Review Why Affinity Photo is BETTER than Photoshop!

sunnyside_up said:
seamless integration
Click to expand...


Yes, that is at the heart of that software developer strategy and still is. It
was very clear that the industry was in need for serious and heavy thinking
and solutions. The two weakest points in the production chain were the film
with the scanning and the prepress to press workflow where there were no
established operation standards. At this point, the development of the fully
digital production forced the film and the drum scanners out of business even
before the maturity of the sensor based production.

New standards were adopted gradually and the trade benefited from these
steps. The first integration had to come through the platforms though. Mac
was the first maker to approach the trade in that direction establishing itself
among the pros as serious tool.

I remember using only three apps many years ago: Freehand, Ps v. 4 and ATM.
Freehand for vector graphics and layouts was the rock solid base of my tools.
It saw some evolutions in a very strange directions so, even though it went to
v.10, I almost left it by v. 8 and called it a quit by v. 9 when it comes to its lay-
out features. Sure there was Q-Express but I always saw that app with such
disdain that InD was seen as a benediction and was quickly integrated in the
operations. At the time, the Master Suite Creative Collection was the go to bun-
dle — not so much for its integration but for the industry standards it proposed.

The latest apps developments and the ever evolving digital technologies made
the MSCC less of a go to solution though the standards solutions were a blessing.
Its marketing strategies opened the door to many brilliant software developers
with new ideas, different approaches that came up with a number of tools where
integration must be a main feature and that comes through the file formats.
 
Last edited:
What put me off Photoshop/Lightorrom several years ago, when I spent days playing with a free trial version, comparing it with other software, was that I discovered that for any single feature of PS/LR that I'd probably use a lot, like noise reduction, sharpening, perspective adjustment, it was possible to get very much cheaper, and often free, programs which did that one particular thing significantly better than Photoshop in terms of image quality. It seemed to me that what Photoshop was offering was a gigantic costly Swiss Army knife of a program which had been put together by managers and salesmen rather than intelligent knowledgeable programmers. So you got something which did absolutely everything you could ever want, but never quite as well as a good dedicated tool made by a real expert.

So I ended up using half a dozen different different programs to do all my stuff, a complicated time consuming workflow which would never have satisfied a professional. But I never became a professional. Photography for me is an interesting educational hobby from which I've earned some money now and then in interesting contracts so I could afford to buy more expensive gear.

When Photoshop decided to change to renting rather than selling that just confirmed my suspicion that it's primarily a money making tool, supporting a lot of financial experts who'd rather inflate and secure their own salaries rather than spend money and time getting involved with the experts and technical details needed to do the job properly.
 
chris malcolm said:
I ended up using half a dozen different different programs to do all my stuff, a complicated time consuming workflow
Click to expand...

Correct, Chris!

The more a mature approach to PP is supported by fewer apps the
better the result — not forgetting the loss of quality upon each and
every save of compressed files.

For exactly that reason, I have one RAW converter that publishes
file formats that will be opened in one pixel editor and that is the
end of it.

My production is photography based at some 85% and the rest can
represent the maximum imagery proportion

Because lossless files are huge — like 14 or 16 bits files supporting
channel separations and layering — these will only be published and
sent to some clients but NEVER kept.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
This is a legitimate question and it was well formulated.


This is not my language, I'm just trying to use it. I understand
that this is not the proper reaction in this thread, to Rog answer.
Keep it cool! :cool:
Click to expand...

Yes it was a legitimate question and directed at PC. However with the clever remark, it received an appropriate response.
 
Last edited:
Well that escalated quickly!

Cost aside I have switched to affinity.

Is it better than photoshop? Not really no. Its feature set is superb but adobe ps still has the advantage with a more universal base for file type (it’s own included) and better support for more types of image from varying camera bodies etc. So based on this alone I would have preferred to have kept PS.

Why didn’t I keep PS?

IPad Pro.

The iPad Pro affinity app is pretty much a carbon copy of the desktop app. Adobe has apps but there are pretty rubbish by comparison.

I can save to a cloud based storage system and open the lossless file on my PC or IPad and carry on where ever I am.

That is quite literally the only reason I have affinity and for the reason alone I shall not have PS again. Once adobe create an affinity iPad Pro app equivalent for PS and Lightroom I will switch back and happily pay my sub.

The iPad is with me 99% of the time as it’s in the camera bag. My pc/laptop/surface Pro all are not.
 
After I import my pictures with the camera manufacturers software, I use FastStone image viewer to sort through the pictures, then send the interesting ones to Affinity, to develop and edit.
I like the one at a time approach.
 
dcash29 said:
Why is there a difference between adjusting highlight/shadows in photo persona and develop persona?
Click to expand...


The difference is that one works on data as the other on pixels.

The develop persona will work from the recorded data with a limited
set of tools necessary to develop the file and keeps the tweaks until
conversion (tweaks are discarded then***) into an image and move to
the photo persona.
  • Should you decide to revisit the RAW, you have to start all over
  • only one file may be worked on at the time

The photo persona will work on your image as pixel editor should..

*** A dedicated RAW converter will save the tweaks and may process
multiple files at the same time… even do batch processing.
 
Last edited:
Pete B said:
I like the one at a time approach.
Click to expand...

For everything that has to do with RAWs, from culling
to publishing, I go to a proper converter… of course, it
is all a matter of workflow.
 
Last edited:
dcash29 said:
Affinity is slow to load, cant lift shadow detail and is slow to perform tasks. Serif need to improve and raise the price.
Click to expand...
We found the same, even on high end machines, PS opens in about 1 second, afinity took about a minute to load. Yes the HDR is better than photoshop (then again just about every HDR is better than photoshops offering IMHO), if it works for you great, for me it's too slow for everyday use on PC.
 
Just opened both on my Mac. Both were up and running within 8 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Just opened PS and affinity. Execution time sub 1 sec each.

The answer to slow loading seems to be down to machines that are not specced to work quickly.

3000mbs+ storage speed has its benefits.
Loads quickly on an iPad Pro really quickly too.

System upgrade time is on the cards if it can’t run a program like affinity quickly. It uses naff all resources.
 
I did some beta work with affinity when I was looking for an aperture alternative. Shame it went. I found it ok but not for me and went the Lightroom photoshop route
 
Kodiak Qc said:
The difference is that one works on data as the other on pixels.

The develop persona will work from the recorded data with a limited
selection of tools necessary to develop the file and keeps the tweaks
until conversion (tweaks are discarded then) into an image and move
to the photo persona.
  • Should you decide to revisit the RAW, you have to start all over
  • only one file may be worked on at the time

The photo persona will work on your image as pixel editor will..
Click to expand...

Also the photo persona uses adjustment layers to work on doesn’t it Kodi?
It’s taken me a while to get my head round this versus develop persona but you describe the difference well.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
the photo persona uses adjustment layers to work on doesn’t it
Click to expand...


Yes, as a proper pixel editor should! :)

Mind you, local adjustment layers are available too in
a proper dedicated converter.
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
a proper dedicated converter.
Click to expand...


Some years back, after some long and elaborate testing work,
I adopted CO as RAW converter… so this is my definition of a
"proper" RAW converter by which all the others are judged.

I will possibly switch if anything can offer better performance…
 
I am approaching retirement and so Affinity beckons mostly due to cost.

I don't want to tie myself to a software programme that has a cost increase annually funded from a pension.
 
Norkie said:
I am approaching retirement and so Affinity beckons mostly due to cost.

I don't want to tie myself to a software programme that has a cost increase annually funded from a pension.
Click to expand...
that was my thinking also,but i do have LR6 perpetual so use that with AP and Apple photo as i prefer its organisation to LR's for the few i take
 
dcash29 said:
A RAW image…
Click to expand...


This is not a good start, dcash29 !

The RAW format file is not and image nor a photo, a
Raw file is data. Only data that a converter will refer
to to render an image that does not exist until a pre-
view is generated and, ultimately, rendered in the pho-
to persona and or published as an image file.
dcash29 said:
First image amended in develop persona
Click to expand...
Looks ok. MUST be from a RAW file.

RAW.png

​
dcash29 said:
Second image amended in Photo persona
Click to expand...
When you switched persona, the file was converted
to a temporary "modified" file awaiting further work.

At this point, the image is no longer a RAW since too
much data was lost in the conversion… so it behaves
like a jpg.

RAW%20modified.png
 
Last edited:
dcash29 said:
If you open the jpg it goes straight into photo persona. If you use and adjust the highlights, you get the same results as displayed in the second image (ie grey sky). Therefore why give the option if this is the outcome?
Click to expand...

The tools are there but it all has to do with the way you use them! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top