Adobe giving up on PSD format?

wrote:
I read on some other post somewhere that Adobe will be giving up on the PSD format, suggesting to use TIF, although PSD will be available for some time it its programs.

Any truth to this? Thanks.

—
Ted

Sadly it’s true, but they are offering a PSD to DNG converter so all your files can still be read in the future.

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

wrote:
I read on some other post somewhere that Adobe will be giving up on the PSD format, suggesting to use TIF, although PSD will be available for some time it its programs.

Any truth to this? Thanks.

—
Ted

Sadly it’s true, but they are offering a PSD to DNG converter so all your files can still be read in the future.

Bill

will that retain the info layer by layer?
or makes all your psd’s flat?
they better include a psd to layered tiff script in the version they introduce that.
I wish hecate was here for this discussion…
then when they trash DNG format…………

"KatWoman" wrote

will that retain the info layer by layer?

DNG supports layers and all kinds of extra data. It’s similar to TIFF, in fact at first glance it looks like an extended TIFF standard.

But I really don’t know if Adobe is dropping PSD.

j wrote:

"KatWoman" wrote

will that retain the info layer by layer?

DNG supports layers and all kinds of extra data. It’s similar to TIFF, in fact at first glance it looks like an extended TIFF standard.

[snip]

DNG does NOT support layers! (Not on the current version). But it is indeed based on TIFF, and it supports XMP metadata.

DNG will be used by a new breed of photograph processors, such as Lightroom, that use "metadata editing" rather than "pixel rendering". In future, fewer photographers will think in terms of layers.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message

j wrote:

"KatWoman" wrote

will that retain the info layer by layer?

DNG supports layers and all kinds of extra data. It’s similar to TIFF, in fact at first glance it looks like an extended TIFF standard.

[snip]

DNG does NOT support layers! (Not on the current version). But it is indeed based on TIFF, and it supports XMP metadata.

DNG will be used by a new breed of photograph processors, such as Lightroom, that use "metadata editing" rather than "pixel rendering". In future, fewer photographers will think in terms of layers.
—
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

such as
Lightroom,
yeah something expensive that you have to buy from Adobe what a coincidence

Sadly it’s true, but they are offering a PSD to DNG converter so all your files can still be read in the future.

KatWoman wrote:

will that retain the info layer by layer?

Absolutely … layers, adjustment layers, layer styles … all in one handy universal DNG format …

or makes all your psd’s flat?

You could choose that option too …

I wish hecate was here for this discussion…
then when they trash DNG format…………

Naah, she would probably recognize when someone was poking fun at the DNG dongs and realize this was all in jest 🙂

Bill

"Barry Pearson" wrote:

DNG does NOT support layers! (Not on the current version). But it is indeed based on TIFF, and it supports XMP metadata.

Thanks for that, Barry. TIFF supports layers, so I thought that DNG would, too.

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:01:02 -0400, "KatWoman"
wrote:

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message

j wrote:

"KatWoman" wrote

will that retain the info layer by layer?

DNG supports layers and all kinds of extra data. It’s similar to TIFF, in fact at first glance it looks like an extended TIFF standard.

[snip]

DNG does NOT support layers! (Not on the current version). But it is indeed based on TIFF, and it supports XMP metadata.

DNG will be used by a new breed of photograph processors, such as Lightroom, that use "metadata editing" rather than "pixel rendering". In future, fewer photographers will think in terms of layers.
—
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

such as
Lightroom,
yeah something expensive that you have to buy from Adobe what a coincidence

That is only to be expected. Basically Adobe has a limited range of products. The only way they can survive is by selling an upgraded version to the same people who have the previous version. Perhaps they have decided that PS in its current form cannot be upgraded sufficiently for most of the end users to justify the cost of the next version. In that case they have a much reduced revenue stream and so a new file format that almost forces people to buy the next upgrade is their best way forward.

John

j wrote:

"Barry Pearson" wrote:

DNG does NOT support layers! (Not on the current version). But it is indeed based on TIFF, and it supports XMP metadata.

