Canva Affinity vs Photoshop

[myotis]

This video runs through some differences between Affinity 3 and Photoshop; almost entirely the differences in AI capability. May be useful to someone on the edge of a move to Affinity.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogegeJhBRng

 

[Sangoma]

Interesting, as you say, mainly in the ai areas.
If you use Affinity properly, you don't have the selection problems he pointed out, but the selection is not as good as what was shown with Photoshop.

However, it does all that I need, and some things better (somebody mentioned the other day that Affinity's stacking was better)


If you have a subscription to Photoshop for a year, and don't buy a subscription for the following year, does the photoshop installed on your machine still work?

 

[myotis]

Interesting, as you say, mainly in the ai areas.
If you use Affinity properly, you don't have the selection problems he pointed out, but the selection is not as good as what was shown with Photoshop.

However, it does all that I need, and some things better (somebody mentioned the other day that Affinity's stacking was better)


If you have a subscription to Photoshop for a year, and don't buy a subscription for the following year, does the photoshop installed on your machine still work?

For the vast majority of uses, I doubt if either is better or worse, and it's easy to find things where Affinity is arguably better. Indeed, the same presenter (I think) produced a Video showing all the things in Affinity that Photoshop could learn from.

I suspect, but don't know, that PS will die once the subscription runs out. Bridge is free anyway, and it's the cataloguing part of LR that continues after the subscription lapses. You can no longer edit anything, and as PS/ACR is all about editing, I can't see any reason Adobe should continue to let you use them.

 

[Sangoma]

For the vast majority of uses, I doubt if either is better or worse, and it's easy to find things where Affinity is arguably better. Indeed, the same presenter (I think) produced a Video showing all the things in Affinity that Photoshop could learn from.

I suspect, but don't know, that PS will die once the subscription runs out. Bridge is free anyway, and it's the cataloguing part of LR that continues after the subscription lapses. You can no longer edit anything, and as PS/ACR is all about editing, I can't see any reason Adobe should continue to let you use them.

I agree, that is what I suspected.

Once you use it and like it, you are trapped

That is why they make student licences free, to catch them in their web (M$ do the same/similar)

I don't think that Affinity is a copy of PhotoShop, they all look similar, obviously, if anything Affinity is closer to Corel, they way things work is quite similar.
I started using CorelDraw in 89/90 for typesetting and layout (wasn't called DTP yet), even did 4 colour separations on a 486 (took more than an hour ) Everyone else was using Pagemaker on Apple. PC worked and s did the job, and we had to send out very little.

Another huge advantage (to me) is having Affinity Design and Publisher integrated so well

In a way, they are serving two different markets, and I think for the majority, Affinity will do all they need.

 

[cuthbert]

Without question, Photoshop has a lot more tools, but I think Affinity is good enough for a lot of use cases.

Many of the healing and removal tools are neat, but they’re also just quick fixes for bad photos in the first place.

I use my fair share of AI assisted masking in CaptureOne, but removing chunks of reality and using AI to expand and reframe images… I’m wondering at what point it’s even photography any more.

 

[myotis]

I agree, that is what I suspected.

Once you use it and like it, you are trapped

That is why they make student licences free, to catch them in their web (M$ do the same/similar)

I don't think that Affinity is a copy of PhotoShop, they all look similar, obviously, if anything Affinity is closer to Corel, they way things work is quite similar.
I started using CorelDraw in 89/90 for typesetting and layout (wasn't called DTP yet), even did 4 colour separations on a 486 (took more than an hour ) Everyone else was using Pagemaker on Apple. PC worked and s did the job, and we had to send out very little.

Another huge advantage (to me) is having Affinity Design and Publisher integrated so well

In a way, they are serving two different markets, and I think for the majority, Affinity will do all they need.

Although, I eventually bought Corel Ventura, I associate Serif with low cost DTP, as this was my first encounter with Serif.

Affinity was aimed as a competitor to the Adobe Photoshop/Indesign/Illustrator package, and that's why I bought it, even though it wasn't complete when I first bought into it. I'm happy to pay for Photoshop, but for the very occasional use I make of the other programs, it makes no sense to pay for the complete Adobe suite.

As regards the student license fee catching them when they are young, it's more to do with Adobe (and Capture One) being industry standards. If you are teaching students to go into the photographic workplace (as an assistant or a digitech) then employers expect students to come with Photoshop skills.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

My major complaint with affinity so far is you have to keep logging in, clicking links to even use it. No internet= no affinity. And thats a free product so what the f*** are they guarding so hard?

 

[Sangoma]

Although, I eventually bought Corel Ventura, I associate Serif with low cost DTP, as this was my first encounter with Serif.

Affinity was aimed as a competitor to the Adobe Photoshop/Indesign/Illustrator package, and that's why I bought it, even though it wasn't complete when I first bought into it. I'm happy to pay for Photoshop, but for the very occasional use I make of the other programs, it makes no sense to pay for the complete Adobe suite.

As regards the student license fee catching them when they are young, it's more to do with Adobe (and Capture One) being industry standards. If you are teaching students to go into the photographic workplace (as an assistant or a digitech) then employers expect students to come with Photoshop skills.

Ventura was an interesting addition to Corel. Ventura had been the standard used by newspapers etc for quite a while. Corel also bought Word Perfect around the same time, and incorporated a lot of Ventura features into Word Perfect. That was around the time that people started to use PCs more as opposed to expensive Sun boxes. At the time, MS Word looked very primitive in comparison. I think as CorelDraw developed, and more Ventura capabilities were added to it, Ventura became redundant. They sold Word Perfect to Novell if I remember correctly.

Yes, I realise the reason why students use Adobe, my daughter ha told me often enough, though she used another programme (can't remember the name) for her degree work, she did become familiar with Adobe for that reason.

 

[Sangoma]

Mine works fine without internet, as does Photo 2 and Designer 2 and Publisher 2.

Did verify the licence online first.

 

[myotis]

Ventura was an interesting addition to Corel. Ventura had been the standard used by newspapers etc for quite a while. Corel also bought Word Perfect around the same time, and incorporated a lot of Ventura features into Word Perfect. That was around the time that people started to use PCs more as opposed to expensive Sun boxes. At the time, MS Word looked very primitive in comparison. I think as CorelDraw developed, and more Ventura capabilities were added to it, Ventura became redundant. They sold Word Perfect to Novell if I remember correctly.

Yes, I realise the reason why students use Adobe, my daughter ha told me often enough, though she used another programme (can't remember the name) for her degree work, she did become familiar with Adobe for that reason.

Worperfect is still on the Corel website:

WordPerfect Office | Free Trial

See why WordPerfect Office is a legendary leader in office suites! Whether you're a student or professional, if you want true office suite power, WordPerfect Office has an option for you at the price you need. Try it free today.

www.wordperfect.com

I by far preferred it to MSWord

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Mine works fine without internet, as does Photo 2 and Designer 2 and Publisher 2.

Did verify the licence online first.

3x now. I am not using it daily (no need - this is more of an illustrator / acrobat replacement) and I am not always plugged in . It obviously likes to CALL BACK A LOT! Other than a few £ per month not sure how this is better than adobe

 

[LCPete]

I haven’t moved to the new affinity yet am still using affinity 2 it does all I need and to be honest can’t be bothered to relearn the new version
As already said Affinity is better than photoshop for macro image stacking which is one of the things that I do most

 

[saltireblue]

I haven’t moved to the new affinity yet am still using affinity 2 it does all I need and to be honest can’t be bothered to relearn the new version
As already said Affinity is better than photoshop for macro image stacking which is one of the things that I do most

Same reason I have not 'upgraded/updated'

 

[mstphoto]

I tried Affinity and have to say it's not bad.
A bit of a learning curve as is always the case when trying new software packages.

At the end of the day though, I'll be sticking with Adobe LRc + Ps

 

[Dryce]

3x now. I am not using it daily (no need - this is more of an illustrator / acrobat replacement) and I am not always plugged in . It obviously likes to CALL BACK A LOT! Other than a few £ per month not sure how this is better than adobe

Using Adobe products can be quite difficult without internet .... we can't install and use their products on some of our work systems.

It was quite glitchy IME when they started the subscription setup even when you did have an internet connection.

OTOH I have had installation issues with Affinity on one of my systems where it seemed to glitch on browser interaction to get verification of the install.

 

[Dryce]

Without question, Photoshop has a lot more tools, but I think Affinity is good enough for a lot of use cases.

Photoshop is very powerful as a toolset - but at times it feels clunky and in need of a complete overhaul.

The PSD / PSB file sizes are obscene at times - and this does make a difference when sharing and keeping collections of work.

I use it but I don't really like it very much. The people I know who use it a lot seem to get locked into it as a mainstay or way of life -- and can't escape it -- and I suspect Adobe are as stuck because this customer base will be unhappy if there are major changes.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Using Adobe products can be quite difficult without internet .... we can't install and use their products on some of our work systems.

It was quite glitchy IME when they started the subscription setup even when you did have an internet connection.

OTOH I have had installation issues with Affinity on one of my systems where it seemed to glitch on browser interaction to get verification of the install.

It would be hard to argue with that. You can make it less intrusive by uninstalling one very obvious optional component (can't remember exact name).
I am just struggling to understand why Canva need to protect FREE software so hard....

The PSD / PSB file sizes are obscene at times - and this does make a difference when sharing and keeping collections of work.

a flattened PSD is actually pretty much the best case scenario for lossless image file. Try TIFF with less than optimal settings.... Multiple layers definitely bloat the size up very quickly.

 

[sirch]

Just watched the first few minutes, he does seem to "forget" that photoshop isn't free. In making comparisons he points out Affinity Free and Affinity Premium but never calls Photoshop "premium" or "paid" or "subscription"

 

[Pound Coin]

employers expect students to come with Photoshop skills.

This is sad, but true. Mixing up photo editing skills with the functions of a proprietary bit of software.

 

[myotis]

Just watched the first few minutes, he does seem to "forget" that photoshop isn't free. In making comparisons he points out Affinity Free and Affinity Premium but never calls Photoshop "premium" or "paid" or "subscription"

The written introduction's first line says "Is it really time to switch from Photoshop to Affinity just because it’s free?"

As there are free and paid-for versions of Affinity available, it seems important to distinguish between them, but as there is only a paid-for version of Photoshop, a qualifier seems rather pointless.

For me, the video usefully demonstrates the areas where Photoshop still does a better job than Affinity, which will help the viewer decide whether any of these advantages make Photoshop worth the money. I also found it particularly useful to compare PS with the Affinity paid-for features .

He concludes Affinity is "great software" for a hobbyist or when starting out, but if you intend making photography a career (where PS is the standard) or need to make "serious advanced edits" then you still need to learn Photoshop.

As an aside, and as I mentioned in another post, three years ago he did a video describing the things that he (as a professional retoucher) thought that Adobe needed to learn from Affinity

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmvvzPVVfFk

 

[myotis]

This is sad, but true. Mixing up photo editing skills with the functions of a proprietary bit of software.

But that isn't uncommon. If you want t be a professional statistician, for example, then you need to learn SAS, R and probably something like Python. That is besides all the 'statistical" skills needed. Or in business you need to learn Excel etc

 

[Dryce]

This is sad, but true. Mixing up photo editing skills with the functions of a proprietary bit of software.

Problem in part is that Photoshop sets up the approach that you would take to undertake some tasks because of its legacy.

So the way you develop your photo editing skills is based around that legacy.

My observation is that professional photographers choose Lightroom and Capture One. A proportion do their own retouch in Photoshop but many do not - they leave retouch to those skilled in post production.

Economics drives this.

Ironically if you are an amateur you can afford to spend time photo editing that a professional would not - because that amount of time would not be paid for.

 

[myotis]

Problem in part is that Photoshop sets up the approach that you would take to undertake some tasks because of its legacy.

So the way you develop your photo editing skills is based around that legacy.

My observation is that professional photographers choose Lightroom and Capture One. A proportion do their own retouch in Photoshop but many do not - they leave retouch to those skilled in post production.

Economics drives this.

Ironically if you are an amateur you can afford to spend time photo editing that a professional would not - because that amount of time would not be paid for.

Yes, that does seem to be the case. And even where the work is done, in-house, it's often by specialist retouchers.

But, as a photographer, you still need to know something about C1 and PS to successfully work with a retouching house, or a digitech on-site, and to know what is and isn't possible in PS.

In some of the retouching training videos I've watched where the retoucher is working for a "photographer" client, the client often has a high level of skill in PS and has handed over a processed image close to how they envisage the final result.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Problem in part is that Photoshop sets up the approach that you would take to undertake some tasks because of its legacy.

So the way you develop your photo editing skills is based around that legacy.

My observation is that professional photographers choose Lightroom and Capture One. A proportion do their own retouch in Photoshop but many do not - they leave retouch to those skilled in post production.

Economics drives this.

Ironically if you are an amateur you can afford to spend time photo editing that a professional would not - because that amount of time would not be paid for.

The key precept here is that outsourcing pro should really know from experience and expect exactly what can be done in retouching stage. With this knowledge, the transition between the shoot to edit to final result is smooth and seamless; everything just naturally falls in place instead of deep problem solving and trying to rescue a lacking output by throwing everything and kitchen sink at it.

Outsourcing basic, tedious, and time consuming work makes sense when time can be spent on more productive activities. Would I ever outsource a highly complex work for a key client or project where my reputation is on the line? - No chance.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Yes, that does seem to be the case. And even where the work is done, in-house, it's often by specialist retouchers.

But, as a photographer, you still need to know something about C1 and PS to successfully work with a retouching house, or a digitech on-site, and to know what is and isn't possible in PS.

In some of the retouching training videos I've watched where the retoucher is working for a "photographer" client, the client often has a high level of skill in PS and has handed over a processed image close to how they envisage the final result.

basically I am at a stage where I can't even leave a framer do work unsupervised. It is just easier to do it yourself in many cases

 

[Dryce]

Outsourcing basic, tedious, and time consuming work makes sense when time can be spent on more productive activities. Would I ever outsource a highly complex work for a key client or project where my reputation is on the line? - No chance.

There are photographers who do exactly what you say you wouldn't ever do. And that's because their skill is in the studio or on location and getting the most out of that and their subjects.

This isn't new. In the past photographers would have had their work printed and retouched / masked / manipulated in the darkroom by somebody who was expert in that.

There isn't a hard and fast rule. There are so many different ways of working.