I would like some suggestions on Editing software. I shoot with a Nikon D3300 and D7200, I would like something that's downloadable to my computer that's 1 and done. I know PS and LR you can buy but also have to subscribe and pay either a monthly or annual fee. I want Something that works well with RAW (NEF) and JPEG, but don't want to pay the monthly or annual fees. I don't do a lot of editing but would like to get into it to enhance my photos like the horse show I did so I could block out some of the busy backgrounds and what not. any suggestions?

Glad you chimed in Joe! I've read previous comments from you that Affinity saves only the end result of the RAW development process but not the intermediate steps you take to get there. I understand that, but that's not an issue for me (at least not yet).

My bigger issue is one you alluded to here: "The demosaicing job the develop module does is respectable and if your goal matches their design focus and you just want the raw module to get you into the photo module where you can go to work AP can be a good match."

What is the value of having "more/less" editing features available in RAW processing software? There is significant duplication of available adjustments in the Affinity Develop Persona and the Photo Persona (e.g., sharpness, contrast, exposure, etc). I assume there is similar duplication in Lightroom and Photoshop (true?).

Why isn't it OK to just do the minimum RAW processing required to get the file ready for the editing software (e.g., Affinity Photo Persona, Photoshop, etc)? As an example, you say the Affinity Development module doesn't have an HSL adjustment tool, why do you need it there when you have one in the Photo Persona?

So, given the overlap of capabilities, I'm still confused about how far to go in making image adjustments in the RAW development software, and at what point to transfer to the full-blown editing software. I raised this question at the Affinity forum but didn't get a satisfactory response....

Maybe this is going a bit far afield from the OP's question. If so, I apologize. Maybe this should be the subject of another thread?

You have some excellent questions there that raise issues that can be very important. First there's an overriding caveat: how critical do you want to be -- what are your usage expectations. For an enthusiast having a good time taking photos some of the finer details are no big deal -- as it should be.

Great question: "Why isn't it OK to just do the minimum RAW processing required to get the file ready for the editing software (e.g., Affinity Photo Persona, Photoshop, etc)? As an example, you say the Affinity Development module doesn't have an HSL adjustment tool, why do you need it there when you have one in the Photo Persona?" An example is the best answer -- see snowman below. Bright saturated colors can be difficult when processing digital images. The snowman's hat is a case in point so too would be red roses etc. When loaded into any raw converter that hat oversaturates and posterizes into a solid red mass. The detail is there but it requires separate treatment. On the left I used the raw converters HSL tool to adjust only the red hat and then continued to convert the image to RGB. But Affinity can't do that and once the image is converted to RGB the hat can't be repaired. The only option with Affinity then would be to adjust the entire image so that hat retained detail (whole image gets darker and less saturated) and then after the conversion fix everything else that you had to screw up in order to save the hat. That's called doing it dumb.

Another great question: "What is the value of having "more/less" editing features available in RAW processing software? There is significant duplication of available adjustments in the Affinity Develop Persona and the Photo Persona (e.g., sharpness, contrast, exposure, etc). I assume there is similar duplication in Lightroom and Photoshop (true?)."

True to the LR/PS question. This is a workflow question. Affinity and PS are raster or sometimes called pixel editors. Raw converters like LR, Capture One, PhotoLab are parametric editors. Raster editors actually push around pixels, parametric editors keep a list of operations to apply. Walking down the processing road that difference is a great big stripe running down the middle of the road and you can stay on one side of the stripe or cross back and forth over it with implications for your workflow.

Here's a raw workflow goal: 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. What that means is that the editing work you do to process an image is both non-destructive of the original image and also non-destructive of your work, in other words if you decide to make a change later you don't have to do other work over -- just make the change. That goal may or may not matter and may be more or less important to different folks. For me it's an important goal. Parametric editors meet that goal and raster editors only meet it partially. So I for example don't want to cross that line. I have Affinity and Photoshop on my computers. I get paid to teach Photoshop and I help students using Affinity. Personally I use both very little to not at all because of that workflow goal. When I can avoid a raster editor I score an advantage by keep my workflow 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable.

There's also a massive savings in disk storage space if you can keep the editing parametric.

Hope that helps.

Joe

Generally, especially with better software, making modifications using the original raw image will give superior results to making those same modifications directly to a jpeg via a pixel editor. For instance, with a raw image you can extract far more deep shadow detail with far less noise then you can editing a JPEG version of that same image in a pixel editor. You can also make far better white balance adjustments to raw files. The bottom line, is the difference in the quality of the results. That is why in the Adobe world, most people tend to use Lightroom to process their raw files as much as possible, and then send those raw files to Photoshop as a tiff file for further processing.

I would like some suggestions on Editing software. I shoot with a Nikon D3300 and D7200, I would like something that's downloadable to my computer that's 1 and done. I know PS and LR you can buy but also have to subscribe and pay either a monthly or annual fee. I want Something that works well with RAW (NEF) and JPEG, but don't want to pay the monthly or annual fees. I don't do a lot of editing but would like to get into it to enhance my photos like the horse show I did so I could block out some of the busy backgrounds and what not. any suggestions?

I would like some suggestions on Editing software. I shoot with a Nikon D3300 and D7200, I would like something that's downloadable to my computer that's 1 and done. I know PS and LR you can buy but also have to subscribe and pay either a monthly or annual fee. I want Something that works well with RAW (NEF) and JPEG, but don't want to pay the monthly or annual fees. I don't do a lot of editing but would like to get into it to enhance my photos like the horse show I did so I could block out some of the busy backgrounds and what not. any suggestions?