# Lightroom alternatives



## taalas (Jun 10, 2017)

Having used Lightroom for the last couple of years I am currently searching for a new software package for editing and library management of my pictures.

I am not a professional photographer but love to work on my images. Artistic filters are also very interesting to me.

I have looked at different more recent software packages for a couple of weeks now (Affinity, Luminar, Topaz Studio) and many seem interesting. Almost no other software seems to include digital asset management currently though.

Do you have any suggestions for either other programs or can you recommend any of the ones I mentioned?

Any help/ideas greatly appreciated!


----------



## KmH (Jun 10, 2017)

If you want an image database management app & Raw converter that has artistic styles - Phase One's _Capture One Pro_.
$180 for a 1 year subscription, or $20 a month ($240 a year).
Or buy it for $300 - for each upgrade.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 10, 2017)

KmH said:


> If you want an image database management app & Raw converter that has artistic styles - Phase One's _Capture One Pro_.
> $180 for a 1 year subscription, or $20 a month ($240 a year).
> Or buy it for $300 - for each upgrade.


Au Contraire Pierre.   The upgrade price is $99.  Less than the Lightroom price.


----------



## Light Guru (Jun 10, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Au Contraire Pierre. The upgrade price is $99. Less than the Lightroom price.



Thats an upgrade price you must already have an older license of the software.  I'm sure KmH men't $300 for each license not upgrade. 

I would drop Lightroom and switch to Capture One Pro in a heartbeat if it wasn't so expensive.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 10, 2017)

Light Guru said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Au Contraire Pierre. The upgrade price is $99. Less than the Lightroom price.
> ...


Yep, that's how upgrade pricing works.  You have to have a license from an older version.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 10, 2017)

Regular Photoshop has loads of editing.  Plus it's from Adobe like Lightroom and you can jump from one editor to the other pretty seamlessly.  Adobe has a rental program where you can have both for ten dollars a month. 

Topaz integrates with LR also.


----------



## Light Guru (Jun 10, 2017)

AlanKlein said:


> Regular Photoshop has loads of editing.  Plus it's from Adobe like Lightroom and you can jump from one editor to the other pretty seamlessly.  Adobe has a rental program where you can have both for ten dollars a month.



That does NOT address the customers question at all.  The OP wants a ALTERNATIVE to Lightroom.  Something with digital asset management.

I have tried every alternative to Lightroom I can find and NONE are any good except Capture One.  They ether lack features or are buggy.  I have used Capture One at work but it is just too expensive to justify getting it at home, so for now I'm sticking with lightroom.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 10, 2017)

I interpreted his question differently.  He also said, "I am not a professional photographer but love to work on my images. Artistic filters are also very interesting to me."  So it seems that editing might be more important to him than digital asset management.  I could be wrong, so I'll ask him.  what is really important?  Why do you need to change to a different program?  Is "working on your photos"  more important than how they're filed?


----------



## fmw (Jul 8, 2017)

Affinity has no cataloging capability.  It runs circles around Lightroom as an editing tool but you would need to do your own cataloging and backup.  On the plus side it is only $39.99.  There is always photoshop if you can live with renting instead of owning your software.


----------



## jaomul (Jul 8, 2017)

Affinity will have a catalogue management system in the near future according to the makers. I think I'll ditch my subscription to Adobe when this happens, affinity looks pretty specced


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 8, 2017)

jaomul said:


> Affinity will have a catalogue management system in the near future according to the makers. I think I'll ditch my subscription to Adobe when this happens, affinity looks pretty specced



Affinity is a terrific replacement for Photoshop -- great price and feature packed -- but a catalog will not be enough to make it a replacement for LR IF (VERY BIG IF): you use LR to process raw files and would expect Affinity to step into that role. Affinity has a major raw file processing issue. It's raw workflow is forced destructive. In this day that's nuts. Affinity comes with a respectable set of raw processing tools which makes you wonder what Serif is thinking because the second you generate an RGB output file (16 bit TIFF) any work you did on the raw file prior to RGB conversion is discarded. That forces you to either make any additional edits and/or changes using the RGB output file and/or start from scratch with the raw file.

Joe


----------



## jaomul (Jul 8, 2017)

Are you sure affinity is destructive process, when I read up about it, non destructive was mentioned more than once


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 8, 2017)

jaomul said:


> Are you sure affinity is destructive process, when I read up about it, non destructive was mentioned more than once



Raw file processing only, yes I'm sure. When used to process an RGB image file Affinity can be used like Photoshop with both Layers and Smart Objects for non-destructive processing. If you only shoot & process camera JPEGs there's no problem. If you're happy converting all your raw files to 16 bit TIFF files and then keeping those and making any future edits to those then again you're fine, but that's not what we consider an ideal workflow today.

As an example: You open a raw file in Affinity and make a WB decision. You continue processing the image eventually proceeding to generate an RGB image file. You do some additional processing to that RGB image file (which can be done using Layers -- non destructive) and you call it day. In the morning you examine the image and decide you'd like to re-visit your WB decision. Re-open the raw file and everything you did has been discarded and you start from scratch. Re-open the RGB image file and you can alter color there (you can even use the raw editing tools) but what you're doing isn't re-visiting WB in the raw file -- it's a different process with different outcomes.

Joe


----------



## table1349 (Jul 8, 2017)

Yeah, it's like working in a darkroom with a negative.  Not sure how we survived it but we did.


----------



## fmw (Jul 10, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > Affinity will have a catalogue management system in the near future according to the makers. I think I'll ditch my subscription to Adobe when this happens, affinity looks pretty specced
> ...



Here we go again.  It is not destructive, it just doesn't store the edits in the same kind of file as Lightroom does.  It saves them in an RGB file.  Destructive means that when you save an edit it changes the original file permanently. The original raw file is never changed in Affinity.  Saying it is "forced destructive" is your definition that is not shared by most photographers.  Affinity blows Lightroom out of the water.


----------



## jaomul (Jul 10, 2017)

fmw said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...



I'm not 100% sure what all this means in practice, but I can download a trial version of affinity and see exactly how it does its thing


----------



## fmw (Jul 10, 2017)

jaomul said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



At any time during the "develop" process in affinity you can save the file.  The resulting file is an RGB file that can be reloaded later and edited further.  Ysarex doesn't like it because it is a large file.  If you reload the original raw file, it will not have the edits because the system is non destructive.  The original raw file is never changed.  If you reload the RGB file it has every pixel and every bit of editing that was used on the raw file.  That file can be re-edited.  It is quite simple and quite non-destructive.  Personally, I don't re-edit raw files.  I get them the way I want them and save out the result into some other format such as PNG.  I do this with Lightroom or Affinity.  If I want to use the raw file for some other purpose I edit it from scratch because it needs to be different from the PNG.  If it didn't I would simply use the PNG.  So I don't use the RGB file in Affinity.  But it is there if you want to make use of its capabilities.

Other photo editors save just the editing information in a separate file so that you can open the raw file with editing included.  It is a smaller file than the RGB file in Affinity.  If you prefer that approach, you won't like Affinity.  If you want something that is much more powerful than Lightroom for a pittance, you will love it.

If you subscribe from Adobe you can catalog and do the basic raw processing in Lightroom and then send the file to Photoshop for more advanced editing.  With Affinity you don't have to do that.  Affinity has the advanced editing built in.   What Affinity does not have is the cataloging.  Lightroom is basically a cataloging program that has some editing capability.  Affinity is a pro level editor without cataloging.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 10, 2017)

fmw said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...



That's wrong. It doesn't store the edits at all. Your editing of the raw file prior to conversion is discarded by Affinity and that's what's destructive. It destroys your work not the raw file.



fmw said:


> It saves them in an RGB file.



Creating and RGB output file is NOT saving your edits of the raw file such that you can re-edit or adjust your previous work with the raw file.



fmw said:


> Destructive means that when you save an edit it changes the original file permanently.



Destructive also means that you can't return to any point in your work and tweak what you previously did. In this manner Affinity is destructive.



fmw said:


> The original raw file is never changed in Affinity.



Nor in Lightroom or any other raw converter. The difference here is that Affinity does not save your editing work on the raw file and so won't allow you to return to that work and make further adjustments. It won't allow you to return to your work and produce a variation without your being forced to start from scratch with the raw file.



fmw said:


> Saying it is "forced destructive" is your definition that is not shared by most photographers.  Affinity blows Lightroom out of the water.



By forced destructive I mean that your editing work on the raw file prior to conversion is discarded when you create an RGB output file. I am correct about that and not the only one who calls it what it is: Affinity Photo Destructive RAW developing- deal breaker?: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 10, 2017)

fmw said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not 100% sure what all this means in practice, but I can download a trial version of affinity and see exactly how it does its thing
> ...



I like RGB files just fine. That's not why I object to Affinity's handling of raw files. *My primary objection is Affinity does not save your editing work.* The huge 16 RGB files is a lesser complication but can be a problem for some.



fmw said:


> If you reload the original raw file, it will not have the edits because the system is non destructive.  The original raw file is never changed.



If you reload a raw file edited with LR or basically any other raw converter it WILL have your edits because the raw conversion software is non-destructive and re-editable -- your edits get saved. The original raw file is of course never changed.



fmw said:


> If you reload the RGB file it has every pixel and every bit of editing that was used on the raw file.  That file can be re-edited.



But that process is not the same as adjusting your edits to the raw file. Adjustments made during raw file conversion are baked into that RGB file and can't be baked out. And so you're not able to make an alteration to your original work on the raw file without starting over from scratch. Other raw converters don't force a discard of your work editing the raw file. It's in fact pretty odd because Affinity provides a toolset to edit raw files, but what you do with those tools you can't save. That's actually pretty strange.

Joe



fmw said:


> It is quite simple and quite non-destructive.  Personally, I don't re-edit raw files.  I get them the way I want them and save out the result into some other format such as PNG.  I do this with Lightroom or Affinity.  If I want to use the raw file for some other purpose I edit it from scratch because it needs to be different from the PNG.  If it didn't I would simply use the PNG.  So I don't use the RGB file in Affinity.  But it is there if you want to make use of its capabilities.
> 
> Other photo editors save just the editing information in a separate file so that you can open the raw file with editing included.  It is a smaller file than the RGB file in Affinity.  If you prefer that approach, you won't like Affinity.  If you want something that is much more powerful than Lightroom for a pittance, you will love it.
> 
> If you subscribe from Adobe you can catalog and do the basic raw processing in Lightroom and then send the file to Photoshop for more advanced editing.  With Affinity you don't have to do that.  Affinity has the advanced editing built in.   What Affinity does not have is the cataloging.  Lightroom is basically a cataloging program that has some editing capability.  Affinity is a pro level editor without cataloging.


----------



## fmw (Jul 10, 2017)

I don't know how to get this across to you.  You are simply wrong.  You can save your work at any time and the resulting RGB file allows you to pick up where you left off with all the data - raw pixels, editing, everything.  At this point I will stop trying to get you to understand since you refuse to listen.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 10, 2017)

How does Infinity compare to Lightroom in BW conversion?


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 10, 2017)

it sounds like its not a proper comparison. 
maybe the better comparison is affinity vs photoshop?


----------



## goooner (Jul 10, 2017)

I played around with AcDSee ultimate 9 for a while. I think it is very good, and combines LR and PS, for an affordable once off price. You can even import your your LR catalogue including key words. I will definitely download the free trial of Ultimate 10 at the beginning of next year, and then decide if I want to extends my Adobe subscription.

ACD Systems - Photo Editing Management Software


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 10, 2017)

Well, Lightroom has 8 sliders for hue so you can adjust the various black tones after converting from color.  Is there anything similar in Affinity?


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 10, 2017)

fmw said:


> I don't know how to get this across to you.



So easy -- just show me, provide proof.



fmw said:


> You are simply wrong.  You can save your work at any time and the resulting RGB file allows you to pick up where you left off with all the data - raw pixels, editing, everything.



This is incorrect. The resulting RGB file does not allow you access to the original raw file edits. You do not have the raw file included in the RGB file, not one single pixel of it, you have an RGB output file with the raw edits baked in and no longer re-editable at the raw file level. This is very easy to prove:




 

All kinds of reasons to add simulated grain to a photo. In Affinity you can add Gaussian noise with the raw editing tools which is a fair grain simulation. I did that in the example above. Once I develop (convert) the raw file into an RGB file (Affinity aphoto file) that simulated grain is baked in. There's no way to decide later I'd like to see a version without it. If I open the RGB file and put it back in the Develop module I don't get an option to undo my 20% Gaussian noise adjustment. I have to start over and re-do all the raw editing for that image. No other raw converter makes you do that and discards your work when you convert the file to RGB.



fmw said:


> At this point I will stop trying to get you to understand since you refuse to listen.



I listen real well and I've heard what you've said and I've proven that wrong.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 10, 2017)

AlanKlein said:


> Well, Lightroom has 8 sliders for hue so you can adjust the various black tones after converting from color.  Is there anything similar in Affinity?



Yes. Affinity does an excellent job with B&W conversion. It's a superb RGB file editor and really the first serious challenge to Photoshop. Pixmedic is correct that Affinity should be compared with Photoshop more so than with LR. Serif has positioned Affinity as a Photoshop competitor -- at a spectacular price.

As elsewhere noted in this thread there's an issue with Affinity's handling of raw files. For example comparing with Photoshop, a raw file would open in ACR. Any work you do in ACR to convert the raw file will be saved in an .XMP file so that if you re-open the raw file in ACR again all your work is still in place. Using Affinity is similar but should you re-open a raw file all your previous editing work is discarded.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 10, 2017)

AlanKlein said:


> Well, Lightroom has 8 sliders for hue so you can adjust the various black tones after converting from color.  Is there anything similar in Affinity?


These are the B&W sliders in Affinity.


----------



## fmw (Jul 10, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how to get this across to you.
> ...



You have.  I agree.  You have my apologies.  I'll mess around with it some more.  As I said, I don't re-edit raw files so this issue never came up for me.  Now I understand.  Sorry for being so thick.


----------



## jaomul (Jul 11, 2017)

I downloaded the trial last night. It was a bit buggy, but I'm sure that was just initially. I found it very slow to load files, when I did save a file, it saved at 116mb, this was just a few basic edits and a crop from a 24mp raw file.

I did enough to figure out it is as others said, a Photoshop alternative, not a lightroom alternative.

If Serif release something along the lines of lightroom, that you could then seamlessly edit in affinity, I think Adobe would have a serious alternative to their lightroom/Photoshop package.

At the moment I got to stick with lightroom, it's just too good


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 11, 2017)

fmw said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm excited about Affinity too and I hope they make improvements including fixing this. Affinity Photo really is the first Photoshop challenger to show real promise. Their clone/spotting tools are better than Photoshop's and they have masking tools that at least rival Photoshop -- all in an appropriate color-managed 16 (+) bit work environment, and yes non-destructive with one big exception. Factor in the price and it's pretty easy to understand  the recent attention they've gotten. I've been showing Affinity to my students and recommending it. But folks who want to process raw files should know up front how it behaves. It's a terrific choice right now coupled with a different raw converter. I'm rooting for them.

Joe


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 11, 2017)

Can Affinity read/convert RAW files from Fuji?


----------



## fmw (Jul 11, 2017)

Yes indeed, Peg.  As you know, I'm a Fuji shooter too.  RAF files are supported.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 11, 2017)

jaomul said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...





fmw said:


> Yes indeed, Peg.  As you know, I'm a Fuji shooter too.  RAF files are supported.



I've seen your posts on the Fuji-x forums (I'm assuming that is the same fmw).  I'm just lurking over there soaking in the info - haven't created a sign-on to post yet.

I'm debating between upgrading from PSE11 to PSE15 (which supports ACR 9.7 and Fuji XT2 RAF files) for $50 vs going full Adobe for $10/month and having to learn LR and PS vs Some Other Software...  I'm leaning toward the PSE15 upgrade since it's the cheapest and there shouldn't be much of a learning curve as I've been using PSE for 7+ years... 

Sorry for the hijack OP - seems like this info could be relevant for you too so I didn't start a new thread.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 11, 2017)

You should look into Capture One Pro, I hear more and more good things about it.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 11, 2017)

SquarePeg said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



The OP no longer seems to be around.

You may have a knotty problem with your choice. Depends on how sensitive you are to the raw conversion output of the various software programs. Most digital cameras have Bayer CFAs and processing those is pretty straightforward so most software raw converters produce pretty similar results. Fuji however uses an odd-out CFA -- X-Trans and the task of demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is orders of magnitude more difficult. As a result the output results from the different software applications can vary substantially. Basically the issue revolves around the rendition of fine detail.




