3 ms·

Adobe vs Affinity: Is Photoshop better than Photo? Yes, but not by much. Is Illustrator better than Design? Yes, but not by much. Is there an annoying learni

Adobe vs Affinity: Is Photoshop better than Photo? Yes, but not by much. Is Illustrator better than Design? Yes, but not by much. Is there an annoying learning curve? Yes, but not by much. I've put the investment into becoming proficient in Affinity and there's no looking back for me. Adobe's pricing, feature roadmap, and general performance are not even close to being worth 10x the price. If Adobe's suite was 2x, I probably wouldn't have switched, but at this point they're just squeezing small creators like myself. And tbh now that I'm proficient with the Affinity UX, I doubt I'd switch back. It's really good! And in some ways, Affinity's tools can even be superior (performance, ui smoothness, and even how vector art works). If you're living with a pirated version of CS5 or 6, it's worth coming in from the cold and trying Affinity.

choppaface 2y ago
Is Adobe only 10x more expensive? Adobe is subscription-only so it seems to be only 10x for the first 5 years and then it’s indefinitely more expensive. Adobe’s customer support is also extremely poor. They ask you for detailed OS info when not only does Creative Cloud scrape that but so does their ad network.
DoneWithAllThat 2y ago
I use Designer almost daily and I’m stunned by how good it is. I have zero interest in ever going back to Illustrator. I’m sure there’s pro requirements that only Illustrator has but I’ve not encountered them. For the price it’s simply amazing.
dataflow 2y ago
> Is Photoshop better than Photo? Yes, but not by much. Everyone keeps repeating this meme every 2 months or so on HN and I have to keep coming back to point out that Affinity's lack of support for Photoshop's generated XMP sidecar files is on its own a dealbreaker for photographers that have those files. (Then as soon as I say this everyone here jumps to Affinity's defense. I'm not trying to attack Affinity or something. I'm just pointing out the reality users face is very different from the meme that goes around on HN. Defending Affinity all day long won't solve the problems users face.)
- Etheryte 2y ago
  I'm a hobbyist photographer and my dad's a professional. This is the first time I've ever heard of these files, so what do people use them for and why are they deal-breakers? As far as I've seen them work, professional photographers spend nearly all of their time in Lightroom, it's pretty rare to see someone reach for Photoshop.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    Do you shoot RAW? If you're not seeing them (AFAIK Lightroom uses them too) then you're either not shooting RAW, or you're probably not loading/postprocessing your camera's RAW files (CR2, ARW, etc.) directly -- perhaps you're converting them to DNGs first. The XMP files hold all the postprocessing information for those files, since Photoshop/Lightroom don't alter RAW files in-place. Note: Even if Photoshop/Lightroom did embed these in the RAW files, the problem of actually loading the embedded information would still be there for Affinity. So the point here isn't the file separation; the point is Affinity doesn't understand the postprocessing Photoshop has already done on the photo. The feature has been requested a lot; see for example https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/113871-use-lightroom-xmp-settings-for-raw-delopment/ https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/113871-use... and https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/45772-can-affinity-photo-read-xmp-files-created-by-adobe-camera-raw/&do=findComment&comment=228934 https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/45772-can-...
    - Etheryte 2y ago
      I think I see the confusion. If my google-fu is correct, modern Lightroom doesn't store this data in XMP files by default, but instead internally in the catalog (with a settings toggle if you want to use files instead). Lightroom Classic does use XMP files out of the box. So if you use modern Lightroom and never need to take the metadata out of the Adobe suite you wouldn't really run into this.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        > So if you use modern Lightroom and never need to take the metadata out of the Adobe suite you wouldn't really run into this. You're very confused, catalog vs. XMP (or classic vs. modern) is entirely irrelevant. Heck, the catalog is objectively worse. You're switching software and want to still be able to use the post-processing you've applied to your photos. Which Affinity can't do. It's irrelevant where or how that information was stored.
Daub 2y ago
In some areas affinity photo exeed PS. It's native support for EXRs is incredible. In PS, EXRs are opened once, following which they are vanilla PS files. In AP, the ability to access the full dynamic range of an EXR is preserved to a degree that PS cannot match. It is also possible to stack and combine masks, an idea which is pure science fiction for a PS user. color selection masks can also update if the colors of the rgb component is changed.
narrator 2y ago
More than a decade ago, Quarxpress got killed by Adobe InDesign because Quark treated their users like garbage and overpriced their software. Adobe should have learned that lesson.
drhelix 2y ago
Does affinity have anything resembling Lightroom? I really want to jump ship from adobe

