![]() Unfortunately Apple stopped supporting it and moved lots of people to Photos (which I happen to love and it has gotten much better at post processing over the years - especially with additional programs working as extensions) because of it's integration with all the Apple products. When I moved from Windows/Lightroom to a Mac I loved Aperture. (Whew - thanks for reading a little of my background.) One also takes part in statewide (NJ Federation of Camera Clubs) and national (Photographic Society of America) competitions. All these clubs have meetings where photos are submitted and a local photographer is brought in as a judge. (And yes I do remember film - mind not that far gone yet.) I recently retired and we moved to a community that has a photography club and there are several others nearby that I wish to get active in. But Generally speaking it seems that Adobe Photoshop and Pixelmator Pro generate the goods at a reasonable speed while Affinity Photo 2 is trailing behind both of them.I am not a professional photographer but enjoying photography very enthusiastically for over 50 years now. For some tricky images you probably want to test each program as one program can generate complete garbage when another creates an almost perfect solution. Each program created their own quirky artifacts and different runs of the content aware fill will generate different results. Output - Mostly Blue Sky Adobe Photoshop Affinity Photo 2 Pixelmator Pro Output - Gray Cloudy Sky Adobe Photoshop Affinity Photo 2 Pixelmator Pro Output - Gray Cloudy Sky Adobe Photoshop Affinity Photo 2 Pixelmator Pro SummaryĪll of the tested images/programs did a decent job with filling in the holes, although none is really perfect out of the box and some more corrections need to be applied after the initial filling. With taking 30 seconds and more for some of the images this is clearly disruptive and a major disadvantage. Affinity Photo 2 is clearly playing in a different league (but not in a good way). Pixelmator Pro is not too bad either with only a few seconds behind the Photoshop. Not only is faster than the other programs it is also consistent across different images. Here are the measured results in seconds:Īs can be seen from those numbers Adobe Photshop is the clear winner when it comes to performance. ![]() Export results as 3000px by 3000px at 70% Jpegįor the timing results I measure the wall clock time between the to moment I started the fill operation to the moment the operation had been completed and the hole was filled on the screen.Increase selection slightly to cover some of the sky (unfortunately there is no uniform way to adjust the selection across the different programs).My approach on evaluating the different approaches was to execute each of the following steps for each programm and sample inputs: Represent the most common skys I usually encounter: The images are the top cube of different merged panoramas (they are also show in the cover image). Adobe Photoshop (I used the content aware fill method and not the new content aware will as that on is harder to time and much much slower and seems to result in worse output in my experience)įor my testing.In this article I will compare the different content aware implementations of these popular photo editing solutions: There are several ways to fix those issues. One issue, especially with drone shots, is that there are some blind spots which cause the final image to have holes. ![]() I recently got into 360 degree photography. ![]() Pixelmator Pro Photoshop Affinity Photo 2 Comparing Content Aware Fill Implementations
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |