Basics of photo development and editing - need tutorials

[ishwanu]

Also understand that DxO PhotoLab and Lightroom are parametric editors that maintain a non-destructive workflow. You are working with the RAW file and then when satisfied EXPORT a JPEG, PNG etc.

Photoshop, Affinity etc are pixel editors that use destrutive actions. You are no longer working on RAW files within the PS workspace. Yes there are things like Smart Ojects that help retain some non-destructive operations but it is important to understand the different ways digital photo editing happens.

By and large, Affinity Photo provides non-destructive tools to accomplish the basic tasks. I won't say it has no destructive or semi-destructive / not truly parametric functions, but in my experience they're very much the exception, not the rule.

What types of edits can be 'undone' after exporting a file from Affinity Photo and saving the .afphoto file? I just tried doing that with an image with a modified curve. When the .afphoto file was reloaded, the curve I applied was gone, replaced with a normal linear curve, so the change I made was 'destructive'.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Also understand that DxO PhotoLab and Lightroom are parametric editors that maintain a non-destructive workflow. You are working with the RAW file and then when satisfied EXPORT a JPEG, PNG etc.

Photoshop, Affinity etc are pixel editors that use destrutive actions. You are no longer working on RAW files within the PS workspace. Yes there are things like Smart Ojects that help retain some non-destructive operations but it is important to understand the different ways digital photo editing happens.

By and large, Affinity Photo provides non-destructive tools to accomplish the basic tasks. I won't say it has no destructive or semi-destructive / not truly parametric functions, but in my experience they're very much the exception, not the rule.

What types of edits can be 'undone' after exporting a file from Affinity Photo and saving the .afphoto file? I just tried doing that with an image with a modified curve. When the .afphoto file was reloaded, the curve I applied was gone, replaced with a normal linear curve, so the change I made was 'destructive'.

You need to use layers to make anything non-destructive in AP. That way, the layer in question can be turned off.

 

[ishwanu]

Also understand that DxO PhotoLab and Lightroom are parametric editors that maintain a non-destructive workflow. You are working with the RAW file and then when satisfied EXPORT a JPEG, PNG etc.

Photoshop, Affinity etc are pixel editors that use destrutive actions. You are no longer working on RAW files within the PS workspace. Yes there are things like Smart Ojects that help retain some non-destructive operations but it is important to understand the different ways digital photo editing happens.

By and large, Affinity Photo provides non-destructive tools to accomplish the basic tasks. I won't say it has no destructive or semi-destructive / not truly parametric functions, but in my experience they're very much the exception, not the rule.

What types of edits can be 'undone' after exporting a file from Affinity Photo and saving the .afphoto file? I just tried doing that with an image with a modified curve. When the .afphoto file was reloaded, the curve I applied was gone, replaced with a normal linear curve, so the change I made was 'destructive'.

You need to use layers to make anything non-destructive in AP. That way, the layer in question can be turned off.

Ah, I see. And not just turned on or off, but it also retains the curve setting itself so it can just be further tweaked.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Also understand that DxO PhotoLab and Lightroom are parametric editors that maintain a non-destructive workflow. You are working with the RAW file and then when satisfied EXPORT a JPEG, PNG etc.

Photoshop, Affinity etc are pixel editors that use destrutive actions. You are no longer working on RAW files within the PS workspace. Yes there are things like Smart Ojects that help retain some non-destructive operations but it is important to understand the different ways digital photo editing happens.

By and large, Affinity Photo provides non-destructive tools to accomplish the basic tasks. I won't say it has no destructive or semi-destructive / not truly parametric functions, but in my experience they're very much the exception, not the rule.

What types of edits can be 'undone' after exporting a file from Affinity Photo and saving the .afphoto file? I just tried doing that with an image with a modified curve. When the .afphoto file was reloaded, the curve I applied was gone, replaced with a normal linear curve, so the change I made was 'destructive'.

You need to use layers to make anything non-destructive in AP. That way, the layer in question can be turned off.

Ah, I see. And not just turned on or off, but it also retains the curve setting itself so it can just be further tweaked.

Yes. Basically, in AP, do all edits in layers. Never do anything to the base layer. That way, you get more flexibility, and it's all non-destructive. But I think there's still a few tools that can only be used destructively.

 

[Night Pixel]

Also understand that DxO PhotoLab and Lightroom are parametric editors that maintain a non-destructive workflow. You are working with the RAW file and then when satisfied EXPORT a JPEG, PNG etc.

Photoshop, Affinity etc are pixel editors that use destrutive actions. You are no longer working on RAW files within the PS workspace. Yes there are things like Smart Ojects that help retain some non-destructive operations but it is important to understand the different ways digital photo editing happens.

By and large, Affinity Photo provides non-destructive tools to accomplish the basic tasks. I won't say it has no destructive or semi-destructive / not truly parametric functions, but in my experience they're very much the exception, not the rule.

What types of edits can be 'undone' after exporting a file from Affinity Photo and saving the .afphoto file? I just tried doing that with an image with a modified curve. When the .afphoto file was reloaded, the curve I applied was gone, replaced with a normal linear curve, so the change I made was 'destructive'.

You need to use layers to make anything non-destructive in AP. That way, the layer in question can be turned off.

Ah, I see. And not just turned on or off, but it also retains the curve setting itself so it can just be further tweaked.

Yes. Basically, in AP, do all edits in layers. Never do anything to the base layer. That way, you get more flexibility, and it's all non-destructive. But I think there's still a few tools that can only be used destructively.

In Affinity Photo 2, there are certain actions and tools that tend to be destructive.

Destructive Tools and Actions in Affinity Photo 2

1. The Eraser tool directly removes pixels from a layer, permanently altering the image data in that layer.

2. When used on a pixel layer the Raster Brush Tools (e.g., Paint Brush, Clone Brush) tools directly modify the pixel data, making changes that cannot be easily reversed.

3. Changing the size of the entire image using the Document Resize feature can be destructive if the resampling method changes the pixel data in a way that cannot be reverted.

4. Flattening a document or merging layers permanently combines them, making it impossible to edit individual layers afterward.

5. Some filters, if applied directly to a pixel layer instead of as live filters, can result in permanent changes to the layer's pixel data.

6. Making color adjustments or other changes directly to a pixel layer, instead of using adjustment layers, will result in permanent changes to that layer.

To avoid destructive edits, try using Adjustment Layers for color and tonal corrections. When using filters use Live Filters instead of standard filters. Also use Layer Masks for non-destructive erasing. Utilize Layer Copies before performing irreversible actions.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Hello all.
I have been using DxO software for few years (recently PhotoLab and prior to that the Pro Optics). I tried Filmpack but did not find it useful for daily purposes.

The most common edits include applying presets like Landscape/Portrait, and NR using DeepPRIME. On rare occasions my photos need WB correction. I may use dynamic lighting or clear view (de-haze) once in a while.

Besides using those preset functions, I am not familiar with editing techniques or terminology (layers, curves, tones, masking, color adjustments, HSL, etc.)

Just for fun, I've played with a recent image of mine:




Original: both trains are light blue, and there are other blue elements in the scene




I recoloured the arriving train in green, without changing any of the other blue elements in the scene, or any of the other colours. All done in PhotoLab 7.

This was all done using a single local adjustment (layer), quickly, easily and non-destructively. In fact, I exported both versions from the same image, just by turning the local adjustment on or off.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Photoshop, Affinity etc are pixel editors that use destrutive actions. You are no longer working on RAW files within the PS workspace. Yes there are things like Smart Ojects that help retain some non-destructive operations but it is important to understand the different ways digital photo editing happens.

By and large, Affinity Photo provides non-destructive tools to accomplish the basic tasks. I won't say it has no destructive or semi-destructive / not truly parametric functions, but in my experience they're very much the exception, not the rule.

What types of edits can be 'undone' after exporting a file from Affinity Photo and saving the .afphoto file? I just tried doing that with an image with a modified curve. When the .afphoto file was reloaded, the curve I applied was gone, replaced with a normal linear curve, so the change I made was 'destructive'.

You need to use layers to make anything non-destructive in AP. That way, the layer in question can be turned off.

Ah, I see. And not just turned on or off, but it also retains the curve setting itself so it can just be further tweaked.

Yes, different software uses slightly different terms for the same basic functionality, but the basic idea is that applying the non-destructive adjustment does not actually modify the underlying pixels; instead it merely writes an instruction for how to modify the underlying pixels as they're being exported. Here are some Affinity pages about some of this:

using adjustment layers

https://affinity.help/photo/en-US.l...mentLayers.html&title=Using adjustment layers

and using live filters

https://affinity.help/photo/en-US.l...ers/livefilters.html&title=Using live filters

Before you perform an export, you can suspend, delete, cancel, or modify that instruction. As long as you save your edited image as a native Affinity Photo file, you can go back another day and tweak or remove your prior your edits. When you export your edited image, your edits are 'baked in' to the resulting TIFF or JPEG.

In the past (e.g., like version 1.6 or something) I found that some Affinity Photo edits were not truly parametric. For example, if I made a layer to retouch out pimples, then changed the underlying skintone, the retouches did not pick up / conform to the underlying change. The retouching was making retouched pixels (i.e., semi-destructive / not parametric) instead of making instructions on how to retouch based on the underlying pixels. But I don't know whether that remains an issue in version 2.x. Also, the vast majority of the edits I performed were non-destructive as described above.

And more recently, as DxO PhotoLab's local adjustments have gotten better and better, typically I've done things like retouch out pimples in DxO instead of Affinity Photo.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Photoshop, Affinity etc are pixel editors that use destrutive actions. You are no longer working on RAW files within the PS workspace. Yes there are things like Smart Ojects that help retain some non-destructive operations but it is important to understand the different ways digital photo editing happens.

By and large, Affinity Photo provides non-destructive tools to accomplish the basic tasks. I won't say it has no destructive or semi-destructive / not truly parametric functions, but in my experience they're very much the exception, not the rule.

What types of edits can be 'undone' after exporting a file from Affinity Photo and saving the .afphoto file? I just tried doing that with an image with a modified curve. When the .afphoto file was reloaded, the curve I applied was gone, replaced with a normal linear curve, so the change I made was 'destructive'.

You need to use layers to make anything non-destructive in AP. That way, the layer in question can be turned off.

Ah, I see. And not just turned on or off, but it also retains the curve setting itself so it can just be further tweaked.

Yes, different software uses slightly different terms for the same basic functionality, but the basic idea is that applying the non-destructive adjustment does not actually modify the underlying pixels; instead it merely writes an instruction for how to modify the underlying pixels as they're being exported. Here are some Affinity pages about some of this:

using adjustment layers

https://affinity.help/photo/en-US.l...mentLayers.html&title=Using adjustment layers

and using live filters

https://affinity.help/photo/en-US.l...ers/livefilters.html&title=Using live filters

Before you perform an export, you can suspend, delete, cancel, or modify that instruction. As long as you save your edited image as a native Affinity Photo file, you can go back another day and tweak or remove your prior your edits. When you export your edited image, your edits are 'baked in' to the resulting TIFF or JPEG.

In the past (e.g., like version 1.6 or something) I found that some Affinity Photo edits were not truly parametric. For example, if I made a layer to retouch out pimples, then changed the underlying skintone, the retouches did not pick up / conform to the underlying change. The retouching was making retouched pixels (i.e., semi-destructive / not parametric) instead of making instructions on how to retouch based on the underlying pixels. But I don't know whether that remains an issue in version 2.x.

I think it's unchanged. Affinity's tools always work on the current layer view.

Also, the vast majority of the edits I performed were non-destructive as described above.

And more recently, as DxO PhotoLab's local adjustments have gotten better and better, typically I've done things like retouch out pimples in DxO instead of Affinity Photo.

Yes, the PL Retouching (clone/repair) tool is now rather good. It's taken a long time, but it's greatly reduced the need for additional work in a pixel editor.

 

[ishwanu]

Yes, different software uses slightly different terms for the same basic functionality, but the basic idea is that applying the non-destructive adjustment does not actually modify the underlying pixels; instead it merely writes an instruction for how to modify the underlying pixels as they're being exported.

I guess one downside of Affinity Photo's approach is that if you might want to edit more later, you have to save a rather large .afphoto file rather than just the source file plus a sidecar file. With a 24mp image, the .afphoto file with some saved layer edits was 108mb - about 4 times the size of the RAW file.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Yes, different software uses slightly different terms for the same basic functionality, but the basic idea is that applying the non-destructive adjustment does not actually modify the underlying pixels; instead it merely writes an instruction for how to modify the underlying pixels as they're being exported.

I guess one downside of Affinity Photo's approach is that if you might want to edit more later, you have to save a rather large .afphoto file rather than just the source file plus a sidecar file. With a 24mp image, the .afphoto file with some saved layer edits was 108mb - about 4 times the size of the RAW file.

I'm about 86% certain that what I'm about to say mostly applies not only to Affinity Photo but also to Photoshop and other common pixel editors. Also, I'm oversimplifying a few things that aren't important to understand the basic process and result.

A raw file does not contain color data. It contains only how much light hit each pixel. Even without any compression, e.g. if it's a 12-bit raw file, that's easy enough to fit into 1.5 bytes per pixel, so 6000 x 4000 pixels means 34 MB plus header-type info (e.g., what aperture was used), before any compression is applied.

To convert that raw data into color data, the raw converter applies its knowledge of whether each pixel's color filter is red, green, or blue to that light data, in conjunction with similar information from the nearby pixels, to estimate the color of the particular pixel. That's the de-mosaic process. And typically even if e.g. the raw file has only 12 or 14 bits per each pixel, for processing the de-mosaiced data is stored at 16 bits = 2 bytes for each of the red, green, and blue channels for each pixel. De-mosaiced and stored at 16 bits per channel, 6000 x 4000 pixels = 137 MB of data. Again, before any compression is applied, and plus the header-type data.

If you take 137 MB of actual pixel data plus header-type data plus instructions on edits you want to make, and then apply lossless compression, that's why you'd have 108 MB.

 

[ishwanu]

Yes, different software uses slightly different terms for the same basic functionality, but the basic idea is that applying the non-destructive adjustment does not actually modify the underlying pixels; instead it merely writes an instruction for how to modify the underlying pixels as they're being exported.

I guess one downside of Affinity Photo's approach is that if you might want to edit more later, you have to save a rather large .afphoto file rather than just the source file plus a sidecar file. With a 24mp image, the .afphoto file with some saved layer edits was 108mb - about 4 times the size of the RAW file.

I'm about 86% certain that what I'm about to say mostly applies not only to Affinity Photo but also to Photoshop and other common pixel editors. Also, I'm oversimplifying a few things that aren't important to understand the basic process and result.

A raw file does not contain color data. It contains only how much light hit each pixel. Even without any compression, e.g. if it's a 12-bit raw file, that's easy enough to fit into 1.5 bytes per pixel, so 6000 x 4000 pixels means 34 MB plus header-type info (e.g., what aperture was used), before any compression is applied.

To convert that raw data into color data, the raw converter applies its knowledge of whether each pixel's color filter is red, green, or blue to that light data, in conjunction with similar information from the nearby pixels, to estimate the color of the particular pixel. That's the de-mosaic process. And typically even if e.g. the raw file has only 12 or 14 bits per each pixel, for processing the de-mosaiced data is stored at 16 bits = 2 bytes for each of the red, green, and blue channels for each pixel. De-mosaiced and stored at 16 bits per channel, 6000 x 4000 pixels = 137 MB of data. Again, before any compression is applied, and plus the header-type data.

Yes, I know all that.

If you take 137 MB of actual pixel data plus header-type data plus instructions on edits you want to make, and then apply lossless compression, that's why you'd have 108 MB.

I'm not saying Affinity Photo files are larger than the proprietary files of other RGB pixel editors, especially when layers are involved. I'm saying they're a lot larger than the original RAW files plus sidecars, which is what true parametric editors save.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Yes, different software uses slightly different terms for the same basic functionality, but the basic idea is that applying the non-destructive adjustment does not actually modify the underlying pixels; instead it merely writes an instruction for how to modify the underlying pixels as they're being exported.

I guess one downside of Affinity Photo's approach is that if you might want to edit more later, you have to save a rather large .afphoto file rather than just the source file plus a sidecar file. With a 24mp image, the .afphoto file with some saved layer edits was 108mb - about 4 times the size of the RAW file.

I'm about 86% certain that what I'm about to say mostly applies not only to Affinity Photo but also to Photoshop and other common pixel editors. Also, I'm oversimplifying a few things that aren't important to understand the basic process and result.

A raw file does not contain color data. It contains only how much light hit each pixel. Even without any compression, e.g. if it's a 12-bit raw file, that's easy enough to fit into 1.5 bytes per pixel, so 6000 x 4000 pixels means 34 MB plus header-type info (e.g., what aperture was used), before any compression is applied.

To convert that raw data into color data, the raw converter applies its knowledge of whether each pixel's color filter is red, green, or blue to that light data, in conjunction with similar information from the nearby pixels, to estimate the color of the particular pixel. That's the de-mosaic process. And typically even if e.g. the raw file has only 12 or 14 bits per each pixel, for processing the de-mosaiced data is stored at 16 bits = 2 bytes for each of the red, green, and blue channels for each pixel. De-mosaiced and stored at 16 bits per channel, 6000 x 4000 pixels = 137 MB of data. Again, before any compression is applied, and plus the header-type data.

Yes, I know all that.

If you take 137 MB of actual pixel data plus header-type data plus instructions on edits you want to make, and then apply lossless compression, that's why you'd have 108 MB.

I'm not saying Affinity Photo files are larger than the proprietary files of other RGB pixel editors, especially when layers are involved. I'm saying they're a lot larger than the original RAW files plus sidecars, which is what true parametric editors save.

Yes, DxO dop files are really tiny, even if they contain a few virtual copies. PL users also don't need to create any huge DNG files.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

If you take 137 MB of actual pixel data plus header-type data plus instructions on edits you want to make, and then apply lossless compression, that's why you'd have 108 MB.

I'm not saying Affinity Photo files are larger than the proprietary files of other RGB pixel editors, especially when layers are involved. I'm saying they're a lot larger than the original RAW files plus sidecars, which is what true parametric editors save.

All that does not mean that Affinity Photo is not a true parametric editor. Certainly it has a wide range of true parametric editing capabilities. However, it is a true parametric editor plus a pixel editor. To get the extra capabilities, there are certain typical downsides.

 

[Satyaa]

Hi. I shared a link via PM.

Let's share the comments here for everyone but not the photos (please).

My top three edits are...

• Cropping/Straightening
• Exposure adjustment (because the spotlight is strong and camera metering resulted in too bright faces); sometimes highlight reduction on top of exposure adjustment
• DeepPRIME NR (It cleans up all those areas well that look bad in the raw file, especially faces)

Others I have used...

• Filmpack Classic Chrome preset cleaned up the color cast well, but I just had a trial license

I never tried adjusting individual colors, clear view, etc. I am watching some tutorials now. I see some good features but am yet to figure out what is helpful for my photos.

Thank you.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Hi. I shared a link via PM.

Let's share the comments here for everyone but not the photos (please).

My top three edits are...

• Cropping/Straightening
• Exposure adjustment (because the spotlight is strong and camera metering resulted in too bright faces); sometimes highlight reduction on top of exposure adjustment
• DeepPRIME NR (It cleans up all those areas well that look bad in the raw file, especially faces)

Others I have used...

• Filmpack Classic Chrome preset cleaned up the color cast well, but I just had a trial license

I never tried adjusting individual colors, clear view, etc. I am watching some tutorials now. I see some good features but am yet to figure out what is helpful for my photos.

As I mentioned by DM, the main problem with some of these images is that they're very over-exposed. The exposure seems to have been for the scene average, but these are images of brightly lit dancers, against a dark background. So their skin and lighter coloured and jewelled costumes have badly blown highlights, which are not recoverable. The faster moving dancers are also quite blurred.

I would suggest shooting with -2EV, and using much higher shutter speeds — perhaps 1/1000, rather than 1/250. That will make the background darker and noisier, but PhotoLab can deal with those problems.

 

[Satyaa]

Thank you for reviewing the photos and the suggestions.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Thank you for reviewing the photos and the suggestions.

Did you find my PL settings useful?

To my surprise, I ended up not using any local adjustments in your raw files I processed, as they weren't needed. I did try more aggressive reduction in highlights using local adjustments, but didn't like the slightly artificial looking results.

 

[Satyaa]

Thank you for reviewing the photos and the suggestions.

Did you find my PL settings useful?

To my surprise, I ended up not using any local adjustments in your raw files I processed, as they weren't needed. I did try more aggressive reduction in highlights using local adjustments, but didn't like the slightly artificial looking results.

Not tried yet. I was out yesterday for the most part and am preparing to go out again today. Some weekends are busier than others

I did take a look at the settings screenshot. I am yet to mimic them and reproduce the results. I will share the results as HEIC files and will message you.

Thanks.

--
See my profile (About me) for gear and my posting policy.

 

[Satyaa]

Thank you for reviewing the photos and the suggestions.

Did you find my PL settings useful?

To my surprise, I ended up not using any local adjustments in your raw files I processed, as they weren't needed. I did try more aggressive reduction in highlights using local adjustments, but didn't like the slightly artificial looking results.

That is where I mostly get into trouble. At dramatic moments during the ballet, the lighting assistants tend to over-do the lighting. It throws the camera off. About 25% of the shots or less are severely over-exposed. Most of the times I delete them because they are duplicates. Sometimes there are good shots that are over-exposed. I will try center-weighted metering and -1 EC next time.

In those shots, I found during my Filmpack trial that 'Classic Chrome' preset cleans them up very well.

That is the only situation where I found FF camera an advantage for my uses. They preserve the highlights and color quality better. It also depends on the individual camera model's metering. Not complaining but just an observation. What I have is good for hobby. If doing it for paid work, I can see why professionals prefer FF.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Thank you for reviewing the photos and the suggestions.

Did you find my PL settings useful?

To my surprise, I ended up not using any local adjustments in your raw files I processed, as they weren't needed. I did try more aggressive reduction in highlights using local adjustments, but didn't like the slightly artificial looking results.

That is where I mostly get into trouble. At dramatic moments during the ballet, the lighting assistants tend to over-do the lighting. It throws the camera off. About 25% of the shots or less are severely over-exposed. Most of the times I delete them because they are duplicates. Sometimes there are good shots that are over-exposed. I will try center-weighted metering and -1 EC next time.

I'd try more, perhaps -1.3 EC. In fact, in day-to-day shooting, I normally use -0.7EC with all my cameras, even FF. I increase it in very high contrast scenes like yours.

Being too dark isn't really a problem, even if it results in very dark shadows, as that's easily fixed. But large areas of blown highlights ruin the photo. So it's better of most of the photos are under-exposed, if it protects a minority from badly blown highlights.

In those shots, I found during my Filmpack trial that 'Classic Chrome' preset cleans them up very well.

That is the only situation where I found FF camera an advantage for my uses. They preserve the highlights and color quality better. It also depends on the individual camera model's metering. Not complaining but just an observation. What I have is good for hobby. If doing it for paid work, I can see why professionals prefer FF.

Yes, FF cameras have a much wider dynamic range.