"afphoto"-Files get HUGE

[feuerfloh]

I tried to process a RAW foto (Nikon NEF format, camera is Nikon D3200).

- The file can be opened without any problem. Fine.

- Then I applied some changes in the develop persona.

- Then I saved the file in Affinity's native format and got stunned.

 

The original file has a size of 20,4 MB (24 MPix) - the converted "afphoto" file has a size of 458 MB (yes, fourhundred fifty eight megabytes)!

So the size has increased by factor ~22! - I attached two screenshots that show the properties of both files (sorry, German labels...).

Why??? What happes here?

 

In fact, that's a show stopper for me because that makes the resulting files "unbackupable".

 

 

[MaxHecks]

In Deutsch kann ich da besser erklären. In der Bildbearbeitung ist die Größe nichts ungewöhnliches. Ein Testbild von mir im rund 24MB Original, ist auch in PS über 500MB groß. Das kommt ganz drauf an wie viele Ebenen, Bit Tiefe, Anpassungen, Helligkeitswerte usw. Die Größe ist wirklich nicht ungewöhnlich. Zumindest kenne ich das von Photoshop so.


In German, I can explain better. In image processing the size is nothing unusual. A test picture of me in around 24MB original, is also in PS over 500MB large. That depends entirely on how many levels, bit depth, adjustments, brightness values etc. The size is really not uncommon. At least I know this from Photoshop so.

[MaxHecks]

Update: ich habe die gleiche Datei in PS und AP geladen, dann nur beide auf RGB 16 bit eingestellt und gespeichert. Dabei ist wirklich die AP Datei 3 mal groß.

 

Update: I have the same file loaded in PS and AP, then only both set to RGB 16 bit and saved. It is really the AP file 3 times large.

[seven21]

Here's my comparison with Affinity Photo File size

 

X-T2 raw (compressed lossless) : 30.2 MB

afphoto : 589 MB

- edits include lens correction, exp. comp., highlights, shadow

 

additionally, I also find it odd that exported file size (jpeg best quality) is larger than the raw file

[verysame]

Same here, processed raw files are big.

[Ablichter]

The original file has a size of 20,4 MB (24 MPix) - the converted "afphoto" file has a size of 458 MB (yes, fourhundred fifty eight megabytes)!

The uncompressed image at 8bit is ~ 72MB, including file structure, embedded ICC-Profile and EXIF/IPTC/XMP.

When saved as 8 bit TIFF AFPhoto it gives us 36-37MB file because of the default compression, which is okay.

 

I don't know anything about their afphoto-file-format, but as the help tells, its a project file and it seems that aside of the image itself a lot of other things are stored in there, maybe some of the developers can shed some light on this.

 

Saved as JPEG at "Best Quality" (100%) unfortunately gives a huge file of 26MB. This is because of the low compression ratio of 2,66:1. PSs ratio at its "Maximum" (12) is ~5,58:1. This IMO is because of the libraries AFPhoto uses (Independent JPEG Group's JPEG software) - in their "usage.txt"-file they tell:

 

-quality 100 will generate a quantization table of all 1's, minimizing loss in the quantization step (but there is still information loss in subsampling, as well as roundoff error). This setting is mainly of interest for experimental purposes. Quality values above about 95 are NOT recommended for normal use; the compressed file size goes up dramatically for hardly any gain in output image quality.

 

Anyway, a similar compression rate as with PS at "Maximum" is to achieve when using 98% or even down to 95% for JPEGs.

[Justin]

We have identified a bug in this area and will get it fixed for the next beta.

 

Cheers

Justin

[feuerfloh]

We have identified a bug in this area and will get it fixed for the next beta.

 

Cheers

Justin

Sounds good :-)

[feuerfloh]

In Deutsch kann ich da besser erklären. In der Bildbearbeitung ist die Größe nichts ungewöhnliches. Ein Testbild von mir im rund 24MB Original, ist auch in PS über 500MB groß. Das kommt ganz drauf an wie viele Ebenen, Bit Tiefe, Anpassungen, Helligkeitswerte usw. Die Größe ist wirklich nicht ungewöhnlich. Zumindest kenne ich das von Photoshop so.

 

 

In German, I can explain better. In image processing the size is nothing unusual. A test picture of me in around 24MB original, is also in PS over 500MB large. That depends entirely on how many levels, bit depth, adjustments, brightness values etc. The size is really not uncommon. At least I know this from Photoshop so.

 

Well, I didn't use layers at all. I played a little with some sliders (tone mapping, saturation etc.) to get a glue how it compares to Lightroom (not PS), then I saved the file as "afphoto"-file.

My current process is as follows: I import the RAW-Files into Lightroom and let it convert them into DNG-Format. Then I do the development in LR. In that case, the modifications are stored in LR's catalogue - and also in the DNG file. In my example, the fully developed file is yet smaller than the original RAW - may be due to better compression in DNG than in Nikon's NEF.

 

Another comparable process is: Develop a photo as described in LR, export it in full size as 16-Bit-TIFF, open that TIFF-file in Photoshop and apply some adjustments for soft proof (which is not longer/yet possible for many ICC profiles in LR) - two ... four adjustment layers. In such a case the size of the resulting PSD-files as about 100 MB.

[feuerfloh]

Ok, today I tried the new beta version 1.5.0.39

 

My steps to test it:

1. open a RAW file (here in Nikon NEF format)
2. in the "Develop" persona: change the blackpoint, the clarity and the vibrance.
3. apply changes by clicking "Develop"
4. save it as "afphoto" file

Now, the file size is 170MB - compared to the 28.1 MB of the original image this is still too big for me...

 

Why does this botter me? When I develop my photos then I want to have a result a) stores all changes but gives me b) the possibility to do further changes in the future.

So saving the final result as JPEG is definetively *not* an option.

But if every file increases to somewhat near 200 MB, then I'll get trouble to backup my work. After a disk crash some years ago I'm really concerned about backups...

[Ablichter]

Now, the file size is 170MB - compared to the 28.1 MB of the original image this is still too big for me...

 

Why does this botter me? When I develop my photos then I want to have a result a) stores all changes but gives me B) the possibility to do further changes in the future.

So saving the final result as JPEG is definetively *not* an option.

But if every file increases to somewhat near 200 MB, then I'll get trouble to backup my work. After a disk crash some years ago I'm really concerned about backups...

if you don't want to use AFPs project files, you need to use an application which saves the changes in a XMP sidecar file.

 

But regarding backups: I don't really see where the problem is. I have only 800GB on photos/RAW and I daily backup up not only them, but two other drives. By doing incremental backups it just needs two external 2GB HDDs.

[feuerfloh]

if you don't want to use AFPs project files, you need to use an application which saves the changes in a XMP sidecar file.

 

But regarding backups: I don't really see where the problem is. I have only 800GB on photos/RAW and I daily backup up not only them, but two other drives. By doing incremental backups it just needs two external 2GB HDDs.

 

That's the question I'm seeking an answer for :-) - Is Affinity Photo a candidate for my daily work processing RAW files etc.

[TEcHNOpls]

Hi, has this been addressed in latest beta? .affinity files getting huge?

[lenmerkel]

1.5.0.39(Beta). There still seems to be a problem in this beta.

 

If I open a Pentax 10 MPix raw file (camera-created DNG) in Develop Persona, hit develop, make no adjustments at all, then save as .afphoto, the resulting .afphoto file is 85 MB,

 

If instead I first convert the raw file in DxO Optics Pro and export as 16-bit/channel Tiff, I get a 49 MB Tiff file. If I then open that Tiff file in Photo, make no adjustments, then save as .afphoto, the resulting .afPhoto file is 55 MB. I would have expected the 2 .afphoto files to be somewhat similar in size.

 

It looks like the "big" .afphoto files result when developing raw files in Photo, not necessarily when editing non-raw files.

 

I also noticed that when opening the raw file in Develop Persona, but before hitting the Develop button, Photo appears to be treating the file as a 32-bit/channel HDR image. Not sure if that's by design, or what?

 

[pb2016]

Hi, has this been addressed in latest beta? .affinity files getting huge?

 

I am still experiencing this problem with the 1.5.0.42 beta. Working with Nikon D7200 RAW files that are about 29 MB. Just edited a file in Photo Persona, included three adjustment layers and one mask layer. Saved the file and the .afphoto file is 170 MB. I hope this can be fixed.

 

It seems random. Most .afphoto files I save are about the same size as the RAW image file.

 

added: I'm not sure if this is in the same category: I just stitched five RAW images into a panorama. I then had AP fill the blank areas and had to fix one area with inpainting. The saved .afphoto file is 535 MB. Lightroom saved the same panorama with a 251 MB .dng file.

 

Pete

[awhite]

I have a LZW compressed 16bit TIF which is 108 MB, the same file with two adjustment layers saved as .afphoto is 235 MB. Seems a bit too much to me. Using beta 42.

[Ablichter]

I have a LZW compressed 16bit TIF which is 108 MB, the same file with two adjustment layers saved as .afphoto is 235 MB. Seems a bit too much to me. Using beta 42.

.afphoto is no image file format, it's a propritary format to store the whole project, see also this thread and by this they should be treated as such. They are (so far) of no use outside the serife-bubble, not with PS, LR, Bridge, DAMs.

Sorry when this already is known, but since TIF/PSD still gets compared with .afphoto files, I thought it's worth mentioning it again.

[PaulAffinity]

While Speed is an issue for ALL users, I am a little surprised at the heat of this thread, unless speed is the issue.

