Linary Loc: UK

I am one of those thinking about using Affinity instead of Lightroom for Processing raw files. An exercise I tried out this morning was to open a raw file into Affinity and immediately convert it to a jpeg image with no editing or presets applied. I did the same thing in Lightroom with the same image.

Both images I have watermarked so they can be identified. The result is shown below.

The is not a test of the programmes capabilities, that will have to be by processing in each of the two programmes to get the best out of the photos but I think it is an interesting first step. First the Affinity followed by the Lightroom version.

(Download)


(Download)

srt101fan

Interesting. Ysarex and mwsilvers have pointed out some issues with the Affinity Develop module (https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-605390-9.html#10414846 and other threads). I have Affinity but little photo editing experience, and at this point am unable to assess the seriousness of the Affinity RAW processor deficiencies as they apply to my needs. But it did get me thinking about RAW processing alternatives such as Nikon Capture NX-D or darktable. But I'm not in a hurry to decide on what to do with RAW files as I am concentrating on learning Affinity Photo module processing with scanned film negative images in TIFF format.

I'm very much looking forward to your further experiences with Affinity's RAW processor!

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

I am an Affinity user from raw to finished product with NIK and Topaz plug ins as needed. I find Affinity raw development to be efficient and effective. It is hard to judge the comparison you show without knowing what settings are in the software. I know Affinity gives you options for some basic tweaks that can be done automatically when you open a raw file. It makes a big difference in the initial view of the photo. Whenever I have a particularly challenging photo I try turning off these tweaks to see if I can get where I want better without the help. Most of the time Affinity initially give me a good starting point for further adjustments.

Linary Loc: UK

As far as I could, I turned everything off. I read somewhere that a profile must be added into the conversion mix. In Lightroom these profiles can be changed at will but it does not seem to be so easy in Affinity.

Just because an immediate conversion in one programme looks better, does not mean that programme is better. It depends on where the application allows you to take it.
I am experimenting in baby steps in comparing the two, if Affinity added a DAM as they promised I probably would not hesitate to change.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The Affinity version has the flatness that I'd expect from an unprocessed raw file. I'm left wondering why the Lightroom version is so much more vivid. Perhaps Lightroom has more in the way of camera profile utilisation. Apparently there's something to be said for using the camera manufacturer's own raw conversion software because it can access info that most other raw converters won't be able to.

I don't see the Affinity version's softness as a failing because I would expect to have to boost vividness when starting with a raw file. The real test would come with tricky subtle colour situations such as mixed ambient light. IMO I would say the more neutral the better and I wouldn't be impressed by any pre-boosting that the raw converter may give it. Accuracy of colour rendering is more important because any departures from reality would be difficult to deal with and would mean extra steps in the workflow.

bleirer

Honestly it doesn't demonstrate anything about either program. It would be better to use as many adjustments as you need to get your best image from the same raw file, then see which one is easier for you to understand and use. The pixels don't care which program you use, they are just numbers after all.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I have to agree with blurrier, what you did really means nothing in the end. Who would want to convert a RAW file directly to a JPG without processing it? A RAW file is intended to be processed and then converted as needed. Doing this same thing with two cameras while shooting JPEG would make some sense but, for me, the test you did does not make sense. Process two files using the same parameters and that might mean something.

Linary Loc: UK

I do not disagree with you at all. The reason I tried this was because there was a post on the main section where it was apparent that several Hoggers use this method of conversion and production of images. Someone tried to explain that raw images need a little or a lot of working on, but the advice fell on deaf ears. I thought I would see what happens with the result of Affinity producing an image as expected but LR has produced an image much closer to a finished photograph.

I do think it is something do do with profiles which, according to Adobe have to be added when the raw date is converted to an image, it just so happens that their default (Adobe) profiles seem to engineer a brighter and more contrasty image than those of Affinity.

melueth Loc: Central Florida

How is it that the LR version has been straightened if it's pretty much SOC? Sharpening is also a default setting in LR . . . not sure how your's is set up, but i didn't know there was any way to auto-straighten in LR. ??

ML

Linary Loc: UK

Well spotted - colour - contrast - profiles etc. are untouched. My habit is to straighten before doing anything else and I did notice after posting that I had straightened the image. I rechecked History and nothing else was touched so I let it go. I am not used to Affinity so I have not yet formed the habit. In Affinity Develop Module, straightening is far more cumbersome, Lens > Rotate (leaves transparent borders which have to be fixed by Scaling or in the Photo Persona.)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You need to check what you did in Lightroom because the horizon has been straightened, the image has been significantly sharpened, and it looks like contrast, clarity, and/or haze removal (or perhaps all three) have been applied. It is most definitely not an unprocessed image.

Linary Loc: UK

I did straighten the image (as I mentioned above) but nothing else. The history panel is empty (part from the straightening). When an image is opened in LR the Profiles appear to come into play. Also the process version - mine is current set to 5 (current version). These I do not think (but could be corrected) can be turned off.

Out of interest I have a couple of thousand images dating back over the years - all unprocessed by me. On opening, the profile opens as 'Adobe Standard' and the Process version is 1,2,3,4 or 5 depending on which version of LR was used when the image was uploaded to LR from the camera. I opened one image, an unprocessed raw file which opened in Process version 3, viewed at 100% and changed the Process version to 5. The change was not dramatic but there was a slight increase in contrast and overall sharpness. The image was shot on a Fuji HS20 - a camera not renowned for inbuilt sharpness.

The image posted above was shot on a D7100 - it is hard not to get a sharp photo when using a reasonable lens from this combo.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

If it was just due to the camera and lens the jpegs coming out of Affinity and Lightroom would both be equally sharp. The Affinity version is probably much closer to an unprocessed version of the original raw. The Lightroom version has been significantly processed. Using just Adobe standard would not have such a huge effect on the sharpness, contrast, etc. The Lightroom version does not have the look of a an unprocessed raw file. The Affinity version does. There is more going on here then you think, including the possibility of output sharpening. This is immediately obvious to me even if I hadn't seen the Affinity version. I started using Lightroom just before version 4 was released and very familiar with it's settings and use, although I've stopped using it a short while back. Just zoom in and view the sign and the top of the pier at 100%. The two images you posted are profoundly different in a number of respects including sharpening, contrast, hue and saturation. The fact that you straightened the LR version indicates that that version had already been compromised, so all bets are off.. What you presented is not a good comparison IMHO. By the way, why did you strip the EXIF data from the Lightroom version?

Affinity version

(Download)

Lightroom version

(Download)

Linary Loc: UK

For this image below, I removed the existing image from Lightroom, deleted the xmp file from Explorer, imported into LR, Exported from LR to a folder on my desktop. I switched on the Exif data (in the export dialogue - I usually have this turned off) and uploaded to UHH.

Prior to uploading I checked the Exif data, and in the newly generated XMP file there are several things I do not understand. "Tint +4", "Colour noise reduction 25", "Parametric Shadow Split 25", "Parametric Midtone split 75", "Parametric Highlight split 75", "Sharpen Radius +1", "Sharpen Detail 25" etc. There is a ton of entries suggesting I have attacked the image with a sledgehammer, but all my sliders are zero'd, I have no import presets (apart from adding the date to the file name), and my History Panel for this image reads Imported ~~~ Exported only.

This is why I started this post, Affinity shows the file as one would expect, LR enhances the image without being asked to do so.

I have some images from 2006/7/8, all of which were brought into different (older) versions of LR. None change as much as when imported into LR since CC versions.

The new UHH section for displaying Bridge camera photos got me looking at my old photos from my ancient Bridge camera. They were imported as Adobe Process 2 and 3", Change the Process to version 5 and they also brighten up and become crisper, but not as much as a high megapixel image.

(Download)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I used Lightroom for over 6 years. Whenever I opened a unedited raw files it always looked more like the one in Affinity. Since I am happily no longer an Adobe customer and don't have Lightroom on my computer, I can't try to recreate what you are seeing or comment further on the reasons why you are getting such odd results when you open your raw images with no presets.