r10k

If you compare the results at actual size, the text that doesn't get rasterized looks very poor, especially for logos. The text looks comparatively chunky. I would not say the difference is extremely slight. It was enough that I looked at the logo text and wondered why it looked like it was made by someone who didn't know how to resize something. Perhaps algorithmically it's doing what it's supposed to, but from a human perspective, on the surface Photoshop produces far more desirable results, unless you know to rasterize your text before output in AP.

That's why I suggested doing it. Resize this to 200x80. Look at the chunkiness of the AA on the left side of the e. Rasterize the text. The AA of the text is greatly improved. (or I should say, it's different) test.afphoto

Not really, no.. I don't have time for image examples of every setting. However, I think I've found where the problem lies. You can test this for yourself. I used the Cabin font and created a line of text that was eventually resized to be 25 pixels high. The text was white on a coloured background. The problem seems to be with resizing line artwork in Affinity Photo. So for example, non converted text, or curves. The anti aliasing looks quite poor at smaller sizes, even upon export to png. However, if you rasterize the text, it is easily comparable to Photoshop. This rasterization is very effective, even if you do it at the smaller size. I would love someone from Serif to comment on why this might be happening.

So I've been working on a 200x80 logo for a website (in Affinity Photo primarily, but I have tried in Designer too), and I noticed when I created the logo at that size and exported it out as a transparent 24bit png, the anti aliasing of the text looked quite poor. So, I created the file to be much larger, and tried again. Same thing. So, I converted everything to curves and tried again. It still looked quite chunky around the edges. Then I went systematically through every resizing algorithm. Things still looked poor. Finally I went to Photoshop. Aside from the near instant previews in Photoshop (that I miss in Affinity) I could immediately see that Photoshop (CC) produced a much cleaner logo at a small size. The edges weren't always as sharp in places (things were quite rounded off with anti aliasing) but the effect was much nicer and more consistent. The Affinity apps have some nice algorithms, but in terms of clean AA at smaller sizes, Photoshop has Affinity beaten by a country mile. I wonder... is this something Serif plan on improving in the future?

I think it's bugged at the moment. Sometimes it works and other times it doesn't (I'm referring to the one in the colour studio) and then you need to click on the swatch next to it to apply the colour.

For now you can drag a dot onto another. It's not ideal but it works...

This is definitely possible. When drawing, show the size of the brush. Paintstorm does this and it's better than nothing...

These are actually pretty simple things... I think :P The colour picker isn't always available when I'm choosing colours. If I'm editing a gradient I get the half brother of the Colour Studio who can't do much at all. So, just some consistency across tool types would be great. While I'm talking about gradients, a consistent way to delete gradient points would be good! It seems different right across the app... (also I don't think it's mentioned in the manual how to do it without a trash icon) The little white triangles for the bottom menu drive me insane. The menu forgets where you left it, so if I jump in and out of selection tools I have to keep tapping them, and they aren't in the same place each time so I feel like I need to chase them everywhere. It'd be great to be able to just do a full swipe over the tools (just like the edit menu in iOS when it has white triangles) to move between the pages. Long story short, they're irritating. The generated icons look really pretty for adjustments and filters, but it'd be great to have a list view for them... or some kind of a search. Scrolling through them can be confusing if the document looks simple (like mostly plan white). Also it shows the preview for the whole document, not simply for the layer that would receive that adjustment. If I copy and paste an image from the web, it pastes the url, not the image. That is different from almost every app on iOS... including Notes. An option to duplicate a document would be handy.. A way to reset the preferences back to default would also be helpful. Edit: Also... a button to cancel processes. I've seen the app get stuck a few times, or just take a while to do things like refine a selection. It's almost a must to be able to back out of long processes (downloading, number crunching, whatever it is)...

I'm only half excited about an Affinity DAM. Adobe may be annoying in many respects, but many of its algorithms are impressive (highlight reduction for one) that leave every other DAM in the dust, and that includes Capture One that despite it's heavy handed RAW processing, has some equally impressive stuff. So far Affinity's RAW processing is pretty poor. I do like how I can select a different RAW processing engine in Photo, but if that app itself has sub-par adjustments it'll just be a glorified Bridge application. A DAW to rule them all needs the best algorithms, not just a good UI. Dislike for Adobe isn't reason enough to pick something that isn't as good, when Lightroom (despite it's many imperfections) is quite mature software, with solid adjustments and easy to use tools. If Serif (hi devs!) can match Aperture or Capture One in terms of organisation, and Lightroom for tech then that'd be something worth getting excited about.