choppaface 2y ago

Is Adobe only 10x more expensive? Adobe is subscription-only so it seems to be only 10x for the first 5 years and then it’s indefinitely more expensive. Adobe’s customer support is also extremely poor. They ask you for detailed OS info when not only does Creative Cloud scrape that but so does their ad network.

DoneWithAllThat 2y ago

I use Designer almost daily and I’m stunned by how good it is. I have zero interest in ever going back to Illustrator. I’m sure there’s pro requirements that only Illustrator has but I’ve not encountered them. For the price it’s simply amazing.

dataflow 2y ago

> Is Photoshop better than Photo? Yes, but not by much. Everyone keeps repeating this meme every 2 months or so on HN and I have to keep coming back to point out that Affinity's lack of support for Photoshop's generated XMP sidecar files is on its own a dealbreaker for photographers that have those files. (Then as soon as I say this everyone here jumps to Affinity's defense. I'm not trying to attack Affinity or something. I'm just pointing out the reality users face is very different from the meme that goes around on HN. Defending Affinity all day long won't solve the problems users face.)

Etheryte 2y ago
I'm a hobbyist photographer and my dad's a professional. This is the first time I've ever heard of these files, so what do people use them for and why are they deal-breakers? As far as I've seen them work, professional photographers spend nearly all of their time in Lightroom, it's pretty rare to see someone reach for Photoshop.
- dataflow 2y ago
  Do you shoot RAW? If you're not seeing them (AFAIK Lightroom uses them too) then you're either not shooting RAW, or you're probably not loading/postprocessing your camera's RAW files (CR2, ARW, etc.) directly -- perhaps you're converting them to DNGs first. The XMP files hold all the postprocessing information for those files, since Photoshop/Lightroom don't alter RAW files in-place. Note: Even if Photoshop/Lightroom did embed these in the RAW files, the problem of actually loading the embedded information would still be there for Affinity. So the point here isn't the file separation; the point is Affinity doesn't understand the postprocessing Photoshop has already done on the photo. The feature has been requested a lot; see for example https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/113871-use-lightroom-xmp-settings-for-raw-delopment/ https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/113871-use... and https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/45772-can-affinity-photo-read-xmp-files-created-by-adobe-camera-raw/&do=findComment&comment=228934 https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/45772-can-...
  - Etheryte 2y ago
    I think I see the confusion. If my google-fu is correct, modern Lightroom doesn't store this data in XMP files by default, but instead internally in the catalog (with a settings toggle if you want to use files instead). Lightroom Classic does use XMP files out of the box. So if you use modern Lightroom and never need to take the metadata out of the Adobe suite you wouldn't really run into this.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > So if you use modern Lightroom and never need to take the metadata out of the Adobe suite you wouldn't really run into this. You're very confused, catalog vs. XMP (or classic vs. modern) is entirely irrelevant. Heck, the catalog is objectively worse. You're switching software and want to still be able to use the post-processing you've applied to your photos. Which Affinity can't do. It's irrelevant where or how that information was stored.

Daub 2y ago

In some areas affinity photo exeed PS. It's native support for EXRs is incredible. In PS, EXRs are opened once, following which they are vanilla PS files. In AP, the ability to access the full dynamic range of an EXR is preserved to a degree that PS cannot match. It is also possible to stack and combine masks, an idea which is pure science fiction for a PS user. color selection masks can also update if the colors of the rgb component is changed.

narrator 2y ago

More than a decade ago, Quarxpress got killed by Adobe InDesign because Quark treated their users like garbage and overpriced their software. Adobe should have learned that lesson.

drhelix 2y ago

Does affinity have anything resembling Lightroom? I really want to jump ship from adobe