Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am glad

to see you

use my

spoiler idea


The website is still a work in progress. The "Comics" and "Shop" sections are not yet ready. Feel free to connect with me and let me know what you like or what can be improved. You can contact me here, on my contact page, YouTube channel, or Twitter account. Thanks and have a great day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I remember two "better than JPG" formats...it didn't went great, for them...the standard dominating one is hard to beat, we all know that.... 

I think u can use them for internal stuff, but yeah, if gotta be loaded by iOS, that's an issue....

Irfanview has always been fast (pioneer, indeed, as in many other things) to give support to this kind of formats :

- Lurawave LWF

- JPEG2000

I never tried the latter, but yep the former, and was fully impressed by the quality/size ratio, and much better algos (nicer visual degradation when high compression quite nicer, also)

At least back in the day, it was not a trivial difference. It was VERY MUCH better (LWF) than the best result in exporting JPEG. And is not that we have improved a lot in that area, imo....

The issue is always the same: OSes and apps supporting it. For an internal app, it'd be an ideal solution, tho. Is a proprietary format, but there's gotta be a non expensive path or free, as seems software like irfanview (till recently, plugin limited only to small resolution, but I think I read very recently that Luratech or someone has freed the license or sth till certain point, can export at large resolutions, now...), which is Windows based,  also, XnView (here it pops up again!) , and Knovertor,  this latest from Logipole, the ones making too Metadata++.( another tool I recommended recently, windows only, at a thread about third party tools specialized in metadata handling.)

I think Opera browser has some sort of support on LWF format, but don't quote me on this (or do so :p ). But in iOS, generally... no idea...

I would expect much better ratios from LWF than JPEG2000 (which still is much better than JPEG)... but this one is more widely known, surely as it was never restricted commercially..that was the error from Luratech, imo, when fighting against a top dog you can't make it even harder... (Here, Serif always does the best way to go, luckily)

So...while I'd rather would prefer (it's many, many years ago... but I have good memory for my own deep personal, exhausting tests...U know, I'm not a lost cause geek since yesterday... :D ) LWF, you might find way easier to use/develope for JPEG2000.

In that respect, you might find very interesting the answer considered as winner in the following stackoverflow thread, where someone even points out a way to use JPEG2000 in that contest :

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7047984/jpeg2000-on-ios-app

Cheers,


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM. 
Affinity PHOTO 1.7.x --> AMAZING. Getting there for painting. Temporary trick  (Windows - only) for better "alt" key color picking configured in a Wacom Intuos Pro pen's side button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem:  I am developing and processing NEF (Nikon RAW) files in Affinity Photo, then exporting them as JPEG to upload them to a site to which a professional photographer and fellow students have access.  The JPEGs are poor, not what I expected judging by what Affinity Photo displays.  Colors are a bit pale, images aren't as sharp, and in some cases the exported photo seems "milky," as when viewed through a slight veil.

I am including two screen shots, but they make the discrepancies seem minor.  Preview_on_AP_aphoto depicts a JPEG (left) produced by Affinity Photo (left).  The JPEG is being displayed by Apple's Preview app, whose window I moved over Affinity Photo before making the screen shot with Grab.  After opening the JPEG in Affinity Photo, I wanted to display it side-by-side with the pipeline that produced it.  That isn't possible, so I made a screen shot of the JPEG being displayed in Affinity Photo, displayed it in Grab, moved the Grab window over Affinity Photo displaying the original, and made a screen shot of that.  That's Grab_on_AP_aphoto. The imported JPEG does not look nearly as sharp and "snappy" as the original.  I also flattened the whole pipeline.  The resulting pixel layer seemed to lose something in the process, sort of like the JPEG after importing it into Photo.  That might explain why neither the file type nor the sampling method seemed to make much difference.  The results are poor.

Finally, here a longish summary of my experience, my equipment, and how I use Affinity Photo.

 

Setup

Nikon D7200

  • Shooting NEF (Nikon RAW) + JPEG
  • Profile Adobe RGB
  • Picture control Neutral

 

MacBook Pro (17-inch, Late 2011, model ID MacBookPro8,3)

  • 2 TB SSD, 16 GB RAM
  • macOS Sierra 10.12.6
  • Apple Thunderbolt Display (27-inch)
  • Both monitors calibrated to D50 L-Star 160 cd/m²
    • Software basICColor display
    • Hardware Xrite i1|Display Pro

 

Affinity Photo 1.6.7

  • Minimal processing in Develop Persona
    • Configuration of Assistant
      • RAW Engine: Serif Labs
      • Lens corrections: Apply lens corrections
      • Noise reduction: Apply colour reduction
      • RAW output format: RGB (32 bit HDR)
      • Tone curve: Take no action
      • Exposure bias: Apply exposure bias as initial state
    • Processing
      • Basic:  Pull as much detail from NEF onto histogram
        • Exposure:  usually only Blackpoint (-5% or so) and Brightness (up to 20%)
        • Shadows & Highlights:  Prevent clipping of highlights and shadows
        • Profile:  ROMM RGB:  ISO 22028-2-2013 (Linear)
      • Lens:  All except Post Crop Vignette
      • Details:
        • Detail Refinement: Usually Radius 50%, Amount 30%
        • Noise Reduction: Usually as is, sometimes Luminance ca. 40%
        • Noise Addition: When Luminance Reduction performed, ca. 3 - 5% Gaussian
  • Main processing in Photo Persona
    • Adjustments
      • Levels
      • White Balance
      • HSL, Shift
      • Brightness/Contrast
      • Vibrance
      • Exposure
      • Shadows/Highlights
      • Curves
      • For printing
        • Adjustments to prevent clipping in printer/paper color space
        • Soft Proof
          • Canon ImagePROGRAF PRO-1000
          • Profile supplied by Canon for above printer and paper that I intend to use
    • Live Filters (in which order are these executed, does order matter?)
      • Clarity
      • High Pass
      • Unsharp Mask
      • Rarely:  Denoise + Add Noise for luminance noise

 

Me (Yep, I’m an integral part of the “setup”) and photography

  • 2003 - 2011: snapshots with various pocket cameras
  • 2011 - 2016: first DSLR, Nikon D7000
    • Mostly JPEGs
    • NEF + RAW for special courses and projects
  • 2013 - present: father’s Leica M3 + 35, 50 and 135 mm lenses
    • I only shoot black-and-white with the Leica
      • One month Ilford XP 2 Super chromogenic so film could be developed and printed on color equipment at specialty shops
      • Two months Ilford Delta 100 developed (carelessly) by a professional
      • Since the so-called professional ruined a film,
        • I have developed at home and enlarged in an equipped studio.
        • I scan negatives to digital as a backup.
        • I have not yet begun to process them digitally to print.
  • 2016 - present: successor, Nikon D7200
    • NEF + JPEG
    • Decided against full frame DSLR:  Lenses too heavy to carry up mountains.
  • 2018-07: Affinity Photo
    • First exposure to developing NEF
    • No previous experience with Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.
    • Have used Apple’s iPhoto to
      • catalog and view photos
      • to modify photos (ever so occasionally)
  • Interested in landscape, architecture and available light photography

 

Thanks

Preview_on_AP_aphoto.tiff

Grab_on_AP_aphoto.tiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No previous experience with Photoshop, Lightroom, etc."

This shocked me a bit.... You seem to have a quite professional workflow, nonetheless, to have no previous knowledge with the main packages. (nice choice in the hardware monitor calibrator, I have that one)

I find the AP JPEG export is fine and correct... is just that is a... JPEG export. So, depending on the settings and compression choosing, more or less blurriness, color artifacts (some specialized converters can disable that), milky effect, lowered saturation (beware if you have not passed from 16 bits to 8 bits at some point and are comparing such different qualities, JPEG format would not be the culprit there). I know you know, but as you mention no prev exp with PS , that JPEG is a final format only. You don't import it and continue editing or you multiply the losses, artifacts, multiply its "poor feel", and error, it is a cumulative degradation if done so. JPEG is only for final export, and as degradation always occurs, in every save, no matter how good the settings, I'd rather just export as TIFF, PNG or whatever, depending on the purpose. Then decide what specialized exporter to use. I only use JPEG for web portfolios, but I can understand huge quantities of images require it somehow instead of crazy storage solutions (that would be great, in any case. There are photographers only storing in TIFFs!). Also as some generic magazines (I worked as cartoon artist for some printed computer magazines,  and as illustrator for books, eventually yet doing that)...It always made me mad when they'd ask "jpg only, plz".... >:-(  ) do prefer jpeg-only for the huge volumes of photos they handle a day, paper not being great anyway, and their users not really demanding in photo quality till certain point. But any other case ( I work in many fields) I'd rather use JPEG only for a very final ONE ONLY save export for the web and only for that. But you seem to be using JPEG only for that, for a final web upload.

One very important matter is color profiles being used by each viewer. You seem to be using Apple View, Grab, and APhoto. Aphoto might be using a certain standard color profile, while your system might be using your monitor's color profile, calibrated and all, and that image might be so richer in color. IE, maybe your default profile in AP is just sRGB. (or the opposite, sRGB in the system, Adobe RGB or the like in AP)

The other issues, seem to me more related to applying different compression settings (and the slide bar or % tells you nothing as it varies from app  to app) in one or other app, or that PS defaults are better suited to your needs (could be solved in the ("more") advanced JPEG export dialog in AP ). 

Again, remember you have always the possibility to export to a good converter. Just consider exporting in TIFF (at the depth the image is) with the embedded correct color profile and all, and use a converter that can respect -even if not by default- the color profile, color depth (supporting 16bits, etc) , and in  general, most professional features of an export to be converted (TIFF tends to be a good format for many cases).  You can even have several converters for different uses. This if really is there not something fixable in your workflow (default color profile loading in AP everytime, with imports, etc, specific settings in JPG export (fiddle with the "more" button to handle advanced settings), etc). Which might be very well the case, too. I wouldn't go for a specialized converter just yet, would try to find sth in my workflow. Even if the external apps do save the day even with Adobe PS, thus being convenient as extra tools in the shelf.

 


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM. 
Affinity PHOTO 1.7.x --> AMAZING. Getting there for painting. Temporary trick  (Windows - only) for better "alt" key color picking configured in a Wacom Intuos Pro pen's side button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I also had a very good old camera from my father (he still has it), a professional reflex, and I used to reveal my own photos, also in B/N , I mean, the negatives at home, and reveal on paper in the labs (some cheap machines there, but worked great) of the fine arts college (I took that subject, but I'm no photographer, by any stretch) . Still remember the issues to keep the room at the exact temp at this desert-like kind of weather...


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM. 
Affinity PHOTO 1.7.x --> AMAZING. Getting there for painting. Temporary trick  (Windows - only) for better "alt" key color picking configured in a Wacom Intuos Pro pen's side button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did try a few optimizers. Results so far:

XnConvert – quite full featured, can resample, add operations (like sharpen filter), rename. Clunky, ok quality.

JPEGmini – ok quality, no features, no resample, only JPEG originals.

PhotoShrinkr – very good quality/size ratio, can take many formats, very fluid operation. No resampling.

Squash – good quality/size ratio, can take many formats, adjustable quality/size ratio, fluid operation, funny sounds and animation. No resampling.

ImageOptim – ok quality, adjustable quality/size ratio, No resampling, no  formats support, bit clunky.

 

I would use XnConvert if resampling is needed, and PhotoShrinkr if I am making resampling in AP. No perfect solution yet, and my quality test was not very extensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SrPx said:

I know you know, but as you mention no prev exp with PS , that JPEG is a final format only. You don't import it and continue editing or you multiply the losses, artifacts, multiply its "poor feel", and error, it is a cumulative degradation if done so. JPEG is only for final export, and as degradation always occurs, in every save, no matter how good the settings, I'd rather just export as TIFF, PNG or whatever, depending on the purpose. Then decide what specialized exporter to use.

Thanks for the reply.  Yeah, I only imported the JPEG to determine whether it wasn't Preview that was screwing up, figuring that, if the program that generated it didn't display it as I expected, it was indeed the program that was at fault, not other programs that might display it.  I did export in TIFF-16, PNG-24, etc., but they all looked similar in Preview to the JPEG.  The only thing that worked was TIFF-16 with layers, but only when I imported into Affinity Photo and found that all the adjustment layers and live filter were there.  So apparently the TIFF format allows arbitrary "stuff" to be occur in the file, and applications that can't do anything with it at least don't choke on it.

1 hour ago, SrPx said:

One very important matter is color profiles being used by each viewer. You seem to be using Apple View, Grab, and APhoto. Aphoto might be using a certain standard color profile, while your system might be using your monitor's color profile, calibrated and all, and that image might be so richer in color. IE, maybe your default profile in AP is just sRGB.

I was pretty careful with the profiles, telling Develop to use the ROMM RGB:  ISO 22028-2-2013 (Linear) profile, ensuring that, in the Photo Persona, the document colour format was set to RGB (32 bit), and even checking in Preview what profile was embedded in the files exported from Affinity Photo.  I can't imagine that a modern program like Affinity Photo, or, for that matter, any of the Apple programs, has problems with profiles.  On a Mac, applications needn't worry about monitor profiles, as that is handled by the OS.  Apps just worry about app-specific profiles.  So juggling different profiles, since support for the monitor profiles comes from macOS, not from each application.  So Affinity Photo only has to worry about, in this case, ROMM RGB:  ISO 22028-2-2013 (Linear).

In fact, I did do the exact same work, starting with the NEF and specifying sRGB IEC61966-2.1(Linear), then, first thing in the Photo Persona, setting the document color format to RGB (16 bit) and proceeding to recreate the same workflow of adjustments and live filters.  I could not get a result that was the same as the other, but I got one that was good, exported in various formats, and was still not satisfied.  Maybe it's just me.

The problem with using an external exporter is, as far as I understand, none of them understand .afphoto files, so I have to export something out of Affinity Photo, and I haven't been satisfied with any of the export formats.  As I said, when I flattened the layers I found that the resulting pixel layer was a less than faithful rendition of the original.  I assume that any export must go through a flattening phase before the specified sampling is performed and the result formatted for the required file type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences between the Affinity document and the exports can be explained. It's not the export that is unfaithful; it is Affinity's display of the layered document that is deceptive when the zoom is not 100%.

In your screenshots where Affinity is at 19%, the displayed image isn't a full-scale composite that has been scaled down. The display composite is being built from scaled down (probably 25% in this case) representations of the objects in the file. That has a particularly great impact on live filters. For example, the sharpening and clarity filters have a radius parameter, and a given value for that is 4 times greater in relation to a 25% source image than a 100% source image, and therefore the effects of the filters are being greatly exaggerated in the zoomed-out display.

To see the true effects of live filters, view the document at 100% zoom, or temporarily flatten it to view at various zoom scales.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was beginning to reach the conclusion that live filters are somehow the culprit, but not yet that it was the preview at less than 100% that was inaccurate.

