fde101 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 In the grand scheme of things, storage is relatively cheap compared to the time spent by professionals who are being paid for their work. The cost for a bit more disk space can pale compared to the time savings of the faster load/save times during someone's work day. That said, a "compact file" menu option might be nice to have to shrink a file before distributing or archiving it somewhere... The Plan 9 operating system took the novel approach of capturing daily snapshots that were stored permanently - no way to delete them other than to wipe out the entire file system - so anything that was stored overnight would consume space permanently on the system, with no way to free it up. This was about 28 years ago when hard drives cost nearly $2 per MB (today more like $0.03 per GB) and they already considered storage to be cheap enough that they felt that was an acceptable situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_B_C Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 4 hours ago, R C-R said: To begin with, if all you are going to do is develop a RAW file, you can export it to 8 bit or 16 bit TIFF for future or archival use & never save the .afphoto version to begin with. Depending on the compression used it is still may be larger than the RAW file, but that is because RAW files generally contain no more than 12 or 14 bits of color data. Let’s not forget that a DAW has to store image files together with non-destructive adjustments and many of the things that are needed for creative photo editing that are already included in Affinity Photo. Hence, it is not just about exporting a file to this or that format, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R C-R Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 13 minutes ago, A_B_C said: Let’s not forget that a DAW <sic> has to store image files together with non-destructive adjustments and many of the things that are needed for creative photo editing that are already included in Affinity Photo. Hence, it is not just about exporting a file to this or that format, right? A DAM does not have to support that but it is a desirable feature, one that different apps support in different (& not always compatible) ways. Accordingly, the staff have mentioned that this is something they would like to support in AP for RAW files, like by reading & perhaps writing sidecar files. But that does not really address the overall issue of the size of native format files vs. what features an archival format would have to give up to implement exporting to it. A_B_C 1 Quote All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7 Affinity Photo 1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_B_C Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 I’ve been using Logic since the days it was still developed by Emagic, so I consistently confound DAMs and DAWs … Fixx 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_B_C Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 But to the point, is there really the necessity to “give up features” for having an archival format? Couldn’t there be some sort of intelligent layer compression or similar techniques that would avoid wasting storage space? Or suppose someone duplicates a layer and adds a few paint strokes to the new layer. Wouldn’t it be possible to then save just the delta between these two layers, and not the entire information of the original and the duplicate? Or is that already the case? See, I have no idea. I just try to explain a problem many other users seem to have as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 9 minutes ago, A_B_C said: I’ve been using Logic since the days it was still developed by Emagic, so I consistently confound DAMs and DAWs … An actually useful DAM would also take into consideration the files generated by and used by a DAW (plus all the varied other media generators), and if it doesn't then it will be a waste of cash and disk space. I really don't want a proprietary file format either, xml. A_B_C 1 Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.1 | Affinity Photo 2.4.1 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.1 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigleeus Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 A_B_C, perhaps you can compress it further outside the app (like in WinRAR, or with backup software). That won't significantly compress it, but could help. I would be comfortable with WinRAR, but Serif would have the tools to determine what data can be safely removed (for compression) and later completely recovered if needed. (Not an easy design task) More than likely, though, if they added some compression option, it would be at least partially destructive. A_B_C 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_B_C Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Thank you! Actually, I have tried zipping my .aphoto files, but the gain is marginal. I don’t know whether this is a sign that the file format is already as space-efficient as it gets or if it is not particularly suited for external compression. I might try another compression algorithm to see if it makes a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigleeus Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Yeah, zipping is not going to reduce file size much, but it will restore files to their original content when unzipped. Question all, what are DAW and DAM? (I think of DAW as digital audio workstation, but I don't see that as relevant to afphoto files so it must be something else) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 4 hours ago, craigleeus said: Yeah, zipping is not going to reduce file size much, but it will restore files to their original content when unzipped. Question all, what are DAW and DAM? (I think of DAW as digital audio workstation, but I don't see that as relevant to afphoto files so it must be something else) DAM is Digital Asset Management so a DAW could work Audio and MIDI files held by a real DAM, but could only be used to record me swearing while I work on difficult files with Affinity's products. A_B_C 1 Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.1 | Affinity Photo 2.4.1 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.1 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R C-R Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 5 hours ago, A_B_C said: Actually, I have tried zipping my .aphoto files, but the gain is marginal. I don’t know whether this is a sign that the file format is already as