Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FxRphoto

  1. Of course it does not affect neither the workflow or the quality. But the purpose of compression is to save space, not to increase it. For 16bits images LZW compression is not only useless but it produces files that are larger than uncompressed ones. And that's the point. Having the choice to use it or not is a key feature, and I guess, not so difficult to implement. A better choice would be to offer a ZIP compression with several degrees of compression (the best method to lossless compress 16bits files), but it is probably a more difficult feature to add. Regarding the fact that it affects a few people, since it is not clearly displayed in Affinity Photo, the only way to see that a LZW compression is actually applied to all the files saved in TIFF, is to check the properties of the files. Not many do that, indeed. It took myself months to notice it. Not a reason to consider that it's not important. And, as a reminder, Affinity Photo is, to my knowledge, the only software not to have the choice of TIFF compression. Fx
  2. After further experiment, the group is necessary. I tried without grouping, just with an adjustment layer and a fill layer with the gradient as a child. It's odd but only the layers are pasted, not the gradient. If I just make a group with the adjustment layer and its child including the gradient, then it works fine. Fx
  3. I guess so Exactly. I use a group just for the purpose of the gradient since it is the only way to apply several adjustment to the same fill layer. The only thing to keep in mind is that, with this method, everything that is copied will be pasted when the macro is runned, even the background layer. So, be sure not to copy it before creating the macro. Otherwise, the same background used to create your macro will always be pasted when you use that macro. (obvious, but it worth remind it) Fx
  4. Hi everybody, I just found a trick with non recordable features. I wanted to create a macro that sets a group of adjustment layers and a fill layer with a gradient to emulate an adjustable neutral density gradient filter. But when I tried to record the macro, I realized that the gradient tool couldn't be recorded (the position of the fill layer was also difficult to set). I created this set without recording and copied the group. Then I recorded the macro with a simple clear selection and paste. I tried this macro several time and it always creates the whole gradient set, even if I copy something else, or close the app, or shut down the computer. I tried with several macros created with the same process and they seems to work fine for now and it helps a lot. It is not very academic and I don't know if it's a correct way to bypass the limitations of the macro feature but maybe it is worth to have a look at it and see if there is issues with that method. Regards Fx
  5. 1.12.15 is the version number of the whole Nik suite, you need to check the individual plugin version number and compare with the standalone one. For instance in Color Efex Pro, the new version number is (for both standalone and plugin) and the old one is
  6. Hello Christoph L, This is actually the same install method I have described above in this thread. I am quite sure you are running the old free version of the plugin (just check the version number of the plugin in AP). Stand alone apps and plugins work separately. You can run both of them at the same time if you want. So it helps, but that doesn't solve the problem, since the last paid version from DXO remains unusable as a plugin in AP. (they have released a 1.12.15 update indeed, and don't seem to bother informing their customers. We don't even know what changes they have made.) Fx
  7. Hi OldRadioGuy, Actually, the new version doesn't work at all as a plugin for Affinity Photo for Mac. It freezes during the "preparing image" process and causes AP to freeze as well (need to use the force-to-quit command). Better to stick with the last free version from DXO (1.12.12) or the Google version, no major changes anyway. You will find some other threads on that topic like the one dominik has posted above, or this one :
  8. Hi Chips, For me Photo Mechanic from Camera Bits is one of the best professional choice for photographers but it comes at a cost. (about 150$) This is an Adobe Brige-like software, no catalog. However, Camera Bits is planning to release is 6th version this year, maybe with cataloging option. They have a long experience with their soft, the first release of Photo Mechanic was in 1998, and it is a very good tool, fast and efficient. The support and forum are quite good too. One limitation for now, is that the soft don't display .PDF or .afphoto previews. XNView is also a well known free software, but a bit tinkered, in my sense. There is a bunch of other software, more like alternatives for Lightroom, and you will find a lot of thread on this topic, like the one above, on this forum.
