Affinity Photo - Lights and Shadows function

[Raff]

I ask for the "shadows/highlights" function in Affinity Photo to be improved.
The current version is simply "embarrassing"!
Especially if you have already worked with the same function in PhotoShop.
In PS it is possible to do a complete correction of lights and shadows, recovering "almost" lost areas.
In Affinity the function only adds a uniform level of gray increasingly opaque and covering to the lights and the same with the shadows.
Horrible!

Thanks

[bvf]

I'm with Raff on this. Reducing Highlights is particularly bad, esp. on non-RAW/DMG files. Have a look at GIMP - that does it so much better.

[carl123]

32 minutes ago, bvf said:

I'm with Raff on this. Reducing Highlights is particularly bad, esp. on non-RAW/DMG files. Have a look at GIMP - that does it so much better.

There are 3 (5?) different options to recover highlights/shadows in APhoto V2 can you give us an original image and one recovered by Gimp

So, we can compare the difference

[bvf]

These screen captures illustrate what I'm thinking about. The source file is JPEG. Keep your eye on the nose are of the girl at the front, and you will see how quickly is greys out with Affinity.

[Ldina]

@bvf As @carl123 mentioned, there are numerous controls you can use. You need to understand what each one does in order to use them effectively. The S/H Adjustment Layer works well for shadows, but clobbers highlights, as you illustrated in your video. I use the Shadows Adjustment Layer, but rarely for Highlights. Try the Live Shadows/Highlights Filter Layer, which gives you better control and a different algorithm. You can also use the S/H in the Develop Persona (even with non-RAW files). They all work differently, and each has its use.

I wrote a tutorial on Tonal Correction Tools in Affinity Photo, which does a reasonably good job explaining them. Be sure to check out the revised version and the addendum in this discussion. They discuss the various Shadows/Highlights tools, what each does, and when to use which one. 

 

[bvf]

Thanks for that useful information, Ldina. I just tried the Live Filter version, and that's so much better. And it has the useful range sliders. I suppose there must be a reason why Affinity have multiple versions of the same tool with at least one being not very good ...

[carl123]

10 minutes ago, bvf said:

I suppose there must be a reason why Affinity have multiple versions of the same tool with at least one being not very good ...

As regards the Live Filter Version, you will see that you can switch between the Default (V2 version) and the prior (V1.6 version)

This was because once the V2 version was introduced some people said they loved it whilst others said that the 1.6 version worked better for their photos. So, Affinity decided to offer both versions in the same filter so both sets of users were catered for.

[Ldina]

1 hour ago, bvf said:

Thanks for that useful information, Ldina. I just tried the Live Filter version, and that's so much better. And it has the useful range sliders. I suppose there must be a reason why Affinity have multiple versions of the same tool with at least one being not very good ...

"not very good"...for YOUR particular use case and what you wanted. For other cases, it can come in handy, though I rarely use it. When adjusting highlights, I tend to use a Live S/H Filter, Develop Persona, or Curves set to a narrow tonal range (see tutorial).

Understanding the various Tools, what they do, how they work and the tonal areas they effect, is the key to using them effectively. I was confused myself early on, so I spent some time figuring out exactly what they do and how they work. Having done the work already, I figured others might benefit. Using a sledgehammer when you need a gentle tap usually doesn't work out all that well! 🤪

[Bound by Beans]

Not very good" is quite a striking and polite understatement. It's worthless. And it's completely embarrassing in isolation — but especially so when compared to competitors. That Serif both claims Affinity is professional software and still delivers such poor algorithms says a lot about the company’s self-perception and market understanding. How can they even bring themselves to do that?

All truly professional programs have their own algorithms for highlight and shadow recovery, because it's critical functionality. And their algorithms are good. Serif, on the other hand, seems to have found something free, as is the case with many other algorithms in Photo. You're essentially getting little more than open-source algorithms with an Affinity skin; when you buy Adobe, Capture One, or DXO, you're getting much more.

The algorithms in Affinity are the worst in the industry — and even if you write in all caps and underline it, you're still not right. The worst part of Affinity isn't even the highlight and shadow recovery; I've never seen anything that useless in any other software.

The only positive thing I can say about Photo's algorithms is that they might push people to learn how to nail exposure more often, or time their shots for favorable lighting. In such cases, the camera’s own JPG algorithms often deliver better results.

My clear expectation for Canva—if they seriously intend to lift Photo out of the kids' playroom—is that they shell out for licenses to real, professional-grade algorithms.

When it comes to the chaos of algorithms in Photo—do you truly believe there’s a solid reason behind it? Just try clicking on Adjustments in Affinity; who could possibly find that incomprehensible mess acceptable? What kind of quality-conscious, empathetic, thorough, non-geeky review process has this gone through? The whole of Photo is a disorganized mess, and once again, it reflects the character of the company behind it. This is yet another thing Canva absolutely needs to turn inside out and bring into order.

[Ldina]

30 minutes ago, Bound by Beans said:

The algorithms in Affinity are the worst in the industry

So, it begs the question....why are you wasting your precious time here if you're such a 'professional' and the software is such c**p?

[Alfred]

1 hour ago, Bound by Beans said:

The whole of Photo is a disorganized mess

It would be so much better, wouldn’t it, if only it were an organized mess! 

[smadell]

I do not hate Affinity Photo (quite the contrary!) But I don't use the Develop persona. I don't use it primarily because it is terrible at dealing with shadows and highlights. It makes them a muddy mess. I am not a professional by any means, and I am not an Affinity basher. For the most part, I love this software. But I use Capture One for my raw development, and the video below will show you why.

A few caveats. (1) Since I don't use the Develop persona, I have never gotten very good at it. My attempts are probably not as good as they would be if I used that persona more often. (2) While there are numerous ways to tinker with shadows and highlights, my feeling is that if I shoot raw I should be able to recover shadows and highlights in the raw file, where they are most appropriately dealt with. (3) Workarounds aside, recovering shadows and highlights in AP is needlessly clunky.

As shown below, what I could barely accomplish in Affinity Photo I was able to do in Capture One in a matter of seconds. If Serif needs to think about where to allocate time, effort, and money, this would be a good place to start.

 

 

[bures]

Serif needs to rework the "Shadows / Highlight" function. The current setting is too brutal to the image being edited. They have done a great job with this feature in Capture One, for example, where they have added "White" and "Black" settings that affect the opposite part of the histogram less, in addition to the "Highlight" and "Shadow" settings, which themselves use a better algorithm.

[Bound by Beans]

Circular discussions in this forum lead nowhere.

I will never use poor software for good images from good cameras. It’s simply meaningless. You’re of course welcome to choose whatever you like, but my images will only go through professional and elegant algorithms. Knock yourself out.