tallrob

The point of a Digital Asset Manager isn't just organizing files. Every OS has a native method of doing that. The reason we need a DAM is to facilitate non-destructive editing. This is where LR and Aperture (rip) excelled, and why people latched on to them. Before LR there was Bridge, which was good for the time but you could easily stack up many GBs of "versions" that shared 99% of the same bits. True DAMs solved that problem by storing master files and saving versions as editing instructions to be applied on export. Aperture was the king of DAM for photography, and happily stored whatever files you threw at it. It could even handle multilayered psd files with ease. C1P is pretty good but lacks Aperture's stacking and album features, plus it's slow as molasses with large libraries. I can't speak much to LR anymore since I haven't used it in ages.
The other critical feature of a DAM is culling. That means ratings and filters. This is where amateur applications like Photos fall short. You can "love" a photo, but it won't do star ratings (honestly I would have used Photos if not for this lacking feature because the plugin implementation is pretty decent).
I think it's really difficult to invent a method of storing any and every type of file while still allowing for a roundtrip non-destructive workflow.  It's not impossible, but there will always be compromise. 

Honestly I'm not sure why this is such a long-standing question. Any real professional media production suite needs a lossless DAM for managing versions and editing history. And integrating a RAW processor is critical to its success. This is a no-brainer. Just look at all the big names, present and former: Lightroom, Capture One, Aperture (R.I.P.), even Apple Photos and iPhoto before it. Apple doesn't use the finder to manage photos and videos, why should we? Adobe Bridge was good enough until the Library/Catalog database concept replaced it. Bridge still dumps dozens of near duplicates on your hard drive, and should your sidecar files ever become separated, good luck. And Managing RAW files in the Finder or Bridge is a lesson in frustration.
Let's stop trying to reinvent the wheel here. A database DAM RAW editor tool is essential. 

I have to say I don't understand this type of response. Successful companies grow by adding products to their lineup in addition to improving existing ones all the time. They also grow by acquiring existing packages and rebranding them to fit their lineup. This attitude of "please don't add what other people need, just improve what I already have" is shortsighted. Serif is squarely aimed at competing with Adobe, which is their only chance of long term survival. They need to be doing what Adobe does, better and cheaper. So far so good, but asking them to stop short of a 1:1 parity in product offering is shortsighted. 
That means Serif should develop (or acquire) video editing, special effects and DAM programs to complete their lineup. Affinity is nothing if not a lifeline for folks drowning in the Adobe model. 

DAM, or something that looks like it. I switched from Aperture to C1 and I'm regretting it, but like everyone else here (I assume) I won't do Adobe. Affinity asset management is a must.

DAM, or something that looks like it. I switched from Aperture to C1 and I'm regretting it, but like everyone else here (I assume) I won't do Adobe. Affinity asset management is a must.

DAM, or something that looks like it. I switched from Aperture to C1 and I'm regretting it, but like everyone else here (I assume) I won't do Adobe. Affinity asset management is a must.

^^^ The fact remains that the majority of users would benefit tremendously from a DAM.  A small fraction of users not wanting this functionality for themselves is fine but wanting to block it for everyone is frankly selfish. 

^^^ I think that I am someone who knows how business works.  There are quite a number of case studies out there that discuss in great detail why there are types of customers that a company does not want to retain.  This discussion is a great example of that.
 
Honestly, I don't care what you think.  I only care that Serif makes world class software that offers features that satisfy the needs of the majority of users, not those users that are only concerned about price...
 
There is not a reasonable MacOS DAM that tightly integrates with both the OS and AP...

I’m sorry but you are complaining about the price of an application that retails for $50 and can routinely be purchased for $25...