Thanks for that, Barry. TIFF supports layers, so I thought that DNG would, too.

It is worth noting that DNG comes in 2 "flavours": call them Raw DNG and Linear DNG.

Raw DNG, (the default, and typically what people mean when they say "DNG"), holds raw image data. It is a "common raw file format".

Linear DNG holds demosaiced image data. But … there is little difference between "demosaiced" and "never mosaiced". Lightroom can open a TIFF or a JPEG and save it as Linear DNG. And, of course, TIFFs and JPEGs don’t even have to have come from a camera. So products, such as ACR, Lightroom,Silkypix, etc, that support Linear DNG may be handling data that didn’t come from a camera!
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/linear.htm

I have been waiting for someone, Adobe or someone else, to provide a "file format" plugin for Photoshop that would enable "any" (?) image open in Photoshop to be saved as Linear DNG. There would be restrictions, and it might be like some of the other "save as" options, with a dialogue about what to do to save it. ("Flatten layers?" Etc).

I am not ruling out the possibility that Linear DNG could be extended to support layers. Perhaps it would "simply" mean being able to hold lots of "Main image" IFDs, allowing extra "Samples per pixel" for a layer mask and alpha channels, and some extra tags for layer adjustments. (I’m sure that is over-simplified! I don’t actually know how TIFF supports layers).

All I am saying is that this is not in the current DNG specification version. But, as you say, it is based on TIFF, so copying features from TIFF into the specification may be "easy" to do. At the moment, if you open even a Linear DNG file in Photoshop, it invoked the ACR plugin, and treats it like a raw file, and ACR doesn’t support layers. But these are hardly beyond Adobe’s abilities to resolve if they have cause to.

I hope to be surprised with what can be done with DNG in CS3! But Adobe needs to pursue "metadata editing" fast because Aperture, NX, LightZone, and others are doing so. I doubt if they would let "pixel rendering" developments interfere with that.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/

wrote:
[snip]

In that case they have a much reduced revenue stream and so a new file format that almost forces people to buy the next upgrade is their best way forward.

Who would buy an upgrade that didn’t support all their images accumulated over the years?

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/

wrote:

In that case they have a much reduced revenue stream and so a new file format that almost forces people to buy the next upgrade is their best way forward.

The only thing worse than cynicism is simple-minded cynicism.

Adobe’s adoption/creation of the public DNG standard would mean that any competent vendor could presume a reliable, accessible file they could read and write. How does that add profitability to Adobe using DNG?

I think that is bull. Photoshop is far from perfect. There are a lot of things Adobe can do to make upgrades worth while. For example…

1. Ability to save history with your image.
2. Expanded Actions with if/then statements, password security for code and editing of the actions, etc.
3. Improved panorama stitching. This needs lots of work.
4. Turn most of the filters and image adjustment controls in to adjustment
layers, like sharpen, smart sharpen, highlight and shadow, etc.
5. Improved HDR support.
6. Improved curves command.
7. Improve the filter effects filters. Bigger previews, more options and controls for some of them.
8. Better and more advanced sharpening.
9. Way better and more advanced noise reduction and removal. 10. More photographic filters.
11. Grain simulation engine for creating film grains on your images. 12. Black and White conversion and lab for creating better black and white images.
13. Cross processing and other darkroom techniques lab.

These are just some of the things that I would like to see added that would make an upgrade well worth while. I am sure there are tons of others form other users.

I think the problem is that a lot of these things would require if not a total re-write at least a major re-write of the Photoshop engine and Adobe and their programmers just aren’t up to. They aren’t the lean mean programming machine they used to be in the days of old when they were a smaller company. Now they are bloated, slow and fat.

R

wrote in message

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:01:02 -0400, "KatWoman"
wrote:

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message

j wrote:

"KatWoman" wrote

will that retain the info layer by layer?

DNG supports layers and all kinds of extra data. It’s similar to TIFF, in
fact at first glance it looks like an extended TIFF standard.

[snip]

DNG does NOT support layers! (Not on the current version). But it is indeed based on TIFF, and it supports XMP metadata.

DNG will be used by a new breed of photograph processors, such as Lightroom, that use "metadata editing" rather than "pixel rendering". In future, fewer photographers will think in terms of layers.
—
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

such as
Lightroom,
yeah something expensive that you have to buy from Adobe what a coincidence

That is only to be expected. Basically Adobe has a limited range of products. The only way they can survive is by selling an upgraded version to the same people who have the previous version. Perhaps they have decided that PS in its current form cannot be upgraded sufficiently for most of the end users to justify the cost of the next version. In that case they have a much reduced revenue stream and so a new file format that almost forces people to buy the next upgrade is their best way forward.

John

In article ,
wrote:

I read on some other post somewhere that Adobe will be giving up on the PSD format, suggesting to use TIF, although PSD will be available for some time it its programs.

Any truth to this? Thanks.

Not sure where you saw this (references would be helpful so we could post a correction) but we (Adobe) have never stated any plans to drop the PSD file format.

TIFF can store almost all the same information as can a PSD file, including layers, and can be a good alternative. That does not mean it will be replacing PSD.

Marc Pawliger
Sr. Engineering Direction
Adobe Systems

"KatWoman" wrote in
news:ty8Bg.12244$:

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message

j wrote:

"KatWoman" wrote

will that retain the info layer by layer?

DNG supports layers and all kinds of extra data. It’s similar to TIFF, in fact at first glance it looks like an extended TIFF standard.

[snip]

DNG does NOT support layers! (Not on the current version). But it is indeed based on TIFF, and it supports XMP metadata.

DNG will be used by a new breed of photograph processors, such as Lightroom, that use "metadata editing" rather than "pixel rendering". In future, fewer photographers will think in terms of layers.
—
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

such as
Lightroom,
yeah something expensive that you have to buy from Adobe what a coincidence

Hmmm a bit like the music industrie – They sold us 78’s, they sold us 33’s, they sold us 45’s, they sold us EP’s, they sold us 8 tracks, they sold us cassettes, they sold us video, they sold us CD’s and were currently buying it all again in DVD!!!

—
———————————————————— ———— Learning is not attained by chance, it must be sought for with ardor and attended to with diligence.
———————————————————— ————

Kingdom wrote:

"KatWoman" wrote in
news:ty8Bg.12244$:

DNG does NOT support layers! (Not on the current version). But it is indeed based on TIFF, and it supports XMP metadata.

DNG will be used by a new breed of photograph processors, such as Lightroom, that use "metadata editing" rather than "pixel rendering". In future, fewer photographers will think in terms of layers.

Hmmm a bit like the music industrie – They sold us 78’s, they sold us 33’s, they sold us 45’s, they sold us EP’s, they sold us 8 tracks, they sold us cassettes, they sold us video, they sold us CD’s and were currently buying it all again in DVD!!!

Unless one is waiting for HD DVD’s……

—
john mcwilliams

Two vultures board an airplane, each carrying two dead raccoons. The flight attendant looks at them and says, "I’m sorry, gentlemen, only one carrion allowed per passenger."

In article , bhilton
says…

wrote:
I read on some other post somewhere that Adobe will be giving up on the PSD format, suggesting to use TIF, although PSD will be available for some time it its programs.

Any truth to this? Thanks.

—
Ted

Sadly it’s true, but they are offering a PSD to DNG converter so all your files can still be read in the future.

Bill

Stop it! You guys are breaking my heart. Being the "old-fart" in these NG’s, I really like doing things the way I’ve done them for years, and many generations of PS. OTOH, I once learned to love Layers, when they were introduced – same for Adjustment Layers, etc. Maybe the new scheme will improve things, but I’ll have to wait for the shakedown cruise.

Anyway, this is a good reason to leave an older copy of PS on one’s machine ( something that I always do, but for quick interface work with a tight deadline). Guess I’d better see that I have a good set of DVD backups of CS2 so I can still pull up my old PSDs years from now.

Thanks for the insight, even if I consider this to be bad news, at least on the surface NOW.

Hunt

In article <060820061141147362% says…

In article ,
wrote:

I read on some other post somewhere that Adobe will be giving up on the PSD format, suggesting to use TIF, although PSD will be available for some time it its programs.

Any truth to this? Thanks.

Not sure where you saw this (references would be helpful so we could post a correction) but we (Adobe) have never stated any plans to drop the PSD file format.

TIFF can store almost all the same information as can a PSD file, including layers, and can be a good alternative. That does not mean it will be replacing PSD.

Marc Pawliger
Sr. Engineering Direction
Adobe Systems

Marc, thanks for the clarification. You just made one old guy’s morning! Not that I have a problem with a better file format, than PSD, it’s just that some of us have many years worth (in my case thousands) of PSDs. Clients also have a way of making us ressurect a project that went to print in the 90’s and we thought was long gone.

Hunt

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article <060820061141147362%
says…

In article ,
wrote:

I read on some other post somewhere that Adobe will be giving up on the PSD format, suggesting to use TIF, although PSD will be available for some time it its programs.

Any truth to this? Thanks.

Not sure where you saw this (references would be helpful so we could post a correction) but we (Adobe) have never stated any plans to drop the PSD file format.

TIFF can store almost all the same information as can a PSD file, including layers, and can be a good alternative. That does not mean it will be replacing PSD.

Marc Pawliger
Sr. Engineering Direction
Adobe Systems

Marc, thanks for the clarification. You just made one old guy’s morning! Not
that I have a problem with a better file format, than PSD, it’s just that some
of us have many years worth (in my case thousands) of PSDs. Clients also have
a way of making us ressurect a project that went to print in the 90’s and we
thought was long gone.

Hunt

whew!!
me too
I even ranted about it!!
thanks for that info
😉

Hunt wrote:

In article <060820061141147362% says…

In article ,
wrote:

I read on some other post somewhere that Adobe will be giving up on the PSD format, suggesting to use TIF, although PSD will be available for some time it its programs.

Any truth to this? Thanks.

Not sure where you saw this (references would be helpful so we could post a correction) but we (Adobe) have never stated any plans to drop the PSD file format.

TIFF can store almost all the same information as can a PSD file, including layers, and can be a good alternative. That does not mean it will be replacing PSD.

Marc Pawliger
Sr. Engineering Direction
Adobe Systems

Marc, thanks for the clarification. You just made one old guy’s morning! Not that I have a problem with a better file format, than PSD, it’s just that some of us have many years worth (in my case thousands) of PSDs. Clients also have a way of making us ressurect a project that went to print in the 90’s and we thought was long gone.

"Old guys" should have learned by now that along with data must be preserved a version of software that can read it. Which means you also have to have the operating system to run that version of the software. Which means that you must have the hardware to run that version of the operating system. And the personnel with the corresponding skills to start, operate and troubleshoot and repair this legacy configuration. And so on – all contrary to the "profit by waste" computer industry methodology. Ask NASA about their Viking data tapes… or the backups you made in the 80s. Can you read the media (DAT, Zip, Jaz, MO, Jasmine, Syquest 44/88/200, etc, etc)? The data? Do you even remember which program wrote the backups?

Hunt

In article ,
says…

Hunt wrote:

In article <060820061141147362% says

….

In article ,
wrote:

I read on some other post somewhere that Adobe will be giving up on the PSD format, suggesting to use TIF, although PSD will be available for some time it its programs.

Any truth to this? Thanks.

Not sure where you saw this (references would be helpful so we could post a correction) but we (Adobe) have never stated any plans to drop the PSD file format.

TIFF can store almost all the same information as can a PSD file, including layers, and can be a good alternative. That does not mean it will be replacing PSD.

Marc Pawliger
Sr. Engineering Direction
Adobe Systems

Marc, thanks for the clarification. You just made one old guy’s morning!

Not

that I have a problem with a better file format, than PSD, it’s just that

some

of us have many years worth (in my case thousands) of PSDs. Clients also

have

a way of making us ressurect a project that went to print in the 90’s and

we

thought was long gone.

"Old guys" should have learned by now that along with data must be preserved a version of software that can read it. Which means you also have to have the operating system to run that version of the software. Which means that you must have the hardware to run that version of the operating system. And the personnel with the corresponding skills to start, operate and troubleshoot and repair this legacy configuration. And so on – all contrary to the "profit by waste" computer industry methodology. Ask NASA about their Viking data tapes… or the backups you made in the 80s. Can you read the media (DAT, Zip, Jaz, MO, Jasmine, Syquest 44/88/200, etc, etc)? The data? Do you even remember which program wrote the backups?

I agree completely. That is why I have two old machines (and one new one with an odd configuration: 512MB RAM and WinME) to read my old tapes, JAZ, Syquest from 44 up through SyJet, and even a 5.25 floppy. Everyone wants me "donate" this old gear, but I use one, or the other, about once/mo.

I’ve even kept PS v4, for one particular task for one client.

Yeah, my machine builder wences, when I walk in, but I have maintained a line of legacy gear – now, if I could just remember what BU program I used for those old QC-80 tapes?!?!? <G>

Hunt

"toby" wrote in message

"Old guys" should have learned by now that along with data must be preserved a version of software that can read it. Which means you also have to have the operating system to run that version of the software. Which means that you must have the hardware […]

That’s a half-truth. I can read many, many formats using programs other than the one that created it. It’s called data conversion. Been doing it for thirty years.

Now, squeezing that 8" floppy into the machine… that’s a different story. 🙂 (But I can still read old PDP tapes from the Seventies!)

John wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

"Old guys" should have learned by now that along with data must be preserved a version of software that can read it. Which means you also have to have the operating system to run that version of the software. Which means that you must have the hardware […]

That’s a half-truth. I can read many, many formats using programs other than the one that created it. It’s called data conversion. Been doing it for thirty years.

And it works much better with open/documented formats* rather than proprietary ones like PSD. Even if you can get your hands on complete and comprehensible documentation for it, I don’t fancy rewriting Photoshop’s compositing engine, do you? (Don’t forget text, vector, adjustment, effect layers…)

Now, squeezing that 8" floppy into the machine… that’s a different story. 🙂 (But I can still read old PDP tapes from the Seventies!)

–T
(who also owns PDPs and has written a PSD raster extractor, http://telegraphics.com.au/sw/#psdparse)

* This applies equally to the application software (and O/S), of course. To quote Philip Greenspun, "If you don’t have the source code, you are probably going to be screwed in the long run."

"toby" wrote in message

[…] I don’t fancy rewriting
Photoshop’s compositing engine, do you? (Don’t forget text, vector, adjustment, effect layers…)

I’d do it for a lot of money… from Adobe. 🙂

"toby" wrote in message

–T
(who also owns PDPs and has written a PSD raster extractor, http://telegraphics.com.au/sw/#psdparse)

Me Gosh! Well, I left DEC a long time ago. Had a VAX 11/730 in my home study. But I’m better now.

John wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

–T
(who also owns PDPs and has written a PSD raster extractor, http://telegraphics.com.au/sw/#psdparse)

Me Gosh! Well, I left DEC a long time ago. Had a VAX 11/730 in my home study. But I’m better now.

My 11/750 is my pride and joy and a future restoration project.

Kingdom wrote:

Hmmm a bit like the music industrie – They sold us 78’s, they sold us 33’s, they sold us 45’s, they sold us EP’s, they sold us 8 tracks, they sold us cassettes, they sold us video, they sold us CD’s and were currently buying it all again in DVD!!!

Would you rather go back to the 45’s?

When the 45 was developed, the laser hadn’t been invented yet.

-Raf

—
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com