Affinity Photo, starting behind, trying to catch up.

[GreenSWOhio]

Is there a right place in this forum to discuss the following, if so, where?

I have attached two screen shots. The dull one is a Nikon NEF image just opened in AF2. The antenna are barely visible. The colors on the bug are muted.

The more vibrant one is a screen shot of the same unprocessed (yeah, I know...) image in Nikon Studio NX. A screenshot from Faststone Image Viewer looks the same as the one from Studio. 

I have years of experience with Corel Paintshop Pro, Adobe Photoshop, and a few other post processing software suites.

But I feel like when I work with AF2, on some photos, I am starting behind. And my challenge with this image is I don't know how to get it to catch up with the image from Studio. There are things I'd like to do with it, but I am spending hours tweaking and not getting a satisfactory starting point. A friend is pressuring me to consider Lightroom. I hate to start with a new product.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, GreenSWOhio said:

Is there a place in this forum to discuss the following, if so, where

Right here. You have a question about using the software, and this is the part of the forums for asking questions about the software on the desktop versions of the applications.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, GreenSWOhio said:

The more vibrant one is a screen shot of the same unprocessed (yeah, I know...) image in Nikon Studio NX.

Does "yeah I know" mean you know there is no way to view an unprocessed (so-called undeveloped) RAW format file, not in Nikon Studio NX, not in Affinity Photo, or any other app?  If not, I suggest reading the RAW Actually Affinity Spotlight article for background info.

Also that note that RAW file developers usually apply some entancements so in AD check the Develop Assistant Settings to see what's available. More about that at https://affinity.help/photo2/en-US.lproj/pages/Raw/raw.html

[v_kyr]

4 hours ago, GreenSWOhio said:

The dull one is a Nikon NEF image just opened in AF2. The antenna are barely visible. The colors on the bug are muted.

Well the word RAW is to take seriously in APh, meaning it's more the plain RAW data without any further as an default applied cam specifics settings here. So there aren't any auto exposer compensation, presharpening & contrast etc. settings applied to the loaded in RAW file.

4 hours ago, GreenSWOhio said:

The more vibrant one is a screen shot of the same unprocessed (yeah, I know...) image in Nikon Studio NX.

Nikon Studio NX in contrast to that, knows pretty well how to deal with Nikon RAW (NEFs) (via Nikon's own EXIF Maker Notes) as default and pre-applies some settings taken out of the shot NEF data. It even can also handle & deal with every internal aspect of a certain Nikon cam & lens, other RAW processors can't to the same degree here. - So it's no wonder at all that Studio NX (even as initial default) produces a much better result than APh here and also is much more superior in processing NEF files.

For APh you would need to setup some common adjusted setting preset, in order to get half way what Studio NX produces right out of the box as default!

[carl123]

4 hours ago, GreenSWOhio said:

I have attached two screen shots.

Can you upload the RAW file to the forum?

[GreenSWOhio]

Thanks to all who responded. I learned a lot since I posted the two images.

 

I do know that I am not looking at an unprocessed RAW/NEF image.

But, I did not know about ‘Develop Assistant’. Thanks for the info.

I can now get a similar image in AP2 that compares well with the Studio image. All I have to do is apply sharpening with the 'unsharp' mask! I was trying to get the increased definition between the antenna and background using ‘curves’. That was exasperating.

I've attached the sharpened image below.

I responded to several forum messages from my mobile phone. They seem to be awaiting approval as I was not signed in. They are no longer relevant. But on the mobile phone I did not notice the difference in the antenna appearance, although it is obvious on my desktop machine.

 

One remaining question. What is your preferred RAW converter? 

From the comments I got the idea that some think Nikon does a better job processing NEF files than AP2. Is that the case? That would seriously disrupt my workflow. I use Studio or Faststone to review pictures, cull many of them, and sometimes print them for informal use. But using Studio to preprocess a stack of photos for focus merging would add a lot of processing time. 

Should AP2 allow use of Studio for its Develop stage? I have had no success getting serif to fix existing problems, but that belongs in another thread.

 

Thanks for the help,

Green...

 

 

Carl123: I will post the NEF file if you still want it!

 

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, GreenSWOhio said:

One remaining question. What is your preferred RAW converter? 

From the comments I got the idea that some think Nikon does a better job processing NEF files than AP2. Is that the case?

To some extent "better" is subjective because there are so many different ways RAW files can be tweaked during processing so it depends on what you want the output to look like, but Nikon Studio NX's default output so often matches what might be expected for the developed image to look like that -- assuming you don't mind the kind of clunky UI -- it might usually be a better choice.

But it is really up to you to decide what works best for your workflows.

[v_kyr]

16 minutes ago, GreenSWOhio said:

One remaining question. What is your preferred RAW converter?

As a Nikonian who sometimes also makes use of Picture Control, Active D-Lighting ... etc. Nikons own RAW-Converter (NX Studio) is the first choice. So my rating order as a Nikon shooter would be ...

1. Nikon NX Studio
2. Capture One Pro Nikon
3. Lightroom/Adobe Camera RAW
4. DxO
5. RawTherapee/Darktable/DigiKam ... etc.