 

I really don't see the issue of file size (unless it causes a major speed difference, say to loading a similar PSD project?) OR backup issues (surely not with a 2TB usb HD at 50 Euros or less... I have 100k+ images on a 640gb drive and 2 x 1TB cheap backup drives... Plus google+ photos (jpgs)

 

I have PSDs that are way bigger than these AFphoto projects. I infrequently maintain many PSD/AFphoto projects (unless there is something I foun dthat I can reuse), instead my workflow is;

 

1. Load jpg, undertake image manipulation to produce my best 'clean baseline image'.

2. Export baseline as Myimage-base001.jpg

3. Use this for various test streams of workflows and save EACH as *-basennn.jpg

4. Rinse - repeat...

 

Just my workflow, I appreciate everyone had different needs... caveat - I NEVER use the same processing end-to-end workflow on any 2 images.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

cheers, Paul

[feuerfloh]

Ok, different people, different workflows  ;)

Let me explain, why this is an issue for *me*.

 

I'm a Lightroom user. And I use Photoshop (for now) only to do things like soft proof that don't work well (or don't work at all in LR for CMYK profiles) in LR.

And as LR user, I import the raw files from the camera (they have an original size of ~20MB ... 30MB) into the LR catalogue, let LR convert them into DNG format and then I can do what I want in LR (including virtual copies) - the files size doesn't increase (or if then by 4 kilo(!)Bytes).

And  - of course - the master file is *alaways* the DNG (i.e. RAW) together with its development settings file from which I can produce smaller JPEGs for my photo blog, yet smaller JPEGs to send it by WhatsApp, sometimes full sized TIFFs or JPEGs to produce a print. These JPEG/TIFF files are then deleted, if the print has been ordered...

In addition, I can create different development paths (color and b/w, for example) from the same photo. The required additional file size: 0..4k(!)Bytes.

 

So I have to backup the LR catalogue and the DNG files. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. If you zip the catalogue (which does LR automatically on a weekly basis), then it shrinks to ~10% of the original size, so that is not an issue. The target of these weekly catalogue backups is my Google drive, so I don't have to care about external disks etc.

 

In the last three years I produces about 2500 photos per year. 2500 * 30 MB = 75GB/year. That is easy to handle, including backups "in the cloud". If the file size is increased by factor 10..20 then it would be a challenge to get enough "cloud space" - I have "only" 1TB...

 

But there's another problem (for me):

Afphoto's development process is not non-destructive (i.e. always keep the original and just record the modification steps) as it is in LR. So I had to create a physical copy each time I want to go a different development path.

 

Conclusion for me: Afphoto is more a Photoshop Competitor, not a candidate to replace Lightroom.

[PaulAffinity]

Thanks for your perspective Fleurfloh! .. Horses, for courses...;-)

 

Interesting the use of RAW by so many people (me, never!). My PERSONAL experience dealing with hundreds of competitive photographers is as follows;

 

1. 99% of images would look just as good in jpg as RAW after similar PP recipes, particularly given many photographer/PP'er skill levels. (some exception at the most extreme images - night, astro-photography being 2 areas)

2. RAW offers little extra latitude over jpg except in exceptional circumstances given the improvement in recent sensor sensitivity (and meter for highlights approach)

 

Sometimes photographers, like many others, just stick to what they know (or knew over decades of image processing) - often breaking those old habits (even just as a try!) give opportunities in many areas.... time saving being my major objective...

 

That is why I am investing time in using Affinity...

 

Thanks and Enjoy!

 

Cheers, paul

[AlainP]

RAW files gives you more "room" for post processing, but today's JPG from cameras are quite good, so RAW is really not a must for most people. But I still have to shoot in RAW 95% of the time and AP is not a workhorse for RAW files, if you have just a few images... ok but when you come back from a photo shoot with 250 RAW files... AP is not the best tool. I use another well known (and not expensive) software for my RAWs that save the modification in a sidecar file, exactly like Lightroom does, and export it to JPG files. Then I use Affinity Photo for the rest of the job. I save a version in .afphoto, the filesize is very very good. I would say that I now get the best of both worlds. After using LR  and PS for years, I cancelled my Adobe CC account. I can get the same results in a much cheaper way.

 

And Affinity Photo is getting better and better...

[Ablichter]

Thanks for your perspective Fleurfloh! .. Horses, for courses...;-)

 

Interesting the use of RAW by so many people (me, never!). My PERSONAL experience dealing with hundreds of competitive photographers is as follows;

Never the idea would come to my mind starting my PP workflow with an 8bit image which already is lossy compressed and developed by cams firmware.

[PaulAffinity]

Sure, lossy 8-bit, like this..little 12mp old file? LOL ;-0

 

PS. It isn't what you got it is what you do with it...

 

 

 

[Ablichter]

Sure, lossy 8-bit, like this..little 12mp old file? LOL ;-0

 

PS. It isn't what you got it is what you do with it...

Sorry, I don't get what you want to tell.

[PaulAffinity]

Hi Ablichter,

 

just saying that even as per my example image - sometimes a 'lossy 8-bit image' can generate a nice image (IMHO) - with imagination and skill - often a huge Raw file gives nothing extra! ;-)

 

cheers, Paul