Adobe giving up on PSD format?

j wrote:
> "KatWoman" <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154804525.853969.249390@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >tedmSPAM-NOT@pobox.com 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............
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

"KatWoman" <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX DeleteThis @hotmail.com> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

>> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

"Barry Pearson" <news.RemoveThis@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154814744.368463.90010@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>j wrote:
>> "KatWoman" <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

"Barry Pearson" <news DeleteThis @childsupportanalysis.co.uk> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

j wrote:
> "Barry Pearson" <news RemoveThis @childsupportanalysis.co.uk> 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

John.DeleteThis@world.com 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:01:02 -0400, "KatWoman"
<JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Barry Pearson" <news.DeleteThis@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1154814744.368463.90010@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>j wrote:
>>> "KatWoman" <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

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


<John RemoveThis @world.com> wrote in message
news:kq8bd2t4ac2h5nfin9i8drq5kohltfbl3i@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:01:02 -0400, "KatWoman"
> <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Barry Pearson" <news RemoveThis @childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1154814744.368463.90010@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>j wrote:
>>>> "KatWoman" <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX RemoveThis @hotmail.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

In article <u7g9d2d6e24am66pqgpcq0i0utjf4r2p3k.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
<tedmSPAM-NOT.RemoveThis@pobox.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

John DeleteThis @world.com 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?
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format? 

Kingdom wrote:
> "KatWoman" <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:ty8Bg.12244$WM.4083@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
>>>
>>> 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."
 >> Stay informed about: Adobe giving up on PSD format?