Affinity Kicking Adobe
- Thread starter hark
- Start date
Alway good to know where to turn those setting off.
Blue439
New member
Oh, Adobe are evil for sure, and the subscription scheme is akin to extortion. I hate having to pay them every month. I've tried Affinity, I've tried Darktable, I've tried them all, free or not... and still I return, disgruntled and unhappy, to Adobe, because Lightroom and Photoshop are simply the absolute best there is for the sort of photography I do. I very much regret to say it, and I'd love if someone would really kick their ass once and for all, but I don't see that happening any time soon. It is just great and entirely pleasurable to work with those programs, and God knows I've tried and tried to break the addiction!
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
Decorum won't allow me tell you what my Adobe password used to be. It wasn't nice.
I use Affinity. I upgraded to the new version, but I don't know how to use it. DOH! I can't figure out why my cloned spots are not 100% opacity. Truth be told, I haven't tried very hard to sort it out.
I use Affinity. I upgraded to the new version, but I don't know how to use it. DOH! I can't figure out why my cloned spots are not 100% opacity. Truth be told, I haven't tried very hard to sort it out.
Last edited:
Blue439
New member
Good luck with it! I gave up Affinity when I realized there was no way they would beef up their lens database to include the niche lenses I use. They do (or did, at the time, I'm talking 7-8 years ago) rely on volunteer contributions to expand that database... Adobe includes all new lenses, regardless how exotic they are, Nikkor or third-party, within a week or two from their launch date.
P.S.: Oh, and I forgot to mention that reneging on their promise to always make Lightroom and Photoshop available for outright purchase anyway (the promise they made when they first launched the subscription scheme) remains to this day the greatest customer deception in the history of software!
P.S.: Oh, and I forgot to mention that reneging on their promise to always make Lightroom and Photoshop available for outright purchase anyway (the promise they made when they first launched the subscription scheme) remains to this day the greatest customer deception in the history of software!
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
@Blue439 Thanks. Affinity is fine for what I do, which is mostly crap-snaps lately.
One reason I dropped Adobe was my computer would freeze every time I tried to use it, and it was way too expensive to have that happen all of the time. I have since had a couple of new computers, but I still won't pay that monthly fee to do simple edits for my own enjoyment.
One reason I dropped Adobe was my computer would freeze every time I tried to use it, and it was way too expensive to have that happen all of the time. I have since had a couple of new computers, but I still won't pay that monthly fee to do simple edits for my own enjoyment.
Blue439
New member
Hello Dawg, yes I saw your reply to my introduction thread and I thanked you. Information had already been passed to me by Needa but thanks anyway! And thanks also for your nice words about my photos, that's very kind.
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
You are welcome. I realized that you saw it right after I posted here. Came back here and edited my post. We may have been posting at the same time or something. Anyway, as long as you are getting the information you need, all is good.
It's my understanding that Camera RAW is free to use even without a subscription. It has the same tools as Lightroom but uses a different layout. However, it doesn't have the organizer. So if you only used LR, it would be a viable option. But since you mentioned also using Photoshop, I don't know if Affinity Photo coupled with Adobe Camera RAW would be enough.
Just mentioning it as an option.
Blue439
New member
I think you're right about CameraRAW being free, although I am not sure. If I do five minutes of genuine mind-searching, I must admit that I also appreciate the simplicity of it all. Yes, I have to pay every month, but boy, do I get top performance for what I pay! It costs less than Netflix and I'm sure on average I spend more time in front of Lightroom and Photoshop than I do watching those streamed series... The new AI features, well the ones in the version before last, they're so amazing and helpful to clean the mess from my shots: people, power lines, garish church posters and the like... It does amazingly well, and I'm not sure other programs offer that same level. Adobe is still a development powerhouse. The very latest AI is beyond words but does nothing for me as creating stuff out of nothing isn't my thing, and it requires too much computing power, slows down the PC too much. I restored the previous version which zips along fine, and all in all, I'm good as long as I don't think too much about the subscription scheme. I think about it once a month when my bank reminds me, that's enough and I have found I can live with it.
BF Hammer
Senior Member
Don't anybody take my following comments as some kind of personal criticism. I am just making observations of multiple people's stories.
I consider the post-processing software to be a tool. A means to execute a task. It's pretty well true to consider the Adobe suite to be the most premium option. I see the benefit for a professional to adopt it. I understand the hobbyist's desire to covet those tools they see the pros use and frankly they also get on youtube and tells us that Adobe is the best and we should be doing our post processing with it.
But speaking as a life-long field service technician, I work with my hands every day repairing copiers, printers, scanners, and related office equipment. I have a set of tools. None of them are the finest Snap-On or Craftsman brands. I have a couple of nicer tools, like a genuine Vice-Grips brand locking pliers. But mostly I have screwdrivers and pliers that come from the local Menards (we don't have many Lowes or Home Depot stores in Wisconsin) because they get the job done and I like to save money. I pretty much know for a fact that a premium hand tool is not going to enhance my task performance by any significant amount. This may not be true with the very cheapest of tools, like a pair of pliers that consistently has trouble gripping an object. But working with stuff from more in the middle of the spectrum has always been fine for me.
Among my hobbies in years past, I was an active yo-yo player with some minor contest wins in my time. From the late 1990's-on there was an explosion of innovation in designing new, better-performing yo-yos. Aluminum bodies and some with exotic metals or hybrid plastic-metal designs. Bearings on the axle, exotic friction material to assist bringing the yo-yo back up the string. The more advanced yo-yo's in the early 2000's could cost between $10 and $250 USD. But did the champions go on stage with a $200 yo-yo for a contest? Nearly always no. It was some kind of $20-$60 yo-yo typically. Not the lowest of performance, but not an excessively expensive thing either.
So what an enthusiast beginner photographer will often ask is what is the best camera to buy and what is the best software to get. The camera question has a lot of diverse opinion, but the software question is very frequently answered "Photoshop and Lightroom, never used anything else". They go to classes and the only option for software to use is Adobe. So the meta-message for beginners is that you must have Adobe or else you are not a serious player in digital photography. I personally don't feel that is true.
A for example: newbie who has picked up a used D3300, and 2 lenses (let's say the DX 18-55mm and 55-200mm). So it's obvious some choices are being made for entry costs as that kit would be pretty low cost (not many lower). Is it really correct to tell this person to subscribe to Adobe? I would argue that investing in nicer lenses may be the better way to spend that money and just use the free software options. Why pay for features that you don't use but the ones you do use can be done for free?
Now there are a lot of people who jump into a hobby and want the best tools from the get-go, thinking that will give them an edge. From woodworkers to golfers and activities in-between. How often does having the best gear from the very beginning enhance a beginner's work? Or even a more advanced hobbyist? A hack is still a hack with good tools or bad. But somebody with talent and skill is going to make an average tool get the job done.
I consider the post-processing software to be a tool. A means to execute a task. It's pretty well true to consider the Adobe suite to be the most premium option. I see the benefit for a professional to adopt it. I understand the hobbyist's desire to covet those tools they see the pros use and frankly they also get on youtube and tells us that Adobe is the best and we should be doing our post processing with it.
But speaking as a life-long field service technician, I work with my hands every day repairing copiers, printers, scanners, and related office equipment. I have a set of tools. None of them are the finest Snap-On or Craftsman brands. I have a couple of nicer tools, like a genuine Vice-Grips brand locking pliers. But mostly I have screwdrivers and pliers that come from the local Menards (we don't have many Lowes or Home Depot stores in Wisconsin) because they get the job done and I like to save money. I pretty much know for a fact that a premium hand tool is not going to enhance my task performance by any significant amount. This may not be true with the very cheapest of tools, like a pair of pliers that consistently has trouble gripping an object. But working with stuff from more in the middle of the spectrum has always been fine for me.
Among my hobbies in years past, I was an active yo-yo player with some minor contest wins in my time. From the late 1990's-on there was an explosion of innovation in designing new, better-performing yo-yos. Aluminum bodies and some with exotic metals or hybrid plastic-metal designs. Bearings on the axle, exotic friction material to assist bringing the yo-yo back up the string. The more advanced yo-yo's in the early 2000's could cost between $10 and $250 USD. But did the champions go on stage with a $200 yo-yo for a contest? Nearly always no. It was some kind of $20-$60 yo-yo typically. Not the lowest of performance, but not an excessively expensive thing either.
So what an enthusiast beginner photographer will often ask is what is the best camera to buy and what is the best software to get. The camera question has a lot of diverse opinion, but the software question is very frequently answered "Photoshop and Lightroom, never used anything else". They go to classes and the only option for software to use is Adobe. So the meta-message for beginners is that you must have Adobe or else you are not a serious player in digital photography. I personally don't feel that is true.
A for example: newbie who has picked up a used D3300, and 2 lenses (let's say the DX 18-55mm and 55-200mm). So it's obvious some choices are being made for entry costs as that kit would be pretty low cost (not many lower). Is it really correct to tell this person to subscribe to Adobe? I would argue that investing in nicer lenses may be the better way to spend that money and just use the free software options. Why pay for features that you don't use but the ones you do use can be done for free?
Now there are a lot of people who jump into a hobby and want the best tools from the get-go, thinking that will give them an edge. From woodworkers to golfers and activities in-between. How often does having the best gear from the very beginning enhance a beginner's work? Or even a more advanced hobbyist? A hack is still a hack with good tools or bad. But somebody with talent and skill is going to make an average tool get the job done.
Blue439
New member
I do see where you're coming from, and you're certainly entitled to have that opinion, which sounds very sensible. If I meant to make a joke, I would say “I’m a bad workman as it is, so I better have the absolute best tools available, at least they will help me a little...”
But the truth of the matter which you touch on very accurately is this:
Exactly! I am willing to pay for top-of-the-line features that I use everyday (including in contracted, paying photo work), where those cannot be found for free, or cannot be the same quality.
But the truth of the matter which you touch on very accurately is this:
Exactly! I am willing to pay for top-of-the-line features that I use everyday (including in contracted, paying photo work), where those cannot be found for free, or cannot be the same quality.