Provided the perpetual license will continue I do hope in the next major LR version there are more things than currently released to the CC only.
Pat Cullinan Jr: More phony baloney from Adobe. But at least we won't be seeing it for another four or five versions.
The LR version works differently, it just stretches rather than fills. You get a distorted image in the end with LR.
I much appreciated all the reviews from Michael from the experience viewpoint - less technical but all the relevant info within the context. He was experienced enough to make a point disconnected from hype and sponsorship. I for sure will miss his attitude mixed with a thorough knowledge and critical insights.
Aesthetically and in terms of layout and quality of effects, this software is great. Gimp and most everything else in this price range are way behind. But when you start trying to adapt a workflow from Photoshop, the limitations become apparent very quickly. If you do serious productions in Photoshop and you value your time, Affinity doesn't make sense.
But it might if you instead spend most of your time in Lightroom and only venture into Photoshop for the occasional one-off. Affinity is more than adequate for touchup work, face replacements, adding and modifying text, blending layers, and so on. It also appears to support Photoshop plugins. If you don't use the really clever stuff that makes Photoshop what it is, Affinity could be preferable to a subscription fee.
Thanks for this review!
It's still relatively new software so there is a good chance the mentioned shortcomings will be ironed out at some point.
This is the only serious alternative to Photoshop.
Photoline has too small icons, Corel is unintuitive and by far what one call robust, Gimp lacks features (functional healing).
Nice, we definitely need more competition, for my use the recent Lightroom versions haven't added much desired features meaning mostly Develop module.
TN Args: Canon vs Epson. Can anyone help me here? Are they just roughly equal competitors like Canon and Nikon with a bit of leap-frogging of top-dog status with each new model? Or is one actually well superior to the other?
I'm assuming the PRO1000 goes head-to-head with the P800?
There is one big difference - with Epson, you must waste some ink and time to change black ink between matte and glossy paper.I'm very glad there is a relatively small footprint competition showing up.
gwenhael appere: I'm really not happy with Adobe. All their photo editing software get the dehaze tool, except LR 6 customers (i'm one of them) !
It was made quite clear by Adobe so you knew that beforehand.
That said, I feel the first CC feature update followed little too quick after the perpetual release.
All in all I'm happy with the perpetual model. The CC version gives nice hints as far as the development focus. This far looks to me little has happened on the essential side, I'll be checking thoroughly whether the LR7 is a go.
aftab: Since the age of 6D and D800 it has become a norm to compare Sony sensors with Canon to see the difference in shadow lifting. Its all good and dandy. But no one, including DPR, showed any comparison (or put proper importance to it) between a properly exposed shadow area at ISO100 vs having the area dark and then shadow lifted. If someone do this comparison it would be clear that lifting shadow is a compromise no matter how little you lift. It is always better not to lift shadows. It is science and physics. It is always better to use exposure bracketing, fill flash, filter etc than lifting shadows. Choose any Sony sensor camera from DPR tests, look at properly exposed ISO100 scene, then compare it with same scene with shadow lifting. If you do, you will come to the same conclusion as I did using an Exmor sensor FF camera for last two years: it is better not to lift shadows if you can. All these DPR tests should have a disclaimer: Do not lift shadows unless you must.
ideally, the exposure should be ETTR (expose to the right) without clipping the highlights. Pushing shadows has got a lot better but it is still hard to beat the colors and details from a proper exposure.
I personally find it not so rare to utilize more DR without any HDR intention in mind. When travelling, anything inside with windows during daytime (churches, castels). Midday contrasty scenes outside. Evening scenes - not to blow out the city lights yet retain all the shadow details.
luchs: > Too bad Affinity Photo is for Mac only. > Almost twice cheaper than Elements and rather in the Photoshop league.
Good that there is also PhotoLine (www.pl32.com). It works natively on Windows and also natively on Mac. You can use it on Linux with Wine.
It implements non-destructive photo editing completely, unlike Affinity even for the liquify tool and the RAW import. Unlike Affinity it also supports non destructive perspective correction, smart objects (linked images) and multi page documents. It's PDF export is perfect and supports Pantone / HKS colors, too.
Affinity is a very good system and I prefer it for GUI symbol editing, but it is Mac only and there are also some areas which needs improvement, such as the masks built from multiple layers and working in different color spaces.
With Photoline you can make any tool or work layer (i.e. unsharp) work on one dedicated channel only, such as "luminosity".
Thanks, will check it out!
