Integration with Affinity Designer and Affinity Publisher.Everything should look familiar here, and is easy to learn if you're a new-comer (Image credit: Ben Brady)Īnyone familiar with desktop publishing should feel right at home here. For what I paid for CS6 why should I have to download an action from someone else Adobe?Įxcellent history function, able to be saved, with the file and with "branching" possibilitiesĬarry out some operation on an RGB file in LAB without converting the whole document. No need to manually create the layers for Frequency separation or FFT as filters are built in. Resize or place object in photo with no need for the extra step of converting to smart object to keep the action non destructive Live previews for filters, blend modes, brush strokes, Gradient editing, colour fills etc really enhance editing. For example all of the Liquify controls are in the Liquify module and don't clutter up the main UI.Ĭompared to CS6 there are various small features that users can appreciate, obviously later versions of PS likely incorporate these functions but I replaced CS6 with AP, eg:Īble to set different viewpoints in the navigator to easily switch to different areas of the image at any desired scale. The UI is more Photo focused and has modules that help keep the UI cleaner. I have PS CS6 and I don't even bother to install it any more as AP is generally better. This is not Serif being generous, just good business sense, when V2 comes out I will upgrade immediately and I think that will apply to many users. The innovative approach, low price, a highly capable pixel editor and free upgrades for years (6 in my case) generates a lot of customer loyalty. locating files opening app, saving the result, finding it in AD and reimporting. Working on a document and want to edit an embedded photo in Affinity Designer or AP? Simply press a button, and the UI changes to either AD or AP. This also results in the DTP part of the suite, Publisher, having unique capabilities. Serif's business strategy was to create not one app but 3 simultaneously with code shared between them, thus spreading development costs over 3 apps. This can be seen by how AP was available on the iPad many years before PS. In response to the market changes Serif adopted the "App" model for pricing ie people expect apps to be relatively inexpensive and they gave mobile as much effort as PC's. To reinforce this Adobe even give away PS with LR. I don't think that anyone could expect to sell a pixel editor for £600 in today's market. This is why Adobe had to move PS to a subscription model. Obviously, not everyone uses a raw converter but the majority do. When Serif decided to have a fresh look at pixel editors, vector graphics and DTP they started from scratch.Īt the time the market for photo editing software had moved to raw converters becoming the "normal" and pixel editors basically used for heavy duty pixel mangling like extensive cloning, compositing etc. ![]() Serif's original pixel editor PhotoPlus was a basic PS clone like PaintShop Pro. I think some history helps to put AP in perspective. Long post but you did ask Also largely cut and paste from another post That said, I never licensed Photoshop because I could never justify the cost for my uses and needs. I paid Adobe $75 or whatever to upgrade from LR 5 to LR 6, and I would have paid another $75 or so to upgrade from LR 6 to LR 7, possibly even up to now (LR 11), but Adobe decided not to let me do that, and I just refuse to go the subscription route. Years ago I licensed Adobe Lightroom, then e.g. * For my own reasons that I won't debate, I have a strong visceral reaction against subscription software-which is the only way to lawfully-license a non-ancient version of Photoshop. If Serif emails me tomorrow saying, 'Affinity Photo 2.0 is out, you can upgrade for $75,' I'll jump on it, sight unseen, out of trust in and gratitude toward Serif. This is very subjective, but considering that I paid $50 and what I've gotten, I think a fair price would have easily been $100 or $150. * Yes, the low price is a definite point in Affinity Photo's favor. * Serif has made a fan of me by providing in Affinity Photo an initially-good product, providing a range of helpful tutorial videos, fixing an annoying bug I found, and providing no-extra-cost updates for approaching four years. ![]() * I've been using Affinity Photo for approaching four years. Or put it another way: if one needs or wants a pixel editor, and for whatever reason one can't or won't subscribe to an Adobe plan that includes Photoshop, then what pixel editor should one choose? I think the most common and arguably most sensible answer is Affinity Photo. I suspect that Affinity Photo is so popular because it seems to be overall the best non-subscription pixel editor, and by any reasonable standard it's a quite good pixel editor. Is it only because of the very low price?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |