Search the Community

A rather unexpected bad surprise for me on this! I was dismayed (after the facts) to see the huge file produced by Affinity Photo. I performed a search, didn't get an answer... Has no one raised questions about this so far? I did nothing weird or special that I am aware of, processed a Fujifilm X-Pro1 raw file to the best of my liking as I usually do with ACR. If nothing more than that, I stop there and just keep the raw and the XMP sidecar, about 26MB (for the example given). If I need to keep a PSD for whatever reason, I open Photoshop. If only for editing there, when finished I save as PSD: 96MB or so with only one layer. It can become much more when adding layers, or convert to smart object before launching a NIK plugin for instance, but that´s not the issue here. My grief is about what usually is ´only´ a 96MB PSD file (almost 4x the raw´s size already!). So I processed a sample first in ACR. I did not need to open it in Photoshop, but for the sake of the comparison I did. Ended with a 96MB file as expected. I then launched Affinity Photo with the intention to produce more or less the same result. I ended with a 218MB (!) AFPHOTO file. I didn't see anything special at all. So I did nothing else, exported the same as PSD to see what that would give. Shocking result there: 293MB file for the single one background layer!!! Just to make sure (I don´t know what could be hidden), I tried flattening before export, no change; also merge visible layer, same result as well. In fact, I suppose these did nothing a all, rightfully so. I have about 25,000 photographs, the vast majority only saved as raw + sidecar. That takes about 600GB on a 2TB external HD right now. There also is a 3TB TimeMachine for them and my internal HD... So I was thinking: if I need to organise more than 8 times the current diskspace used for the images alone (or worse), the comparison with Photoshop becomes quite a bit different, on the expenses involved alone. Imagine: for the same comfort and setup as I have now, I would need at least 16TB. Not to mention another even larger system for TimeMachine as well! :blink: I wonder, are the developers aware of this? If so, also working on it? I am now a bit afraid of comparing a picture from a 38MB raw file (my other current camera, an older DSLR).