MikeFromMesa

Thank you guys for the haze removal filter. It works very nicely and I especially like the ability to set the distance. Great job.

Ah. So that is what he meant when he wrote "translations". I thought he meant something other than language translations.

Thanks for the new Beta. I went through the setup and was puzzled as you seem to have removed the US English from the language list and so I see all of the UK English spellings instead of the US English. While this is not really a problem for me I am curious as to whether this was intentional or accidental. I was also curious as to what setting the Language to Default would do as the only choices I see are Default and English. I did change to Default (curiosity is a real problem for me) but saw no difference between the two settings.

There is nothing really serious about this issue, but I am curious. AP offers several views of the Exif data including Raw data. I recently was searching for specific exif data and did a copy and paste of the displayed raw data into an editor and found the following oddity. Here is the exif data, as displayed in the Exif Panel. <?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?> <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="XMP Core 5.5.0"> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="/Volumes/Photo-SSD/Tamron150-600/4/IMG_0002.CR2" xmlns:Canon="http://ns.exiftool.ca/MakerNotes/Canon/1.0/" xmlns:CanonCustom="http://ns.exiftool.ca/MakerNotes/CanonCustom/1.0/" xmlns:exifEX="http://cipa.jp/exif/1.0/" xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/" xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/"> <Canon:MacroMode>Normal</Canon:MacroMode> <Canon:SelfTimer>Off</Canon:SelfTimer> . . . <CanonCustom:ViewfinderWarnings>Monochrome, WB corrected, One-touch image quality</CanonCustom:ViewfinderWarnings> <CanonCustom:LVShootingAreaDisplay>Masked</CanonCustom:LVShootingAreaDisplay> <CanonCustom:CustomControls>0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3</CanonCustom:CustomControls> <CanonCustom:DialDirectionTvAv>Normal</CanonCustom:DialDirectionTvAv> <CanonCustom:MultiFunctionLock>Off; Quick control dial</CanonCustom:MultiFunctionLock> <CanonCustom:AddAspectRatioInfo>Off</CanonCustom:AddAspectRatioInfo> <CanonCustom:DefaultEraseOption>Cancel selected</CanonCustom:DefaultEraseOption> <exifEX:LensModel>Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD</exifEX:LensModel> <exif:FocalLength>600.0</exif:FocalLength> <exif:ExposureBiasValue>0</exif:ExposureBiasValue> <exif:ExposureMode>Shutter speed priority AE</exif:ExposureMode> <exif:MeteringMode>Evaluative</exif:MeteringMode> <exif:ISOSpeedRatings> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>640</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </exif:ISOSpeedRatings> <exif:FNumber>6.3</exif:FNumber> <exif:ExposureTime>1/319</exif:ExposureTime> <exif:PixelXDimension>5796</exif:PixelXDimension> <exif:PixelYDimension>3870</exif:PixelYDimension> <exif:DateTimeOriginal>Fri Aug 21 06:57:59 2015 </exif:DateTimeOriginal> <tiff:Make>Canon</tiff:Make> <tiff:Model>Canon EOS 5D Mark III</tiff:Model> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta> <?xpacket end="w"?> (I have left out some of the data since it does not have any bearing. My question is why is there so many lines filled with spaces before the closing "?xpacket" end tag?

Also see here: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/12403-that-is-a-surprise-bug/

I think that is a very interesting idea but, since AP does not support layered tiffs, these would have to be psd of afphoto. If afphoto, then users will have to deal with very large image files. If psd, then users will have to deal with the non-interoperability of some of the AP psd files. What do you believe to be the best and most portable way to do this? Adjustment information stored in layers sounds like a great idea, but those adjustments would not be recognized by other software and, in particular, not by Adobe software, and it seems likely that re-writing them might corrupt or totally lose that layer information. Side cars, on the other hand, sounds both doable and more secure.

Bill, I have wondered the same sort of thing. I suppose the Develop Persona is intended as the equivalent of ACR and perhaps some people would not feel that AP was a "real" photo editor without the ability to adjust the raw image in a similar way to Adobe's ACR or Corel's Camera Raw. Just a guess, but perhaps it is more of a marketing tool than an editing tool.

Yes. That was the first assumption in my email. But this raises a question. What will the new customer beta, when it is made available, recognize as the commercial version? 1.3.5? 1.3.4 or 1.3.5? It would be unfortunate if customers had to upgrade the customer release version to be able to use the customer beta. It is reasonably easy to see situations where a user might not want to upgrade to the latest customer release but want to continue upgrading the customer beta.

If you look closely I think you will find that the message is asking you to "unclock" the transparency. At least that is what it says on my machine. The AP engineers told me that was a Topaz message so the bug is in the Topaz code. I filed a bug report with them, but never heard back. Figures. Also I believe that all of the plugins will work if you call them through the photoFXlab plugin that Topaz sells. All of my Topaz plugins (that is only 5) work with it, including Remask 4 which will not even launch when called directly from AP.

DeNoise also works.

I have the current version of AP and the current version of APB, but something very strange has happened to me. I tried to open a pdf file using the customer beta and got the following message: The best I can figure out is that the updated current version (1.3.5) is not recognized by the customer beta as being the current version. Or perhaps the customer beta has expired (although it is not yet a month old). Can someone please help me. Thank you. In a related issue, is there some reason that we are not told by the customer version that there is a new version available? Does AP rely on the App Store to do that?

Oh. That is good. Thanks for the information. Even though it probably will not run from AP I can still use it with photoFXlab. All of my plugins work through that.

In this case "solved" is a code word for "don't contact me about this again". Your response from Topaz was much more positive than mine, which went into some detail about the App Store memory restrictions and why Topaz will not/does not/can not (?) work with apps from the App Store. Given that everyone else seems to be sharing, so will I. Here the response I got: ============================== Thank you for contacting Topaz Labs! At the moment, the App Store version of any host editor will not be compatible with our software, due to restrictions on IPC memory use that our plugins violate. However, during the open beta, we tested our plugins and found no issues. The reason for this is the restriction from the App Store, alone. If Serif were to release their application on their website, then we would not face this restriction. The guidelines on the app store are so strict that even our own software, Impression, which we list on the App Store, can only be used in standalone mode, and not as a Photoshop plugin. Many PS plugins violate the IPC memory use rule, due to the very nature by which Photoshop plugins must be able to access IPC memory. I realize this is a somewhat technical explanation, but the outcome will be the same with all software from the App Store that our plugins attempt to interact with. ============================= It is hard for me to see much positive in this response.

My mistake. I misunderstood your post as implying that there was some pixel editors being sold through the App Store than properly ran all of the Topaz or Nik plugins. Thank you for the clarification.

Bill, I am curious as well, but assume it has something to do with the idea that the App Store gives them a larger potential market. Add to that the fact that both Designer and Photo are now listed as Editor Choices in the App Store and it is easy to see how that kind of recommendation can boost sales, especially given the extremely reasonable price of both products. Personally I see three potential solutions to this problem (although there may be more or fewer that are practical). One - sell an off-the-website version that does not have to live with the App Store restrictions, two - produce a Serif plugin that can launch plugins themselves and sell that through their website, and three - introduce an external editor interface to allow AP to call external binaries rather than plugins. But, as they say, talk is easy, doing is hard.

I am curious as to which editors that sell through the App Store will actually run the Topaz and/or Nik plugins properly. I know of none. I do know several editors that will run them, photoLine, Elements and Photoshop among them, but they don't sell through the App Store. And I do know several editors that sell through the App Store that will run the plugin executables, but none that will run the actual plugins.

I have now received a reply from Topaz about the ability of their plugins to work with software from the App Store and it is not a very promising reply. Basically the "Customer Happiness Specialist" said that their software will not work with any photo editors sold through the App Store due to the memory restrictions and gave no indication that Topaz has any plans to try to find a way around this. Instead the suggestion was made that Serif sell its software through its website. Since I don't think Serif intends to do that, or to produce two versions, one conforming to the App Store restrictions and one not conforming, I think we will not see AP conformance with many of the plugins available on the market.

Bill, Load the image, make sure the layer is selected, unlock the layer, select the Move Tool and things should work properly. Here is a screen shot.

Bill, The Transform Panel gave me quite a bit of trouble at first. I could not find a way to actually activate it. But then I found that if I select a layer and active the Move Tool the Transform Panel became active and then using it made sense.

Thank you for the test. Some of my Topaz plugins work that way as well. I can call Adjust, Detail and DeNoise sequentially or repeatedly for a single image without a problem. Clarity is different. If I call it first it will run properly but the next plugin I call will crash. If I call something else first, like Adjust, and then call Clarity, it will crash. ReMask will not even launch. For me, this is not too bad. I have 5 plugins and 3 of them run properly, one will run once if it is the only plugin called and one will not run at all. Fortunately for me the ones I need the most are the ones that run properly.

It might be helpful if you could see if you can call that plugin more than once for an image. I have some trouble on the second call to one of my plugins for the same image even though the first call works.

Yes. I was thinking the exact same thing. I am going to do that now. UPDATE: Done.

Well, that takes the gloss off of some of my pleasure at seeing the original post about Topaz support for AP.

The likelihood is that if your download was corrupt you could not run AP at all. It was my mistake, but the current Develop Assistant no longer contains information about setting the black point as that was apparently removed sometime earlier. Since I mostly use AP as an external editor and it normally processes tifs and psd files for me, not raws. I had not even noticed that it is no longer even called the Develop Assistant (it is now only the Assistant) and contains no adjustment information concerning raw images. It was my mistake to point you in that direction as that functionality was apparently removed before the MAS version was available. So if I understand you correctly you have turned off the Black Point setting in the Preferences and you say that the image looks flatter than in LR. Is that correct? What are you settings in LR6? What presets do you have set? Is LR set to apply Auto Tone upon opening raw images? How does the image look in LR if you use the no adjustments preset for a raw image? I think you want to be comparing apples and apples, not apples and oranges. Typically LR is set to do a lot of pre-adjustments on a raw image when it is imported and thus has a more "developed" feel. AP was purposefully designed to do very little pre-processing on raw images to allow users to do what they want and not have to undo a lot of pre-programmed adjustments. Perhaps that is what you are seeing. When I load a raw image into AP I have to use both the Curves and Basic adjustments to get the image to look as it would if opened in LR (or some other raw workflow software like CaptureOne). It was designed that way at the request of users who did not want the image completely pre-adjusted and perhaps that is what is going on here. The best way to see would be to try to do some basic and curves adjustments on your raw image and see if it then looks as you expected when opened in LR. As I said I use those kind of workflow tools as my raw converter and use AP for things like layers work, channels work, High Pass sharpening, cloning, InPainting and other pixel editor functionality, not raw adjustments. I do that sometimes and have found that a bit of basic and Curves adjustments does just fine, but it has to be done manually with AP.

I have five Topaz plugins - Adjust, Clarity, Detail, DeNoise and ReMask. Adjust, Detail and DeNoise work properly and do so repeatedly. That is, if I call Adjust for an image, adjust it and return I can then call Adjust, or Detail or DeNoise, again with the same image and get a working response. Clarity is different for me. If I call Clarity as the first plugin for an image it appears to work. But if I then call another plugin, say Adjust which works on its own, it crashes so running Clarity seems to do something to the plugin interface and running any other plugin after it causes a crash. Generally if I first run Adjust or Detail or DeNoise, then call Clarity, it crashes. ReMask 4 will not launch.