Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Doug B

Members
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug B

  1. I should add a side note: The alternative to making the RAW processing algorithms as good as ACR or Capture One Pro 10's is to simply make the workflow non-destructive, so that people can send their work from the iPad to a desktop app such as the previously mentioned apps. Wow, was that or was that not a great way to plug a non-destructive workflow again? Iol
  2. I'm going to be as diplomatic as possible, but I'm also not going to sugar coat or be PC about things. While I absolutely LOVE Affinity Photo for what it does right, I am equally unsatisfied with what it doesn't do right at the same time. There's a real catch .22 I feel, with AP in that so many people have moved away from Adobe, singing praises that it is THE PS killer etc etc.. Especially for two distinct groups of people. The first group, are those who by principle, don't like being told that they don't own the software they paid for, and don't like being held hostage to a monthly subscription fee. Personally speaking, I think that as long as the company you're paying the sub fee to, listens to its user base, and offers an even return on the investment, that it's fine. But Adobe aren't really that great in those areas, IMO. The second group, whom are also a niche group *I happen to be one of them*, but growing in numbers annually, are Fuji Film users. We are dissatisfied with the way that Adobe/ACR does its demosaicing for sharpening, as it can literally ruin a shot. However.. That is not to say that ACR does a poor job in general when it comes to other basic RAW processing, because it doesn't. It actually does a great job with highlight and shadow recovery, kelvin, curves, contrast and noise reduction. It also does a great job with how it resizes and exports. It also has some really amazing tools, right inside of ACR, not even LR that people often overlook. But I digress. My point is coming... And here it is: For all of the things that ACR does right, I feel that Affinity photo has quite a ways to go when trying to match those features. I personally wouldn't touch Affinity for RAW processing with a 50 foot pole right now. It's.. well, not good. (See? Diplomatic) Since I've deleted LR/adobe stuff from my machine, I can't even compare it to the next best thing, which is Capture One Pro 10. Now that.. is software that pretty much gets those things right. I still think that LR does a better job with highlight recovery vs Capture One, but when compared to Affinity or On1 Photo RAW? No comparison, LR is still king, and the latter two stink on ice. Sorry, that was NOT diplomatic. In my ever so humble opinion, I can never ever recommend Affinity Photo to anyone wanting to get away from their current DAM such as LR/Capture One etc in favor of it. I just don't really see the point of even having the develop module in its current state. I know that's harsh, sorry. And while one can make the argument that you should just "get it right in camera", so that you don't have to mess with highlights or shadows or contr... Yeah, that's not very sensible. Those things exist for a reason. I guess that all I'm saying is that Affinity for the iPad will never be great, until AP for the desktop is much improved in those areas. After all, it has to look up to its big brother/sister, no? Concerned, Doug
  3. That said, it is easy enough to send feedback to apple. I'd recommend throwing the request their way.
  4. +1 Might be hard to do though, because of the pixel density vs resolution. This is why an iPad would make a terrible hybrid laptop.
  5. Ya know what's crazy? The new OnePlus 5 phone has an option for 8 gigs of RAM! There's literally no excuse for a company to put a paltry 2 gigs of RAM into a product, and then put the word "Pro" in its name.
  6. I'm curious... Why would anybody want to use such a thing vs. using their desktop with a calibrated monitor and a Wacom or Wacom-esque tablet? Isn't the latency an issue at the very least? Doug.
  7. Yes. RAM could indeed be a limiting factor, unless the Serif team are THAT GOOD with optimizations! I won't say they aren't, and just hope they have as much confidence in themselves as I have for them. lol.
  8. YES. Please. And before the mods and devs get totally sick of me asking for it.. .Non destructive editing to go with said DAM!
  9. I don't agree on the "never" part. With mobile processors getting as powerful as they are, the ability is pretty much there. It has more to do with optimizations as well as business moves. Nobody wants to cannibalize one of their products to make room for a lesser priced one that does the job just as well. But the think that companies like Serif are going to realize at some point, is that people will pay as much for an iOS app as they will a desktop app, so long as the results are fairly equal. So it this one. You are absolutely correct. Fuji cameras do not saturate the market as much as Canikon camera's do... But then again, the same thing can be said about Sony, and they seem to garner a lot of support. And most camera sensors are made by Sony. I own a Nikon D300 *my baby* and so, I will absolutely test out some NEF's. Good observation though, on your part. And yes, I've also come to the conclusion that getting a Macbook varietal, would be better suited to a mobile workflow. Which, I find most unfortunate. To have the ability to carry around something as powerful as a Macbook, but with the form factor and weight of an iPad is a dream... I've thought about the Surface line as well, I just cannot stand Windows. But, I'm not closed to the idea, to be honest. At this point in time, your conclusion is logical. I don't think it's a misunderstanding *at least not on my part* as much as it is a glimmer of hope that the current workflow will change in the near-ish future. I don't think that it would be impossible for an app such as AP to take on attributes of a non-destructive photo editor or smart editor. I think it's also a bit condescending to say that people don't know what the difference is between a DAM and a pixel editor. The only thing that a DAM offers up over a pixel editor, for the most part, is a way to manage/catalog files, and of course, non-destructive editing. But I don't think that the latter has to be synonymous with the definition of a DAM. I also think that it wouldn't take much for Serif to cook up a separate app that would act as a DAM, sort of something like Photo Mechanic, that can round-trip photos non destructively between it and AP. Sure, it would take lots of time and effort, but... That's what money is for. We would all pay well for such a thing. I just find it very counter-productive to have such a powerful app as AP for iOS, while it is so very limited. And while I don't disagree that there are a lot of other features the devs can work on fixing/making better/adding, I don't think that my request is one that should be looked over or ignored. It should at least be a discussion for the future. If not, I see AP for the iPad as just another bloated piece of software that can be pushed in among the myriad ranks of iOS photo editors. Have you seen Polar lately? Best, Doug
  10. To preface, I should state that I use an Fuji XT-1 and XT-2. Also still have but barely use my D300. 
 
 I didn’t start this topic with the intention of picking a fight. I absolutely adore Affinity Photo on my Mac and it has completely taken over PS duties for me. That said, what it has NOT done on the Mac, and I suspect even less so in the case with the iOS version, is take over as my RAW processor. And there's a very good reason for this. The RAW decoding and demosaicing algorithms have a long way to go where RAW processing is concerned. I use AP mainly for things like cloning, skin retouching and a few other things as such. It is excellent for such things, and saves a lot of time compared to messing about in LR or other apps. 
 I stopped using Lightroom about a year or so ago, and at times, am sorry to have done so. I’ve had to though, because the way it renders X-Trans files is quite poor, when compared to other applications on the Mac. I moved over to Capture One Pro 9 and now have 10. It's an excellent piece of software, and I thought I had settled on it, but recently, On1 has released new software that will likely rival Capture One Pro, and in not that long a period of time. 
 Every piece of software has its strengths and weaknesses, and Capture One's biggest weakness/flaw is in how it handles its self as a DAM. The new ON1 Photo RAW is great in that sense, but currently, has issues with file exporting... (Which is being fixed and patched by next week) So I'm not ditching Capture One. Adobe's ACR is great for most users, and is what LR uses inside of its GUI, which again, is great for most, but poor for Fuji users. 
 If Affinity was able to handle RAW processing like On1 or Capture One, it would be the ultimate all-in-one photo editor, IMO. But it doesn't, and so.. It is not. Here's where the problem lies for the mobile version:
 If the intention is to begin editing while on the go, such as at an event/shoot etc, you absolutely MUST have Affinity demosaic and process the RAW file, in order that it sync's up to your desktop version of Affinity Photo *which I don't even think is a feature yet*. The problem with this is that once the file has been made a PSD/TIFF or afphoto, you can no longer get back what was in the RAW file. That's just how it goes. The changes are burned in, with not much more leverage than a jpg file at that point. 
 So then, when I look at how AP handles things like highlight and shadow recovery, contrast and micro contrast and see how utterly terrible they are (and they really are), then there is zero chance that I would ever use the mobile version to do things like skin retouching or cloning before adjusting the RAW values. I can say the same thing for On1 Photo RAW though. When comparing the 3 apps, Capture One comes out well above the rest, without question. Where Affinity Photo WILL work, is obviously after the color correction, sharpening, levels using another app like Capture One etc.. But this really leaves a very large gap in the RAW workflow on the iPad. Also, I’m speaking in terms of what-if’s, since there is no such thing as desktop and mobile sync without iCloud Drive. The issue I have with this, is that iCloud Drive takes up space on ones computer, and there is no dropbox-esque option, where you can access iCloud Drive solely via the web. Anyway, I don’t necessarily regret getting AP for the iPad, but after having thought things through, more than when I got excited to hear it was available and at the $20 price.. I think it’s safe for me to say that it won’t get much use in its current iteration. I’m curious to know if others have thought about this as well, and what conclusions have been drawn as such. I have attached 6 files. 3 are unedited. The other three have highlight recovery and negative exposure values added. I picked this photo specifically, because it was a misfire *finger twitched* and the settings cause the highlights to blow and exposure was hot. You can clearly see how well the three apps handle the amount of highlight recovery, and then highlight recovery with -exposure added to help. Capture One Pro is clearly, without challenge, the winner. Doug

  11. I totally agree with your assessments here. I wonder though, about the new file/folder system in iOS 11. I'm betting that it will be strictly cloud based and not machine local. That, would be like a step forward and two giant steps back, UNLESS they implemented something like Dropbox, where you don't need to store files locally on your desktop machine's drive, and only via the web. Of course, the better solution, as you noted, would be to have an actual physical storage device for these things. But without a non-proprietary way to hook up to such a thing, it's already a dead in the water idea. Apple will NEVER let its users have access to a physical file system. Even if root is hidden. Still too much of as security risk. I've used the Sandisk Media Drive for a while, and it's a pretty cool solution, but at the end of the day, its battery will eventually die, and you also have to make sure that it is charged before really working with it. Not very elegant or practical IMO. Doug
  12. Except I don't recall Cook ever saying such a thing. His words if I recall correctly, were more like "these products can replace a laptop for SOME people". And honestly, until we see physical external storage that doesn't depend on being wireless, creating an ad-hoc network to connect, and needing to recharge a battery, it will NEVER replace a true laptop. Not to mention having a built in keyboard. You cannot call something it is not. The keyboard/mouse/trackpad are very specific tools which are needed to interface with items that require extremely fine and precise pixels on the display. Said pixels which are in greater abundance and are a lot closer together, vs a tablet, where icons are the norm due to space constraints. Two years you say? I will bet you all of my stock options vs yours or your annual salary, that will not happen. Betting man are you? :P Doug
  13. In no way would I ever imply that an iPad could be a desktop/laptop replacement in terms of what robust apps can do on those platforms. In fact, I had a "debate" with one of my best friends last night about this. He's a graphic illustrator. He made the mistake of saying that the iPad is finally going to be able to be a replacement for a "computer", to which I scoffed. My issue with this is that there's no real interoperability between the two systems, and with very good reason. I'd get into it, but have to leave. Suffice it to say, editing on the iPad, IMO.. Should be looked at as an intermediary. I can do a lot of work on files while in transit, and if AP is able to sync the changes I make in its native file format, to my desktop, that means I'm being a lot more efficient with my workflow. I shot an event the other day. If I was able to retouch skin, crop etc while on the train home, imagine... I get home, sit down on the couch, continue to cull and edit, all the while, these files are being uploaded to a server. Then I get to the desktop, and said photos are able to sync, and I finish up there when I'm ready. More later...
  14. It's a beta. No one should ever expect things to work properly or expect support from a beta. Not even Apple supports issues when the beta is installed. This is how it works and there are disclaimers that one must read and agree to when installing said beta. Please do not expect the Serif team to work on bugs with a beta release. That's a pretty pompous and short sighted comment. The fact that YOU don't know any professional artists who utilize an iPad for illustration/graphic work or other image based work, does not speak for the industry on the whole. I guess that might put you, in the minority. Might want to broaden your perspective a bit.
