SFA wrote:Irvin.Gomez wrote:
But let's call a spade a spade: all raw converters are slowly becoming little Photoshops. Layers, masks, color and luminosity selections, frequency separation, stacking, etc.,: all 'new' features are things Photoshop has had for years.
But are they really?
Yes, really.
They are all walking the same path, but they are at different points in that path. Some more advanced, some less. They are all following Photoshop, intentionally or not.
Photoshop has been a graphics and photo editor since way back as you say. But to deal with digital files the developer provided ACR as a pre-processor that allowed the creation of a file that PS could work with to handle RAW files rather than jpgs or tiff from scanners, etc.
Yes. It was Photoshop's own evolution. All raw converters have their own engine. Adobe’s Is ACR, shared by Photoshop, Lightroom and other applications.
ACR was then also shared, more or less, with LightRoom. And LR can appear to be (partly) integrated with PS by file sharing.
Lightroom is as tightly integrated with Photshop as it possible while keeping both programs fully independent. Any closer and they would become a single program.
Affinity sets out to cover the ACR/PS territory and, through other products in the family, Adobe's Publishing software. It does not, afaik, offer any much in terms of a DAM function as we might think of it.
That's correct. As stated previously, different converters offer different things, but they are all on the same path.
As for integration between RAW conversion and further editing ... not so much. Sure, everything appears in a combined UI but processing a RAW file means using the "Develop" 'persona'. Once you have done what you think you want to do with the RAW you pass the results to the Affinity version of a PSD file and start pixel pushing just as if it was an original piece of digitally generated art work.
Want to go back to the RAW and do something different? Well, that seems to be start again time.
Affinity Photo is very good - not a real Photoshop 'killer', but an excellent choice for people who don't need Photoshop's full feature set.
I have no problem with that BUT I very much prefer the C1 approach especially as I rarely have a need to pixel push.
You have to go with whatever works for you. Capture One is excellent software, anyway. I'm a happy user, even if my daily workflow is best fit by a Lightroom/Photoshop combination. Capture One's color editor is very powerful.
It maybe does not help that I find the concepts of pixel pushing tools relatively simple to understand theoretically but the deployment of then through any UI I have tried over the years seems overly complicated no matter how powerful it might be used by someone whose brain can adapt. It seems that mine does not.
This guy and his very clear teaching style might change your mind:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMrvLM ... PYQ/videosProbably the absolutely best PS tutorial collection on the net.
I would not want C1 to have to totally change how it works in order to replicate the functionality of PS or Affinity nor would I want to pay the necessary additional costs that would surely come with expanding the product as an integrated suite.
If it's not fully integrated and still needs an intermediate file to get to the pixel pushing features - then why bother? That's more or less the same as already exists with the options to create files to be used in other applications.
I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag, as I stated in my initial post. Phase One has no choice but to keep adding features. It's what the market demands. What else can they do?