  9. No, No, as I wrote above, for the plugins, I use the last free version from DXO, which is 1.12.12 Anyway, this installation is the same for any version you want to use, even the latest paid release (1.12.14). I don't think that the installation path could change anything in the plugin working. Fx
  10. Hi Mohammed, Your plugin search folder doesn't seem to be the good one. Actually, according to your screenshot, there is twice the same path, and this is the standalone app path. You have to change for the plugin path, wich is where you create it when the Nik install dialog box ask you for third party applications, then restart AP. Fx
  11. Hi firstdefence, Yes, 1.12.12 works fine in both standalone and plugin versions (this is the latest free version from DXO). Better keep a copy of that one, there isn't any major changes in the latest paid release anyway... If you already have the latest paid version from DXO (1.12.14), the standalone app works fine, but the plugins don't work and cause AP to freeze (you have to use the force-to-quit option). So you can use the new standalone alongside the old plugins (just replace the new plugins folder by a backup of the old one) Fx
  12. Hi Mikerofoto, This screen is the new paid version, but in standalone version and on Mac at least, there isn't any issues running the standalone app. In my post I was referring to the plugin version. The difference is seen in the "save" button down-right of the UI, in the plugin running in AP it is a "OK" button (to apply the plugin to a layer instead of overwriting the file) Fx
  13. Hi Mikerofoto, I have tried your installation according to the screenshot you have provided and it doesn't work for me. Nik still freeze during the "preparing image" process. Have you check this really is the new version that you are running ? Sorry to ask but the first link they send to me after purchase was actually the latest free release 1.12.12 instead of the 1.12.14 paid one. They apologized for that, but first I have thought that everything worked perfectly. The solution I use for now, is to install the new version in standalone and the old one for the plugins. Oddly, when I check the version number, it shows the old plugin number with the new suite number version, e.g. Silver Efex pro shows version (1.12.14) instead of (1.12.12) or (1.12.14). Fx
  14. Hello everybody, it seems that we are a bit scattered on this topic, there is another thread on the Affinity forum. Maybe you could have a look at the DXO forum : https://feedback.dxo.com/t/request-nik-affinity-interoperability/3203/5 We ought to show up there, so maybe the DXO team will notice that there is not only Adobe users on earth. Fx
  15. Hi everybody, The only way I found so far to use Nik plugins in Affinity for Mac, is to re-install the latest free version of the plugins (they work quite well indeed...), and the new version in standalone. Not really a solution but in the meantime... There is a thread on the DXO forum : https://feedback.dxo.com/t/nik-affinity-interoperability/3203 Maybe if some of the huge community of Affinity users post some messages on it, the DXO team will acknowledge that there is not only Adobe users on earth. Fx
  16. Hello everybody, I have just noticed that the TIFF files are always LZW compressed, even when you open them uncompressed and then just hit command/S to save them. It is indeed a big issue because we ought to have the choice regardless of wether or not it harms the files. Why the hell Affinity Photo is the only software not to offer that simple feature ? Fx As a post scriptum and To confirm (if necessary) what is said above : my 36MB DNG file processed in Iridient Developer and saved uncompressed in 16bit TIFF is a file about 130MB. Opened in AP and just exported without any changes, it become an LZW compressed TIFF file about 137 MB. Not a lot, but still. And why using compression if it's not for saving space ?
  17. Thank you for the information, MEB. I have to say that I'am not part or even affiliate to the Photo Mechanic team. Maybe it would be better to ask for this on their forum, if some people are interested. More demands will bring more motivation to add more file support. But, we are far from the original topic here, I guess... Fx
  18. R C-R, I have created an .afphoto file with basic black & white conversion (to see the obvious change). No more layers. Indeed, GC10 always shows the original color preview and don't really manage the file properly, since when I double-click on it, the soft tries to open it with my raw converter instead of AP ! The OSX interface just shows the same color icon (maybe I need to restart to refresh the icon file) but a small, totally useless b&w preview in Quick look. Of course, it opens the file correctly in AP. As for Photo Mechanic, It doesn't show any preview, but it opens the file correctly. I do not use native files of any software so much, I prefer the .tiff format. That's why I missed that. I have seen that there is some feature claims on the Photo Mechanic users forum regarding the .afphoto files. Maybe one day the Camera Bits team will include this file format in their soft... Regards, Fx
  19. I have GC 10 installed on one of my computers. I check if it works with the native Affinity Photo files and I come back to you in a minute. Fx
