Jump to content

hifred

Members
  • Content Count

    398
  • Joined

Everything posted by hifred

  1. Better give Serif another nudge in the feature request forum.
  2. It is unfortunately not possible to increase the size of layer and mask thumbnails, they also always appear square, regardless of the image format. Edit: R C-R was quicker.
  3. You are saying that you prefer 16x16, always square thumbnails over thumbnails which show the aspect ratio of the document, which give indication over screenspace location of items and stacking order? I am afraid, I have no more words then.
  4. Let's not get philosophical here. Just compare how Photoshop displays clipped pixels (the second screenshot) and compare its readability with what Affinity Photo shows us currently.
  5. I think you can answer this question yourself, in particular after watching my screenshots. Come on Sherlock! Here's a little hint. 1) I'm not a native English speaker. 2) I use way too many programs to recall the element-naming used by every vendor. Have you tried to understand the point I'm making?
  6. I checked doing similar things in Photoshop CS 6 and found something interesting: Clipmasked compositions of vector shapes display with even greatly poorer readability inside the Layer editor. The same done with pixel rectangles however, lets me immediately understand the stacking order and the position of each rectangle on the canvas. I used Photoshop CS6 here, Adobe might have changed their Layer Editor display for vector shapes in the meantime. These are vector shapes. Utterly unreadable, no chance to visually distinguish the two stacks. These are pixel rectangles – they work a lot better than what Affinity shows currently.
  7. I think I understood the steps you made in this little clip. At the same time I'm amazed how (needlessly) abstract the Layer Editor represents what's happening on screen. To me it's a perfect sample to illustrate shortcomings of the Layer editor – I would already fail to reverse engineer that trivial boolean puzzle, only by looking at the Layer Editor. Now imagine you had two or more of such rectangle stacks, which possibly even used the same colours... I guess we would all be lost. It would already help tremendously to use the document aspect ratio for thumbnails, to identify elements visually, by their position in screenspace. But this (in principle powerful) nesting mechanism needed even more work to improve readability.
  8. That's the scenario Adobe suggests using Bridge/ACR for, no? It could turn out prohibitly slow on 500.000 images without a database though. I still prefer Bridge+ACR, even without a team of editors. Quite realistically it would take Affinity a lot of time to build a solid DAM with RAW processor, which even works well for teams of editors. At this point in time we don't even know, whether the upcoming DAM will have RAW ending capabilities at all...
  9. Realistically even Macros in the Develop Persona would not speed up things greatly or otherwisely bring great benefits. What would remain is the very long time to open up individual images (ranging from 10 seconds to more than half a minute, depending on RAW-type and machine specs), and Photo also needs a couple of seconds to apply the development. Do this with 20 images (not exactly a "big batch") and even a very powerful machine is busy for 10 minutes. These 20 readily developed images could also not remain opened in Affinity Photo, as this would cause extreme system load. As at this point in time (1.7) RAW development even is lossy one can not tweak the initial result of the bulk process in the RAW workspace. So if anything went wrong in your batch process you will have to delete the output files and run the recorded actions again, which will block your machine for equally long time, once again. The described process merely takes seconds for the same amount of images in most popular RAW processors. The non-destructively applied corrections may get easily tweaked individually and on any number of frames in question. Other programs, such as Photoshop also allow to keep all 20 processed images open, for later layer based compositing. The current system to handle RAWs in Affinity Photo is flawed from ground up, automation will not help.
  10. If you stop your Creative Cloud subscription you will however lose editing access to all proprietary file formats, .psd, .ai, .indd and the same is true for work-files from Premiere, After Effects and many more programs in the Suite. There is no 3rd party program which can fully interpret a native Photoshop document.
  11. I agree, that sounds bizarre. Then again Adobe with CC also withdraws access to your intellectual property, once you let the rental contract expire. That's many dimensions worse even, and a fact.
  12. Well, I can move the box-handles at realtime, this appears a bit more edgy in the gif at 15 frames. The redraw defects are represented quite realistically.
  13. Your screen rendering looks better. That gif is obviously at just 15 frames but it shows those missing chunks (they are indeed as large as in your screenshot) and how the software can't keep up with redrawing. And yes, I don't want to look at such defects, already on the most trivial vector entity. Even Xara with a 35 years old Assembler code base does this (a lot) better. And as stated – I see these issues in every tool which needs to refresh the screen quickly. My graphics-settings are fine and I have considerably better card than you – but it seems to sit idle :o) That's broadly known and got posted numerous times. Here's one (inofficial) statement I found – the thread is older but the issue is still open. Others might be able to provide an official statement.
