Affinity photo
Has anyone got Affinity Photo, and is it any good. Also is it a one off payment to buy it, or is it a monthly paid one like Adobe. If it’s ok I was thinking of getting it, and stopping my subscription to Adobe
Regards
Regards
After 10 years of Elements/PS, I have migrated to Affinity Photo and stopped my subscription to Adobe.
I bought it discounted 50% to ePz members a few weeks ago. It's a one-off payment, no subscription.
If you are used to Elements/PS then you'll pick up Affinity's workflow very easily. I believe it was designed the way it is specifically to capture customers form Adobe.
It does all the things PS did, (layers are excellent) and once you get used to the interface and new names - like 'export' instead of 'save', etc, then it doesn't take much time to get used to it.
Raw and jpegs use the same 'page', just the toolbar changes depending on what persona you are in.
Nik collection can be added as a plug-in even though you have stopped using Adobe, and if you use Bridge, then remember that it is a free stand-alone and can be used even though you stop your subscription.
There are loads of YouTube vids, and they are all very easy to follow.
I highly recommend it.
I bought it discounted 50% to ePz members a few weeks ago. It's a one-off payment, no subscription.
If you are used to Elements/PS then you'll pick up Affinity's workflow very easily. I believe it was designed the way it is specifically to capture customers form Adobe.
It does all the things PS did, (layers are excellent) and once you get used to the interface and new names - like 'export' instead of 'save', etc, then it doesn't take much time to get used to it.
Raw and jpegs use the same 'page', just the toolbar changes depending on what persona you are in.
Nik collection can be added as a plug-in even though you have stopped using Adobe, and if you use Bridge, then remember that it is a free stand-alone and can be used even though you stop your subscription.
There are loads of YouTube vids, and they are all very easy to follow.
I highly recommend it.
That’s great Malc, thank you very much for all that information. Sounds good to me, and it’s at a good price through EPZ at the minute. Think I will get it, it’s not expensive either
Thanks again Malc
Regards
Thanks again Malc
Regards
I was looking for alternatives to PS subscription and I bought it because it was so cheap via ePz, and thought that if it wasn't any good then I hadn't wasted much money on it.
The only 'negative' thing is that some actions where you are used to one or two clicks in PS take perhaps 3 or 4 in Affinity, but once you are used to it, you forget that pretty quickly.
Thank you Malc, I’m going to buy it as soon as I have turned my computer on. At £23 you can’t go wrong, compared to Adobe which I am paying £ 9.98 a month for
Thanks Dave, just downloaded it, like I say only £23 through EPZ. Looks a good saving
Yes I bought it at the half price offer to evaluate it but will be sticking with LR/PS.
1. My initial reaction to Affinity Photo is that it was fairly similar to PS and seemed to have most of the features. In fact, I was pleased to discover that I could open an image from my LR catalogue into Affinity much as I would have done in PS. One initial problem appeared to be that the image arrived as 8 bits whereas it was launched from LR as 16 bits. I could not find an equivalent to Image>Mode so difficult to check. Later I found that the bit depth could be set in an obscure drop-down menu in the colour palette.
2. I did then find that once set to 16 it assumes all input files are 16 bit and operate in16 thereafter. I also found by using “Save”, it would save back to the original LR created file thus avoiding a LR import. Using export on Affinity was a pain as I want all files in the LR catalogue and I would have to re-import any which I do not have to do if using PS.
3. I was concerned about Raw processing where I would normally use my calibrated bespoke profile in LR but could see no way to do this. Someone else raised this very topic in the Affinity forum and the lack of an answer suggest they have no solution at this time.
4. I was pleased to find that I could readily create a Macro (equates to PS Action) to channel swap for infrared (IR). This is something I need for IR. I understand that the Macro is more limited than Actions but this did not affect me this time.
5. When using a selection and refine, I found that feathering was limited to 100 pixels which did not suit what I was doing and ruined the image.
6. The resize with the Move tool was a very useful addition.
7. I needed the palettes moved to my second monitor which I do with PS. This was fine but you cannot save this workspace as you can with PS. However, it does seem to re-open with the palettes in the same place so is useable if you can manage with just one defined workspace which I generally can. Of course, if you disturb your workspace accidentally or via an upgrade then you would have to set it again manually whereas it is a simple click on a drop-down menu for PS.
8. I found the Inpainting tool very good.
9. After initial setting up, I could access my Topaz Plug-ins and Nik Plug-ins from Affinity Photo.
10. I am not convinced I would wish to use the Pano or HDR as this works very well as 32 bit files in LR and tone mapping is not attractive anyway.
Summary, in the two days I used it I only processed 5 images whereas I would have been able to process 5 times that number using LR/PS. A lot of the problems is that there are differences and some obscure (like bit depth or locating EXIF data) and required Google searches and viewing tutorials. I would not be satisfied in processing Raw files as the process is much slower than LR/PS and the lack of bespoke profiles. Affinity Photo is marketed as a PS alternative but does not replace LR as it has no Digital Asset Management (DAM). Even for a PS replacement, I was certainly concerned about bit depth and being always aware of what is being used. PS is faster for some processes and Actions and automation are more comprehensive. I also found the Import/Export could be a pain particularly compared to LR. Overall, it is not attractive to me as I already have LR/PS and have no concern about the subscription. If I was in a situation where I was no longer able to use LR/PS (can’t think why, unless they quadrupled the price overnight), then I would use Affinity Photo coupled with an earlier paid version of LR or the LR mobile. However, unless this happens, I cannot see that it would be attractive for me to move from LR/PS. Nevertheless, it is a good attempt at a PS alternative.
1. My initial reaction to Affinity Photo is that it was fairly similar to PS and seemed to have most of the features. In fact, I was pleased to discover that I could open an image from my LR catalogue into Affinity much as I would have done in PS. One initial problem appeared to be that the image arrived as 8 bits whereas it was launched from LR as 16 bits. I could not find an equivalent to Image>Mode so difficult to check. Later I found that the bit depth could be set in an obscure drop-down menu in the colour palette.
2. I did then find that once set to 16 it assumes all input files are 16 bit and operate in16 thereafter. I also found by using “Save”, it would save back to the original LR created file thus avoiding a LR import. Using export on Affinity was a pain as I want all files in the LR catalogue and I would have to re-import any which I do not have to do if using PS.
3. I was concerned about Raw processing where I would normally use my calibrated bespoke profile in LR but could see no way to do this. Someone else raised this very topic in the Affinity forum and the lack of an answer suggest they have no solution at this time.
4. I was pleased to find that I could readily create a Macro (equates to PS Action) to channel swap for infrared (IR). This is something I need for IR. I understand that the Macro is more limited than Actions but this did not affect me this time.
5. When using a selection and refine, I found that feathering was limited to 100 pixels which did not suit what I was doing and ruined the image.
6. The resize with the Move tool was a very useful addition.
7. I needed the palettes moved to my second monitor which I do with PS. This was fine but you cannot save this workspace as you can with PS. However, it does seem to re-open with the palettes in the same place so is useable if you can manage with just one defined workspace which I generally can. Of course, if you disturb your workspace accidentally or via an upgrade then you would have to set it again manually whereas it is a simple click on a drop-down menu for PS.
8. I found the Inpainting tool very good.
9. After initial setting up, I could access my Topaz Plug-ins and Nik Plug-ins from Affinity Photo.
10. I am not convinced I would wish to use the Pano or HDR as this works very well as 32 bit files in LR and tone mapping is not attractive anyway.
Summary, in the two days I used it I only processed 5 images whereas I would have been able to process 5 times that number using LR/PS. A lot of the problems is that there are differences and some obscure (like bit depth or locating EXIF data) and required Google searches and viewing tutorials. I would not be satisfied in processing Raw files as the process is much slower than LR/PS and the lack of bespoke profiles. Affinity Photo is marketed as a PS alternative but does not replace LR as it has no Digital Asset Management (DAM). Even for a PS replacement, I was certainly concerned about bit depth and being always aware of what is being used. PS is faster for some processes and Actions and automation are more comprehensive. I also found the Import/Export could be a pain particularly compared to LR. Overall, it is not attractive to me as I already have LR/PS and have no concern about the subscription. If I was in a situation where I was no longer able to use LR/PS (can’t think why, unless they quadrupled the price overnight), then I would use Affinity Photo coupled with an earlier paid version of LR or the LR mobile. However, unless this happens, I cannot see that it would be attractive for me to move from LR/PS. Nevertheless, it is a good attempt at a PS alternative.
Thank you, for the replies. Adobe have squeezed the last few quid out of me, I cancelled my plan and they charged me £24.68 cancellation fee. O well
I am just about getting my very old head around Affinity Photo for IPad... it is very slightly different to the pc version, just as powerful.
It trips me up still, because it looks do much like Photoshop CS 6 ... but menus and actions can be very obscure... lots of YouTube tutorials needed.
Hobbo
It trips me up still, because it looks do much like Photoshop CS 6 ... but menus and actions can be very obscure... lots of YouTube tutorials needed.
Hobbo
Having read Dave Canon's very detailed addition to this topic, I hope that the original poster won't mind if I add my thoughts
Having spent the money that we all have on equipment and then the costs of getting to locations for our images we will have compiled a large quantity of pictures that are special....to us. The keen enthusiast will often shoot in RAW which then produces something that requires some extra work. Once that step is completed where do they go? Are they all sitting in digital dust on a hard-drive?
Some images will perhaps find their way in the ePhotozine competitions or the members gallery, but where do the rest go. Creating a PDF book is very easy in Adobe's Lightroom package which can then be proudly shared amongst friends and family. This might be a large(ish) file but there are easy ways to share like Dropbox
Or they can be shared on the internet as a private collection. Putting your photographs on a your own webpage takes work and ongoing maintenance. Using the Collections system in Lightroom makes adding to and changing images a "two click" process. Then those links can be shared with friends, family, photographic club colleagues etc. This can then develop into a two way conversation.
Is the Adobe package expensive? Depends on your values, but I look at it as being less than the price of a big mac or a cup of coffee per week for a system that gives me access to a super easy way to show my images to advantage. When I was choosing my equipment I always aimed for the best that my budget would allow. Then later some of the locations that I visited were relatively pricey too. So each super image has quite an expensive price tag. Am I now going to select the low cost option and not get the best (that I can) from all of this expensive effort? Me? I don't think so.
Pat
Having spent the money that we all have on equipment and then the costs of getting to locations for our images we will have compiled a large quantity of pictures that are special....to us. The keen enthusiast will often shoot in RAW which then produces something that requires some extra work. Once that step is completed where do they go? Are they all sitting in digital dust on a hard-drive?
Some images will perhaps find their way in the ePhotozine competitions or the members gallery, but where do the rest go. Creating a PDF book is very easy in Adobe's Lightroom package which can then be proudly shared amongst friends and family. This might be a large(ish) file but there are easy ways to share like Dropbox
Or they can be shared on the internet as a private collection. Putting your photographs on a your own webpage takes work and ongoing maintenance. Using the Collections system in Lightroom makes adding to and changing images a "two click" process. Then those links can be shared with friends, family, photographic club colleagues etc. This can then develop into a two way conversation.
Is the Adobe package expensive? Depends on your values, but I look at it as being less than the price of a big mac or a cup of coffee per week for a system that gives me access to a super easy way to show my images to advantage. When I was choosing my equipment I always aimed for the best that my budget would allow. Then later some of the locations that I visited were relatively pricey too. So each super image has quite an expensive price tag. Am I now going to select the low cost option and not get the best (that I can) from all of this expensive effort? Me? I don't think so.
Pat
Like so many other things, it all depends what you want from a software package. Not everyone wants, for example, to be able to export books for sharing - those who do will no doubt have that function as a priority when choosing their product. Others will have no problems with leasing the software instead of buying it. My objections with PS CC is not the monthly cost, but the principle of having to lease. I would prefer to buy outright, and if necessary, pay for any upgrades that I felt suited my needs, than to pay for the CC package of which there are so many elements included which I have no need for.
Affinity does have features for exporting in pdf format, and in conjunction with Designer or Publisher (approx £50 one-off payment) then you have the same facility as Pat describes in LR.
Affinity does have features for exporting in pdf format, and in conjunction with Designer or Publisher (approx £50 one-off payment) then you have the same facility as Pat describes in LR.
