RAW conversions?

[BobRock]

What does Affinity Photo use for RAW conversions?

 

Does it use Apple's OS level demosiacing?

 

Is it a Serif Labs proprietary RAW converter?

 

Something else?

 

 

[anon1]

-

[BobRock]

!!!

 

Now that is clever.

 

I wonder if they'll be able to add Adobe Camera RAW as another choice? Or Iridient's?

 

It seems as if trying to keep up with RAW conversions for all the possible cameras would be way too much trouble for a smaller company to do and it would avoid having to do the R&D to become expert.

 

P.S.

 

Can anyone get access to the betas? How?

[anon1]

-

[JasperD]

The way Affinity offers in the current beta is what Iridient has been doing for quite some time now - I don´t know how it is today, but imagine it didn´t change meanwhile. However, buying Iridient´s or Adobe´s code is, if to be considered at all, probably a matter of quite some investment, for something Serif has shown knowing to do very well itself. In short, the message probably is that when you want to use other provider´s tools, you just need to buy those tools. 

 

OTOH, RAW file processing, persistent development settings especially and stuff like that are already on Affinity Photo´s roadmap; hopefully it will come as something like you can with ACR and Photoshop, AFAIC. :P  

[BobRock]

I'm not sure I'd agree that the Affinity RAW conversion shows the Serif knows demosaicing "very well." Many online reviews are decidedly mixed. Pro photographers will demand the best in RAW conversion and often argue about how well even ACR does in some cases. Remember the commotion about X-Trans conversions?

 

RAW conversions are a black art. How long has it taken Apple, Adobe, and Phase One (maybe Iridient) to develop their expertise?

 

I wonder, aloud, whether Serif should take the time and effort to develop that expertise, or license it. I don't think they have it now and I think using Apple's conversion is a wonderful idea - to the point we can trust Apple to continue their own developments.

[JasperD]

X-Trans... Yes, that I know. :)

 

Adobe: quite soon, the reason for me buying Lightroom 4 at the time, which indeed had some issues, especially in my case with ´bleeding reds in traffic signs´; still, it was the only thing doing it at that time. IIRC, it became OK with ACR 8.3, but I didn´t upgrade to LR 5 because already back (high speed) into Aperture land at that time.

Apple: well over a year, I nearly trashed my Aperture - used since release 2, when it came on CDs and was still somewhat expensive! Using their conversion is not all that innovative as I see it, because it´s already there, part of OS X, nothing to do. Bringing a Serif special one is a good idea though, for sure.

Iridient: a lot sooner, quite good too, but my old iMac couldn´t compete with its slowness.

Capture one, since 7.1 if memory still serves, same complaint, beside I didn´t like it a single bit (I know lots of people swear by it though).

Let´s not forget the one coming with a Fujifilm X-Trans camera (I don´t know about others of the same brand): a whole mouth full for a name, RAW FILE CONVERTER EX 2.0 powered by SILKYPIX, basically now a version of SilkyPix 4 limited to Fujifilm X-Trans cameras only, which although quite a bit different and slowish, also delivers quite well. 

ON1´s Photo Suite: since release 8 at least.

Lots of others, from Photo Ninja through RPP, didn´t make it to the end of the trial period for me. DxO, don´t mention it, they still don´t know it exists (or better said, they do, but chose to ignore it so far).

 

Appreciation on performance and rendering is something very subjective, discussions on topic show that time and again. In my personal opinion, Affinity Photo delivers very well but after / below Photoshop. Absolute deal-breakers for me are with RAW processing and file sizes. Initial rendering of an X-Trans file is also very slow as I see it, with 22 seconds on my iMac to load and show (Iridient: 16 seconds sharp), but once it is there, speed is OK. The only one I liked almost as much as PS now was Aperture, but I gave up on it mainly because of the library, also because finally getting beyond the steep learning curve (for me!) with Photoshop CS6. I have high hopes with Affinity Photo and really wish it will evolve into something I can confidently use, instead of PS. I will pay for a DAM looking like Bridge, if that´s in the papers! If AP is not catching up close to the full PS, I´ll probably have to go for Adobe´s much hated and disgusted (all by me) subscription model, if and when a future camera is not included in ACR 9.1.

 

My main tools at this moment are Photoshop CS6 (100%), Photo Suite 9.5 (occasionally, will not upgrade to 10) and NIK components (always, when useful). However, I keep an eye on Affinity Photo and ´play´ with it a little bit almost every day, discovering and keeping high hopes. 

[BobRock]

So, do the folks seriously working with Affinity Photo find the RAW conversions to be overall on par with ACR?

 

I wouldn't expect AF to be able to really challenge PS for photographers until it is.

 

Have there been any careful studies of RAW conversion quality for AF vs. C1 and PS? Maybe others?

[JasperD]

That depends on what you consider on par with ACR...  ;)

 

Rendering? Most certainly.

