Affinity Photo's Raw Processing

[Chaplain Mark]

Fellows,

I have read and participated in a few discussions here, regarding perceived deficits in the RAW processing functions in Affinity Photo.

Despite having asked the question as a part of an existing thread, I have not been able to glean any clear answers regarding what might be wrong with Affinity.

I am indeed, too new to post-processing to perceive any problems with Affinity's RAW processing, and therefore am a bit of a babe in the woods regarding some members' statements that Affinity's RAW processing leaves something to be desired. I'm just not yet seeing any issues.

Those of you who have experience with Affinity's RAW processing, and are not happy with it, could you please respond here with comments regarding specifically what does not please you, regarding Affinity's RAW functions?

I would very much appreciate the info as I continue my exploration of Affinity Photo and RAW post-processing. I have other RAW editing programs to explore as well, but these days have hunkered down and am studying/practicing only in Affinity.

Thanks in advance,

 

[DStan]

I've recently tried their trial version and found its ability to recover shadow details to be pretty weak. That shut the door on its value for processing RAW images. It also performed on the slow side.

 

[Scott Vail]

Fellows,

I have read and participated in a few discussions here, regarding perceived deficits in the RAW processing functions in Affinity Photo.

Despite having asked the question as a part of an existing thread, I have not been able to glean any clear answers regarding what might be wrong with Affinity.

I am indeed, too new to post-processing to perceive any problems with Affinity's RAW processing, and therefore am a bit of a babe in the woods regarding some members' statements that Affinity's RAW processing leaves something to be desired. I'm just not yet seeing any issues.

Those of you who have experience with Affinity's RAW processing, and are not happy with it, could you please respond here with comments regarding specifically what does not please you, regarding Affinity's RAW functions?

I would very much appreciate the info as I continue my exploration of Affinity Photo and RAW post-processing. I have other RAW editing programs to explore as well, but these days have hunkered down and am studying/practicing only in Affinity.

Thanks in advance,

 

[lancslad]

Mark, I am a fellow fan of Affinity but have to agree with the majority viewpoint.

When I first got it I tried to use the "develop" persona but it is really not a match for the competition. I just tried again, to be fair, using a random image and the shadow lifting almost had a plastic effect to it. Have you tried a trial of the alternatives - I would suggest ACDSee, ON1 Raw or DxO to get a feel for what can be achieved in raw, alternatively there are some excellent free raw convertors (I know you have no interest in Adobe).

To be fair it is not terrible but does not match the current competition.

Regards.

 

[alpineguy]

Affinity is still a young program and is rapidly improving with each new release. Their current beta has greatly improved it's shadow and highlight recovery ability. They have been releasing updates fairly quickly, so the next normal release should have the improved shadow/highlight ability.

 

[Bobthearch]

I like it very much as an editor.

But it's not my normal workflow for raw developing. It can work directly with raw files but it does a poor job of development-specific functions such as shadows.

Here is one example. The photo is deliberately dark because it's the -2 exposure from a set of bracketed shots. I've downsized these for fast uploading. These have been tested these by attempting to lighten and reveal details from the shaded portion of the bluff.

The original:



Here is the result of my standard RAW program, the nearly-vintage Capture NX-2:



On1 RAW 2017 did better than I expected:



Here is DxO Optics Pro 9, which I don't often use.



And here is Affinity. Not a bad job with the shaded bluff, but look at the trees!



--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 

[Chaplain Mark]

I like it very much as an editor.

But it's not my normal workflow for raw developing. It can work directly with raw files but it does a poor job of development-specific functions such as shadows.

Here is one example. The photo is deliberately dark because it's the -2 exposure from a set of bracketed shots. I've downsized these for fast uploading. These have been tested these by attempting to lighten and reveal details from the shaded portion of the bluff.

The original:



Here is the result of my standard RAW program, the nearly-vintage Capture NX-2:



Here is DxO Optics Pro 9, which I don't often use.



And here is Affinity. Not a bad job with the shaded bluff, but look at the trees!



--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

Hmmmm.......

The trees look like splashes of pea soup.

Your example gives me reason to run my own comparison test of the shadows lifting RAW function.

I will compare with Affinity Photo Beta and DXO Essentials.

