Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DeepDesertPhoto

  1. I set it up that way by going into the preferences. Here is a screenshot of the preferences I set for color.
  2. Yes, that is true. APh does not have LAB for processing NEF or other RAW camera formats. When I process my NEF files I have APh set to open the NEFs in 32 bit RGBA Wide Gamut. After editing I then develop it and convert to LAB 16 bit for any final editing. I then save the final edited image as a TIFF in LAB 16 bit. I use that TIFF version as my master copy for making any prints and RGB 8 bit JPEGs that I upload to the art sites and stock agencies I deal with. I would send them the TIFF but most of the websites I deal with only accept JPGs.
  3. I've been using LAB color for 17 years. I find it better than straight RGB. Here is an article explaining LAB. http://geraldbakker.nl/psnumbers/lab-explained.html The biggest advantages of LAB are that the Luminance is separate from the colors and LAB has a wider color gamut than either RGB or CMYK. I can adjust colors using LAB in ways that just don't work with RGB. And for me the proof is that way the prints turn out. You can also make adjustments using LAB that you cannot do with RGB. Here is a video about making adjustments using LAB in Affinity Photo.
  4. Sorry for the late reply. I just got back home from a 7 mile hike at the Grand Canyon. My scanner is an Epson V-300 flatbed. Maximum resolution is 9600 PPI without interpolation. I've used it to scan 2x3 wallet photos and turn them into 8x10s. The scanner supports RGB 16 bit TIFF. Unless the photo is a black and white I always scan in 16 bit for all color photos. Since the photos often need editing, such as sharpening, dust removal, and even repair of tears, I save it in LAB color after editing is complete. As I mentioned before I find that Lab reproduces the colors better when I make prints. According to my research LAB is a 3 dimensional color model that combines RGB and CMYK. My mistake was saving them in JPF. All photos I still have the original prints for will be rescanned. NEF files will be reprocessed into LAB 16 bit TIFF. The OpenXLR 32 bit export I did was more of an experiment. I don't know if I will use it yet. I will have to see how many JPFs I have than cannot be rescanned or reprocessed from original NEF files.
  5. When I open the JPF file with Preview App it does display it normally. When I go to export it gives me the options of JPEG, JPEG2000, TIFF, PNG, and OpenXLR. Exporting to JPG, JP2, TIFF, or PNG converts it to 8 bit RGB. But when I export to OpenXLR the result is RGB 32 bit. The OpenXLR file that gets created does have all of the original colors that were in the display, but they are more saturated and lighter. The heavier saturation and lightness can be adjusted if necessary. After readjusting the color saturation and lightness I then convert the OpenXLR file into TIFF 16 bit LAB. Like I mentioned in another reply I will only do this for JPF files that do not have photo print for me to rescan or an NEF version that can be reprocessed. Got to leave in 10 minutes to do some photography work so if you reply to this I will check for your reply either late this evening or tomorrow morning.
  6. Good morning. There must be a 7 to 8 hour difference between where we live because your reply is shown to be 7 hours old. Anyway, I considered using one of the TIFF compression algorithms but I was not sure if those would be supported on other programs, so I left my TIFF files uncompressed after I started having problems with CS5 and JPF. When I was saving files in JPEG2000 I do recall CS5 taking quite a while to save them, so you're right about the slower processing with JP2. And you, as well as other commenters, keep referring to JP2. All of my JPEG2000 files have the extension JPF. According to a list of variants for JPEG2000 the extension of JPF means my files were saved in the JPEG2000 (Part2) variant. The Part 2 variant simply might not be supported anymore except by the Preview App and another Utility App in my Mac called ColorSync. I did discover that the Preview App can export the JPF files as OpenXLR in 32 bit. The only side effect is that the colors are more saturated and lighter, which can be readjusted if necessary. I have experimented with OpenXLR files before and they are good for HDR work. What I will probably do is rescan the old film photo prints to get the resolution I need. Older NEF files can simply be reprocessed and saved at TIFF. I will only need to use the Preview App for JPF files that do not have a corresponding NEF backup or a photo print that I can scan. I will be leaving shortly to do some photography work at the Grand Canyon, so I will be gone all day. Just letting you and anyone else know so that you know why I am not replying for the rest of today.
  7. I cannot respond to your critique of Aph vs NX-D. I only know that APh works to my satisfaction and I have tried the Nikon program in the past and did not like the way it operated. Here is a stock photo agency I sell some of my photography through. They are pretty picky when it comes to quality. All of the images I have here were processed from NEF files using APh. These images would not have been accepted by this agency if there were any quality problems with the way they were processed. https://www.robertharding.com/photographers/stevenlove/
  8. To be honest with you I never liked the Nikon software. I tried to use it in place of photoshop but it was very limited for the type so work I do. Affinity Photo does everything I need it to do in regards to processing NEF files. The only thing APh does not do is open those JPF files I talked about. So, unless the Nikon software can open and reprocess JPF files I don't really have a use for it.
  9. I tried the Nikon software. Didn't like it because it did not have the HDR tools I needed for my layering work. As far as scanning, I already have an Epson V-300 flatbed scanner capable of scanning slides and 35mm film negatives. But most of the scans I need to do are just regular photo prints.
  10. It never showed in the updates tab. I check the App Store once a month for any updates for my Mac, which I get from time to time such as security updates and Safari updates. But APh 1.7.2 was the last one to show up as an update. It was only when I went to the "Purchased Apps" tab that it showed up with the button to the right prompting me to install it. When I clicked the install button it downloaded and installed and then when I reopened it that's when it said version 1.7.3
  11. It's really too bad they are abandoning JPEG2000. It supported multiple color spaces and 16 bit color depth. The primary advantage was that it was half the size of a TIFF yet supported the same colors and bit depth of a TIFF. Fortunately I can rescan the old photo prints that were saved in JPF. I also have other photos saved in JPF that were created from Nikon NEF files. But fortunately I still have those NEF files and it is a simple matter to reprocess them into TIFF using APh.
  12. You do have to be in reasonable shape for some of these hikes. I am 56 years old and had to do some training for these hikes. The last hike I did was about 2 weeks ago on the New Hance Trail. This trail is not maintained, not used by the tourists and had 45 degree switchbacks. Also had to climb over boulders because some parts of the trail were destroyed by rock slides. I plan to hike the Grandview Trail tomorrow. It is 6 miles round trip.
  13. I noticed that too. It might be the newer version that was not shown as an update. Before I noticed it I was running Aph version 1.7.2 When I clicked the install button on my purchased app page it installed version 1.7.3 Not 100% certain of this but since it did not charge me for the installation I am guessing it was an update to the newer version.
  14. That would be good, but the National Parks here prohibit the use of consumer Drones. There are signs at the park entrance saying that use of drones will get you expelled from the park unless you have a special permit. The only drones permitted are by licensed commercial film operators, like those who film documentaries for PBS or the Science Channel. But just to let you know, I actually enjoy the hike.
  15. I have been using Affinity Photo since late 2017 when I first got the trial version. I was so impressed with it that I went ahead and bought the full version. Took me a few weeks of trial and error learning since I was used to Photoshop, but I did eventually master Affinity Photo and found it to be superior to Photoshop in many aspects. I've been making my living as a photographic artist for over 17 years now. I recently got accepted by the Robert Harding Photography Library, a premier travel photography agency based in Britain. All of the images they accepted from me were processed using Affinity Photo. The gallery page link will only show the first 100 images they accepted from me. To see all 175 photos type the number 1311 in the search bar of the page. That will redirect to my full gallery. I am based in Arizona so I have a lot of Grand Canyon and Sedona related photos. Some of my photos are from areas that the everyday tourists either can't or won't go, which means they are of areas rarely seen by the everyday public. Some of these shots took me a whole day to hike to. My most popular photos are of lightning storms I captured in Arizona. https://www.robertharding.com/photographers/stevenlove/
  16. It could have been the type of Mac you had as well. CS5 worked without a problem on my old MacBook, which was running Lion (10.7) at the time. It was a very old Mac, about 9 years old. It had 16 gigs of RAM. I know that the more RAM you have the more stable memory intensive programs will run. But then one day I turned it on and had the white screen of death, which meant the graphics processor had decided to take a crap. I took it in for repair but they could not fix it because Apple only supports its products for 7 years, which means no more parts for that particular MacBook. I was then forced to buy a used MacBook Pro Retina that was refurbished by a company called MacMedia. It came with the High Sierra OSX. I used TimeMachine to transfer all of my old programs and files that were backed up from the old Mac. That was when the problems started. Many older programs that ran perfectly on my old Mac were suddenly disabled on the newer one. When I first initiated PSCS5 on the new Mac it gave me a weird error code. I called MacMedia about it and they said it was because I used TimeMachine to transfer it. Whenever any Adobe products are installed on a Mac they attach themselves to the processor of that machine to prevent illegal copying of the program. The technician told me to remove it using AppCleaner and then reinstall the program from the original CD. I did that and the program did activate normally. It also opened files without a problem. The problem started when I tried to save those files in another format. For example, when I opened a Nikon NEF file and tried to save it as a TIFF the program crashed and an error report popped up on the screen. The MacMedia tech told me to contact Adobe because he did not know why it was doing that. That was when Adobe told me that CS5 was never tested on High Sierra and said there was no guarantee it would work on anything newer than El Capitan. The Adobe tech told me to get the newer CS6 with Creative Cloud, but unlike CS5 I would have to pay a $9.99 per month subscription fee and the program required an internet connection in order to verify that I paid the bill before allowing me to use it. I told the tech that I will never rent a program. I only use stand alone programs because I sometimes travel to remote areas for my photography work and don't have access to internet. The tech told me that is what is being sold now by Adobe for professional photo editing. That was when I gave up on Adobe Photoshop and found Affinity Photo. APh works just as good as CS5. I just wish it had JPF support.
  17. I agree that CS5 probably encoded the file in a way that allowed for the Lab color space. But since a lot of the files are opening in a lower resolution of only 900 pixels I have no choice but to rescan those. I have to have at least 2000 pixels at 300 PPI for printing purposes. Rescanning is not hard, just takes time. I will just have to save them in TIFF this time. I cannot use CS5 at all on my current Mac. It is not compatible with the High Sierra OSX. I actually had CS5 on a CD that I bought back in 2012. It worked fine on my older Mac, but when I had to upgrade to a newer Mac in 2017 the CS5 simply would not work. It kept crashing and giving me errors. At that time I contacted Adobe support about this and they told me that CS5 was never tested on Mac OSX newer than El Capitan. They suggested I switch to Creative Cloud, but I told them I am not renting a program. And Windows based programs will not even install on my Mac, so those would be a waste of time. That is when I searched for an alternative to Photoshop and found Affinity Photo. APh works just great with all of my old files except those in the JPF format. Like I said, it will be simpler to just rescan those old photos. I have a high resolution scanner so it will not be a problem. It will just take time. Thanks for the effort, but looks like rescanning is the only sure option of getting the resolution I need for those old photos. Perhaps APh will add the support for JPF in the future as the program gains popularity.
  18. As I mentioned in a prior reply, I save my files in LAB because it mimics the color range the human eye perceives. It also produces better print color than straight RGB because LAB uses a 3 dimensional color model versus 2D RGB. I have used this color mode for over 17 years without problems as far as printing. The current problem I have is strictly compatibility issues with the JPF format I saved some older files in. I originally chose JPF strictly to save computer drive space because JPF supported LAB 16 bit yet was half the size of TIFF. I obviously don't use the JPF format anymore. But because I have a lot of older files in the JPF format that is why I am searching for a way to convert them to TIFF but preserve the original LAB 16 bit they were first saved in. Since these older files are mostly old film photo scans I will simply have to rescan them if all else fails.
  19. The LAB color in the original file is causing the problem because that is obviously not the right color output. These programs just cannot handle it. I will have to use the Preview App in my Mac to convert them one at a time and use APh to manually switch them back to LAB color. I am not going back to Photoshop. CS5 will not work on my current Mac, which is why I got APh. And I am not going to install Creative Cloud. I don't rent programs and I don't use programs that require an internet connection to operate.
  20. Just tried XnConvert, which is from the same company that makes XnView, and it crashed when I tried to convert a 40 megabyte JPF into a 16 bit TIFF. I guess these 3rd party programs don't like my Mac.
  21. I only brought this subject up again because I did notice that some people were able to convert J2K and JP2 files using the newest APh. So I thought that perhaps they did add the support, but I was wrong because it still won't read JPF. My guess is that Adobe has a special patent on JPF because when I saved my files in that format back when I had CS5 the JPF extension was the only option for JPEG2000 using CS5. I did a search and there is no 3rd party software listed specifically for JPF, but I did find a lot of 3rd party software for JP2 and J2K. That ImageMagick also does not support JPF according to its supported format page. I even tried one of those on-line conversion websites but they also said the JPF format was not supported.
  22. Unfortunately that JPEG2000 plug-in is the only one I needed to work. APh pretty much does what I need it to do, with the exception of not being able to open JPF files.
  23. The Preview App does not support LAB so it does open it in RGB. So I do have to use APh to switch it back to LAB after converting to TIF. Maybe I will find another program later that will work better. Anyway, thanks for the effort.
  24. For some reason when I checked the one you converted it was showing a display resolution of only 72 PPI. Maybe it was the PhotoLine program that caused that, I don't know. Most of these are old film photos various family members took. They obviously did not know how to use their cameras when it came to focus. But they wanted me to preserve them since the photo prints are starting to fade. I will have to rescan the ones that somehow ended up with low resolutions. Here is one that has the original resolution preserved to show you what I mean. I have no idea how the others ended up with low resolutions since I saved them all the same way, unless it had something to do with the failing motherboard at the time. Moms_Dogs067.jpf
  • 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.