4 ms·

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 y

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.
  - Etheryte 2y ago
    The only one who is confused here is you. You're trying to make it sound like this is somehow a big issue or a dealbreaker, when in fact pretty much no one who does actual work with these programs cares. You can hate on one application or another, I couldn't care less, but your whole argument is frankly ridiculous.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > The only one who is confused here is you. You're trying to make it sound like this is somehow a big issue or a dealbreaker, when in fact pretty much no one who does actual work with these programs cares Seriously? You don't feel it's ridiculous to say this when just above I posted links to people begging for this feature on the forums since at least 2017? > You can hate on one application or another I'm not hating on it - if I hated Affinity I wouldn't even be wasting my time to point it out. I love Affinity and want it to succeed, hence all this.
      - Etheryte 2y ago
        A loud minority requesting a feature doesn't mean it's a deal-breaker for other users. Clearly the company behind the product agrees, otherwise they would've implemented it.
        dataflow 2y ago
        > A loud minority requesting a feature First, thanks for acknowledging that it's not "just me". That kind of nonsensical hyperbole doesn't help the discussion. Second: You have no idea if it's a minority of the market that actually wants this. The majority of users obviously use Adobe, that should tell you more than how many people are voicing their opinions in a forum. Not every user goes out of their way to re-request a feature that's already been requested years ago. > doesn't mean it's a deal-breaker for other users. Nobody said it's a deal breaker for "other users". > Clearly the company behind the product agrees, otherwise they would've implemented it. Because there's no other possible reason we could fathom as to why they wouldn't have implemented this already, right?

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.
- Etheryte 2y ago
  The only one who is confused here is you. You're trying to make it sound like this is somehow a big issue or a dealbreaker, when in fact pretty much no one who does actual work with these programs cares. You can hate on one application or another, I couldn't care less, but your whole argument is frankly ridiculous.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > The only one who is confused here is you. You're trying to make it sound like this is somehow a big issue or a dealbreaker, when in fact pretty much no one who does actual work with these programs cares Seriously? You don't feel it's ridiculous to say this when just above I posted links to people begging for this feature on the forums since at least 2017? > You can hate on one application or another I'm not hating on it - if I hated Affinity I wouldn't even be wasting my time to point it out. I love Affinity and want it to succeed, hence all this.
    - Etheryte 2y ago
      A loud minority requesting a feature doesn't mean it's a deal-breaker for other users. Clearly the company behind the product agrees, otherwise they would've implemented it.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        > A loud minority requesting a feature First, thanks for acknowledging that it's not "just me". That kind of nonsensical hyperbole doesn't help the discussion. Second: You have no idea if it's a minority of the market that actually wants this. The majority of users obviously use Adobe, that should tell you more than how many people are voicing their opinions in a forum. Not every user goes out of their way to re-request a feature that's already been requested years ago. > doesn't mean it's a deal-breaker for other users. Nobody said it's a deal breaker for "other users". > Clearly the company behind the product agrees, otherwise they would've implemented it. Because there's no other possible reason we could fathom as to why they wouldn't have implemented this already, right?