Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 14 Oct 2017 (Saturday) 10:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Anyone...Affinity Photo

 
MCAsan
Goldmember
Avatar
3,722 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta
     
Oct 31, 2017 08:33 as a reply to  @ post 18485319 |  #16

It is not just a matter of recording history. When you leave Develop module and go to Photo module you are rendering the raw image plus any Develop adjustments into a pixel image. The only time I want to render a pixel image from my non-destructive edits is when I have to print the image or create a jpg to post.


The lack of even a semi-firm date for the DAM is enough for me. With Adobe, Phase One, and a few other companies, you can have a DAM now.


Each person has to decide what is important to them.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
lacogada
Senior Member
260 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 57
Joined May 2015
Post edited 7 months ago by lacogada. (2 edits in all)
     
Oct 31, 2017 09:59 |  #17

MCAsan wrote in post #18485345 (external link)
When you leave Develop module and go to Photo module you are rendering the raw image plus any Develop adjustments into a pixel image.

That is a big deal for me ... and one reason it could not be my "go to" program.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,348 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1648
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Oct 31, 2017 12:11 |  #18

kirkt wrote in post #18485340 (external link)
Read through this thread on the Affinity forum:

https://forum.affinity​.serif.com …-on-a-dam/#comment-242755 (external link)

kirk

what am i supposed to be looking for ITT? The thread I have seen (started by a mod/staff) said they have it on the radar but have not put a timeline on it.

I have no interest in any software that is not out in full "shipping" form, and will not base my business decisions on rumor or the promise of something new. Same goes for camera bodies, etc.

MCAsan wrote in post #18485345 (external link)
It is not just a matter of recording history. When you leave Develop module and go to Photo module you are rendering the raw image plus any Develop adjustments into a pixel image. The only time I want to render a pixel image from my non-destructive edits is when I have to print the image or create a jpg to post.

fwiw, i'm a C1 user and do any pixel editing in a CS version of Ps.

Maybe it's because I'm an old fart who has worked in Ps since v2.5, but unlimited undo is more than enough for a guy who grew up with ONE level of undo. :lol

what is the benefit of NOT rendering the image before beginning local adjustments?


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,701 posts
Gallery: 526 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1478
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Oct 31, 2017 16:49 |  #19

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18485509 (external link)
what am i supposed to be looking for ITT? The thread I have seen (started by a mod/staff) said they have it on the radar but have not put a timeline on it.

I have no interest in any software that is not out in full "shipping" form, and will not base my business decisions on rumor or the promise of something new. Same goes for camera bodies, etc.

fwiw, i'm a C1 user and do any pixel editing in a CS version of Ps.

Maybe it's because I'm an old fart who has worked in Ps since v2.5, but unlimited undo is more than enough for a guy who grew up with ONE level of undo. :lol

what is the benefit of NOT rendering the image before beginning local adjustments?


Staying in RAW for as long as possible is handy in that it allows you to put off things like choosing a colour space etc. I would always prefer to be creating a first generation copy when exporting my finished images. Every additional conversion step between the original data, and the finished image is a potential point for conversion losses.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,348 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1648
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited 7 months ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Oct 31, 2017 22:00 |  #20

I guess I don't understand how one rubber stamps out a blemish, or uses a clone source from another image, or tweaks local color in one area of an image with a mask ... and then goes back to the raw, and makes a global correction to something and re-applies all of the previous edits to the new raw edit?

And why? If I make that masked edit and then reedit the raw, I suspect my local edit in the new file might not be what I was wanting earlier.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,701 posts
Gallery: 526 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1478
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 01, 2017 07:04 |  #21

Well that is what I like about Lr/ACR as an editing tool. It allows me to do some reasonably complex local adjustments, using a combination of Graduated and Oval filters, and the Local Adjustment Brush. As far as I'm concerned the one thing that would make the local adjustment tools perfect would be Adobe allowing access to the full range of HSL controls. I often find that in my aviation hots that the undersides of aircraft will pick up a horrid yellow hue from the grass on the airfield. I currently have to fix it by reducing the yellow saturation globally, then painting saturation back in locally where it is needed, rather than just reducing the one colour locally. Then add the fact that you can now paint with the spot healing brush, in either heal or clone mode allows for some quite complex repairs to the image, without the need to go near a pixel editor. I can't remember the last time I needed to go to Ps do do localised colour corrections, that weren't the result of part of a larger project. I did recently have to produce a PSD to do a monochrome conversion, I needed to bake the colours in, allowing them to maintain a huge vibrance boost, before going back to Lr and doing the conversion to monochrome there. There is work that I still do in Ps because I hadn't realised that Lr now had the tools to do it there instead, a situation I plan to resolve forthwith.

Being able to do all of that work, and then come back to it a day or so later and think, Hmm didn't really get that WB perfect, or that I need to lift or darken that shadow area a bit, and not have to then go back and change all of the edits that were done in the pixel editor, which as you say may entail having to start from scratch, is immensely useful. Or I spot something that should have been obvious from the start that then needs correction. These days, where possible, I'll usually leave my images sitting a day or three before uploading them online, just to be sure that I won't want to change them. Because even though when Lr posts an updated image to Flickr, the Flickr page URL stays the same, the embed link changes, breaking links on here.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,348 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1648
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Nov 01, 2017 07:20 as a reply to  @ BigAl007's post |  #22

Thanks Alan, that really clears things up. It's been a long time since I have used Lr and even then I didn't use it fully. I didn't realize Adobe had added so many local adjustment tools to Lr.

Knowing that also makes the "joined at the hip" subscription model for the two programs make more sense. I had assumed Lr was more of a bonus to subscribing to Ps. However, if Lr now fully/almost fully meets the needs of a large part of the user base, maybe Ps is more of the bonus software.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,528 posts
Likes: 467
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Post edited 7 months ago by kirkt. (10 edits in all)
     
Nov 01, 2017 08:24 |  #23

MCAsan wrote in post #18485345 (external link)
It is not just a matter of recording history. When you leave Develop module and go to Photo module you are rendering the raw image plus any Develop adjustments into a pixel image. The only time I want to render a pixel image from my non-destructive edits is when I have to print the image or create a jpg to post.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18485710 (external link)
Staying in RAW for as long as possible is handy in that it allows you to put off things like choosing a colour space etc. I would always prefer to be creating a first generation copy when exporting my finished images. Every additional conversion step between the original data, and the finished image is a potential point for conversion losses.

Alan

Care to demonstrate the "conversion losses" that you dread, outside of a handful of stereotypical examples that can be handled with a little bit of finesse? Is a 16bit RGB file converted into the ProPhoto color space not big enough to start editing in a pixel editor?

I think most peoples' desire for a parametric "non-destructive" workflow has gotten to the point where parametric "editors" like Lightroom have become bogged down with attempts to make them perform the duties of a pixel editor. I do not need to point out the recent blow back from users in this regard.

Folks "want their cake" but probably cannot articulate why, beyond the notion that they want their cake for convenience.

I would always prefer the highest quality raw conversion into an appropriate working color space for retouching and grading in a capable pixel editor - period. Raw conversion and grading/retouching are two distinct tasks that benefit from being done in two distinct environments. I cannot understand peoples' need to have these things done in a unified application where both tasks potentially suffer (quality, workflow speed, precision) as a result of what is probably the notion of convenience over quality - jack of all trades, master of none. At some point you are going to have to commit to your edits, even if you have multiple versions of your envisioned output.

Can you make a good image without ever leaving a Lightroom-like environment? Sure - and many people swear by this workflow. Can you make a better image by converting the data in a high-quality raw converter and finishing it in a pixel editor? 99.9% of the time, yes, most of the time with edits that are burned into the original pixels. If you do not need to make a "better" image, then staying with Lightroom-like edits is a good solution. But the idea that there are losses and artifacts that can only be avoided by staying in Lightroom, or similar "raw" environment until the very last possible moment is probably a belief rather than a fact. And most of the time, altering the original pixels in a way that simply is irrecoverable is a risk that most folks are going to take to make the best image possible, regardless of the technology.

Of course, I am open to data that would prove otherwise.

kirk

EDIT - using a mask is "destructive" in the sense that you are altering some pixels more than others in the downstream rendering pipeline. Just because you can create variants or versions in a raw converter and then apply different local corrections does not make the workflow more legitimate compared to working on pixels that have already been rendered. So, wouldn't you rather have more control over the "mask" by having access to channels that, most of the time, provide more precision in the local corrections you want to make? Applying a Lightroom adjustment with a brush is also "destructive" in this sense. Of course you can undo it by deleting that local correction "pin" but you can also delete the analogous adjustment layer in Photoshop. In other words, layers in Photoshop provide the same, and more flexible, non-destructive editing capabilities that Lightroom may provide, but, by necessity, work on pixels that already have committed to a particular color space.

