Originally posted by interested_observer One question that I have is the RAW converter. How does Affinity compare with Capture One and Adobe Camera RAW along with the rest of them?
I'm not a good one to ask. I'm currently devoted to DxO Optics Pro as the first step of my workflow. That being said, there is much complaining online about AP's RAW converter -- I think the reason is pretty obvious: Adobe does much more than just "convert" a RAW file -- they build in a "look" which is frankly an Adobe look (which is analogous to the Kodak film look vs Fuji film look argument back in the day). I don't think AP should attempt to duplicate Adobe's look but rather just provide built in tools to allow the editor to choose which to "improve" the conversion -- which is precisely what they have done. An expert will have no problem using AP as their RAW converter as long as said expert isn't expecting a push-button approach to RAW conversion. I learned the hard way with DxO. At first I couldn't understand how my RAW conversions were worse than Adobe's. After I got over needing to have a push-button solution I learned how the tool really works and today I get consistently superb results. Ideally there would be a smooth/seemless integration between DxO and Affinity, but I'm not counting on it. Instead I'm happy using DxO to get my images 80% there and Affinity to fill in the remaining 20%.
Michael
P.S. one unusual feature of AP I discovered by accident: I always save all my images on a networked SAN. And saving a big file can be slow. With PS each time I save a large file can take a good long while. However with AP only the initial save takes any noticeable time. Subsequent incremental saves are generally instantaneous as only the deltas are saved. This feature alone has sold my on Affinity's approach, which in my experience is unique.