  15. This made me VERY happy to see during the WWDC! Is there going to be an spot for user requests moving forward? Because if so, my numero UNO request would be to have AP on the iPad and desktop talk to one another and sync changes. That would make things amazingly.... amazing! Doug
  16. Wish I had seen this thread earlier: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/17702-confused-about-the-use-of-develop-persona/ Basically confirms my thoughts of: And maybe that is exactly what you guys were trying to tell me, but I wasn't really getting it because you were hoping that I would assume that the workflow was the same as with PS.. My problem I guess was that I was thinking that because AP is so new, that it somehow worked differently than that. Which... I guess is dumb of me. :ph34r: Doug
  17. I only really see one advantage with the Develop Persona, and that is having access to the "Assistant Options". But I'm still waiting for someone to give me a compelling reason as to why that option, as well as any other option within that persona, could not be in the Photos persona, or visa versa for that matter. It just seems like an arbitrary way of splitting up some functions, maybe for the sake of not cluttering up an entire UI. And that's fine, if that's the reason, but I simply find it a bit weird that you have to commit to an action (by hitting develop) before being able to get to the Photos persona, where you also have exposure, curves etc etc.. which all perform the same function. Speaking on demosaicing.. I suppose I'm looking at this from a Lightroom perspective. I do basic editing such as exposure/temp/curves/sharpening in LR, and then bring those changes into PS for final skin retouching and cloning. Therefore, the demosaic process is being done before hitting PS (as you inferred without knowing that I start in LR, since you don't have to, technically). I think you guys might be over-thinking what I'm getting at or saying. Unless one of the devs/mods can tell me for certain, that there is something truly unique to using the tools in the develop persona vs the Photos persona, then I'm simply asserting that there's no technical reason for needing to do anything *sans turning off the automatic curves adjustment and utilizing Apple's RAW engine* in the former. The only thing I can assume at this point then, is that once you hit "Develop", it is akin to going from LR to PS which is where the demosaicing process takes place. Or, in the case of those using just PS, it would be akin to using Camera RAW/ACR and making basic adjustments, then going further with the other adjustments past that. So maybe I just answered my own question... Told you I might be being dense! All that being said.. My issue at present, is with HOW ACR handles Fuji X Trans files (hence why I'm attempting to get a handle on AP) during the demosaicing process. So, thanks for putting up with my perhaps dumb questions and aggressive line of questioning. I do appreciate the help! True, but not exactly up to date or accurate. Most, if not all modern cameras at this point, do demosaicing on the sensor, via firmware.. but we are also given the ability to demosaic RAW files via software. RAW files of most varieties are readable by said software. A bit different from the logistical standpoint of how things used to be, I suppose. The process of demosaicing is simply to reconstruct an image from incomplete color samples, when talking about how it would be done IN camera. But RAW files, which are just bits of data that are able to be read and interpreted by software such as ACR and its kin, give us the ability to do this outside of the cameras firmware. Best, Doug
  18. I appreciate that you guys have tried to answer my questions, but perhaps I did not explain what I was after well enough. I wasn't asking about how RAW files work, or why a converter is needed. I'm very well aware of the above. Let me try this again though: The options appear to be no different between the develop and Photos personas. To put things another way: Until the RAW file is demosaiced either by way of exporting to jpg of tiff, all editing done in either persona module is non-destructive. So technically, it shouldn't matter which persona you're in. For example, it shouldn't matter where I make exposure, temperature, contrast or saturation changes to a RAW file, because the effect is the same no matter which persona I'm in. Hence my query of why it is necessary to have two personas which basically perform the same function. And really, if someone tells me that the demosaicing process is actually being done before I do any of the other things from the photos Persona, then that is very counterproductive toward producing a well developed image. At least in my experience with how any other RAW developer works. I really hope that my question is a bit clearer now? I'd go on, but not until I know that what I'm asking is being understood/that I'm being clear. Cheers Doug
