Started by sboerner, January 27, 2019, 04:04:51 pm
Quote from: reck on January 28, 2019, 04:14:49 pmQuote from: WASasquatch on January 28, 2019, 01:53:19 pmI never said it was getting hate? You seemed to write the entire article without really comprehending what I stated. I was just curious for an answer to thisQuoteI'd say Affinity Photo has a long way to go before being anything Photoshop level.I was hoping you would list of all the things that are missing in your opinion that would warrant it being "a long way" behind Photoshop. It's possible some of these things are being developed or possibly already implemented but used in a different way.A number of long time Photoshop users have moved over so it's enough for some already, I was hoping to find out what else is missing that would keep someone paying a subscription fee as I must assume Photoshop does a number of things Affinity can't to justify the ongoing continued payments?
Quote from: WASasquatch on January 28, 2019, 01:53:19 pmI never said it was getting hate? You seemed to write the entire article without really comprehending what I stated.
QuoteI'd say Affinity Photo has a long way to go before being anything Photoshop level.
QuoteIn PS you can be working on 4-8k plus images with no problem so long as you provide yourself the scratch, all while being on a 4GB laptop.
Quote from: sboerner on January 30, 2019, 12:59:06 pmSo while I've been using PS over the past few days I've tried to pay closer attention to how I use the interface and am realizing how much I've been taking for granted. Also how some of my comments here have been unfair. A properly customized PS workspace can be nearly non-modal. And I've realized how when I'm working - because of long experience but also because of the interface - the application itself nearly disappears. That's good design.QuoteIn PS you can be working on 4-8k plus images with no problem so long as you provide yourself the scratch, all while being on a 4GB laptop.I sometimes work with 8k layered 32-bit images. PS sometimes pauses to catch its breath but it never stops or crashes. So this is absolutely correct, Was, along with many other of your observations. Despite its flaws (and they do exist), PS is still in a class by itself.But Affinity Photo intrigues me and the clean 32-bit toolset is a major attraction. I'll probably license it and use it in tandem with PS, we'll see what happens.Still have these on my bookshelf. Remember printed software manuals? These date from 1995. I must have "borrowed" them from work when Photoshop was introduced to our office. Glancing through them now, it's impressive to see how mature and full-featured the application was by the time Adobe acquired it and made it widely available.
Quote from: sboerner on February 02, 2019, 01:19:49 pmOK, here are a couple of things. Affinity's nondestructive lens blur filter works in 32-bit but includes few options. You can apply a depth pass as a mask but you cannot control the focus point. Also, prepping the pass is hit-or-miss, for example there is no way to automatically equalize it to bring the densities into a workable range.In comparison, Photoshop's lens blur is destructive (make a duplicate layer first) and works only in 8- or 16-bit. But you can use the HDR Toning panel to equalize the depth pass before converting it. The depth pass can be inverted in the lens blur panel, and you can easily specify the focus depth.More seriously, Affinity has color samplers but they display values only in the 0-255 range, even for 32-bit images. Which is useless. I found several requests to fix this in the Affinity forum, some going back a year or two, but no satisfactory responses. This could be a show stopper.Still playing . . .