Fazal Majid: It would be interesting to see a comparison with Pixelmator and Acorn, which are well-established challengers to Photoshop (although Acorn doesn't have CMYK, which is essential for print designers).
I have tried Pixelmator, Acorn, Affinity Photo, and Photoline on my MacBook. Although I was impressed by the feature set of Photoline, the healing tools were disappointing. I will stick with Affinity Photo, it has been running very smooth and fast, had very well working healing tools, the adjustment layers are quite good, and it has everything else I need.
06m1r3m86: If it was on PC I'd be interested, and even more interested if it was coming to Linux. I would love to have a great, professional photo editor on Linux, even if it's not FOSS. GIMP is great, but it would be so much better if there was a company that could back and develop it with a consistent vision and funding.
This on the other hand, it will be a while before this is competitive with Photoshop on the high end or GIMP on the low/free end.
@06m1r3m86: I agree with you completely. Gimp is a great editor in many ways, but it is lacking features that are quite important, like adjustment layers and 16bit support.
I use Linux most of the time, but recently have been using my MacBook to do some photo editing with Affinity and a couple other editors I tried.
If Affinity Photo would be availble for Linux, I would certainly buy it. So far I really like it.
One other application that you might want to check out for Linux is Krita. It's quite complete featurewise, focuses mostly on painting but has many photo editing tools as well, including adjustment layers. It requires a bit of processing power though... but it's worth a shot.
bossnas: What are the clone/healing tools like? I just want an app that will be good for spotting the odd bit of dust from film scans and I certainly don't want to be paying Adobe a monthly subscription for that. Thanks.
They work well.
I shoot mostly film and have so far edited about 50 pictures with Affinity Photo. I even did a pretty successful negative to positive conversion all in Affinity Photo.
Apart from the clone stamp, there are five healing tools:Healing Brush ToolPatch ToolBlemish Removing ToolInpainting Brush ToolRed Eye Removal Tool
I haven't tried the red eye removal tool yet, but all the others, and they worked as expected. As a matter of fact, these worked much better than in Photoline, another PS alternative that I have tested a bit.
rockjano: Well I just opened a 700Mb CMYK layered PS file (which is a nice BIG file) i7 iMac 4core 12Gig Ram SSD. I was quite slow in PS even when all the RAM was allocated to PS.
I gave all the RAM to Affinity and it is a LOT FASTER than the same stuff in PS I mean a lot faster…nigh and day…
Impressive software, still a long way to go but more than promising...
I had a similar experience. I shoot mostly film, and film scans e.g. from medium format 6x7 are around 300 MB in 16bit. Affinity Photo performance was incredibly fast compared to Photoshop.
leecamera: I'm not seeing a colour balance tool like the PS option. The ability to easily and quickly adjust colours in shadow / mid / highlight areas independently is critical for me. I can use curves, but that is slower and the other colour tools don't offer me the same control.
Or have I missed something obvious?
This above all else would be a deal breaker for me as I'm often shooting in unfavourable light and I use PS to bring colours "home" where LR can't quite make the grade.
It's there:Layers -> New Adjustment Layer -> Colour Balance Adjustment
I fixed many of my slide scans with this, it worked great.
lawny13: I worked briefly with affinity photo, and I generally like it.
However... I only find it acceptable to import JPEG images. I imported in via RAW and noticed that it wasn't really clean. I could see the banding of colors (red and green). This does not occur with photoshop and of course not light room. If this was improved I would be all over it. But basic RAW file input is a must for me.
Just for your information:I had no problems with RAW images from my Ricoh GXR.
Steve Balcombe: Overall I'm in favour. I think many of the objections are just a 'shock' reaction which will dissipate pretty quickly as people get used to the new look and work out how to use it.
BUT - I think they've made one hideous mistake, which is that we can no longer browse photographs with the data on the right. Sure we want the best possible view of the photographs (which was already possible using the Lightbox) but sometimes the data is part of what you want to browse and now you have to actively scroll down to see it. Imagine doing that dozens or hundreds of times...
Also in the views where we have screenfuls of justified images, I'd like the option to choose much smaller images.
One final thought - I have fibre broadband so it's all very slick, but I wonder what this is like to use on a slower connection???
I agree options would be helpful.
The new layout does however look amazing on a high resolution screen. On my 3840x2400 screen it's simply amazing, and Flickr just gets it right with the lightbox--I always get the highest possible resolution available, no borders or otherwise wasted space.
Hopefully Apple with the Retina display, and Google with the Chromebook Pixel set the pace for higher resolution screens. Why keep buying 10, 12, 16 or more megapixel cameras but have only 2 megapixel screens to look at them.
The text says:"Non-directional stereo microphone"
The specifications say:Videography features[...]Microphone: Mono[...]
Now which one is it? I assume stereo, as I observed two strategically placed holes left and right of the lens.
Nevertheless, sounds like a great camera. Similar to the new Nikon A. Having used the Ricoh GXR for quite some time now, I imagine this camera would triumph in usability as well. To me, that's a big plus; I've got no time to mess around in quirky menus.
Nice image but also a good example of missed auto-focus... if you look at this image at a high-resolution screen or zoom in to 100%, you will notice that the bridge is out of focus and the background is sharp.
Yet with such a high resolution it does hardly matter, at least not when this nice 36 megapixel image is viewed on a typical 2 megapixel screen (HD is about 2 megapixels).
eost: Moire on top of the building?
The moire only appears in the small images. Open the original, and you will notice that it's gone. Thus it must be a result of bad resizing/compression.
marike6: This camera is very interesting as IQ at low ISO is absolutely incredible. I won't be buying it because I'm invested in Nikon, but when the DP2 Merrill is released, I will definitely purchase one.
"This camera is very interesting as IQ at low ISO is absolutely incredible."
Yes, but not as incredible as the medium format slides from my Mamiya 7 camera projected on a 8x8 foot screen.
Irrelevant, I know, but I couldn't help myself throwing this into the discussion ;)
angrytoe: "The DP1M will be available in March for around $2,299. Pricing and availabiltiy of the DP2M will be announced." - Adorama; http://www.adorama.com/alc/news/Sigma-announces-DP1M-and-DP2M-with-15MP-Foveon-sensors
Edit: Just realised that that's the same price as the revised price for the SD1 - I imagine someone at Adorama has buggered up here.
Adorama seems to have updated the page mentioned above already. It now says:"Pricing and availability of the Sigma DP1 Merrill and DP2 Merrill are pending."
MikeFreeze: Thanks for this very interesting article. However, I can't agree with your assertion that a FF DSLR produces better resolution photos than a MF film camera. Do you have any data or references to back this up? High resolution scans made from film are arguably superior to images from DSLRs, especially when the scan is made from a larger negative than the DSLR sensor. DSLRs are great, but film still rules for the ultimate landscape photos.
For your pixel-peeping satisfaction:http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
It clearly shows that the resolution of film is extremely high, and that medium format film _can_ beat a full frame DSLR. It just depends on many factors like the film, the scanner etc.
Nevertheless, digital sensors have come a long way.
Digital projectors haven't though--"HD" means 2 megapixels. For me landscape photography is just a hobby, I don't sell prints or even print much for myself. I prefer watching slides on a 8x8 foot screen... without the 2 megapixel limit...
Compare this to 1963, shot by my dad:http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/4897319068/in/set-72157624338032021/lightbox/