The challenge is that some of us use C1P (me), others DxO, ON1, Luminar, Darktable, & Raw Therapy (and others).  I only consider LR and C1P to be tier one Raw Converters / Developers.
I switched to C1P (even though it is very expensive) because of it"s amazing Raw Converter and its speed (LR was just excruciatingly slow and the handwriting was on the the wall for the classic version).  Affinity Photo's Raw converter is not even in C1P's league and I completely agree it is maddening that they rolled their own Raw Converter, particularly given their lack of resources. Of course it might be no one would work with them.  Assume they were able to embed Capture One's converter, just imagine how integrated, powerful and fast an Affinity Photo / Capture One solution would be. (Pick one of the others and the same applies) 
I really hope there are some surprise announcements in version 2.x.
It is late and I am tired, sorry for the rambling...

Wrong. Go back to the ‘birth’ of LR. It was created by the same folks who brought you Photoshop. What they realized after years of “PS” development was that @10% of their users were  Photographers.......so with digital photo development exploding they started a ‘secret’ Beta development program for a photo targeted app that came on the scene in v1 as LIGHTROOM. Photoshop had a separate side app, Bridge that eventually became became the ‘Library’ WITHIN LR. LR Devs recognized that a ‘bridge’ needed to be WITHIN LR. Not an easy task to accomplish OR ELSE SERIF WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW TOO! So NO, if DAM wasn’t a major reason for LR, then Adobe could have kept right on with Photoshop. Look it up.

Just been pointed to this thread.
The very simple reason I would like an Affinity DAM is because Serif have proven that they know how to build great software, and the same reason Adobe built Lightroom is a reason for Affinity to build a "darkroom" product. I'm sure there are photographers who use Photoshop to process RAW files, but I reckon an awful lot more use Lightroom because that's what it is designed to do. I believe both the Photoshop and Affinity Photo names are less than ideal. Both products are way, way more than photo-based tools, and because of this, they aren't well geared to a photographer's workflow. Indeed they shouldn't be.
In my past and/or current repertoire of "darkroom" applications are: Lightroom, Aperture, Luminar, PhotoLab, ON1, and Apple Photos. Aperture is no longer for this world, and without it nothing equals Lightroom when it comes to managing and processing photographs. Lightroom I now find boring, but it can't be beat as an all-rounder (subscription pricing aside).
Luminar is a capable processor with some interesting processing features (not including sky replacement) but its DAM is barely there. PhotoLab has fantastic RAW conversion, a good feature set, and its DAM is workable, but with some critical issues. It also has some severe performance issues. ON1 is a decent all-rounder, most closely matching up to Lightroom but not quite there just yet, and bettered in some areas by others in my list. Apple Photos ... not sure why I included it in the list to be honest, but it does have a DAM. Why? Because Apple recognise that photos need a place to live where you can find them again. 
But... try putting a 100 MB, 24 megapixel, 16 bit, full colour TIFF scan of a 35mm slide into any of these applications and they struggle. Again, Lightroom is capable. Some of the others almost seize up. One of them actually crashed my computer. Put that same TIFF in Affinity Photo, whack a new pixel layer on for non-destructive workflow, and use the infill brush to remove hundreds of dust specks and it doesn't even break a sweat. And I can do it on my iPad with a Pencil, too! Affinity product performance is next level.
For an Affinity DAM, I would not be surprised to see jaw dropping performance with great workflow, and, of course, fantastic integration. Imagine Selecting "Place" in Publisher and having your DAM library as an option to pick the file - just like Apple do with Pages and Photos.
However, the current Affinity RAW conversion appears to be relatively basic. Elsewhere, I asked that Serif buy the technology developed by DxO for PhotoLab 3, because it does astounding things with RAW files. By profiling actual lenses on actual cameras they are able to bring out razor sharp images that no other product in my list, nor Affinity Photo, can do. Their noise reduction is the most impressive I've seen, too, because it de-noises the RAW data based on those same camera and lens profiles, not the decoded image like everyone else does. When it comes to clever coding, fantastic implementation, and next level performance, Affinity products have it in spades, but DxO put some leg work into working with the hardware that is providing the images and it shows. I don't expect Serif to go that far, but the results speak for themselves. 