 

I am in the process of also re-processing all my old RAWs (slowly), to get their processing out of Aperture and Lightroom: direct comparisons between them usually show equally well or better with PS. That could be biased by a lot more experience with that tool meanwhile. Once in a while, for something a bit difficult or tricky to achieve what I want, at this moment I often also check with AP and it usually takes a bit more time but I manage also. Same bias then, but the other way around I think: I´m much less proficient with AP right now. So far, I do not complain at all, but I have limited gear at my disposal to train on: only some Panasonic LX3, LX5 and LX7, Sigma DP2x, Sony A100 and A900 and finally, Fujifilm X-Pro1 RAW files.

 

I have also processed quite a few files for a friend´s Fujifilm X-T1 and lenses I don´t have, I was pleased enough with all results, whether using PS or AP, Photo Suite 8 or 9 exclusively or additionally and NIK components, no issues other than required time needed to achieve a goal. He is a Capture One adept, but also has the Photo Suite and AP, so he can compare when he gets my doings back.

 

 

Implications of processing? Not so much.

 

You guess probably: I don´t like the impact of AP´s native file sizes which to me look huge even through eyes looking at a PSD file. Even worse than that IMO is the destructive development stage and the lack of any tiny footprint sidecar (XMP) when finished and no need for further processing (way over 80% of my own processing). It is on the roadmap though, although in what format remains guesswork.  

 

 

I cannot speak for others, there are not many here, participating in discussions like this.

[anon1]

-

[BobRock]

Here is one review I read about the relative quality of RAW converters:

 

https://fstoppers.com/originals/affinity-photo-first-impressions-and-call-action-59542

 

But I'd love to read more, carefully done, comparisons. Has anyone seen others?

[BobRock]

Implications of processing? Not so much.

 

You guess probably: I don´t like the impact of AP´s native file sizes which to me look huge even through eyes looking at a PSD file. Even worse than that IMO is the destructive development stage and the lack of any tiny footprint sidecar (XMP) when finished and no need for further processing (way over 80% of my own processing). It is on the roadmap though, although in what format remains guesswork.  

 

This will be a key point, for me. LR allows RAW files to stay small and not have a huge TIFF, JPG or other file format hanging around on disk. Parametric editing seems key.

 

But it's not yet clear that Affinity Photo, or a possible future DAM, will be able to keep file sizes small and adjustments non-destructive.

[kirkt]

The Develop persona in AP does not make destructive adjustments to your raw file.  It pretty much operates the same way that the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in in Photoshop works (a bunch of parametric sliders with local adjustment tools).  I cannot imagine it would be that difficult to implement an XML or JSON sidecar file export in the AP developer interface to preserve a set of adjustments.  That sidecar could sit next to your raw file and would not increase the file size, just like ACR.

 

There are a couple of open raw decoding libraries that are available and can be tailored to your specific needs and include several demosaic algorithms, etc. - dcraw and libraw come to mind - I don't think the whole process of raw development has to be reinvented, just implemented in a high-quality, fast and efficient way.  I would think there is a population of folks out there that would not agree that Adobe offers the best image quality in terms of their raw conversion.

 

kirk

[csp]

I would think there is a population of folks out there that would not agree that Adobe offers the best image quality in terms of their raw conversion.

 

 

yeah ! 

[BobRock]

There are a couple of open raw decoding libraries that are available and can be tailored to your specific needs and include several demosaic algorithms, etc. - dcraw and libraw come to mind - I don't think the whole process of raw development has to be reinvented, just implemented in a high-quality, fast and efficient way.  I would think there is a population of folks out there that would not agree that Adobe offers the best image quality in terms of their raw conversion.

 

To the extend that I understand what's happening in RAW conversions, I think there is a great deal more magic and engineering in it than an open source set of libraries can competitively handle. Adobe and Phase One have spent years getting their algorithms to the points they are now.

 

Depending on what you would call the "top" non-proprietary RAW converters (perhaps ACR, Apple, C1, and Iridient?), you'll find adherents to each. And the careful studies I've seen suggest that each can be "better" on different images, but one doesn't dominate across all images. ACR has taken many hits for its handling of X-Trans files, for example.

 

But Affinity does not yet seem to be in the upper echelon of RAW converters.

 

My point is perhaps they don't have to be, if they can use/license another converter. Apple's seems most logical, as there would be little to keep Apple from allowing it - perhaps for free. But can Apple keep up with the others for top quality work? Abandoning Aperture doesn't leave me with much trust.

 

If Serif Labs is going to develop the RAW conversion expertise to go head-to-head with the "big boys," they haven't talked much about it, yet. 

[anon1]

-

[JasperD]

... Abandoning Aperture doesn't leave me with much trust.

 

 

Aperture has no built in RAW converter, it works with Digital Camera RAW, part of OS X, so you should not feel too worried about that. 

 

Anyway, as others have said, RAW editing is never destructive, the files will remain the unhampered same (or so they should). The results of editing are saved as an extension to it, or hidden in a library / catalog, or fully in a different format, no matter what. Editing the results can be destructive, but it does not have to be like that either.