ColinG

Why is it Luminar Neo will still not work as a plugin to Affinity?

You claim to be a professional and yet say Lr has seen no real improvement for years? Have you not noticed all the masking improvements, colour grading controls, performance boosts - the list goes on and on. You also seem confused by what is a raw developer/dam and what is a Ps or Affinity Photo type of product. Yes raw developers just concentrate on raw development, as does Lr and C1. Heavy manipulation is done by the likes of Ps/AP.

That is the first response that makes any sense and agreed. But it is still points a finger at the implementation of Affinity's plugin architecture. My understanding is that it is supposed to be compatible with Ps plugins. Clearly this is not the case then!

Do you people read the posts? It is only a bug when used with Affinity (be that using the beta Topaz Studio or the released version). It does not exist when using the other apps I mentioned. And I am no amateur so I do not need a lecture on the risks associated with betas. Your patronising approach is unwelcome and for what it is worth I seem to recall this problem existing pre Big Sur. Indeed I just found a reference to the problem back in Sept 2020.

You really don't read the posts do you. I mentioned I was using the new beta build of Studio 2. Irrespective of that the old version worked fine in Big Sur on the apps I mentioned, there were just one or two niggles like the update mechanism. As things stand Studio 2 (old) and the new beta are both working as expected on Lr. C1, Ps and ON1 and they all include fully functional Looks. So my comment stands - it must be down to the plugin mechanism.

I have tried hence my question. I asked re Affinity Photo and you said it is a Big Sur issue. My point is it is not a Big Sur issue with this other apps so it can only be down to the rather strange plugin functionality that Affinity uses.

You mean it does not work in Affinity Photo? It works just fine in Ps, Lr, C1 and ON1- including the new beta. So absolutely nothing to do with Big Sur.

Has anyone managed to get Topaz Sudio 2 fully working with AP? I can get it to run ok but the "Looks" are not available. It is the same with the latest beta build of Studio 2. Running a Mac and Big Sur.

I would have said why not use Photos as your dam and use Affinity Photo via the extensions in Apple Photos. Trouble is I am not sure the extensions are working as they should, or at least not in a way that makes sense to me. Apple Photos is a pain really and all I do is use it to keep my edited images. My originals are kept on a separate dam. The problem with the affinity project files is they are proprietary to Affinity it seems. But cannot you export as a 16 bit tiff with layers preserved rather than save as afphoto. That way you could use something like Adobe Bridge as your dam (and it is free).

Thanks for checking, MEB. Have raised a ticket with DxO.

Thanks MEB. I can confirm Viveza has crashed AP beta every time.

When I run AP the pugins are there as expected with no garbage. They seem to work or at least Color Efex does. I managed to crash AP when I played with Veveza. Using the 1.9 beta.

Your way sort of worked MEB but gives me lots of working, unknown and redundant stuff.

That's right. This is the new installer 🙂

The installer does not create the folder in the chosen directory. It just creates reference to it in the installer and then carries on to the end of the installation. I asked for the folder to be set-up on the desktop and after the install there is absolutely nothing there, even though the installer says it exists.

The new installer is out so can now install on Big Sur. Cannot get the plugins to install to AP though. The installer lets me set up the folder Adobe Photoshop Custom1 but does not physically create it in the directory. Installation continues through to the end ok and the Nik Suite works in Ps and Lr but there is no folder to access when trying to install the plugins into AP. Have raised a support request.

I had to respond because you are getting it all wrong and I thought I had made it clear earlier. You see, my comments are about what I see as an a deficiency in AP and a surprising one given the competition, one of which uses the same database. So completely on topic. Your comment re Adobe however was completely off topic and your choice is of no interest to me or of any relevance to my post. End of debate.

I would have thought it obvious what I am comparing - it is quite simple to understand. AP does not have the lens profiles whilst others do. I question why and especially so as ON1 also have the profile and they too use Lensfun if I recall. Not sure why you felt it necessary to bash Adobe's subscription model. Completely off topic and unnecessary. People are free to exercise their choice any way they feel fit and do not need childish snipes, especially when Adobe's business model has nothing to do with the topic. Please do not bother responding.

I guess that is the strength of outfits like Adobe or Phase One. That is not to decry AP, it is great software. What is strange though is that ON1 2021 recognises the lens and does an auto adjust and I thought they used Lensfun.

Apologies for that and good spot. It is indeed Fuji XT20 which is a supported camera. Not sure what I was thinking when I typed Sony CT20! What is strange is that Lr says the lens profile is in the raf file. This being the case why does AP not use it I wonder? The images do look good in AP though but I am still curious.

Well I went for it. Uninstalled and tried to reinstall - the installer just freezes on Big Sur. So now no access to Nik at all! Have filed a support request.

Thanks Duoro. I am on Mac and the OS has just upgraded to Big Sur so I am a little reluctant to play around just yet. Are there any Mac users on here with the issue - the plugin window in AP preferences is not seeing the Nik plugins in Ps? Can anyone form the AP staff offer any comment before I follow the route taken by Duoro? Thanks!

Yet in the meantime Adobe and C1 either have the profiles (camera and lenses) or somehow use information baked into the raf file. Maybe that is what AP does?

Thanks for this Duoro. Does that not mean the plugins won't run in Ps though? If so no good for me as I am far from ready to ditch Adobe, the latest CC versions are excellent and I need Lr. I thought the idea was that AP should pick up the plugins from the Ps plugins folder. It is not doing that here so presumably it is an Affinity bug? They have not done well on the plugin front, it appears a very complex and unreliable solution. Of course I am running Big Sur so that might be the problem. Hopefully Affinity staff will let us know 🙂

Adobe is not limiting or reducing the functionality of Lr Classic. Quite the opposite - it has had some first rate enhancements only just recently. Nobody is going to build a better or even equivalent dam any time soon. It would be a huge undertaking.