Thanks, Bob, for a concrete example...!!

--
Thank You,
Chaplain Mark
-----
'Tis better to have a camera and not need one than to need a camera and not have one.
--------------
In pursuit of photographic excellence.

 

[Bobthearch]

I just added On1 to the comparison photos too.

 

[Chaplain Mark]

I like it very much as an editor.

But it's not my normal workflow for raw developing. It can work directly with raw files but it does a poor job of development-specific functions such as shadows.

Here is one example. The photo is deliberately dark because it's the -2 exposure from a set of bracketed shots. I've downsized these for fast uploading. These have been tested these by attempting to lighten and reveal details from the shaded portion of the bluff.

The original:



Here is the result of my standard RAW program, the nearly-vintage Capture NX-2:



Here is DxO Optics Pro 9, which I don't often use.



And here is Affinity. Not a bad job with the shaded bluff, but look at the trees!



--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

Hmmmm.......

The trees look like splashes of pea soup.

On second thought, Bob, methinks a workaround in Affinity Photo's Develop Persona would be to apply an overlay to lift the shadows of the bluffs separately from the tree shadows.

There's also the option of adjusting the overlay's opacity....

One could therefore selectively apply the shadows and highlights adjustment to individual areas of the image to hopefully avoid turning the trees into pea soup...!!

--
Thank You,
Chaplain Mark
-----
'Tis better to have a camera and not need one than to need a camera and not have one.
--------------
In pursuit of photographic excellence.

 

[Bobthearch]

You could probably coax better results from each of those programs. But my test was very quick: using the Shadow slider of each program and comparing the results.

 

[DStan]

Affinity is still a young program and is rapidly improving with each new release. Their current beta has greatly improved it's shadow and highlight recovery ability. They have been releasing updates fairly quickly, so the next normal release should have the improved shadow/highlight ability.

It will have to improve greatly to measure up to the competition. The pixel editing (non RAW) portion is nice.

 

[gotoole]

Thanks for posting these examples.

Like Mark, I am new to Affinity Photo and have been struggling to see the problem with shadow recovery but your examples show clearly where it can struggle. I just hadn't seen any problems so far with my own photos.

 

[Lert]

Fellows,

I have read and participated in a few discussions here, regarding perceived deficits in the RAW processing functions in Affinity Photo.

Despite having asked the question as a part of an existing thread, I have not been able to glean any clear answers regarding what might be wrong with Affinity.

I am indeed, too new to post-processing to perceive any problems with Affinity's RAW processing, and therefore am a bit of a babe in the woods regarding some members' statements that Affinity's RAW processing leaves something to be desired. I'm just not yet seeing any issues.

Those of you who have experience with Affinity's RAW processing, and are not happy with it, could you please respond here with comments regarding specifically what does not please you, regarding Affinity's RAW functions?

I would very much appreciate the info as I continue my exploration of Affinity Photo and RAW post-processing. I have other RAW editing programs to explore as well, but these days have hunkered down and am studying/practicing only in Affinity.

Thanks in advance,

--
Chaplain Mark
-----
'Tis better to have a camera and not need one than to need a camera and not have one.
--------------
In pursuit of photographic excellence.

Hi Mark

I have been playing with RAW processing since the old RawShooter days from which evolved Lightroom after Adobe bought the company. After stepping off the Lightroom treadmill I switched to Affinity plus other software. I am growing to like Affinity more as I get more comfortable with its processes.

In particular, most complaints seem to come from the results of high dynamic range RAW's but I have found pretty good results can be had with some care and taking on board the tips presented in the Affinity tutorial videos.. ie not applying an initial tone curve during development and then some judicious use of the tone mapping persona.

The examples were processed from a single exposure RAW + JPG. The JPG has not been touched and reflects the original OOC shot but is presented for comparison. The RAW was processed using the current Beta (103). I think Affinity is progressing very nicely..

Cheers

Graham

 

[Glen Barrington]

For me, specifically, when compared to ACDSee, I feel I can get better, "cleaner", less muddy shadows, and highlights with ACDSee than I can with Affinity Photo. I think I can capture all the dynamic range my camera can produce better with ACDSee than I can with A.P.