  20. Hello R C-R, A DAM (Digital Assets Management) is just a bit more than a photo viewer in a sense that it can, like Adobe Bridge, manage any type of files you want (in the case of Graphic Converter it really does). But you are right, It lacks the ability to view the whole content of a folder and its subfolders. This is one of the many reasons I prefer Photo Mechanic. One of the other reasons is that GC cannot combine RAW+JPEG, for instance. Anyway, I have mentioned it just because it could be a useful software for its price. Regards, Fx
  21. Hello Occulon, The best DAM I know is, by far, Photo Mechanic. But It is only a DAM, another software like Affinity Photo is needed for editing. And It is a bit expensive. You can also have a look at Graphic Converter from the german company Lemkesoft (Mac only, 32£). The devellopers claim that it is a "swiss knife" and, indeed, it is one. But sometimes too many functions on your knife lead to a bulky size and some difficulties to handle... (it may take a whole week to handle the preferences panel ). Anyway, for the price it is a very good DAM. There is a function to make basic RAW editing, but it is not very efficient (the soft is not made for that), so I guess you will need another software to do the work properly. Using two or three software to manage your files is not a problem. It is actually more lightweight and secure. What is needed is a DAM not too "greedy" with hardware ressources, and a good RAW converter with batch processing before editing in Affinity, or any software you want, for the finishing work. Batch processing in the RAW software part is essential to manage several files in one time (to create previews for instance). I have used Lightroom since 2012 and the 4th, 5th and 6th versions before completely switching a few weeks ago for a combination of three softwares : Photo Mechanic, Iridient Developer, and Affinity photo (I also use Nik plugins for a long time). I still learn to use Affinity Photo Properly, but that workflow suits me perfectly. It is above the budget you have mentioned. But, you can focus on the RAW developer, because it is the most important part if you use RAW files, Affinity is not very expensive, Nik plugins are free, for now. And Graphic converter will do a good job. There is also a free DAM named XnView, I know it for a long time since I have used the Windows version in the newspaper I was working for. You can have a look at it. Regards, Fx
  22. Hi befehr, For the same reasons as yours, I have tested, a lot of, if not all the Mac photo softwares on the market. Some are quite goods, some do not stand longer than a 24-hours testing (like Pixelmator pro for instance). It would be very long to detail the pro or cons of each software, but the only one that has stayed on my computer is Affinity Photo. It's the most complete, and the most powerful alternative to Photoshop, in my sense. In a side by side comparison, you have to adapt your way of working for each software, and, most of all, going through the whole processing, to achieve a final result that suits you. Your concerns are justified, and it is always good to point out things that could be improved. But If you want to get rid of Lightroom, just stop trying to compare. For information, I use Photo Mechanics as a DAM, Iridient Developer, or Affinity for the raw files, and Affinity and sometimes Nik plugins for the finishing work. After a few weeks to learn all of these software (I still have work), I do not regret switching from Lightroom. All the best, Fx
  23. I totally agree with you, indigoMoon. To make an analogy, I will say that develloping a raw file is the first step to achieve a good negative, and a good negative is the necessary step before going trough the enlarger... Fx
  24. Hi, Like It has already been said before, you just cannot bring to life something that doesn't exist. No software could do that. In lightroom, I think that the highlights and shadows sliders work probably on more than just the shadows and highlights adjustments, but on local exposure and contrast as well. Lightroom do the job for you, Luminar tries to do so, in Affinity, you will have to work a little more. But, going too far to retrieve a bad eposed picture will lead to poor image quality. One of the best RAW developer I know, is certainly Iridient Developer. This software focuses on high quality results, in term of definition for instance. It doesn't go as far as lightroom to correct a bad exposed picture (maybe, though...), but it will preserve the overall quality of the picture. I have used Lightroom since the fourth version, and Camera Raw wich is the same engine, and of course the results are quickly appealing and easy to carry out (Adobe are good products, obviously. The problem with that brand is elsewhere...). Now I use Iridient for the basic RAW conversion before Affinity Photo. A way longer, but particulary for large prints, I think that the results are infinitly better. Anyway, this is not the software that makes the picture. Not more than the camera or the lens ... Regards, Fx
  25. Hi, It would be useful when creating a new document, in both Affinity Photo and Designer, to have custom models or even presets to avoid re-setting the parameters one needs. For example, if I need an A3 landscape document for print in 360dpi, 16-bits, I set the parameters and the next document will have the same settings. But if I need an A4 size or a custom paper size, I'll have to re-define the settings. Having just a few customizable settings fields in the "Page Presets" menu, Will help a lot. Regards, Fx
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. 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.