Jump to content

matthiasbasler

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About matthiasbasler

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

585 profile views
  1. I am sure I didn't. But the installer itself triggers the Windows UAC dialog which requests for admin permission, so it gets the required permissions anyway. Just for completeness, I uninstalled Affinity Photo and re-installed it in a folder outside the somewhat protected "c:\programs" folder, in C:\Affinity\Photo. But the result was just the same: The program claimed it couldn't write the license (although, again, it did write the XML file). Maybe it wants to do something with the file afterwards and fails to do so? I also wonder if there's a timing issue in the application, so the program tries to access the license file when it is actually still in use by another thread or something of this sort. Maybe related to the fact that i have a very fast Samsung SSD960 Evo (NVME) inside the notebook? Just thinking loud. (In terms of permission issues, I simply cannot see that I have special circumstances on my machine. So to me this seems unlikely unless lots of other people have the same issue.) I don't think I want to pursue this issue any further. I actually spent more time on this problem than I intended to spend for the whole test.
  2. Same result, as expected. I mean, running it not as admin was what I initially did ... and it did not work back then. This means: Folder is created, license file is created, message about writing problem pops up. License file is not recognized: Dialog querying me about whether I do have a license comes up on next start. I repeat my earlier question: Are there any log files which might help you finding the root cause of this issue?
  3. History repeats itself ... The funny thing is, the application did write the new license file as seen on the screenshot. But maybe it is not complete? Also funny: The dialog title says "Invalid details", but the dialog text says the product key is valid. Maybe you know how to interpret this... I don't. If I confirm the dialog I am back at the product key dialog. I closed the dialogs, deleted the license file again and started the procedure over again, this time running the application as admin user. Same result. (Win10 Home, 1909 update, default installation path, nothing fancy imho.)
  4. Indeed it is there, created and modified on 2020-05-09, the day when I tried to activate the 90 day test licencse. It contains the correct product key and email address as shown in the first screenshot. Compared it again with the license key email I got.
  5. A big thankyou for your attempts to help. Being able to test every major version once is actually what I expected from other software - and what makes sense imho. I can rule out the first things you brought up: I got the license email about a month ago, so even if the time started from there (which I don't think) I would have like 60 days left. I only installed the new version on the day I posted this ticket and thus did not have any activation attempty earlier. I did not manipulate the system clock and as far as I can tell the clock in Windows was correct all the time. So I hope Serif can shed some light on the issue. If I need to provide some log files, let me know.
  6. On the dialog that comes up first when starting the application it asks me if I want to enter a product key or test it for 10 days. I assume that if I click on "Start my test period" then it will go into the normal 10 day test period without the 90 day extended test license. => OK, I clicked on "Start my test period" and it says "0 Days left". Now I have an idea what might be the issue. Some years ago I already tested Affinity Photo when it was released for PC. So I guess I simply cannot do another test with the new version in order to check if the issues I had back then have been resolved... At least I cannot do it on this machine, it seems. I wonder if Serif really thinks I should never test their software again, because I certainly will not buy it without knowing that the RAW processing workflow meanwhile lives up to my expectations.
  7. I applied for the 90 day trial license and got an email with a download link and trial license key. Today installed the application. On first start it wanted to be activated - of course. Now I had a few problems: First I wasn't sure what to enter in the "E-Mail/Organization" field and choose a wrong email. OK, I figured I have to use the email to which I received the trial licence key. Then I entered that email and the code. I got the message that the license info is correct but it could not be written to "C:\Program Files\Affinity\Photo\ ..." (don't remember full path). I tried this twice or three times with same result. No idea why this path poses a problem ... it was the default path chosen by the installer... Then I thought I might need to start the application initially as admin and did so. Now the application complains again I entered the wrong values. I have already checked there are no superflous spaces and such. See screenshot. Unfortunately the application doesn't tell my what the actual issue is. Maybe the failed requests (for which the key could not be written to the HDD) already counted towards a limit that was now exceeded? What should I do?
  8. Hi Mark, you are lucky because I currently have a lot of original images still lingering on my HDD. Among I found RAW+OOJ pairs for Canon EOS 650D Nikon D750 + 2 lenses Olympus XZ-2 Panasonic G81 (aka G80/G85) + 2 lenses I am uploding a selection of this zoo of models/lenses. Will take an hour or so with my slow upload speed ... I could even provide raw images from a Lytro Illum if you like... Matthias
  9. Hi Affinity/Serif team, I would just share my opinion about software development/release and how Serif fits into this: I am myself a software developer/supporter (for a professional GIS software) and of course user of multiple applications. During the last decade we have seen a shift in how companies and open source software copes with user demands, bug fixes, releases and support. For examples many companies now release far more often since tooling and automated tests ease the release process. But tooling aside, an important aspect is usually the attitude of the company's leaders or the people in charge for the backlog and the release pipeline. For me a software is ideal if ... it allows me to get the things done I need to do. (In other words it has all the must have features.) it allows me to get these things done easily (for example not needing five steps for a task that requires just one step in another software, or for example not needing to set the same settings over and over again) it is frustration free (usually meaning no crashes, no data loss, no artifacts in created images and not having major bugs in the functions I use) it is intuitive, meaning functions are where the user expects them and work as the user expects them (instead of the user having to read a manual first before being able to work with the software) and the software follows OS dependent usability best practices (for design, shortcuts, save as dialogs etc.) offers a useful help which is also available offline (plus optional video tutorials) I should add that all aspects are equally important to me. Often fixing a bug is worth more than adding the umpteenth filter. I have seen other companies like Lytro adding more and more (hardly needed) features to their