I agree with everyone else - use an app with specific tools for chroma keying. I believe Motion would be a good option for handling things (large images should be fine) and be a lot easier to get your head around than Fusion (especially when it comes to reducing spill), but the basic version of Fusion is free so it might be worth giving it a try with that. Otherwise, it's all possible with AP. You just have to figure out the right workflow to get rid of the green spill from light bouncing off the green screen. In the future, and depending on your subjects eye colour and what they're wearing, you could use a blue screen. You'll see a lot less spill off the screen.

So I went on in two threads about how AP's RAW processing needs work, but then after using both AP and AD for some work the other day (and comparing the workflow to Photoshop and Illustrator), I just wanted to sing their praises and let Serif know how great I think they are. But... where do I do that on this forum? Would a general discussion forum do the trick? :)

That's a pretty interesting photo... maybe a bit heavy on the clarity though :)

I think Serif mentioned in another post they were considering it, but it wouldn't be making an appearance soon if they did decide to make it.

I'm a huge fan of Aperture, but collywob since you used a boating analogy, I'm going to use one too. You've jumped ship way too early. Pretty foolishly actually. But hey, it's your loss. On a side note, AP is no replacement for Aperture. One is fully non destructive and can organise your photos. The other can't organise photos and isn't fully non destructive, but has a ton of other tools. So, they're totally different apps. If you expected them to act the same then you should probably learn a thing or two before spitting the dummy. PS: the TAB key gets you full screen. It may not have a floating panel, but then AP can get rid of the interface 50 times faster than Aperture and wouldn't be able to fit everything in a small popup hud anyway.

In regards to the RAW processing, I agree, chetan. I'm not sure I understand the issues with the clone tool, though...

It's down to personal opinion, but I do. When you have red dots on your image that you have to remove with extreme levels of noise reduction (AP's definition of extreme) that don't present in a more natural representation of the original scene via other RAW processors, I call it inferior.

Yeah, the X100 isn't X-trans. csp, I'm not sure what you're asking for. Coranda, I'd like to know too. I hardly print images, but there are times I need to crop or push colours a bit and I'd prefer not to have the results AP produces. Kirk, I may not be a RAW processing algorithm expert, but I do realise different settings need tweaking in different apps to produce a similar result. But aside from that, at least we're in agreement about AP. Now we just await Serif to possibly comment on things...?

So, I still don't agree with you. And, this thread is about the quality of AP's RAW conversion. Not about that blog post, specifically. I posted that because it showed clearly the results I was getting. (meaning it wasn't limited to my exact setup) I didn't post any images because it's annoying to do that in a forum. That's why I submitted an original photo so you could see the results for yourself. Or more importantly, so the developers could see them. I don't think this whole thing has much to do with noise reduction at all. And your statement that if I opened my RAF file in Photos and boosted some stuff it would look like a mess that no noise reduction would fix, is 100% false. The photo I adjusted in Photos (and ACR) looked remarkably good, after boosting things. (mostly though, for best results I adjusted the black point) Have a look for yourself. But let's keep this on topic to what is happening in AP- what's coming from the Develop RAW conversion process is producing remarkably different (and I would say undesired) results compared to the majority of popular RAW processors out there.

Kirkt, whether or not the blog author understands what's happening or is correctly describing things or not, there is a point to be made that the end result (even with extreme levels of noise reduction applied) doesn't look anywhere near as good as what someone would get from Lightroom/PS or Photos.

I didn't find the article unfair personally because even without default processing it's obvious things aren't brilliant (if I understand what you mean by default processing). But, I completely agree things will improve with AP. That's why I'm more than happy to have paid for it. For the money it's pretty amazing, and the devs have been amazing so far with AP and AD :) I would still love to hear Serif's perspective on the raw side of things though...

Great thoughts, coranda! Thanks for writing them up :) And I completely agree about encouraging Serif to keep going. I too would love to hear from one of the developers though...

I'm super happy to have paid for it because of what it can do, but it does have lots of room for improvement. Hopefully this discussion about the RAW process will lead to that!

An interesting article that sums up what I feel so far (with respect to what you might find, coranda). http://loewald.com/blog/?p=5693

Cool, I'll be interested to hear what you find.

Actually, here you go. Here's a great example image to play with (terrible image, but with a good example of the issue :)) Take a look at the red dots across the black bumper of the front van. If you load it into any other raw converter you don't get those red dots. Even if you disable the AP assistant's tone curve adjustment, you can still see those red dots are a part of the fundamental way AP decides to handle raw conversion. https://www.dropbox.com/s/393vq0263nb26fx/DSCF3559.RAF?dl=0 (the link's good for 7 days)