  14. I do agree that users on custom built PCs have a certain responsability (mine was also assembled for me). That being said: It sure required an exquisite misfit of parts to make a machine with high performance parts perform worse than a stock Laptop for a few bucks which meets the minimum specs – remember misbehaving just in Affinity – and nowhere else. It's also pretty safe to say that the majority of windows-customers use readily configured machines. This all melts down hardware influence considerably, in my book. Just have a look at this little gif (I linked it as it would be too distracting to look at while reading). It happens to be Publisher I opened today as people were raving about the latest version. The first thing I see when drawing a rectangle is graphics errors, likely due to missing Hardware Acceleration.
  15. Average performance is not crazy bad. It is just not as fast and snappy as I do expect from my Photoshop background. I guess what users perceive as fast enough differs greatly. Other workflows are indeed impossible right now: Having 20+ RAWs open was not only crazy system taxing, it would also take about 10 minutes to only open them (while it takes practically no time to open them all into ACR (Photoshops RAW workspace) and max 20 seconds to bring them all into Photoshop CS6). No idea, I've never used PaintShop Pro.
  16. No emotions whatsoever involved here – I wonder what makes you assume that. I merely want to point out that typical reactions to critical feedback I see in this forum send back action to the thread opener and also tend to seek own responsability for encountered malfunctions. That appears odd to me, as anyone who reads this forum semi-regularly will encounter valid samples of missing performance-optimization. No, sorry. I read that you work in software development – you will certainly have hardware skills and knowledge I don't have, I respect that. But when I know that a piece of software is new and that it hardly uses the Graphics Card at all (on Windows) and when I additionally see effects which typically occur when Graphics Accelleration is turned off... When I also know that I have have a well maintained machine with a large enough PSU, which works flawlessly with a wide array of other software (e.g. large CAD assemblies and single files with several GB size) and with render-engines which tax CPU and GPU at full load over hours, you will have to forgive me that I don't fire up Prime needlessly.
  17. Just to be clear: I have no intentions to bash Affinity Photo – I would not spend my time with feedback if I would not see potential. I believe we all should accept that there's still quite a few shortcomings in this still young suite of programs – even it works nicely on your end. What I usually see when such complaints come up is that fellow users suggest labour intense tests (check how many fonts you have installed / use a fonts manager, download and run an array of diagnosis software...). While it's sure meant as a help, such tipps often imply that the user has used / set up things wrongly or that something is fundamentally broken with their hardware (and they only haven't realized yet). Usually however, these people already have a perfectly valid benchmark: Exactly the same thing works a lot smoother, with comparable software on the same hardware – otherwise they would not speak up.
  18. Here's a thread where someone posted a sample-file. I'd be impressed when your machine switched over to to Tone Mapping within reasonable time. What I want to do regularly doesn't currently work in APhoto – I want to have 20 or more files with embedded RAWs open – what causes no hickups in Photoshop (CS6). When testing Aphoto I encounter a lot of latency, redraw issues, effects visibly rendering one chunk of the image after the other, many tools which need a noticeable delay before they start doing something, Layer and Mask thumbnails not refreshing in realtime. Until recently also the Crop tool was extremely slow and could even get stuck and overtaken by the cursor– but it has been improved in the 1.7 Beta.
  19. That is very good for you, but I am afraid that doesn't help me :o). If you look around in the forum you will find quite a few posts with files which perform sluggishly or need insanely long to export, very likely also on your machine :o).
  20. No this slowness is actually an often reported issue - the Windows version doesn't even use hardware acceleration so far - that's the reason for a lot of visible performance bottlenecks - and the user can't do anything about it. I run a stronger machine than mentioned in the first post and I too do consider Affinity Photo very slow, it is likely the slowest performing program I have on disk. There's no reason to to run all sorts of tests, because everything else works very well. I7 6850K, GTX 1070, 32 GB RAM
  21. Wow that sucks. What if you are shooting and editing in areas where you don't have access to Internet? Thanks for letting me know.
  22. Well, that's not feature overlap. While you might see familiar tools in Aftershot or other DAMs with RAW-editing capabilies you only here are working on the full (raw) data. An exported .tif isn't the same thing. Also you seem not to consider working with vast amounts of images. In DAMs which work as RAW editors one can easily apply the same base corrections to hundreds of images at once. That's 100% impossible with APhoto's Develop Persona.
  23. Well, I was talking about a well functioning bridge between two programs (in the way one also brings Affinity Photo files into Publisher). RAW processing within a DAM is broadly established, and popular apps of that kind aren't excactly known for being complex or even bloated.
  24. In my opinion exactly that ist the only way to attract users who edit RAW files not just on occasion – but regularly and in great volumes. The question, I think is rather how seamless the transfer between RAW processor and the layer based compositing app is. Maybe Corel didn't do a good job with Aftershot and PSP but I can say that the same task works very well with ACR and Photoshop.
  25. (I'm still using CS6) So one no more can simply store files locally with Lightroom (without touching the Cloud Storage quota?).
×
×
  • 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.