The big win for LR as a DAM and tether option is the syncing via Collections which is the main reason why I have to remain with LR.
My workflow often involves the client being in another location, sometimes on the other side of the world, when I shoot their work. With Collections a content editor can be sat in LA whilst I shoot their products in London. As the shot is taken it syncs via a collection that they have a secure link for, all generated by LR. They can instantly review as the image loads into the collection and syncs via WiFi. 
The big plus is the power of Creative Cloud that keeps everything contained and seamless.
 
Crack that and it’s goodbye Adobe Photography Plan.
Jon  

Glad, you're enjoying Quark, but to be honest, I don't like the new version at all. It's a nice enough software (been using it many years ago), but even though they try hard, they are currently not up to scratch. I personally am eagerly awaiting a good, new and modern layout software!
 
You are right insofar, that competition to Lightroom is sought after by many as well, my opinion though is, that this competition should go further, offering a complete DAM solution, reading more than just image files.

What the naysayers don't seem to understand is that an integrated DAM/RAW Processor/Pixel Editor is essential to maintaining a start to finish non-destructive workflow, and that nobody has come closer to this than Adobe, and even LR and/or Bridge still haven't gotten it right. Affinity has a better chance of taking on Adobe because they're doing it from the ground up. A DAM implementation should have been their TOP priority. Crowds of visual designers would have swarmed to Affinity and Adobe would be shaking in their boots by now. But they went the way of iPad apps instead, and too many ignorant folks say they don't see the point of a DAM app. Maybe they're ok with having dozens of versions of files in a mix of proprietary and destructive formats, floating around on an archive of hard drives, but high production pros know the value of a database-driven library where you can do it once and always know where to find it when it's time to go to the next step of the project. NON-DESTRUCTIVE workflow is the key.
If Serif is brave enough to dive in all the way they'll reap the rewards. Until then, thousands of users will keep the Affinity suite at arms length if they can't see an end-to-end commitment.

Still clinging to life with Aperture and was doing my biannual check to see if Affinity had added asset management to Photo yet. Pretty much in a need a lighter version of what @sgbotsford elaborated on above. Have been hoping to give Affinity a shot but it's useless to me without the asset management and meta data end of things. I'm upgrading my camera body soon and unfortunately I think it's going to break Aperture usability for me, so I'm really in need of a replacement. Don't care for Lightroom or Adobe's subscription model (or being tied to another one of their products for anything), so it's looking like I'll have to give Capture One Pro a shot instead.

... because NONE of them have the ability to read the AFFINITY proprietary file format. Affinity has no intention of releasing that format information either. BRIDGE is an OK image manager, AND it can read PS layer format without any issues. Most, if not all other DAM softwares DO NOT read the Affinity file format, and as a result the end-user sees the AFFINITY LOGO in place of their image after processing in AFPHOTO. BRIDGE DOES NOT read AFFINITY file format. It returns a large pink Affinity Logo instead of the image that was just processed.
NOT OK.
SERIF, either release the information and make it available so that AFPHOTO processed images can be read by other softwares (DAM particularly) or say goodbye.

Proprietary formats is a good way to fail as a business.  There are a ton of programs that can read and write Photoshop (.PSD) files.  If Affinity is serious about being the new player on the block, it MUST publish an API that at least allows software developers to read  the format:
Level 1.  Read the file's meta-data, and the preview image.
Level 2.  Write new metadata.
Level 3.  Extract a version of the edited file.
***
I bought affinity on a sale with the promise of a DAM.  I haven't used it, because the DAM isn't there yet.
Level's 1 and  at least partial support for level 2 (Write *some* metadata info -- modify existing metadata)
I participated heavily with Luminar's forum too.  I'd learned from my lessons, however and didn't buy the software.   They too are going down the "Next year..." path.
 

Unfortunately ... due to the "proprietary" nature of the AFFINITY file format, NONE of the free applications you've mentioned, nor many of the available "pay-for-play" applications available, and many of which are very capable, DO NOT read the Affinity file format natively and are therefore not really suitable choices.
SERIF really needs to step up to the plate and get their version of some form of DAM software published already. It is their lack of such that is forcing me to return to PHOTOSHOP 6 and LIGHTROOM 5.5. 
Sure, they're a bit dated, but the quality of image enhancement is still high-quality and my need for the ability to manage a large library of images demands my attention in a format that I can rely on, and work with on a daily basis, without adding to an already busy workload.
If you want the base to stay with you SERIF, get on the ball and get the software released already. The original $40.00 it cost to switch to AFFINITY is not enough to not abandon it in favour of having a solution that just works, end to end.
SERIF ... WE ARE TIRED OF WAITING!