Too bad Affinity Photo is for Mac only. Almost twice cheaper than Elements and rather in the Photoshop league.
M Jesper: Since Sony apparently won't be offering a lossless compression option themselves for a while, you can save a lot of space on your HDD's by doing the Lossless compression yourself using Adobe's DNG Converter (or during import in Lightroom). The size difference compared to uncompressed is huge. While not as much as Lossy compression, it's close! Though it won't help save card space on the road.
*And no you don't lose anything or limit compatibility, it's actually more like the opposite. The data does not change, it is simply packed in a different container. Currently using it for my Fuji RAF files that are also uncompressed, never had any problem with the DNG's anywhere. Probably saving about 40% with it.
One caveat though - the Adobe DNG is only readable by a limited number of software, mostly Adobe itself. For example, those dng-ed files cannot be processed anymore by the Capture One Pro.
Is that the first SureColor-P printer which doesn't require time and money consuming black matte/glossy ink switch?
I wonder what is the print quality with 7 inks compared to 8 (+1 replacement black) ink SC printers.
Turn everything into money.
I think it would be fair if one wants desperately "protect" a genius architectural achievement from viewing, be so kind and build it in a far land.
In public places, one has already agreed to share.
Though I can understand if it is strictly commercial interest. Then again the rules must be utterly clear and when public interested is overrun then just abandon the idea of the law. No messing around.
The world seems to be over-regulated these days.
rrccad: I'm starting to think that it's either dpreview or that photographers on the whole are turning into crotchety old geezers that bitch whine and moan about everything. heck half of them can't seem to carry anything over 1lb, and I'm sure soon that will be subbed with a cane the way some are going on.
all of which makes me scared :/
a cool tool - and now we'll be swamped with overdone simulated fog images ;)
(however I have to admit, I can think of a few photos i want to try adding haze to just to see how they look).
My sub for LR/PS is around 9.95 per month. LR is a rather useless for me (can't handle IR RAW's and can't handle Sigma), but 10/month for PS with continual upgrades? did you ever see the sticker price of PS before?
if you can't afford it, really, leave your sniffling somewhere else.
it's getting pretty nauseating.
"but 10/month for PS with continual upgrades?"
That seems to be point of miscommunication - why insist/assume everybody needs PS?
I for one am completely the opposite, not interested in a single bit in PS and in that context the price is definitely not reasonable by seeing the opportunity cost (i.e. upgrade price for LR only spread over the periods).
It is important to stay in the context - standalone users knew there might be regular upgrades coming to CC which by itself is not an issue. However, introduced that shortly after the full release gives impression of forced choices.
ihv: The problem is that LR6 didn't get much new features for 2 years development (the develop module had exactly (!) one new feature, brushing gradients).
Suddenly, shortly after the release of the perpetual version the CC gets a feature update. I find this utterly nasty business practice.
No. Because the feature set was rather short for such a long development period and yet sholrtly after the release new features appeared - too quickly to be developed after the full release.
I completely understand the different licencing policies, but this seems to be rather cheating.
Trk: Even though Adobe declared perpetual license as "snapshot" of features of CC version at the given time, they should put these new features into LR6 this time too as some sort of customer protection, otherwise it look very convenient for Adobe to release new features so shortly after version release, where I do not remember such a update in previous versions.Also current companies practice is to support perpetual software licenses 18 months including minor feature upgrades which at least de-haze tool is.I will probably wait for LR7 and keep now LR5.7 and I wanted to upgrade to LR6, but current Adobe practices are too aggressive. To those who think subscription is cheap, maybe in US in $, in Eur it is very expensive for me, if they offered subscription in my country's currency, maybe ...
Not less important - the subscription is just plain expensive for LR only. I don't need PS.
The problem is that LR6 didn't get much new features for 2 years development (the develop module had exactly (!) one new feature, brushing gradients).
ihv: Weird, CCD for aerials? Aren't shutter speeds more critical i.e. higher ISOs are more desired? CCD goes barely ISO400-800.
Hum, looks to me like a software add-on (with P1 price(!)) because a software license is needed.
Doesn't the Photoshop CC have this technology for compensating motion blur?
The P1 effect of this is yet to be seen.
NB! All that FMC claims is to compensate for movements because higher ISOs are impossible on CCD, not because CMOS wouldn't allow something.
Weird, CCD for aerials? Aren't shutter speeds more critical i.e. higher ISOs are more desired? CCD goes barely ISO400-800.