Advantages over Photoshop ?

[v_kyr]

Those are by themselves pretty different sized apps, PS CC 2017 is by far a much bigger tool (installed 3-4 GB on 64-bit systems), which also contains and has to load up much more embedded things/tools than AP (installed about 344 MB on 64-bit systems) here. - In contrast here AP is pretty lean and much smaller in size, thus it probably makes more sense to test instead how quick they can load in some given raw and image files or perform certain tasks on those!

[R C-R]

Just as a point of reference, Affinity Photo installed on my iMac running OS X 10.11.6 is 1.07 GB. A bit over 780 MB of that is in the Frameworks folder, which contains various dynamic libraries. The largest of those is the "liblibpersona.dylib," at about 534 MB.

[v_kyr]

Don't have AP installed thus can't tell, maybe those 344 MB are instead just the apps installer download size. - However, it's still a much smaller sized app than PS.

[cornishninja]

£8 UK for PhotoShop and Lightroom.

 

Divide by 2.

 

It's now £10.10 per month. Multiply by 12. Do the maths. If you kept PS and Lightroom for a year it would cost you £120 approximately. And that's just for a year.

 

Affinity Photo is a one off payment of £48.99 including VAT with all free future updates. 

 

I know which one I'm going for, since AP will do the job just as well as PS would in my case. ;)

[Renzatic]

Affinity Photo is a one off payment of £48.99 including VAT with all free future updates.

 

From what I gather, all updates aren't going to be perpetually free in the future, just the point releases between new versions. So if you got in on 1.5, you'll get 1.6, 1.7 etc. for free. But when 2.0 comes out, you'll have to pay for an upgrade.

[carl123]

.....But when 2.0 comes out, you'll have to pay for an upgrade.

 

Not if you don't want to, for a lot of people the features in version 1.x may be good enough for what they want it for. 

 

You can choose to upgrade if you want the new features that version 2.0 has to offer or even wait for version 3 or version 4 before you upgrade

 

Choice is good.

[Vicks]

I too believe AP is a better choice for most people, still it come short on adobe's counterpart, batch raw file processing is basically non existent, and most people like to develop their files in a raw engine as in lightroom and capture one and then process them in detail in ap or ps, and there lies the prblem, there are still things ap lacks that will make peple go back to ps, not that ap doesn't make good use of some of its feature, but sometimes there are tools you just can't live without (in my case the ability to refine masks with level and curves for luminosity masking). if AP can get that sorted I'm in for life

[dmstraker]

The layers thing can be a bit of a hurdle for beginners, for who the 'auto fix' buttons may be all they use for a while, graduating to 'Adjustment' panel and then layers later. The official video set is brilliant for getting you going, and the help system is much better than competitors'.

 

There may be potential for something of an Elements-style novice interface, perhaps in its own innovative persona, but this asks a question of development effort: Do you want to focus more on beginners or advanced/professional users? Selfishly, I'd prefer the latter, and it looks like Affinity is heading this way, for example with excellent improvements on PS, such as Blend Ranges, the Blend-if killer.

 

While AP is excellent in many quarters there's still work to do (and it's great to see them working so hard on it). A Browse persona would be great (a la On1). Macros need beefing up to compete with PS Actions. And there's a host of other tweaks that will raise the overall potential.

[Keith Reeder]

and there lies the prblem, there are still things ap lacks that will make peple go back to ps

That's a completely unfounded and entirely speculative assumption based purely on your own experience, isn't it?

[Vicks]

That's a completely unfounded and entirely speculative assumption based purely on your own experience, isn't it?

do we have the ability to synch setting among 100-200 raw images? no, do we have luminosity panels? no, do we have extensive masks refinement based on contrast that doesn't involve creating rasterized layers? no, do we have align layers? no (and live stack does not align anything, it works only in aligning a new stack, thanks but that isn't really useful when I have all my layers opened one on top of the other), do we have create panorama from open files? no, can you pick a color when opening the hsl tool? no...I mean these are basic thing AP shuld be albe to do and are possible, when they are, only by convoluted way that is basically a workflow killer, Am I saying this from my experience? yes, yes I am how should I base my assertion then? there are thing that I find AP does better then PS, and the vast majority of the thing that I do that Photoshop does better.

And performance, that is just a plain simple fact, Photoshop is faster.

Is that a speculation in your eyes? cause I did my tests, not because of wanting to see if one program or another take 55 or 52 seconds to complete a task, but because from the time I open my files to when I save them as a completed photo I takes much more time in AP that it does in PS, may that be caused by performance issues or the fact that PS just make some steps faster (hell just think about remove CA).

Why Am I here then? to complain about a program that I paid and see if I can get the developer to implement features that can save much of my time because I think that AP is a valid program

[MikeW]

That's a completely unfounded and entirely speculative assumption based purely on your own experience, isn't it?

Well, from my pov, those things that were listed (and more) are why I won't even bother with a trial version at this point.

[anon1]

photoshop slow startup

 

affinity could actually show images much faster when starting up as well  how about such an improvement 

makes for a more responsive feel

[R C-R]

Hmmm. I watched only some of the J. Blow video, but one thing that he does not seem to be considering is that games are different from applications like PS or Affinity in that game developers typically don't need to worry much if their stuff 'works & plays well with others' -- IOW, they are rarely run concurrently with other apps & things like inter application communication are unimportant, while in apps like PS & AP they are.

 

That is part of the "Gates taketh away" equation -- as operating systems get more complex & things like heavy weight security protections & compliance with an ever increasing number of complex, computationally demanding standards that didn't even exist 20 years ago become mandatory outside the gaming realm, all of that overhead can't be avoided.

 

Take a look at what Activity Monitor says about the files Affinity needs to access on a Mac. It would be easy to get faster startup times if access to all those files was delayed until they were needed, but that would mean the app would stall whenever they were needed while it negotiated with the OS to allocate memory for that, determine what could be shared vs. private vs. purgeable, how sandboxing affects which agents need to be involved, & so on.

[anon1]

Fact is:

fhe image in the beginning appears instantly by which I mean long before the image itself opens (even if it is just a JPG)

 

second:

affinity alaeady loads the things that are needed, this just has to be pushed a tiny bit 

 

cheers 

Edited July 29, 2017 by MBd
by which I mean long before the image itself opens (even if it is just a JPG)

[R C-R]

38 minutes ago, MBd said:

Fact is:

fhe image in the beginning appears instantly 

Not on my Mac.