r10k

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'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.

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.

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.

I mean, for example, it criticises AP for not using white balance metadata.  That's not true.  All he's really saying is that the default process doesn't apply white balance but that's just a matter of turning it on or creating a preset with white balance on.  In my experience, counter to his assertion, a camera's auto white balance data is often questionable and I frequently end up making my own adjustments so, that's not a fair criticism.  When he turns white balance on it isn't identical to his preferred convertor so he unilaterally declares that AP must be wrong without feeling the need to provide any evidence to support that contention.  No photographs of colour or grey scale charts.  That's neither fair nor intelligent analysis.  He might be right in his conclusions but he hasn't provided any evidence to support his argument and so, from a rational empiricist perspective, his assertions alone contributes nothing to the debate.
 
He also compares a Photos default process, which uses noise reduction, with the AP process which does not.  How can that be a fair comparison?  You can turn noise reduction on in AP and get a much less noisy image than that article presents.  Whether or not it's equivalent or inferior is an open question but that's not something he bothers to explore.
 
He declares that AP, "somehow manages to create both chrome (sic) and tonal noise even for well-exposed images...".  What's the evidence for this?  Having looked at images in AP and prior to demosaicing I haven't seen anything to particularly support this, but then he doesn't seem to have done any experimental analysis at all.  Opening an image in one processor with noise reduction on by default and another where it is, by default, disabled is a meaningless comparison with regard to noise levels.  The reality, as far as I can tell, is that AP doesn't create noise it's just that, by default, it doesn't do anything to reduce it.  To be honest, his suggestion that it creates the noise just makes me question whether he really has any understanding of the raw conversion process.
 
Yes, as I've said, there are still real issues with AP's Develop persona that I'm sure could be isolated with genuine empirical analysis.  However, so much of the criticism in that article is very shallow and could be placated with a different AP default preset.  To be blunt, I think there are many valid grounds on which the Develop persona can be justifiably criticised but there is nothing in that article that makes me think this guy is even close to being competent to assess a raw convertor.

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!

Or Fusion which, unless you need the high-end features, is free via Blackmagic.

ronnyb,
 
Thanks! That did it. I thought one would be able to select the layer, then Adjust, so that it would only affect the current selected layer, not the entire document with all layers as a whole.
The video is for Designer, but works the same in Affinity Photo which is what I am using. Thanks again. Jesus Loves You!
 
In God's Harmony

Not sure if my question is similar in nature, but is color adjustment possible for a specific layer, instead of all of them?
I have two layers, I select one of them, and when I go to the Adjustment Tab>HSL, my HSL adjustments affect the entire document (both layers). How does one only make the adjustment to a specific layer?
 
In God's Harmony

A popular option in a lot of 3D software these days (the better packages, anyway) is the ability to drag left/right on a box in which numeric entry happens, making it fast to increase or decrease the value. Adobe haven't yet figured out this would be helpful, so it'd be great to see this happen in Affinity! Sometimes they also have a modifier key or two to allow the scrubbing to either more slowly change the values or increase it by a lot more. This would be really helpful when increasing the size of text in a text box, which can't be scaled via some handles, like the art text.