software without being able to fix bugs (which made the software crash predictably) or without adding absolutely basic features everyone just expected to exist (like exported JPG having metadata!). And I have seen these companies abandon that software at the end - or me switching to another one. But there's more to it. Today it is best practice for a company to ... release multiple bug fix releases (or even minor feature releases) over the year instead of the one fixed-date release. not require the customers to purchase a new release just to get a non-working function fixed (by fixing bugs only for the next release) have a transparent, public means of feature/bug tracking (be it a public bug tracker or a forum) and listens to their customer's most pressing needs publish the list of new features and fixed bugs alike for every release It's not a shame to have bugs in the software, but imho it's a shame not to admit this. not ignore hundreds of users voting or giving feedback that a certain improvement or bug fix is very important by declaring the issue "won't fix", basically telling them "We have a different opinion and we don't care about your's." have active supporters in its forums, giving help and feedback for questions, reported bugs and feature suggestions alike, especially if users cannot help each other. not misuse the community as only alpha/beta testers. not release a not-yet-ready software out into the wild just because someone wants the software release in time for some software trade show or event. (I personally favour the idea of a fixed required release quality.) I am happy to see that Serif is on a good way concerning many of these aspects: The feedback process is transparent. There is active feedback on forum entries and bug reports by Affinity employees. There's public discussion with Serif about new features, bugs and workarounds There are public betas for those who want to do testing and stable releases for those who cannot afford loosing data or time in their job. There are multiple releases over the year to ensure users soon profit from bug fixes. There are useful help texts and easy-to-follow video tutorials for the beginners showing multiple functions in context. As such I can applaud Serif for many good decisions. There are other aspects I cannot really judge given I am rather new to the community. Things which imho need some improvement are: Affinity Photo 1.5.1 (Windows) was still too buggy for my liking. Within a few days of testing I found almost a dozen bugs from major (e.g. wrong RAW histogram, image artefacts) to minor (e.g. wrong translations). At least the software was rather stable on my PC. Of course I only checked a subset of its functions ... Although overall the German translation of Affinity Photo is good, I noted some translations which showed that the person doing the translation had no idea of the context in which the word or phrase is used. That's why I never warmed up with the idea of "outsourcing" translations to cheap translators who are not familiar with the software and do not know where in the UI their texts will appear. Last but not least let me compare my experience with Adobe Photoshop/Premiere Elements for above aspects: Their software is stable for me too. There are major usability glitches (like the entered output file name getting overridden by a default once an export setting is changed in Premiere E.). However other things work better, like Photoshop E. remembering the last RAW and export settings used for an image, so it's easy to do further adjustments later. The translation is partly horrible. (The help texts are generally fine, but some labels in the software clearly show the translators had no idea what the function or the slider really does.) There is a bug/feature forum but I did not receive any feedback (like at least "Thanks for reporting.") for any of the bugs or improvements I reported. Maybe I wasted my time ... There has not been a bug fix release for months, so all bugs still exist and likely will exist until the next major version ... and possibly longer if no official cares to read the bug reports or forward them to the dev team. Basically that's why I hope and believe Serif can do these things better, and if they do then I expect them to get a growing happy user base. Matthias.
  10. This is the one major issue that prevents me from purchasing Affinity Photo at its current state as I'm not going to process raw files with what I consider false histogram feedback. I'll watch this topic to see when it is time to do another test and likely the purchase.
  11. Hi Chris, I uploaded the five RAW files to the dropbox. Just to recap what I did: I batch processed them to 32 bit EXR files (with no macro), then I imported the EXR files to the "New panorama" widget cropped and declared the panorama finished with Inpainting turned on. (I just realized these EXR files are HUGE, so I'm not going to upload them.)
  12. > Is this the same files from your other thread? If I am not mistaken it was the same panorama with which I later experienced the black dot artefacts - for which I created another post. Five HDR files from the D750 (6000x4000 pixels each), converted to EXR with AP. Matthias.
  13. Hi harrym, I have now processed the images with Adobe CameraRaw (somewhat compensating the differing exposures), and then saved them to JPGs, which I stitched using the "good old" PanoramaFactory. The point is that AP - if it worked as intended - could give me a seamless HDR panorama workflow where I can stitch HDR images and tone-map the whole panorama later - instead of restricting myself to 8 bit input. If I cannot achieve this, then there is no point at all in using Affinity Photo for panoramas for me, because as a pure JPG stitching software it is comfortable but not accurate enough for my liking. In PanoramaFactory for example the user has much conrol over the stitching regions and can set control points for small-scale deformations in order to avoid ghosting (objects appearing twice, for example as a result of handheld shots or moving vegetation). And I always strive for a perfect panorama with no artefacts, even if it takes more time. Matthias.
  14. Hi Affinity team, I shot a panorama of four RAW files making up for one panorama. All of them are deliberately underexposed to preserve the sky details -and they have somewhat different exposure time because some of them are shot against the rising sun.. Shouldn't be a big deal to compensate this - they are ISO 200 RAW files after all. When I import them with the "New panorama" wizard, AP wants to create 2 panoramas of two images each, obviously not recognizing the four belong together. (All images do overlap significantly.) Anything I can do to convince AP to create one panorama from all four? ... apart from possibly tone mapping them separately (thus correcting for the different exposure) and trying to stitch the resulting JPGs, which is rather cumbersome. Matthias.
  15. Hi Peter, hi all, I believe I have just done with AP what you intended to do - create a panorama of RAW files and not have it automatically tone mapped to 8 or 16 bit, so you retain the full dynamic range. Here is the thread: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/39898-hdr-imagespanoramas-from-single-raw-files/ In short, process the RAW files to 32 bit EXR first, then stitch these and finally (optionally) apply the tone mapping to taste. Matthias.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.