noise, or move noise to where it is less noticeable, it is generally better to have a minimum of noise in the "developed" image before doing any further processing.
  5. i have explored this further - how to get an image sequence from an mp4 file. Blender can do this quite well, though it's a bit awkward to figure out. In my case - using a Mac - I used Blender to import an mp4 movie, then I exported using the Animation feature to create a sequence of images. I'm not as familar with Blender as I'd like, but it appeared that these png files were stored in the /tmp folder - which of course is somewhat hidden at the top Mac OS X level. I went into Terminal, and then looked at the /tmp directory to see the files were there. Then I created a new folder on my desktop (back in OS X mode), then in Terminal I issued a cp *.png command - which I completed by dragging the icon for the newly created folder back into the Terminal. When I clicked on return the image files were copied to the folder I had on my desktop. From there I was able to use Affinity Photo to do a focus merge. I think my kludge step to copy the files isn't actually needed by anyone more familiar with Blender. There are other ways to get an image sequence from mp4 files, but right now Blender seems - with some quirkiness and difficulties about the unfamiliar user interface - to actually be quite easy and quick. https://www.blender.org Videos about how to generate the sequences are linked to below: http://www.cubiclite.com/2015/06/how-to-convert-a-video-into-a-png-image-sequence-using-blender/ This one contains a video towards the end which shows how to do this. or go straight to the video - well after the adverts - Another is here - and another .... which may actually be the easiest to follow: Maybe this will help others who want to try this.
  6. Hi EdD I did indeed note the dates, which was why I posted the query. I was wondering if the problems noted about RAW in Affinity had/have largely been fixed. If that is the case then there is no need for further checking, though some users might want to test out Affinity RAW against other systems, such as the one in Apple Photos or specific software from camera manufacturers.
  7. I found this post by a link from a photo blog - http://loewald.com/blog/2016/09/affinity-photo-redeemed/ The blogger had previously written a rather critical review of AP's RAW processing capabilities, comparing them with those inside Apple's Photo. Have the AP's limitations in this area now been overcome or reduced? I personally do not have much of a problem with this, but I don't do so much work using RAW. Partly this is because of other factors, such as camera speed (RAW slows my cameras down) and file size (with impacts on memory and uploads etc.), but where I have both RAW and JPEG images I might still prefer to work on the JPEG first. However, if I found that there was a definite benefit to the RAW version I might then switch to RAW processing to get the best out of an image, and in this situation having tools which work well would definitely be an advantage. Working with RAW is definitely a good thing if the shots are good, and arguably if the content is good and the shots are not optimal, then using RAW might help to bring out the best in them. On the other hand, some shots are below a level at which it is worth worrying ahout the extra effort so other formats and "merely adequate" image processing is good enough.
  8. I often want to crop to a very specific ratio and size. Ratios are no longer a problem, as it's possible to set the ratio and create a preset, but often one wants to move the selected cropping window around the image being edited to make fine adjustments. Once Apply has been selected if the crop isn't quite optimal one has to go through the whole process again. It would be desirable to have a crop tool which: 1. Allows ratios to be set (OK tick) 2. allows the crop area to be increased/decreased in size under fine control (this is a UI area - maybe it's good enough for some people as it is ... but perhaps not for everyone) 3. allows the crop area to be moved around quickly - left right, up down without resetting the crop area and finally - and perhaps this is the most important 4. If the last crop didn't work out quite well, be able to quickly get back to the last crop window and modify it slightly. The way AP currently works, it's somewhat infuriating to get things almost right, then have to go through most of the process over and over to fine tune crops, as the undo last edit option rewinds the crop settings right back. Imagine an artist using a carboard cutout to get the crop area in a scene or painting. A palette of options would make this process much simpler - and surely it's not impossible to do this.
  9. Sorry for the delay here. I get different results from time to time. Sometimes stacks work quite well, and other times not so well, with ghosting becoming a feature. If RAW files are used there may be quite significant geometric distortion - which presumably depends on what corrections need to be applied. in my first attempts at mixing RAW and JPG stacks were not playing ball at all, but simply laying out different photos in 2D space. The outputs may also be camera dependent. i'll keep checking this, but since there doesn't seem to be consistent behaviour it may take a while. It seems to me that it is worth trying stacks, but be prepared for them to fail to deliver good results, or at least any results which are better than the individual photos. However, you may strike lucky and get significant improvements. To get them to work well you need several reasonable shots, either done manually, or with a suitable auto mode, and then a bit extra time and patience doing the post processing. I hope to get back to this in a while.