That being said, I DO like Affinity Photo as a companion editor for ACDSee to do the things that ACDSee Ultimate can not do. I like it better than PSP X8 for that purpose.

I would NOT recommend that you go out and buy a different raw processor program right away though. If you are new to post processing, you've got a lot to learn. I personally think letting raw development be your primary decider at this point is 'hitching the horse to the back of the vegetable cart' instead of the front.

You can do good work with Affinity Raw, if you are willing to work within its limitations and can make up any raw deficiencies from within the bit mapped editor portion.

 

[lilBuddha]

Those of you who have experience with Affinity's RAW processing, and are not happy with it, could you please respond here with comments regarding specifically what does not please you, regarding Affinity's RAW functions?

Affinity lacks the variety of control that other programs like DXO offer. Also, the changes are much more drastic. Subtle change is more difficult with Affinity and, as the examples up-thread show, not as flexible across an image.

As you mention, one could work around Affinity's RAW weakness within Affinity. But a dedicated RAW processor is actually quicker.

To be fair, the reason I own DXO is that Adobe Camera RAW was not good enough either. A dedicated RAW processor will typically be more flexible and offer more control.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Just to save some time, ACR/LR and Capture One are head and shoulders above any other program for control of highlights and shadows, especially if you've under or overexposed or if you simply have the sun in the frame.

 

[Bobthearch]

Chaplain Mark, a quick question. Since you're shooting Canon cameras, have you tried their "Digital Photo Professional" software?

If it gave you acceptable RAW results, you could then move on to Affinity (was $40 now $50) or OnOne Effects (free) or ACDSee Photo Editor (was $30, now $60. Ouch!) or Paintshop Pro X9 ($30) or Topaz Studio (free) or Adobe PS Elements or etc, etc, etc for additional editing if needed.

I didn't compare them in my test above, but for RAW developing there are two good OpenSource options: Lightzone and RawTherapee. I have used them both in the past and am reasonably confident they each work better than Affinity's RAW developing.

--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 

[Chaplain Mark]

I would NOT recommend that you go out and buy a different raw processor program right away though. If you are new to post processing, you've got a lot to learn. I personally think letting raw development be your primary decider at this point is 'hitching the horse to the back of the vegetable cart' instead of the front.

You can do good work with Affinity Raw, if you are willing to work within its limitations and can make up any raw deficiencies from within the bit mapped editor portion.

Agree completely.

I'm having a blast learning in Affinity Photo, and if I were to find any RAW deficiencies which made it difficult to get the results I want, at the very most I might fire up DXO which I already own.

For sure, I'm going to stick with Affinity Photo.

 

[Chaplain Mark]

Chaplain Mark, a quick question. Since you're shooting Canon cameras, have you tried their "Digital Photo Professional" software?

If it gave you acceptable RAW results, you could then move on to Affinity (was $40 now $50) or OnOne Effects (free) or ACDSee Photo Editor (was $30, now $60. Ouch!) or Paintshop Pro X9 ($30) or Topaz Studio (free) or Adobe PS Elements or etc, etc, etc for additional editing if needed.

I didn't compare them in my test above, but for RAW developing there are two good OpenSource options: Lightzone and RawTherapee. I have used them both in the past and am reasonably confident they each work better than Affinity's RAW developing.

 

[Bobthearch]

Chaplain Mark, a quick question. Since you're shooting Canon cameras, have you tried their "Digital Photo Professional" software?

If it gave you acceptable RAW results, you could then move on to Affinity (was $40 now $50) or OnOne Effects (free) or ACDSee Photo Editor (was $30, now $60. Ouch!) or Paintshop Pro X9 ($30) or Topaz Studio (free) or Adobe PS Elements or etc, etc, etc for additional editing if needed.

I didn't compare them in my test above, but for RAW developing there are two good OpenSource options: Lightzone and RawTherapee. I have used them both in the past and am reasonably confident they each work better than Affinity's RAW developing.

Bob,

Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4 is the first RAW editor I ever tried. I liked DPP4, but found it to be a real resource hog on my computer.

Loading any file to edit, either RAW or JPEG, locked up the program pretty badly, taking several minutes to load. Then, when making edits, the computer would need about 30 seconds of processing time before the display would show the changes.

Affinity Photo runs just fine, by contrast (pun intended.)