![]() The photo was underexposed and brightened in development to accentuate the noise. The above image was shot at a high ISO with noise control turned off in the camera. Furthermore, increasing the noise reduction didn’t leave the image looking as muddy as it does with some competition. Even at higher ISOs, opening photos into external noise reduction programs was unnecessary. The noise reduction from the Serif Raw Engine is pretty good, far better than Lightroom’s. Regarding sharpening, most raw developers find it hard to compete with AI-based noise reduction software, such as Topaz Denoise AI and ON1 No Noise AI. Furthermore, images shot at higher ISOs were much cleaner with Affinity than LR, even if I reduced Lightroom’s sharpening down to zero. This is good news, as it means less image development and editing time. I opened the same raw file in both Affinity Photo and Lightroom (LR), and the initial results in Affinity were far closer to the image on the rear screen of my camera, which I have set to closely match what my eyes see. The most important thing to me about any software is the results, and the Develop Persona does deliver. The different functions of the software are split between what Affinity calls “Personas.” The one I spent the most time in was Develop. It's not without a couple of shortcomings, but what software isn't? ![]() I am pleased that this has been addressed with Affinity Photo 2, and after hours of fun trying out the features, I found it stable and running smoothly on the computers I tried it on. That was mainly because an annoying glitch ruined my raw developments. I’ll have to start by admitting that I was not a fan of the first version of Affinity Photo. You are supposed to make your own presets and/or defaults to your own taste and needs - and then tweek the individual pics as needed.Those who want to rely on only the RAW converters factory defaults are IMHO better off by working with OOC JPEGs.I’m hyper-critical of raw development tools, as that’s where most of my work is carried out. A RAW converter is not intended to be used with just the default settings. That, however, is not an indication of differences in conversion quality. But of course, THE FACTORY DEFAULT output is different in each of the three. I can't tell any difference between ACDSee, LR and C1 insofar I can get results out of all three that are indistinguishable from each other. Is there a problem with the ACDSee RAW converter engine? I just read through the message thread and no one indicated they rely on ACDSee for RAW conversion. I will switch but I feel they are TOO NAIVE or BASIC today to properly compete In a few years time when these are mature enough.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |