J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
It looks really interesting, however they'll never be a serious contender as long as they're Mac only. That might have worked years ago when Mac dominated the creative space, but that's just not the case any more. Maybe they're just doing a phased platform rollout, but some of their verbiage would suggest not.

If you're a Mac user I'm not sure it's relevant how good their sales are compared to Adobe. I'm not in the business of being a company cheerleader; I'm interested in what the best tool for the job is.

I started the thread because I don't want to invest too much time learning new software if there's something significant it can't do. I only know a few of the most common retouching techniques and want to have room to learn and implement advanced techniques in the future.

So far I can see a number of ways Affinity is better than Photoshop, but can't think of any ways Photoshop is better than Affinity.

Personality Imaging wrote:
Interesting.   Is it for sale or just pay as you go?  I love stuff I can buy even though I am not a MAC user.

One of their key selling points is that they're purchase-to-own-only, no subscriptions. The lifetime purchase costs as much as about 3 months of the "Photography" creative cloud bundle.

Sendu wrote:

If you're a Mac user I'm not sure it's relevant how good their sales are compared to Adobe. I'm not in the business of being a company cheerleader; I'm interested in what the best tool for the job is.

I started the thread because I don't want to invest too much time learning new software if there's something significant it can't do. I only know a few of the most common retouching techniques and want to have room to learn and implement advanced techniques in the future.

So far I can see a number of ways Affinity is better than Photoshop, but can't think of any ways Photoshop is better than Affinity.

I wasn't cheerleading for any company - just making the point that now days to be a real contender within the creative application space, the software has to be cross platform.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

I wasn't cheerleading for any company - just making the point that now days to be a real contender within the creative application space, the software has to be cross platform.

I agree. But I can't see why if they have any serious success with the mac version why they wouldn't release a PC version.

Of course I am just speculating here.

Sendu wrote:

One of their key selling points is that they're purchase-to-own-only, no subscriptions. The lifetime purchase costs as much as about 3 months of the "Photography" creative cloud bundle.

That sounds like a bargain.  I hope they manage to pop Adobe's arrogant bubble.

HugoESTOURNET wrote:
What seems to miss seriously is an actionscript panel.

Do you mean recorded macros? It's on their roadmap.

KungPaoChic wrote:

I agree. But I can't see why if they have any serious success with the mac version why they wouldn't release a PC version.

Of course I am just speculating here.

Because programming for a different OS is very costly and time consuming. You're not starting from scratch, but there is an awful lot of work to do; it's not a simple conversion. If nothing else, the fact that Mac and Windows have different default colour and print management systems means that at least those parts need to be redone. I'm sure there are a lot of others.

They're probably waiting until they feel enough Windows users will buy it to start making a Windows version.

Speaking of print management, I'd be curious to know how good the print drivers in this are. In the past, it was worth it for photographers that did their own printing to buy full PS over elements on the strength of the drivers alone. It wasn't uncommon to print the same file from both programs, and get a better print from full PS.

There are a lot of cheap programs that have print drivers as good as PS, or which have pros and cons that level out. There are also lots of cheap programs that edit as well as PS, or which at least do some part of the editing as well as PS.

The reason I bought full PS wasn't because it was the only thing that did what I wanted; I bought it because I couldn't find any way to replace its capabilities without using multiple programs. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that.

It will be interesting to see where this goes in the future, and whether it takes hold as a powerful cross-platform editing tool, or if it becomes another GIMP or Quad-tone RIP that needs other pieces of software to hit its full potential.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
It looks really interesting, however they'll never be a serious contender as long as they're Mac only. That might have worked years ago when Mac dominated the creative space, but that's just not the case any more. Maybe they're just doing a phased platform rollout, but some of their verbiage would suggest not.

Really?  The last two agencies I worked for the entire creative departments were all Mac.  I took a tour at BBDO and they were the same, all Mac,just like they were 10 years ago.  These are some of the largest marketing agencies in the US, I can't speak to freelancers

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:
Really?  The last two agencies I worked for the entire creative departments were all Mac.  I took a tour at BBDO and they were the same, all Mac,just like they were 10 years ago.  These are some of the largest marketing agencies in the US, I can't speak to freelancers

Not to start a Mac/Windows debate, but I highly doubt those agencies are Affinity's target market.

When you can afford to buy a dozen PowerMacs at a go, the cost savings of Affinity is fairly minor in proportion. Plus those agencies are a lot more likely to keep buying the newest version of Creative Suite; for them, the subscription model is actually a much better deal.

A new version of Affinity, plus whatever the equivalent versions of Illustrator, Dreamweaver, and Premiere are could easily cost the same per year as a CC subscription, and on top of that you need to train new hires to use software different from what they already learned in school. And you're no longer using the software that is industry standard! Even if Affinity had free updates for life, the majority of large businesses will still use Photoshop - at least until the very moment that Affinity becomes standard, and is taught in schools.

I think most of Affinity's customers are going to be individuals, and small businesses with just a handful of employees. If you have to budget for a new machine, and you're not sending in-process files back and forth between another business, and you're not regularly getting new employees that need training ... well then at that point, buying this once seems like a pretty good alternative to the subscription model.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Not to start a Mac/Windows debate, but I highly doubt those agencies are Affinity's target market.

When you can afford to buy a dozen PowerMacs at a go, the cost savings of Affinity is fairly minor in proportion. Plus those agencies are a lot more likely to keep buying the newest version of Creative Suite; for them, the subscription model is actually a much better deal.

A new version of Affinity, plus whatever the equivalent versions of Illustrator, Dreamweaver, and Premiere are could easily cost the same per year as a CC subscription, and on top of that you need to train new hires to use software different from what they already learned in school. And you're no longer using the software that is industry standard! Even if Affinity had free updates for life, the majority of large businesses will still use Photoshop - at least until the very moment that Affinity becomes standard, and is taught in schools.

I think most of Affinity's customers are going to be individuals, and small businesses with just a handful of employees. If you have to budget for a new machine, and you're not sending in-process files back and forth between another business, and you're not regularly getting new employees that need training ... well then at that point, buying this once seems like a pretty good alternative to the subscription model.

True, the slightly higher costs for a Mac are the least of their concerns.

As for the software it sounds like I need to take a look.  Not that I don't fully plan to run PS6 as long as possible.

RINALDI wrote:
I like it a lot. For me, it could better than PS, simply because PS has always been so intimidating to me, up to the point that I really didn't and still don't enjoy retouching. I am a love-taking-pics-hate-retouching-afterwards kinda guy, so to me, enhancing or experimenting with my pics should be fun first and foremost, not all technical or steps-strict etc.

Affinity looks simpler and easier on the eye, I actually "get it" pretty fast, whereas with PS, I always had to google to find help in required steps. And sure, you can't beat the price, unless you don't have a mac, luckily I have both.

I think that this is perfectly said.

PS is just bloatware for me (that is ONLY a comment for me.... Anyone else's experience will vary) and with their new "subscription" model, they can keep it.  Affinity loads in 2 nano seconds and then does its activities blazingly  fast.  It is just easy to use and intuitive.  I liked it so much I wrote to them and asked them to create a Lightroom replacement.  They wrote back and suggested, sadly, that they don't currently have plans to do so.  Too bad.

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:

Really?  The last two agencies I worked for the entire creative departments were all Mac.  I took a tour at BBDO and they were the same, all Mac,just like they were 10 years ago.  These are some of the largest marketing agencies in the US, I can't speak to freelancers

That probably isn't their target market.

Agencies are likely to go the Adobe CC route as many of my clients do for a variety of reasons. Affinity is for the people who use PS Elements etc. The ones who don't have the financial ability or will to pay for the Adobe products but want all the features. Affinity has that with the caveat that the software is MAC only at present.

Adobe is #1 simply because they have the money to develop across two platforms ...pc and mac in addition to a complete software solution.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
It looks really interesting, however they'll never be a serious contender as long as they're Mac only.

Just a Hobby wrote:
I'm not a PS user. Not to get on a high horse, but I don't like the cost;

I absolutely LOVE Capture One; it goes way beyond Aperture.

You don't like the cost of PS but purchased a $300 piece of software and opine about software that costs literally half as much not being as good.

Really?    lightroom is meant for managing large shoots, not mainly retouching.   CO is meant for retouching, with everything else on the side.

Complaining about PS being expensive, then spending twice as much as lightroom for a 'better product', is contradictory, at best.