Lightroom alternatives

[jaomul]

Affinity will have a catalogue management system in the near future according to the makers. I think I'll ditch my subscription to Adobe when this happens, affinity looks pretty specced

Affinity is a terrific replacement for Photoshop -- great price and feature packed -- but a catalog will not be enough to make it a replacement for LR IF (VERY BIG IF): you use LR to process raw files and would expect Affinity to step into that role. Affinity has a major raw file processing issue. It's raw workflow is forced destructive. In this day that's nuts. Affinity comes with a respectable set of raw processing tools which makes you wonder what Serif is thinking because the second you generate an RGB output file (16 bit TIFF) any work you did on the raw file prior to RGB conversion is discarded. That forces you to either make any additional edits and/or changes using the RGB output file and/or start from scratch with the raw file.

Joe

Here we go again. It is not destructive, it just doesn't store the edits in the same kind of file as Lightroom does. It saves them in an RGB file. Destructive means that when you save an edit it changes the original file permanently. The original raw file is never changed in Affinity. Saying it is "forced destructive" is your definition that is not shared by most photographers. Affinity blows Lightroom out of the water.

I'm not 100% sure what all this means in practice, but I can download a trial version of affinity and see exactly how it does its thing

 

[fmw]

Affinity will have a catalogue management system in the near future according to the makers. I think I'll ditch my subscription to Adobe when this happens, affinity looks pretty specced

Affinity is a terrific replacement for Photoshop -- great price and feature packed -- but a catalog will not be enough to make it a replacement for LR IF (VERY BIG IF): you use LR to process raw files and would expect Affinity to step into that role. Affinity has a major raw file processing issue. It's raw workflow is forced destructive. In this day that's nuts. Affinity comes with a respectable set of raw processing tools which makes you wonder what Serif is thinking because the second you generate an RGB output file (16 bit TIFF) any work you did on the raw file prior to RGB conversion is discarded. That forces you to either make any additional edits and/or changes using the RGB output file and/or start from scratch with the raw file.

Joe

Here we go again. It is not destructive, it just doesn't store the edits in the same kind of file as Lightroom does. It saves them in an RGB file. Destructive means that when you save an edit it changes the original file permanently. The original raw file is never changed in Affinity. Saying it is "forced destructive" is your definition that is not shared by most photographers. Affinity blows Lightroom out of the water.

I'm not 100% sure what all this means in practice, but I can download a trial version of affinity and see exactly how it does its thing

At any time during the "develop" process in affinity you can save the file. The resulting file is an RGB file that can be reloaded later and edited further. Ysarex doesn't like it because it is a large file. If you reload the original raw file, it will not have the edits because the system is non destructive. The original raw file is never changed. If you reload the RGB file it has every pixel and every bit of editing that was used on the raw file. That file can be re-edited. It is quite simple and quite non-destructive. Personally, I don't re-edit raw files. I get them the way I want them and save out the result into some other format such as PNG. I do this with Lightroom or Affinity. If I want to use the raw file for some other purpose I edit it from scratch because it needs to be different from the PNG. If it didn't I would simply use the PNG. So I don't use the RGB file in Affinity. But it is there if you want to make use of its capabilities.

Other photo editors save just the editing information in a separate file so that you can open the raw file with editing included. It is a smaller file than the RGB file in Affinity. If you prefer that approach, you won't like Affinity. If you want something that is much more powerful than Lightroom for a pittance, you will love it.

If you subscribe from Adobe you can catalog and do the basic raw processing in Lightroom and then send the file to Photoshop for more advanced editing. With Affinity you don't have to do that. Affinity has the advanced editing built in. What Affinity does not have is the cataloging. Lightroom is basically a cataloging program that has some editing capability. Affinity is a pro level editor without cataloging.

 

[Ysarex]

Affinity will have a catalogue management system in the near future according to the makers. I think I'll ditch my subscription to Adobe when this happens, affinity looks pretty specced

Affinity is a terrific replacement for Photoshop -- great price and feature packed -- but a catalog will not be enough to make it a replacement for LR IF (VERY BIG IF): you use LR to process raw files and would expect Affinity to step into that role. Affinity has a major raw file processing issue. It's raw workflow is forced destructive. In this day that's nuts. Affinity comes with a respectable set of raw processing tools which makes you wonder what Serif is thinking because the second you generate an RGB output file (16 bit TIFF) any work you did on the raw file prior to RGB conversion is discarded. That forces you to either make any additional edits and/or changes using the RGB output file and/or start from scratch with the raw file.

Joe

Here we go again. It is not destructive, it just doesn't store the edits in the same kind of file as Lightroom does.

That's wrong. It doesn't store the edits at all. Your editing of the raw file prior to conversion is discarded by Affinity and that's what's destructive. It destroys your work not the raw file.

It saves them in an RGB file.

Creating and RGB output file is NOT saving your edits of the raw file such that you can re-edit or adjust your previous work with the raw file.

Destructive means that when you save an edit it changes the original file permanently.

Destructive also means that you can't return to any point in your work and tweak what you previously did. In this manner Affinity is destructive.

The original raw file is never changed in Affinity.

Nor in Lightroom or any other raw converter. The difference here is that Affinity does not save your editing work on the raw file and so won't allow you to return to that work and make further adjustments. It won't allow you to return to your work and produce a variation without your being forced to start from scratch with the raw file.

Saying it is "forced destructive" is your definition that is not shared by most photographers. Affinity blows Lightroom out of the water.

By forced destructive I mean that your editing work on the raw file prior to conversion is discarded when you create an RGB output file. I am correct about that and not the only one who calls it what it is: Affinity Photo Destructive RAW developing- deal breaker?: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

I'm not 100% sure what all this means in practice, but I can download a trial version of affinity and see exactly how it does its thing

At any time during the "develop" process in affinity you can save the file. The resulting file is an RGB file that can be reloaded later and edited further. Ysarex doesn't like it because it is a large file.

I like RGB files just fine. That's not why I object to Affinity's handling of raw files. My primary objection is Affinity does not save your editing work. The huge 16 RGB files is a lesser complication but can be a problem for some.

If you reload the original raw file, it will not have the edits because the system is non destructive. The original raw file is never changed.

If you reload a raw file edited with LR or basically any other raw converter it WILL have your edits because the raw conversion software is non-destructive and re-editable -- your edits get saved. The original raw file is of course never changed.

If you reload the RGB file it has every pixel and every bit of editing that was used on the raw file. That file can be re-edited.

But that process is not the same as adjusting your edits to the raw file. Adjustments made during raw file conversion are baked into that RGB file and can't be baked out. And so you're not able to make an alteration to your original work on the raw file without starting over from scratch. Other raw converters don't force a discard of your work editing the raw file. It's in fact pretty odd because Affinity provides a toolset to edit raw files, but what you do with those tools you can't save. That's actually pretty strange.

Joe

It is quite simple and quite non-destructive. Personally, I don't re-edit raw files. I get them the way I want them and save out the result into some other format such as PNG. I do this with Lightroom or Affinity. If I want to use the raw file for some other purpose I edit it from scratch because it needs to be different from the PNG. If it didn't I would simply use the PNG. So I don't use the RGB file in Affinity. But it is there if you want to make use of its capabilities.

Other photo editors save just the editing information in a separate file so that you can open the raw file with editing included. It is a smaller file than the RGB file in Affinity. If you prefer that approach, you won't like Affinity. If you want something that is much more powerful than Lightroom for a pittance, you will love it.

If you subscribe from Adobe you can catalog and do the basic raw processing in Lightroom and then send the file to Photoshop for more advanced editing. With Affinity you don't have to do that. Affinity has the advanced editing built in. What Affinity does not have is the cataloging. Lightroom is basically a cataloging program that has some editing capability. Affinity is a pro level editor without cataloging.

 

[fmw]

I don't know how to get this across to you. You are simply wrong. You can save your work at any time and the resulting RGB file allows you to pick up where you left off with all the data - raw pixels, editing, everything. At this point I will stop trying to get you to understand since you refuse to listen.

 

[AlanKlein]

How does Infinity compare to Lightroom in BW conversion?

 

[pixmedic]

it sounds like its not a proper comparison.
maybe the better comparison is affinity vs photoshop?

 

[goooner]

I played around with AcDSee ultimate 9 for a while. I think it is very good, and combines LR and PS, for an affordable once off price. You can even import your your LR catalogue including key words. I will definitely download the free trial of Ultimate 10 at the beginning of next year, and then decide if I want to extends my Adobe subscription.

ACD Systems - Photo Editing Management Software

 

[AlanKlein]

Well, Lightroom has 8 sliders for hue so you can adjust the various black tones after converting from color. Is there anything similar in Affinity?

 

[Ysarex]

I don't know how to get this across to you.

So easy -- just show me, provide proof.

You are simply wrong. You can save your work at any time and the resulting RGB file allows you to pick up where you left off with all the data - raw pixels, editing, everything.

This is incorrect. The resulting RGB file does not allow you access to the original raw file edits. You do not have the raw file included in the RGB file, not one single pixel of it, you have an RGB output file with the raw edits baked in and no longer re-editable at the raw file level. This is very easy to prove:

All kinds of reasons to add simulated grain to a photo. In Affinity you can add Gaussian noise with the raw editing tools which is a fair grain simulation. I did that in the example above. Once I develop (convert) the raw file into an RGB file (Affinity aphoto file) that simulated grain is baked in. There's no way to decide later I'd like to see a version without it. If I open the RGB file and put it back in the Develop module I don't get an option to undo my 20% Gaussian noise adjustment. I have to start over and re-do all the raw editing for that image. No other raw converter makes you do that and discards your work when you convert the file to RGB.

At this point I will stop trying to get you to understand since you refuse to listen.

I listen real well and I've heard what you've said and I've proven that wrong.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Well, Lightroom has 8 sliders for hue so you can adjust the various black tones after converting from color. Is there anything similar in Affinity?

Yes. Affinity does an excellent job with B&W conversion. It's a superb RGB file editor and really the first serious challenge to Photoshop. Pixmedic is correct that Affinity should be compared with Photoshop more so than with LR. Serif has positioned Affinity as a Photoshop competitor -- at a spectacular price.

As elsewhere noted in this thread there's an issue with Affinity's handling of raw files. For example comparing with Photoshop, a raw file would open in ACR. Any work you do in ACR to convert the raw file will be saved in an .XMP file so that if you re-open the raw file in ACR again all your work is still in place. Using Affinity is similar but should you re-open a raw file all your previous editing work is discarded.

 

[table1349]

Well, Lightroom has 8 sliders for hue so you can adjust the various black tones after converting from color. Is there anything similar in Affinity?

These are the B&W sliders in Affinity.

 

[fmw]

I don't know how to get this across to you.

So easy -- just show me, provide proof.

You are simply wrong. You can save your work at any time and the resulting RGB file allows you to pick up where you left off with all the data - raw pixels, editing, everything.

This is incorrect. The resulting RGB file does not allow you access to the original raw file edits. You do not have the raw file included in the RGB file, not one single pixel of it, you have an RGB output file with the raw edits baked in and no longer re-editable at the raw file level. This is very easy to prove:

View attachment 143024

All kinds of reasons to add simulated grain to a photo. In Affinity you can add Gaussian noise with the raw editing tools which is a fair grain simulation. I did that in the example above. Once I develop (convert) the raw file into an RGB file (Affinity aphoto file) that simulated grain is baked in. There's no way to decide later I'd like to see a version without it. If I open the RGB file and put it back in the Develop module I don't get an option to undo my 20% Gaussian noise adjustment. I have to start over and re-do all the raw editing for that image. No other raw converter makes you do that and discards your work when you convert the file to RGB.

At this point I will stop trying to get you to understand since you refuse to listen.

I listen real well and I've heard what you've said and I've proven that wrong.

Joe

You have. I agree. You have my apologies. I'll mess around with it some more. As I said, I don't re-edit raw files so this issue never came up for me. Now I understand. Sorry for being so thick.

 

[jaomul]

I downloaded the trial last night. It was a bit buggy, but I'm sure that was just initially. I found it very slow to load files, when I did save a file, it saved at 116mb, this was just a few basic edits and a crop from a 24mp raw file.

I did enough to figure out it is as others said, a Photoshop alternative, not a lightroom alternative.

If Serif release something along the lines of lightroom, that you could then seamlessly edit in affinity, I think Adobe would have a serious alternative to their lightroom/Photoshop package.

At the moment I got to stick with lightroom, it's just too good

 

[Ysarex]

I don't know how to get this across to you.

So easy -- just show me, provide proof.

You are simply wrong. You can save your work at any time and the resulting RGB file allows you to pick up where you left off with all the data - raw pixels, editing, everything.

This is incorrect. The resulting RGB file does not allow you access to the original raw file edits. You do not have the raw file included in the RGB file, not one single pixel of it, you have an RGB output file with the raw edits baked in and no longer re-editable at the raw file level. This is very easy to prove:

View attachment 143024

All kinds of reasons to add simulated grain to a photo. In Affinity you can add Gaussian noise with the raw editing tools which is a fair grain simulation. I did that in the example above. Once I develop (convert) the raw file into an RGB file (Affinity aphoto file) that simulated grain is baked in. There's no way to decide later I'd like to see a version without it. If I open the RGB file and put it back in the Develop module I don't get an option to undo my 20% Gaussian noise adjustment. I have to start over and re-do all the raw editing for that image. No other raw converter makes you do that and discards your work when you convert the file to RGB.

At this point I will stop trying to get you to understand since you refuse to listen.

I listen real well and I've heard what you've said and I've proven that wrong.

Joe

You have. I agree. You have my apologies. I'll mess around with it some more. As I said, I don't re-edit raw files so this issue never came up for me. Now I understand. Sorry for being so thick.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm excited about Affinity too and I hope they make improvements including fixing this. Affinity Photo really is the first Photoshop challenger to show real promise. Their clone/spotting tools are better than Photoshop's and they have masking tools that at least rival Photoshop -- all in an appropriate color-managed 16 (+) bit work environment, and yes non-destructive with one big exception. Factor in the price and it's pretty easy to understand the recent attention they've gotten. I've been showing Affinity to my students and recommending it. But folks who want to process raw files should know up front how it behaves. It's a terrific choice right now coupled with a different raw converter. I'm rooting for them.

Joe