Some differences in this workflow are the precision of the correction and the resulting file size of the working document - but these may be offset by the speed at which the user can render and work with the "masks" and their local corrections, as demonstrated by the growing frustration of users who reported that their machines came to a standstill as they tried to apply "masks" for local corrections and local spot healing. And, while the new CC Classic "masks" include luminance and color refinements, the user has relatively little control over this refinement compared to the power of being able to use RGB, CMYK and Lab channels to target specific areas of an image for mask construction. These more advanced mask-making strategies are probably beyond the ken of the average user of Lightroom, which indicates that, although Lightroom may be used by "professional" photographers, it is likely less a tool for professional image processing and image making users who depend upon complete control over the elements of the image processing and retouching pipeline. The recent emphasis by Adobe on the mobile Lightroom CC platform also would tend to confirm this distinction.

Again, you can make a perfectly good image in Lightroom, but you can make that image better by editing your good Lightroom image in a pixel editor like Photoshop, or some of the more recent hybrid tools like Luminar, Topaz Studio, etc.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,528 posts
Likes: 467
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Nov 01, 2017 13:17 |  #24

And, I apologize BigAl - i did not mean to go off like that as if you were suggesting something that I did not agree with you about. I did not mean to call YOU out, more the notion of raw versus pixel editing.

As for Affinity Photo's workflow - they really do need to come up with a way to archive raw settings, such as a sidecar file, and a way to apply batch settings if their application is going to be considered even remotely useful as part of a raw workflow.

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,560 posts
Gallery: 176 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 332
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Kansas, USA
     
Nov 02, 2017 18:37 |  #25

Serif just released an update to Affinity Photo and Designer
Affinity Photo 1.6 Update (Windows) (external link)


Ron
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fma
Junior Member
22 posts
Gallery: 27 photos
Likes: 259
Joined Nov 2009
     
Nov 29, 2017 11:57 |  #26

kirkt wrote in post #18485340 (external link)
Read through this thread on the Affinity forum:

https://forum.affinity​.serif.com …-on-a-dam/#comment-242755 (external link)

kirk

The link you supplied is just a thread were people are 'moaning on' about it. I believe there was an original thread where it was first mentioned and it was never promised, just something they hoped for in the future. Since then threads like the one you linked have just ended up in feeding frenzy. If they produce one they will produce one, but I don't think it's a priority to them and they don't have a massive team of developers to do everything that everybody seems to want. In the meantime, I'm quite happy to wait.


http://www.frankanders​onphotography.com (external link)http://frankandersonph​otography.blogspot.co.​uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,528 posts
Likes: 467
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Nov 29, 2017 18:27 as a reply to  @ fma's post |  #27

They have responded to multiple requests by saying that they will consider it but they have other priorities that take precedence.

I do not understand the frantic desire for all applications to have DAMs. There are plenty of ways to manage files.

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,541 posts
Likes: 286
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
     
Nov 30, 2017 01:54 |  #28

kirkt wrote in post #18506993 (external link)
I do not understand the frantic desire for all applications to have DAMs.

Neither do I.

In fact, the imposed use of its DAM is what kept me away from Lightroom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stiga
Goldmember
Avatar
3,593 posts
Gallery: 740 photos
Likes: 1388
Joined Dec 2015
Location: Nr Perth, Scotland
     
Nov 30, 2017 04:03 |  #29

kirkt wrote in post #18506993 (external link)
They have responded to multiple requests by saying that they will consider it but they have other priorities that take precedence.

I do not understand the frantic desire for all applications to have DAMs. There are plenty of ways to manage files.

kirk

I could not agree more.


Martin
I'm not a gear guy but I have a tons of software :-)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rrblint
Listen! .... do you smell something?
Avatar
20,750 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1438
Joined May 2012
Location: U.S.A.
     
Nov 30, 2017 11:48 |  #30

kirkt wrote in post #18506993 (external link)
They have responded to multiple requests by saying that they will consider it but they have other priorities that take precedence.

I do not understand the frantic desire for all applications to have DAMs. There are plenty of ways to manage files.

kirk


agedbriar wrote in post #18507205 (external link)
Neither do I.

In fact, the imposed use of its DAM is what kept me away from Lightroom.


Stiga wrote in post #18507232 (external link)
I could not agree more.

Me four.


Mark

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

12,703 views & 12 likes for this thread
Anyone...Affinity Photo
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is m3ltingp0int
915 guests, 436 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.