RAW Develop?

[A.D]

Hi there, i have a question about using the RAW Format. I’m sorry for my bad english … ;)

I’m a Photoshop-User an i have a lot of RAW-Files from my Sony-A58. The filesize is about 20 MB. With Camera-RAW i can adjust the Original-File and after that there is a Xmp-File including all informations. The original file keep the same size and i can open and change these settings whenever i want …

Is this also possible with Affinity Photo? Or is it always necessary to develop the adjusted RAW into the big .afphoto format. The result is an 100 MB+ document (instead of 20 MB!).

[walt.farrell]

Hi, @A.D. Welcome to the Affinity forums.

No, Affinity Photo does not use sidecar files as Camera-RAW does. The RAW file is not changed, but the Develop process is a final one, and you cannot get back to the original RAW file within Affinity Photo once you've Developed it. Something more like the Camera-RAW processing may come in the future, as the Roadmap includes a function for non-destructive Develop processing, but we don't know what that will look like.

You do not need to save a .afphoto file, though. You could, for example, Develop your RAW file and then Export it as a TIFF file, which would be much smaller. However, saving the .afphoto file will allow more manipulation later, with less need to redo changes. So it may be advisable to keep the .afphoto file, too, but that's something you will need to decide as you plan your workflow. (You would also want to keep a copy of the RAW file, in case you need to make changes that involve using the Develop process again, later.)

[HVDB Photography]

Hi,

Although, you can save the adjustments made as a preset. Click on the hamburger icon (top right) and choose "Add Preset". You will have to do this separately for each tab (Basic, Lens, Details and Tones). For the time being this is a bit cumbersome.

And if, once RAW developing has been applied, further adjustments were made you may need to save them as an native .afphoto file as  Walt said or export as a TIFF file with "Save Afffinity Layers" checked, but ... in that case the file size wil be much bigger then the .afphoto format file.
So, it's all up to you.

[A.D]

Hi, @walt.farrell and @HVDB Photography  and thanks a lot for your answer!!!

[MGBJAY]

Good Morning ...

... while this is not exactly "the" issue being discussed in this thread, it is something that I have been considering as a new AFFINITY user.

Considering the speed with which technology gives rise to change in our time, something that I have begun to wonder about is the "long-term" stability of the SERIF platform with regard to future access to our images that have been saved in the "*.afphoto" proprietary format. This file format cannot be read by any other reader other than itself, and to the degree that I have been able to validate what I am about to say, SERIF is not making their information available to any developers so that they can incorporate the ability to open images in "*.afphoto" format by any other software than that which SERIF creates. This is the reason that the "*.dng" file format was designed, and which may or not be one solution to address this concern. 

I find it somewhat unsettling that SERIF chooses to keep this information to themselves, thereby disallowing users any options to access their files by other image editing software.

I just ran into this issue AFTER choosing to use AF when I imported a number of images into both ADOBE BRIDGE and photools.com DAM software IMATCH. Neither of these programs can open the afphoto formatted images. In that situation all that is available is the APHOTO LOGO image. It has the undesirable side effect of making one feel as though having chosen to use AF PHOTO, corrals one into the SERIF sphere, and from that point forward one must either use them or lose the ability to access to those images and the information contained therein.

I cannot imagine that I am the only one that has thought about this issue.

While "operating systems" may understandably have specific reasons for proprietary code formats,  extending that to include image editors is, in my opinion not a great incentive.

Just a thought from a new user. Any response is welcome. Especially if I am dead-wrong in my thinking on this issue.

MGBJAY

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, MGBJAY said:

I find it somewhat unsettling that SERIF chooses to keep this information to themselves, thereby disallowing users any options to access their files by other image editing software.

How is that any different from Adobe keeping many details of the PSD format private, or keeping the AI format private? Or many other proprietary programs that have done the same over the years and will probably continue to do so?

[MGBJAY]

PSD format, as well as others, are  available to be opened and utilized by many different software's. A few individual elements may in fact be unavailable, but the overall format can be easily read by other programs.

And while I appreciate your responding ... making the format available is what gives "creators" the ability to freely access their information across platforms. Simply because one chooses to spend "their" money on a software, oughtn't harness one into such forever ... and the work performed in that software should remain portable. The software is only a tool, not the creative force employing the tool. The results should be available irrespective of the tool used to create it. 

A baker can put the ingredients for a devil's food cake all together and mix it all up, according to that baker's recipe ... and then place that mixture into any oven and produce the result. The oven has no say so over the recipe. Only the amount of heat. And "every oven" ... irrespective of the manufacturer can produce the necessary heat to get the job done.

The software is merely producing the heat ... not the content. The baker can, at his whim, take that recipe and produce the result in any properly functioning oven.

Perhaps, however,  I am in possession of a ruggedly stubborn mindset.

MGBJAY

 

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, MGBJAY said:

I find it somewhat unsettling that SERIF chooses to keep this information to themselves, thereby disallowing users any options to access their files by other image editing software.

Unsettling or not, it should not be too difficult to understand that they are not eager to share the details of their unique proprietary file format, not so much with users as with their competitors. It's the same reason Adobe only partially documents the details of the Photoshop & Illustrator native file formats.