I have all my live filters (four of them, two Clarify's, one each Unsharp Mask, High Pass) as children of the base pixel layer, and ten adjustment layers stacked on top of it.  Processing is excruciatingly slow, to the point that panning in 100% bordered on masochism.  I moved the live filters to just on top of the base pixel layer.  That made some difference to the histogram, but not to my eyes; however, the drop is processing time was dramatic.  The export time was also dramatically reduced to several seconds instead minutes.  What is the difference?  How often are live filters recalculated as children of the base pixel layer, and how often as layers just above it?

When they are children, the adjustment layers do nothing to change the pixel layer, although they are obviously changing what I like to think of as a pixel layer being passed from one to the other.  Are the live filters being run after each adjustment layer in the stack?  When they are stacked on top of the base pixel layer, my experiment leads me to believe that they run less often, probably only whenever the whole pipeline is (re)run.  Is this what is happening?  What is the risk of moving child live filters out from under the base pixel layer to just on top of it?

As you can surmise from my questions, and as I readily admit, I am confused and do not understand the "liveness" of live filters.  Any elucidation would be appreciated.  For the sake of completeness, I would also like to know whether live filters can be used as children of adjustment layers, and what effect that has on processing times and, of course, on the results of the pipeline.

Thanks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Richard Liu said:

Yeah, I was beginning to reach the conclusion that live filters are somehow the culprit, but not yet that it was the preview at less than 100% that was inaccurate.

Actually, in Photoshop, at least till CC 2018 (judging by its trial , it is quite a good version, overall, even if eats hardware for breakfast) , at any company, using any version till CS6 at least (been a freelancer for 5 years, so that situation is a bit far away) when checking my illustration or whatever graphic work, I have known since always, that anything not being a pure 100% zoom could lead me to all sort of misleading conclusion. In some cases this can wreck and entire day of work, if one is not aware of this. Sometimes it's the layer effects that it renders them a bit randomly when zooming out, sometimes is the line aliasing, seen weird (in some configurations, this can happen even with the 2018 version), or glitchy, or etc. So, happens to PS and other apps that not checking  the thing at 100% can give non accurate renderings. Once knowing, no biggie, but is a pain, as usually the best way to check a composition and/or final piece is having a  global glance. Very often, in whatever the app, if I see sth that does not match well my expectations, I instinctively switch to 100% zoom, just in case...

The profile matter...yep, I only mentioned as a part of a bit of a random brainstorm....Some people here had this problem of having the sRGB profile by default even when they thought they were reading all in a richer color profile, several threads got solved by discovering this. A traditional shot in the dark, you know.  ;)

BTW, pls excuse the late reply. Very busy lately....


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM. 
Affinity PHOTO 1.7.x --> AMAZING. Getting there for painting. Temporary trick  (Windows - only) for better "alt" key color picking configured in a Wacom Intuos Pro pen's side button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As enlightening as the comments have been, I am still plagued with the problem that full-sized exports are not very good, even when comparing with the preview in Affinity Photo at full size.  The problem I have is, the exported files are much too dark.  When previewed in Affinity Photo, the structure on a large tree trunk is very clearly visible, even though the tree is in the shade and hence dark.  (Actually, the previewed document is much too light for my taste and purpose.)  I can supply

  • the .afphoto (601.2 MB)
  • a JPEG export 100% quality, bilinear sampling (30.9 MB)
  • a TIFF-16, Lanczos 3 sampling (174.4 MB)

As the files are very large, I don't want to upload the last two unless somebody really wants to take a crack at this.   (I just tried to upload the JPEG, but the upload failed.)

 

Further to the problem:

My Apple Thunderbolt 27" display is calibrated using basICColor display and an Xrite i1 Display Pro as follows:

2062102519_ScreenShot2018-08-17at23_35_21.png.f56a15f6c0d6ca59213ffd19cdb1e17d.png

When working in the Photo persona the document Colour Format is RGB (16 bit) and I see this in the upper left corner:

1608828298_ScreenShot2018-08-17at23_48_11.png.9b3fc05e9051d532fa81d1916273ac94.png

I assume that means that Affinity Photo is using ROMM RGB: ISO 2028-2-2013 to display the previews.  Does anybody know this for sure?

When exporting the files I have checked to use the document profile and to embed it in the export.  I view the exported files with Preview, a macOS app.  Preview shows me that 

2104755268_ScreenShot2018-08-18at00_56_01.png.659a745c1b092ea9ef5c9479d6c2a3ce.png

I assume that Preview is using the named profile.  Does anybody know this for sure?

As I said, when displayed at full size in Preview and when previewed at 100% in Affinity Photo, the former is noticeably darker.  I imported it into Graphic Convert, a third-party app for the Mac.  It is somewhat lighter than in Preview, but still not nearly as light as in Affinity Photo.

I really cannot explain the discrepancy but I am getting criticism from a teacher that the photos that I upload to a web site for critique are too dark.  I suppose the problem could be the way her monitor is calibrated.  Perhaps her's uses a tone response curve, while mine is calibrated to L*, and that, presumably, is what "(linear)" means in "ROMM RGB: ISO 22028-2:2013 (linear)," the output profile that I selected in the Develop persona.

Does anybody know for sure what profile Affinity Photo is using when it generates profiles?  What about how Preview honors embedded profiles?  Should I upload the files?

 

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Richard Liu said:

The problem I have is, the exported files are much too dark

That indeed seems totally color profile or calibration related.

I am a bit in a rush now, couldn't read the complete thread (it is good that you do them detailed, it helps a lot more to catch the issue)  but I read one of the last sentences, and definitely, uploading the files will always help, surely a lot. 

I'll read it fully some hours later. You can always use google drive, or the like, and make a temporary public link to thr file, if you are familiar to that....


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM. 
Affinity PHOTO 1.7.x --> AMAZING. Getting there for painting. Temporary trick  (Windows - only) for better "alt" key color picking configured in a Wacom Intuos Pro pen's side button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought (or doubt, source of problems) occurs to me:  Is gamma in the color profile?

I have calibrated my monitor to L*, and I was assuming -- I don't know why -- that "ROMM RGB: ISO 22028-2:2013 (linear)" is a version of ROMM RGB with L*.  But Preview says that profile in the JPEG is  "ROMM RGB: ISO 22028-2:2013" (without "linear").  I wonder whether that might mean that apps that honor that profile find a different gamma in it, or use the monitor's default gamma.  Where does "linear" come from anyway?  One doesn't find such a profile in the drop-down list of possible output profiles.  How would one force Affinity Photo to preview using ROMM RGB: ISO 22028-2:2013 and another gamma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Richard Liu said:

Here's a link to a Dropbox folder containing the three files:  https://www.dropbox.com/sh/l5oaidwrbn4xiot/AADQ32NVF14neGoV_fqEYV8Xa?dl=0

The three are displayed identically in AP on my iMac running macOS 10.12.6, and the TIFF and JPEG are displayed identically in AP, Preview, Graphic Converter and Capture One.

I checked by taking screenshots of the apps displaying the files at 100% zoom and then differencing aligned pairs of screenshots, producing a black image each time.

screenshots.thumb.png.8c46d8b7af88168c6dce88271fae4912.png

 

As an experiment, set your Mac to use the factory display profile and then see if your apps produce consistent displays.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, @owenr, thanks for the work.  Using the factory display profiles on the laptop and the Thunderbolt display the exported file seems to be identical to the preview.  Now the only question is, what is the difference between the profiles.  Assuming you are calibrating your display, may I ask, what what color temperature, L and gamma?  I'm beginning to suspect the L* in my profile.

Thanks again!

 

*** Update ***

I have tried all sorts of combinations of D50/D65, 2.2/L*, white and black points, etc., but to no avail.  I am unable to create a profile that comes as close as the factory default to making the AP preview match Preview's display of the exported document.  I am using basICColor display and an i1 Display Pro.  Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Edited by Richard Liu
Original post updated with new information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×