space-efficient as it gets or if it is not particularly suited for external compression. In one of the staff posts (but I think not any of those in the topics already linked to), I vaguely remember something being said about the native format already using compression algorithms that, while not producing the smallest possible file sizes, were close to the best available algorithms in that respect & offered a better balance between file size reduction & computational resources needed to compress or decompress the data. Overall, I have the impression that everything was designed to maximize responsiveness while minimizing the computational load on the system, so even old low end systems like my iMac don't bog down so badly that it is impractical to work on large projects with them. A_B_C 1 Quote All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7 Affinity Photo 1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_B_C Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 @craigleeus, “DAW” was just a typo on my part. I had meant to write “DAM,” and what I had in mind was not so much a true Digital Asset Management application in the broad sense of @Old Bruce, but rather the Lightroom alternative envisioned by the Affinity team and considerable parts of the user base. I don’t know what came of these plans, but I would certainly purchase a license … Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R C-R Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, A_B_C said: I don’t know what came of these plans, but I would certainly purchase a license … Last I heard, the preliminary development work on an Affinity DAM had stopped completely so they could devote more resources to feature additions/refinements & bug fixes for the 3 existing apps. It is unclear if this means they have permanently shelved the project or they are waiting until the existing apps are more fully developed to resume work. A_B_C 1 Quote All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7 Affinity Photo 1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigleeus Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Hmmm, I might be starting to catch up. Are you referring to the DAM as being a tool like Lightroom, which just links to original images and saves only metadata of changes made to the image? That would maintain high quality originals (RAW or TIF files perhaps) without the hugs afphoto (and likewise huge PSD) files. There are time when Photoshop is needed, but other times when Lightroom alone is sufficient. And Lightroom (and other similar tools), and I presume the DAM, also function as a photo organizer. Am I on track with this reference to DAM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_B_C Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 7 hours ago, craigleeus said: Am I on track with this reference to DAM? Yes, I would think so. craigleeus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomaso Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/29/2020 at 9:51 AM, A_B_C said: Just think of the Affinity DAM envisioned some years ago. How could this work when simply developing a RAW file results in an .aphoto file that has seven times the file size of the original RAW? The DAM might work for developing with linked RAWs and save the user edits separate, rather numerical and with b&w masks ? Quote macOS 10.14.6 | MacBookPro Retina 15" | Eizo 27" | Affinity V1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_B_C Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 Maybe. I just wonder whether it would be possible to keep the great performance even on older machines then. In any case, I believe to have learned that there is a certain trade-off between speed and storage space economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oblique Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 Interesting thread for this newbie. I think I get that aphoto has been designed to be usable across multiple apps with performance and/or rich info stored. There's certainly value in this, and I'm not bothered about the size of the aphoto in itself - I would not keep my source/final versions in a proprietary format. But myself am more interested in auto-sync photo editing between ios and Mac, i.e. an alternate to the LR/PS cloud offering. I think the aphoto format seems too large for cloud upload speed and storage...maybe it's not too bad if I have to save to a tiff earlier on, but anything that help streamline that workflow would go a long way. I think this is a market area that some vendors will try to jump into...Affinity is already there with a great app on the iPad, but I think the weaker point there is the workflow and ease of integration/use of (non-iCloud) cloud storage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddriver Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 I have the same problem with massive .afphoto files and with ( it seems to me) no easy way to save a .jpg in its original or smaller size. As a long term photoshop user, I am used when saving a file to have the option of changing the file size if required but that is not so easy to do in AP. I have looked through the various forum topics on this subject but have yet to find a solution. I was about to ditch Photoshop in favour of AP, but may have to reconsider. I have been scanning some old colour negative slides using an Epson Perfection V550 scanner. The files straight from the scanner are usually around 6 MB. When I edit in AP, usually just involving some cropping and maybe some retouching with the healing brush, when the file is saved it can jump to as much as 100 MB. This is neither necessary or acceptable and I need to figure out why. I am using Ver 1.9.1 of AP in Windows 10 pro with a Ryzen 5600 processor. Example files are attached Susi_Guy_Wedding270a.afphoto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granddaddy Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 I have scanned several thousand 35mm Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides that I took anywhere from 25 to 70 years ago. I have used APhoto to restore many for printing or distribution. I find that saving the original scans as high quality jpg files is perfectly adequate for my amateur/hobby/family purposes. From your description I'm wondering if you are exporting to jpg for your final image file. In APhoto, and some other photo editing software I've used, you "Export" rather than "Save As" to get the final jpg image file. Some other points I keep in mind: 1.) The only slides worth keeping are those with people in them. We could argue about some exceptions. Suffice it to say, that I threw away more than half of all the slides I had saved all those years, just as I threw away most of the slides my father had taken. My pictures of vegetables I grew, buildings I visited, or zoo animals I saw had no permanent value unless they were part of my life story and contained images of my family and friends. I did keep a few pictures of houses I once lived in just in case I write a history for my grandchildren. (Probably won't, too much else to do and too little time left to do it.) Anyway, throwing away slides saves a lot of scanning time and disk storage. 2.) .afphoto is NOT an image file format. It is just a working file that contains image data and instructions from which APhoto constructs an image file. Thus, after editing in APhoto and saving my progress in .afphoto format, I export my final image to jpg at 90% quality. The quality is perfectly adequate for my purposes. (It actually produces files smaller than the original jpgs from my camera, which apparently saves at higher quality.)That jpg exported from APhoto after editing is usually about the same size as the original scanned jpg, though it could be smaller if I crop or somewhat larger if I improve color or bring out more detail that increases the complexity of the image. 3.) The horrendously large .afphoto file presents a problem, though I don't think I have seen .afphoto files that are 16 times larger than my scanned jpg as you report. See my other posts for more details. If you think you might some day re-edit the image for other purposes, then you should retain the .afphoto file. If you have made just a few simple changes that require no more than a couple of minutes work, than consider discarding the .afphoto file. So far I have saved my .afphoto files because I've returned to them for one reason or another, especially as I've gained more skill and realize a restored image can be improved substantially from my earlier effort. Remember the .afphoto files are of no use to anyone other than an APhoto user. Quote Affinity Photo 2.4.2 (MSI) and 1.10.6; Affinity Publisher 2.4.2 (MSI) and 1.10.6. Windows 10 Home x64 version 22H2. Dell XPS 8940, 16 GB Ram, Intel Core i7-11700K @ 3.60 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 9 minutes ago, Granddaddy said: Suffice it to say, that I threw away more than half of all the slides I had saved all those years, The trash can is our friend. The photos I wish I had are ones I would never ever take... Photos of rush hour traffic on a particular street every five years, Used Car lots and Gas Stations. The stuff we had to play on back in the day in city parks and school yards. The desks in schools, grocery store shelves and produce displays. Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.1 | Affinity Photo 2.4.1 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.1 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddriver Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Thanks for the responses, and after further investigations it is clear that AP saves files in a very different way than Photoshop. With Photoshop, if you open a .jpg, fiddle with it and then save, it gives you the option to select the % compression at that point and saves as .jpg. With AP it will sometimes save as a .jpg with a much bigger file size, or sometimes save as a .afphoto with a huge file size and I don't understand why. It is of course possible to export the file as a .jpg and specify the % compression at that time, and I was also able to run a batch file to re-save all my enormous files as .jpg at 90% and that worked well. Clearly, I need to learn more about the AP file systems, which I still think are unnecessarily complex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomaso Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 1 hour ago, scuddriver said: With AP it will sometimes save as a .jpg with a much bigger file size, or sometimes save as a .afphoto with a huge file size and I don't understand why. What do you mean with "save as a .jpg with a much bigger file size", – how do you detect whether/that an .afphoto is saved as .jpg? (not: exported) Note: since v1.9.1 you can link (vs. embed) an image file within AP. Then a saved .afphoto, depending on its resolution (pixel size), can be a lot smaller than unlinked and also may be smaller than the linked resource, but still may appear large (considering it contains a file path + screen preview only). Unfortunately, and differing to other apps, in AP a linked resource does not mean / allow all kinds of edits without rasterizing the resource inside AP (e.g. Paint/Brush-Tools, like the Healing Brush of your initial post). Though a linked resource may sound to enable a non-destructive, lossless workflow, in fact it works for some edits only, one of them is e.g. the Cropping. Quote macOS 10.14.6 | MacBookPro Retina 15" | Eizo 27" | Affinity V1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuddriver Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 I am getting to grips with AP's idiosyncrasies. If you "save as" it will create an .afphoto file which preserves all the layers and is very large. If you just select "save" it will give you the option to flatted the image and will save as .jpg but with a bigger file size than the original. If you export as .jpg you have the option to select the degree of compression. It works, but in a very different way than Photoshop. Thanks for all your input. thomaso 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Olderfleet Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 I share the concerns of others about the massive size of .afphoto files. Using Photoshop, I can open a CR2 (Canon RAW) file and make whatever adjustments I need before exporting to JPG. However, a XMP file is also saved which contains a record of all the changes and adjustments made to the CR2 without the massive file size. So I can come back later, open the CR2 and so long as the XMP is there, it will open as it was last left. This is efficient. The massive size of the .afphoto files is a big concern. I am a new convert to AP and I admit that I really like it except for this particular feature which has come as a rather unpleasant surprise. It will make archiving very expensive in terms of space and money. If AP had an XMP-type file format, I reckon that would solve most people's problems. Sure, the .afphoto is great during work, but for archiving, something smaller is required IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.