Affinity Photo ignored again

[Granddaddy]

A new review of the "most powerful photo editor on earth" mentions several alternative products for those who want to pay less, avoid subscription software, or use free software. Sadly, Affinity Photo is not even mentioned as a possibility, though past reviews at PCMag at least gave APhoto a nod.

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/adobe-photoshop

[Bad_Wolf]

It is indeed true that Photoshop is the most powerfull editor for the moment, despite many hate the subscription plans. The fact that Affinity Photo is not mentioned can be because of a personal preference of the reviewer, or maybe he doesn't know Affinity Photo well enough or he just intended to mention a few applications as an example. No need to panic :).

Anyway, there is nothing Serif, this community or anybody else can do.

Be assured that despite its shortcomings, the Affinity Suite is an excellent alternative to the Adobe applications. But in my opinion, Serif should speed up the process for version 2.0 for the whole suite, so there is more revenue generated which gives more room for new features and functionality.

Chris

 

[Pšenda]

This review is to be understood as an advertisement (and perhaps a well-paid one) on Photoshop, the purpose of which is certainly not to show possible alternatives to this product.

Gimp is mentioned as the only free alternative, which does not mean that it is the "only" free product.

[PaulEC]

I am absolutely amazed that a review of Photoshop doesn't mention Affinity Photo! 😄

It's quite obvious that this is a review (advert?) for Photoshop, it doesn't even pretend to be comparing various, different photo editing apps, so why on earth should it mention Affinity Photo which is arguably it's closest competitor? 

[iuli]

I thought that gone are the days when people would take advertisements as articles…? But even your post reads as an advertisement. What the hell.

[walt.farrell]

I had the feeling that the only products mentioned were (perhaps) ones they had reviewed earlier.

In any case, there is a Comments section, and you could post a comment asking why they ignored Affinity Photo. You could also give a thumbs-down to the review, if it bothers you enough.

[Pšenda]

2 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

In any case, there is a Comments section, and you could post a comment asking why they ignored Affinity Photo. You could also give a thumbs-down to the review, if it bothers you enough.

... I don't think there's a reason to protest against not listing APhoto in review, that only deals with Photoshop. I'm rather surprised why is there any alternative mentioned in this "one man show"? To make the article sound credible and objective enough? Then the author did not help much with this list.

[iconoclast]

I worked for a record company for some years in the past. Journalists who wrote bad about our artists became banned from sampling with new products and giveaways. I think that often had some impact. Even on the small concerts, we sometimes arranged for the press only, one could observe that many of the journalists were more interested in the cold buffet than in the music. Seems that they finally are only somehow human. Why should IT-journalists be different?

However, I think an advertisement should be labelled as what it is. As far as I know this is applicable law at least in Germany. Even there may be many ways to prevent it.