  19. Hey all. I should preface my question with a statement: I've never been a heavy duty Photoshop user. I've got a CC sub, and use it to finish off photos which need skin retouching and cloning. Perhaps I'd use it more if it didn't seem so daunting, with the tons of ways in which a desired effect can be achieved, and the list continues to grow in that arena. Maybe I am assuming incorrectly, but I thought that Affinity was aimed at those who were familiar with PS, but that it wasn't necessary to be, in that tutorials would cover workflow, tools, filters etc.. And for the most part, the tutorials are an interesting introduction to some of these things. But thus far, I feel that they don't do a proficient enough job at really getting to the intricate how's and why's, like I'd hope they would. I figured that new software would have very detailed tutorials, rather than at the end of each one have someone say: "If you have any questions, please go to the forums". Not sure I see the point in doing tutorials unless they're really going to show the in's and out's of tools and feature or the UI etc.. Right now, I'm struggling to comprehend the philosophy behind why there are two seemingly redundant personas. Those being "Photos" and "Develop". I mean, is there really such a great gap between what these two modules have to offer as tools, that they couldn't simply be consolidated? For example... and what really confuses me, is how you start out with a RAW photo, right.. And then, you're presented with very basic tools for adjusting exposure, white and black values, temp and cropping etc. Great, but then when I go over to the Photos persona, I'm presented with not only pretty much the same tools, but advanced versions of them as well. And the rest of the kitchen sink. Why then, should I care about making any adjustments in the Develop Persona, when I can achieve the same exact thing (and more) over in the Photos Persona? If I'm way off base, please let me know why. Sincerely. Maybe I'm being thick? Thanks much... Doug
  20. I saw that "better color picker " feature was on the to-do list, but I'm not really sure if that was a general thing or what... Currently, in order to get rid of purple or green fringing, one has to kind of guess at its hue from a color slider. This is very inefficient compared to having a color picker get it just right. Plus, I'm not even sure that this feature works so well, even when the color is matched perfectly. So I'd like to make this a mill 2 birds with one stone type of request. Doug
  21. The points made here are very succinct, and I hope the message doesn't go unnoticed! My biggest, (really only) true gripe with Adobe at this moment, is their poor support for Fuji's X Trans sensors. Were it not for that, I would be quite content paying $10 a month for all of the truly wonderful services they offer. I currently DO pay, but have absolutely been looking for an alternative. Iridient Developer, Capture One, even Silkypix 7 offer great sharpening algorithms and output demosaicing. Problem is, None offer the cloud based services as Adobe does. Imagine... I do a shoot > leave shoot > manage prospects via culling, keywording, color coding > then start editing, such as blemish removal and cloning.... All from either my MacBook Pro OR iPad Pro while mobile, which is syncing with their cloud, and when I get home to my iMac, I pick up from exactly where I left off. This is currently possible with PS. That said, even though ACR isn't perfect with X Trans files, it's not terrible, either. Yes, those others mentioned do demosaicing better, but LR still has some of the best highlight and shadow recovery tools. I could probably get away with using C1 and AP, even though that would mean spending more money... But that would mean ditching some really great extras which I feel are free. I really wouldn't even mind paying a subscription fee for continuing updates from the Affinity team. In fact, I'd be happy to pay. After all, it would employ more people, which means getting more work done. I'm almost wary of a company that practically gives their hard work away. Yeah, I'm saying that $50 is far too little for the ambitions we should all expect to see from this company. To return to the main point though, the RAW processing engine really needs to be a priority. Even above trying to be as pretty as OS X Because if it's not, then what really is the actual point? I'm not going to use cheaper software just to spite Adobe and then ultimately to cut off my own nose. I care about my clients getting the most out of my hard work, and where RAW processing is concerned, this should be a no-brainer for a company intending on selling software in which a great portion of its functionality is to process RAW files. Im looking forward to seeing AP evolve, and I'm sure that it will in every way imaginable. I remember when ACR was far less enticing, and not just with Fuji files. Doug
  22. Well this is a shame. I also shoot with an Fuji X T1 and was curious as to whether or not the output from this software would have been better than that of the latest Lightroom version. Too bad.. I still have a question though: Is the difficulty in support due to the lack of support from Fuji? Will they not release their schematics for the format?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.