Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Recent update,camera RAW support


Recommended Posts

Hi Callum,

I prefer to work with RAW, as probably most of your users do, and you tell me that my camera "may be added in the future" to

the list of RAW support. That tells me, that I have to find myself a solution to the RAW support if I do not want to wait to one day

in the future. Sorry, I was really enthusiastic about a possible alternative to Aperture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coranda,

 

Thanks for advice, I have tried DNG convertor and it worked well, however the results of my RAW file processed in my camera

look better, but this might be due to my lack of practice with Affinity. The Import of photos via DNG to Affinity than the transfer to Aperture (where

I have still organized my photos) is complicated. Therefore I hope, that Affinity will become a better Aperture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lock,

 

The jpeg you get from your camera will be heavily processed and designed to look, at least superficially, good.  Most raw convertors I've used seem to do some default processing to also make most images look good, AP for example has, by default, the assistant turned on and so does some tonal correction.  My pet gripe is that Lightroom performs highlight recovery by default which can't be turned off.  Personally, I find this annoying as I'd rather have a minimalist conversion and hence have full control over post processing.

 

I don't use the raw convertor in AP for two reasons:

  • It is still a relatively new product with a number of shortcomings.  Affinity, to their credit, acknowledge that they have work to do and intend to improve it.
  • But most importantly, AP's raw convertor cannot save your conversion settings in a space efficient manner but needs to save the whole, processed file as afphoto, tiff or some other format.  These files are huge compared to the xmp sidecar files of ACR or the database entries of Lightroom and Aperture.  If I'm creating a special image for printing then that overhead would be fine but if I take 500 shots of my grandsons playing cricket or granddaughters at calisthenics then I need a way to process raw files that isn't going to consume gigabytes of extra storage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.