The main reason for a DAM really is to have some trust that integration with the SW you love and have invested time to master (e.g. affinity photo) is given. You want to work within the look and feel of the SW you use for most stuff. IMHO a DAM can start out very basic and add features as requested. But it would keep you within the affinity universe, speeding up your workflows and reduce learning time for people working with/for you. 
Why buy affinity if your DAM from another vendor already does much of the job? Many photographers don't really use Photoshop all that much and do most of their work with Lightroom. So why buy Affinity and invest learning time when you already spent much on LR or C1 etc? Yes, freaks and experts posting here may know the strengths of each product and master them all, but those will not be the lot paying for licences who makes investment worth while.
So my pledge to Serif: Please give us a simple, robust DAM to start with, that integrates well with Affinities products. Take aperture of even mac's photo app functionality as a start, but keep it open so we can migrate in- and out easily. Get our workflows into your world starting from managing the photos, and keep us within. I am so sure this will pay out for all of us. 
 

The big reason for a DAM is re-use.  It's nice to take pictures, and turn some of them into stellar pictures, but once you have over a few tens of thousands it gets hard to find them.  I probably spend 3-5 times as much time assigning keywords to images as I do editing them.  Mind you, my use is mostly web pages, so my editing sequence is 'crop, adjust exposure, resize,'
Even so, with all my keywording, I often still have trouble finding things -- due to insufficient keywording.  The two really big features for me are mechanisms for fast keywording, and mechanisms for doing complex searches.  So far Aperture is the least bad of all the ones I've used.
I'm not a pro.  A pro has an extra can of worms.  They have the whole 'version' thing.  It's not unreasonable for a stock photo to have several resolutions, black and white, images tuned for a particular printer, plus the whole what rights have I sold to who on  a particular image.  However even an amateur will often have
Raw file Jpeg file (if shooting both) Photoshop or affinity file Tiff or jpeg output file. It's nice if you can easily find the original to the one you used on insta-gram.  
***
What are the components of a good DAM?
Database for storing metadata  -- This should be straight forward.  There are several good ones out there that are opensource.  MySQL, PostGres, come to mind. Browser -- this must be fairly easy as there are metric tons of them out there.   UI -- This, I think, is the tough part.  It needs to be able to do a bunch of tasks -- edit metadata singly and in batch, search, store search results.   ***
I bought Affinity because I thought it was going to have a DAM.  I don't use it.  I can't remember the last time I opened it.  I've gone back to Aperture.
I've tried PhotoSupreme, Media Pro, ACDSee, Bynder (what a joke).  
I've come to the conclusion that the DAM is more critical to me than the ability to edit.
 

I meant: Please refrain from private judgment on fellow users attitude and from assumptions, how statements might come across.

Yes! But that’s not the topic/question. I (we) want to know if Affinity is developing their own DAM as previously teased or if they abandoned those plans in the meantime. 

Hey guys,
 
We desperately need some clarification. For the past two years it was mentioned several times here in these forums that you are working on a DAM. However, we haven’t really seen an update on that topic in the past weeks and months. And in your Twitter feed you mentioned a couple of times now that you are currently not developing a DAM. So which is true?
 
With the recent changes from Adobe with their Lightroom software and with Apple still not improving Photos really, it would be a great time to put a great DAM out there right now. Many, many photographers are looking for a new solution to this old and essential problem. Also, MacPhun just announced a DAM for their Luminar app. 
 
In any case, we just need to know if we should wait for a DAM to be released by you guys or if we should look for other alternatives. Thank you!

I think a "We" stands for a bunch of people here in the forum and out there on the net.
 
So yes, the question is important for many users incl. myself.