  10. I have been experimenting with stacks in AP and have now succeeded in getting results with Focus Merge and HDR Merge, and just using plain stacks with a manual approach. They all work, though on my Mac the best results (not too many so far) seem to be with Focus Merge. What I can't seem to do is to use RAW format files, either mixed with other RAW files, or with jpgs. I tried generating jpgs from RAW to do a merge with stacks of such generated files, but that doesn't seem to work well either, as the photo size appears to change, so the result - if any - looks more like a montage of different photos than a proper merge. Am I trying to do something which AP is not designed to do, or is there a bug. On some photos the merge approach across a whole bunch of photos works better than any single one by itself, but on other single shots which are already quite good as jpgs I think the best results may be to switch to RAW mode if relevant files are available and optimise just the one shot. I may be able to post links to photos if there is any interest, though so far there are only a few worth looking at.
  11. Do any Affinity photo editing or graphics editing products (or indeed any others ...) have features such as drop zones which are available in some video editing packages? Effectively these allow pre packaged editing to be set up, and then an object is just dropped into the zone and it will have the appropiate characteristics merged to fit. Although I would not recommend the use of tools such as Final Cut Pro X for photo editing, it is clearly possible to do so, and that would allow drop zones to be used - for example a shot with a TV in the room and/or pictures on the wall, or a window with an outside view, could have those areas set up and images just dropped in at will. Would that be a useful feature in a still photo editing package?
  12. Thanks stokerg Sorry - it does not work. I have had it work that way in the past, but as of the latest update to iOS it does not work. The option to move the image to other apps does exist, and indeed it's possible to get the image into Affinity Photo that way, but not into Photos. I need to get one of the images into Photos, as currently that's where AP will look for images to put into the layer stack if one wants to work on more than one image - as in the sky replacement "exercise". If you're sure I'm wrong keep telling me - but I think this behaviour - or indeed lack of it - is a recent development. I'm now on 11.0.1 iOS and Sierra - 10.12.6 on my MacBook Pro. The Airdrop idea is interesting - I'll try it if I find time, but it may be a while.
  13. With iOS11 Apple seem to have changed things yet again. I have some photos in Photos (Apple) on my iPad. The only way they could have got there is by my emailing them to myself and then importing them to Photos. Earlier it was possible to then import from Photos to AP on the iPad. This route doesn't seem to be possible now. I am very reluctant to turn the iCloud on - I know that "everyone" else uses it - but I absolutely don't want to. Despite what Apple and others say, I don't trust clouds, and I have confidential data on some of my machines so I don't want to run any risk that it could migrate. I know that that happens. So now I don't seem to have any very easy way which I trust to get images into AP on my iPad, so I'm reverting back to using AP on my MacBook Pro. PIty - as some of the features in the iPad version seem a bit eaier - once the UI has been figured out. The tutorials for all the versions are excellent. I really wanted to make up a new composite photo using the concepts from the Sky replacement tutorial - though my application is to replace a blown out (overexposed) window which is "framing" some people in a room with a better background. I looked at the tutorial about using the iOS 11 "file system" - but it hasn't helped in this instance - seemingly because of the way Apple have now configured the iPad.
  14. ipad

    I don't quite understand why you are recommending beta versions of AD and AP. Doesn't the OP have versions of the latest versions on his machine, or are the required features only in the betas?
  15. Lee D Thanks for checking this out. Fortunately (!!) I don't have a Windows machine, so the MPC-HC option won't work for me, and I don't have an Adobe subscription nor Lightroom. There may be other tools which will work with Mac OS, or possibly Linux. For occasional use video tools should do the job - hopefully well enough. Others may be grateful for you mention of MPC-HC etc. `i haven't fully figured out the 4k aspects of the camera, including video and still shots. I think that for hand held shots any quality benefits of 4k are often countered by camera shake, though the Post Focus feature which generates MP4s does I think use 4k internally. I haven't yet been blown away by any 4k shots of my own though the reviews suggested that I might be - but I've not tested it to extremes yet. It should be possible to take a sequence of 4k shots, though I can't remember whether this camera has focus bracketing. I'd have to read the manual yet again. It does have exposure bracketing I'm fairly sure. The Post Focus videos certainly do contain frames which are differently focused, so should work quite well with AP once the frames have been extracted - even if only to produce an HD quality image. I may have misread your last sentence about extracting frames from the camera. It is certainly possible to do various forms of merge on the camera, then export the results. I'm not sure if it's possible to extract individual frames. I didn't know what the camera would actually do, and I only found out about the MP4 files by taking the memory card out and reading it into my computers. I did not know what to expect - but the only files I've seen so far have been MP4 video files. I could inspect those further to see what internal codecs have been used etc.