 

The topic needs to be researched when making a raw converter selection for use with Fuji cameras. I'll come back here in a few minutes and show you an example.

Joe


----------



## fmw (Jul 11, 2017)

That is true. The Fuji community doesn't seem to care for the way the Adobe products handle X-trans sensor raw files.  They seem to prefer Capture One and Silkypix.  Personally, I have no issue with the way either Adobe or Affinity handle them.  The purpose of the X-trans technology is to eliminate the anti aliasing filter you find on the mayer sensors.  It makes for an improved image but it does challenge the raw converters.

Fuji recommends their Silkypix based converter.  It is free.  You can use it to convert the raw file into another format and then take that format to the editing software.  It works well but, in my view, it is a hassle and Adobe and Affinity do just fine.  If the end result is to be a jpeg and heavy editing is not required, the camera does a good job of doing the conversion.

Peg, I wouldn't update PSE unless you need the cataloging.  I'd pick up a copy of Affinity.  It is a pro level editor with a lot more functionality than PSE.  It is also possible that you can update your existing PSE and get RAF support for free.  I have PSE14 and I managed to do that.


----------



## fmw (Jul 11, 2017)

fmw said:


> Yes indeed, Peg.  As you know, I'm a Fuji shooter too.  RAF files are supported.





> I've seen your posts on the Fuji-x forums (I'm assuming that is the same fmw).  I'm just lurking over there soaking in the info - haven't created a sign-on to post yet.
> 
> I'm debating between upgrading from PSE11 to PSE15 (which supports ACR 9.7 and Fuji XT2 RAF files) for $50 vs going full Adobe for $10/month and having to learn LR and PS vs Some Other Software...  I'm leaning toward the PSE15 upgrade since it's the cheapest and there shouldn't be much of a learning curve as I've been using PSE for 7+ years...
> 
> Sorry for the hijack OP - seems like this info could be relevant for you too so I didn't start a new thread.



I've grown bored with the Fuji-X forum.  It reminds of the hard core audiophiles.  The members are mostly in the UK and they have a high and mighty approach to internet posting.

I updated my PSE14 for free to get the current ACR version that supports the RAF files.  Just click on the appropriate option on the top menu.  Look seriously at Affinity.  For $40 there is nothing even close to it.

Photoshop is the industry standard and a great choice if you can live with renting your software by the month.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 11, 2017)

fmw said:


> That is true. The Fuji community doesn't seem to care for the way the Adobe products handle X-trans sensor raw files.  They seem to prefer Capture One and Silkypix.  Personally, I have no issue with the way either Adobe or Affinity handle them.  The purpose of the X-trans technology is to eliminate the anti aliasing filter you find on the mayer sensors.  It makes for an improved image but it does challenge the raw converters.
> 
> Fuji recommends their Silkypix based converter.  It is free.  You can use it to convert the raw file into another format and then take that format to the editing software.  It works well but, in my view, it is a hassle and Adobe and Affinity do just fine.  If the end result is to be a jpeg and heavy editing is not required, the camera does a good job of doing the conversion.
> 
> Peg, I wouldn't update PSE unless you need the cataloging.  I'd pick up a copy of Affinity.  It is a pro level editor with a lot more functionality than PSE.  It is also possible that you can update your existing PSE and get RAF support for free.  I have PSE14 and I managed to do that.



PSE 11 can't get the ACR version that supports the XT2 without upgrading my PSE.  I think I'm going to do the free trial of Affinity and see how it compares to PSE and what the learning curve is and then make a decision.  I trialed LR many years ago before buying PSE and didn't really care for it - I know everyone loves it for it's cataloging and batch processing but I'm not a pro and don't really need those features.  Maybe I'm just too ignorant to know what I'm missing.  Another wrinkle - maybe - is that I have the Topaz labs plug ins and they work great with PSE but not sure how they will work with Affinity???  I'm not a techie so not sure if that is a dumb question or not!  Still have to try the software recommended by Gary A.  Silkypix was not for me.  

@Ysarex  - Thanks for your insight!   All great info  I'm sure but way way way waaaaaaaay over my head technically .  I'm really hoping I can exist with Fuji without having to learn all of the techy stuff.  I use ACR to adjust exposure and play with shadows and white balance - that's pretty much all I need it for.  As for the discussion you and fmw had regarding "destructive" vs non - that I did understand to an extent.  I do sometimes go back and re-edit from the RAW file but I don't think losing my initial RAW edits would be a big issue for me since they are basic and pretty easily repeatable.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 11, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> You may have a knotty problem with your choice. Depends on how sensitive you are to the raw conversion output of the various software programs. Most digital cameras have Bayer CFAs and processing those is pretty straightforward so most software raw converters produce pretty similar results. Fuji however uses an odd-out CFA -- X-Trans and the task of demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is orders of magnitude more difficult. As a result the output results from the different software applications can vary substantially. Basically the issue revolves around the rendition of fine detail.
> 
> View attachment 143072
> 
> ...



Here's that example for the record. Fuji X-T2 RAF file.





I used LR for the Adobe version and made a best effort without applying any other software. This is a 100% view. I chose C1 on the right because it has a reputation of doing well with X-Trans but also because I had it laying around already processed. Suffice it to say you're seeing more variation in demosaicing output above than you'll encounter with Bayer array cameras. Look at the patch of grass in the bottom of the Adobe version and again in the tree leaves in the middle left of the photo. There's a squirmy (folks call in worms) smearing going on in the Adobe version. It can drive landscape photographers nuts and in fact they do see it in large prints. To some degree you're going to get that from any Adobe product with Fuji RAF files. Some folks committed to using LR get into all kinds of hoop jumping and denial over this. Right now the popular LR option is to use Iridient for demosaicing the RAF files and then continue on in LR. For many it really is a non-issue because you're not going to see it unless you're into making large prints.

For this thread and given that you brought up Fuji the point I want to stress is that you'll get considerably more variation in results one program to the next working with Fuji X-Trans -- *software choice matters more. *So make your choice carefully.

Joe


----------



## fmw (Jul 13, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > You may have a knotty problem with your choice. Depends on how sensitive you are to the raw conversion output of the various software programs. Most digital cameras have Bayer CFAs and processing those is pretty straightforward so most software raw converters produce pretty similar results. Fuji however uses an odd-out CFA -- X-Trans and the task of demosaicing the X-Trans CFA is orders of magnitude more difficult. As a result the output results from the different software applications can vary substantially. Basically the issue revolves around the rendition of fine detail.
> ...



Thanks for the interesting comparison. I had never seen one before and had never seen the worms before either in my own work.  I have seen distant greenery display a smudgy texture.  Have you done a similar comparison with Adobe against Affinity?  That would be more important personally since I have left Adobe for Affinity for the most part.  I can do it for myself if I can borrow your raw file for the comparison.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 13, 2017)

fmw said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Affinity has color artifacting problems with X-Trans. It can be worked with I think more successfully than the Adobe problem with fine detail. I have LR/ACR, Capture One, SilkyPix, PhotoNinja, DarkTable, Iridient, Lightzone, RawTherapee, Oloneo, UFraw, Affinity, ACDSee, and Helicon installed on this system and I've tested them all with X-Trans. Affinity is a lot like Adobe doing an overall decent job until it gets an X-Trans torture RAF. Then you encounter its artifacting problems. It's important to note that although the variations one to the next are more noticeable than with Bayer sensor raw files, they all still do a basically acceptable job until you start getting nit-picky. Nit-picky matters for people who want to make large prints, for other uses it's not normally a big issue.

You're welcome to that raw file from above: Dropbox - _DSF0551.RAF It qualifies as an X-Trans torture file.

Note that you'll find the embedded JPEG looking pretty green. I had the white balance on the camera set to unity when I took the photo. I did shoot a WB target at the time so when you open it in Affinity you'll want to set these WB values: temp = 5950, tint = 2 and you can proceed from there.

Joe


----------



## fmw (Jul 13, 2017)

Thanks.


----------



## fmw (Jul 13, 2017)

It is certainly an extreme crop.   My 100% crop made to echo yours was visibly pixelated.  I wasn't able to reproduce the worms in Affinity but I wasn't able to reproduce them in lightroom either because of the visible pixels.  I'll mess around with some of my own RAF files.  I'm coming to the conclusion that this is a minor issue.  Thanks again.


----------

