![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() If you’re going the subscription route on ACD and adding Affinity - the Adobe offers a better value IMO - you get all the “photography apps” across several platforms (mac, Windows, iOS, Android) for less than what you’d pay for ACD + Affinity Photos desktop given ACD is subscription. Hence I would say you’d probably want both if you are needing asset organization, workflow processing, and creative compositing/editing.įWIW unless you’re buying the one-time 1-year version of ACDSee - know that subscription plan that ACD offers is pretty much the same price as the Adobe CC Photography plan which IMO is a great value at $10/mo (frequently discounted to $99/year). The apps are more complementary than competitors. ACDSee is going to be better at dealing with batch operations that can be applied to a bunch of photos where I don’t believe Affinity has. AP in my limited experience with it - isn’t designed for batch editing. Note that ACDSee is comparable to Lightroom + Bridge and not really comparable to Affinity Photos. But I want to say it’s editing capabilities are excellent and rival Photoshop. So I’m not sure about it’s DAM capabilities on the Desktop. The only nitpicks I have is the long load time to get into the tone mapping persona in AP and the convoluted workflow of getting tif's out of Lr than manually creating a HDR stack in AP using those photos.There’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time. Lr would produce blurred edges with weird glows in the merged image. It definitely beats the Lightroom HDR merge feature in terms of output quality and control. I recently acquired Affinity Photo and did a few HDR and focus stacked photos with it and I am very pleased with the results and the amount of control I have. Very late to the party but thought I should comment none the less. The end results of the Affinity HDR utility are pretty good, though the ability to adjust the photo is limited compared to Photomatix, but the Affinity HDR utility integrates well with the Affinity bit mapped editor, so conventional post processing after the HDR is created, is fairly convenient. I assume my comments, above, would apply to both CaptureOne and Lightroom as well, but I don't KNOW that to be true. It really breaks up the workflow, and frankly the basic Affinity photo browser, simply isn't very good compared to a good front end tool like ACDSee. Instead, you open Affinity Photo, navigate to the HDR Utility, and only THEN select the photos for processing as part of the HDR effort. I don't do a lot of 'over the top' tone mapping.īut with Affinity, you have to set IT up as the external editor in ACDSee and you can't really select a batch of photos for HDR processing. With Photomatix set up as an external editor in ACDSee, I can select a group of photos (raw, tif, or jpg) and send them to Photomatix for the HDR treatment. Results are pretty natural but I haven't tried to go for the "PhotoMatix Look" and one thing I have noticed there's not a lot of noise, in fact hardly any at all. Generally I've found I have to turn down the exposure and increase the Saturation with every HDR I have attempted with it. One thing I don't like about it is you can't send the bracket set from ACDSee to the Affinity HDR Personna they have to be opened directly in the HDR Personna.Īnother thing it's a bit slow in processing the bracket set to the point where you can tone-map. I thought it might make a replacement for Lightrooms HDR module, which I used to use all the time before I ditched Adobe, but Affinity HDR left me feeling I would be better sticking with PhotoMatix. Glenbarrington edited this topic 80 months ago. Originally posted at 8:46AM, 6 February 2017 PDT However for someone who doesn't want to spend a lot of money, just to explore HDR, or for an occasional casual user who won't remember all the details of how to operate a more complex piece of software from one time to the next, I would say that sort of person is likely to be very happy with the Affinity Photo HDR utility.Īnyone else with thoughts or comments on the Affinity HDR Utility? Plus Photomatix works well as an external editor for ACDSee, so the level of convenience is much higher with the ACDSee/Photomatix combo. I don't think it is enough for me to give up Photomatix Pro 5.1 since the level of control in Photomatix is greater than Affinity's. It seems easy enough, and the results are good, but not spectacular. I have, and I like it well enough, I guess. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |