Search the Community

Imagine being a photographer who is preparing a batch of photos for upload to a stock image site. Trying to sell his/hers work. In that scenario it is common to pixel peep at 100% - apply only modest sharpening - if sharpening at all - and applying filters and effects to selected parts of the image. The professional stock image sites WILL pixel peep at 100% and accept or reject based on the quality. Imagine then... your photo editor not displaying your image correctly at 100% 🥶 Well, this is the case with Affinity Photo is you have selected "Bilinear (Best quality)" in preferences under view quality: Example With this setting open an image. SOOC. Looks a little soft. Apply modest sharpening with unsharp filter: After applying you inspect the result - and it looks like the preview: Imagine you send this to a stock image site - or someone else expecting a sale. Rejected. Too sharp. What? A friend on forum.affinity suggests you select this setting instead: Now it looks like this Comparison: This is a example with modest sharpening applied. Images pasted into post are even softened here by jpg compression. In amateur circles people sharpen much more aggressively and the image will look even worse without best quality selected. And in the world on recipients computers. Other results after running filters are displayed softer at 100% with best quality selected - this cannot be intended behavior. All professionals for example judge and choose their sharpening settings at 100% - and then you cant trust it. Actual output at 100% at all times, please.

Any advice on the best settings for performance in preferences on Photo - memory usage etc? I've had a quick search but can't find anything on here. I have 64bit Windows system with 16gb ram, Intel i5-2500K 3.30ghz, with Nvidia GTX GeForce 1050 ti. Current settings are attached. My problem has been generally sluggish performance, waiting for effects to play catch-up with Retina Rendering at Highest Quality and a far too pixelated image when it's set to low quality.