Jeroen

Fair enough that there is no forward compatibility from 1.6, but will there be backward compatibility from 1.7 for the 1.7 beta format? Is there any stated policy on that?

Not sure what your setup is, but I found that the Wifi connection to the iPhone/iPad only downloads JPEG files (and, annoyingly, gives them random names at the receiving end, losing the neat name sequencing the camera). There are also limitations to the EXIF data that are transferred. This is using Canon's Camera Connection App. I suspect it is a limitation of the Wifi setup on the camera side, which may explain your problem with the Mac as well. To avoid the problem, I either read the files directly from the SD card, or, if there is no SD card reader available, I use the USB cable to connect the camera to a USB port on my device - in my case, if the device is an iPad/iPhone, through the Apple Camera Connection kit. Either of these methods transfers both JPEG and RAW files, with all the EXIF information intact. Too bad Wifi cannot do that. If you are into raw processing, Wifi really seems only useful to get a quick preview of a photo or to quickly send it to a friend, not for quality work. Hope this helps, Jeroen.

Thank you for the trouble. I do like the Canon processed file best, but there may be other trade offs and I will have to experiment to decide whether it is best to do raw development in Affinity Photo with the Apple Core Engine, or to develop with Canon DPP to 16 bit TIFF and take it from there in Affinity Photo. In the meantime, I do hope that Serif will come up with good development support for the 77D in the near future, and better than Apple at that. Thanks again, Jeroen.

I will upload the 77D pictures momentarily. I will also add a JPEG created by Canon's Digital Photo Professional app, which is in tone very close to the JPEG from camera. The file names should tell you what is what. Thanks for looking into this and I will be interested to learn of anything you might discover.

Is the Canon 77D supported for raw development? I attach three files, one is a JPEG from the camera, which to me is a very good approximation of how it was when I took the photo. The others are the developed RAW from the camera (without any tweaking), exported as JPEG, and done with the Serif engine and with the Apple engine, respectively. The Serif colours are way off. The Apple engine gives somewhat better results, but still not as good as I would like. My monitor is hardware calibrated and set to sRGB, as are the camera and Affinity Photo. I am amazed by the apparent difficulty of supporting cameras for raw development. With my previous 700D camera I have pictures where the Serif engine performs marginally better than the Apple engine. For comparison, I attach those files as well. Is there something I can do? Is it true that the 77D is not officially supported by Affinity Photo? I hope not. This mainstream camera has been out for over 15 months now. Thank you for your attention. PS Tried to upload the files, but got an error: "There was a problem processing the uploaded file. -200". Sorry. I will be happy to provide them by some other means.

I do understand the choice for performance/flexibility here, and I applaud it. For the most part, when working on a project I find AP a joy to work with, and responsiveness is a big part of that. Having said this, storage is equally important to me from the point of view of managing my photo editing as a whole. I know that disk storage is cheap, but for added security I have (a) Time Machine backups, and (b) backup in the cloud to cover for physical damage or loss. That does become a problem when I want to using AP as a focal point in my workflow (as opposed to using it for just a few photos at a time and then throwing the project away, only keeping the JPEG result). The key phrase in MEB’s reply to me is “while working on a project”. Most of the time I am working on only a few projects. The others are dormant, but I want the opportunity to come back to them. So what about catering for “while NOT working on a project”? In other words, an archive format optimized for space? When one is done with a project for the time being, it could be moved to archive format (at the discretion of the user). From what I can see, there are great possibilities to save on space, if one does not mind to once in a while wait a bit while converting an archived project to working format; that is, when one wants to come back to it. Losless compression of pixel layers is but a beginning. For adjustments there are already macros, if you store them: no need to store the result. Gradients: can be stored with a few bytes. Brush strokes, with a bit of work: same. Once there is non-destructive develop: no need to store the developed version, saving enrmous amounts of space. Etc. I am not suggesting that all of this can be done overnight, and that there are no complications (think of maintaining backward compatibility; but that must already be a concern with storing history anyway). But it could be done gradually. And in view of the many concerns about file size I read about, I think it would take AP right into another league for (semi-) professional work.

For additional background, I would like to add a reference to this excellent article on gamma and how it pervades all image manipulation, not only gradients: colour blending, alpha blending, image resizing, antialiasing, ... In the light of this it would IMHO be best to go with Squizit's second suggestion and make it a document setting, not just a gradient tool setting. Cheers, and keep up the good work!

I am still climbing the AP learning curve, but already my compliments for an amazing piece of software. I have a feeling the following should be possible, however I am not sure how to approach it. I have a large number of slides and negatives, scanned with a scanner (Nikon CoolScan 5000 ED) that also records dust and scratch information using a separate infrared channel. From these scans I can create both an RGB tiff file, which loads fine in AP, and an infrared tiff file, which also loads fine and shows dust and scratches as black on a white background. My question is: can I use the IR file to automatically remove dust and scratches from the RGB image, preferably with some control over the aggressiveness of the effect? Thanks in advance!