General issues and requests

[Nurz]

a tip. Maybe it helps you. You can create your own Context-Menu. You can activate it by pressing shift and right-click or by pressing the middle mouse button.

Thanks, one thing less to worry about!

For improved eps import, be sure to copy gsdll32.dll and gsdl64.dll to the HLP folder. Just installing Ghostscript will not have any effect. I can open most EPS files without problems, although I do encounter anti-aliasing issues on a regular basis (lines). I resolve this by rendering a high resolution non-anti-aliased bitmap version, and scaling it down to the required size. This method also gives me full control the down-sampling method, and results in higher quality bitmap versions. (Btw, I found Illustrator's exported bitmaps with save for web to be quite lacking in quality.)

Hey, that did the trick, thank you. Yet, for the sake of time, I hope handling will be improved without having to go through workarounds, I also see anomalies with gradients on some drawings. I see that AI can pass now, but for files without PDF compatibility a relevant warning appears all over the window, no image.

As for PSD support: PL actually offers very good PSD compatibility compared to most other applications. Groups are retained, most layer effects, the most common adjustment layers, ... But obviously it depends on the content and whether specific Photoshop functionality is used. Smart objects, for example, are of course unsupported.

I see what you mean, but I want to rely on the software not only for my files but for those I receive from people who work with Photoshop/Illustrator as well. And I want to produce compatible files for them, too. As a side note, Affinity Photo deals with smart objects (it essentially rasterizes the layer), maybe this would be a more realistic approach here?

Do not forget that PSD is a proprietary native file format, and should not be considered as an exchange file format.

That maybe true, but happens all the time. People often ask for and send artwork in PSD. And layered PDF is another format I couldn't open properly in Photoline.

Layered Tiff files were introduced by Adobe, and circumvent the 'official' Tiff standard. Avoid if you can - support is extremely spotty and confused in applications beyond Adobe. Although the latest version of PL does support the basic layers, Smart objects are again a PS feature, and should not be expected to function anywhere else.

Since Photoline creates them, I thought it would be feasible.

I see that work has been done on many levels, but things could be improved and issues ironed out. Nevertheless, Photoline is great, just not industry ready yet, in my opinion.

??? Not sure what you mean by that. PL can certainly edit DNG images. You then save the edited image as a TIFF, which is what you're trying to do by keeping the original DNG as an archival image.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, by directly I mean to perform all RAW edits like lens correction, highlight recovery and such, and save back to DNG. Much like how PS does. With DNG converter alone I don't have the edits, with Photoline I can't save them *directly*. Sorry for the confusion.

[Herbert123]

For improved eps import, be sure to copy gsdll32.dll and gsdl64.dll to the HLP folder. [...]

Hey, that did the trick, thank you. Yet, for the sake of time, I hope handling will be improved without having to go through workarounds, I also see anomalies with gradients on some drawings. I see that AI can pass now, but for files without PDF compatibility a relevant warning appears all over the window, no image.

It is not really a workaround, in my opinion. The PL devs are merely not allowed to include those files in the installation according to the GPL license of Ghostscript.

Photoshop, for example, cannot import multi-layered EXR files by default - an image format adopted as one of the standards in the effects and CG industry. An additional plugin is required (which costs money). File format support is a bit of a hit and miss affair in Photoshop as well - it depends on who you ask .

As for PSD support: PL actually offers very good PSD compatibility compared to most other applications. [...]

I see what you mean, but I want to rely on the software not only for my files but for those I receive from people who work with Photoshop/Illustrator as well. And I want to produce compatible files for them, too. As a side note, Affinity Photo deals with smart objects (it essentially rasterizes the layer), maybe this would be a more realistic approach here?

Photoshop includes many very specific features which cannot be supported by any other application but for Photoshop itself. The 3d and video support are two examples. So is the new artboard option in CC2015, and its new layer effects options. Or the smart objects with live effects. If PSD files are exchanged with users who do not work in Photoshop (or have to process those files in some way), those type of layers must be rasterized before sending them off to users who work in other applications that work with PSD files.

It also works the other way around: I have several astronomy related PSD files which are wider than the 300,000 pixels physical limit Photoshop allows for. I tried opening those in Photoshop, but Photoshop cops out with an error. Photoline opens those files without a hitch, so why is Photoshop refusing to open those files?

What I am trying to say here, is that when people start using PSD files as a general purpose exchange format, we as the users should be careful in how we prep those files before sending them over - especially so when we are aware that other people down the pipeline are working in other software than Photoshop. And newer versions of Photoshop write PSD files that may be wholly incompatible with older versions as well.

In a nutshell: rasterizing layers with Photoshop-specific functionality is the norm. We cannot (not should we) expect PSD files to open properly in other applications when those files include Photoshop-only features.

Do not forget that PSD is a proprietary native file format, and should not be considered as an exchange file format.

That maybe true, but happens all the time. People often ask for and send artwork in PSD. And layered PDF is another format I couldn't open properly in Photoline.

Yes, they do, and it is our responsibility to make certain those PSD files can be opened without issues (when alternative software is used by our clients, etc.). Only Photoshop supports all features when dealing with PSD files.

I do agree with you that support for multi-layered PDF would be awesome.

Layered Tiff files were introduced by Adobe, and circumvent the 'official' Tiff standard. Avoid if you can - support is extremely spotty and confused in applications beyond Adobe. Although the latest version of PL does support the basic layers, Smart objects are again a PS feature, and should not be expected to function anywhere else.

Since Photoline creates them, I thought it would be feasible.

That is strange, indeed. I thought PL would open at least multi-layered Tiff files - and I seem to recall that it used to support that?

I tested this, and the multi-layered tiff files Photoline writes are correctly opened in Photoline. But those files are not recognized by Photoshop CS6, and PH opens the background layer only. Vice versa, Photoshop layered tiff files open as a flattened file.

Odd. I will mention this in the beta forum.

On the other hand, Photoshop even saves smart objects, adjustment layers, and so on, in a Tiff file. That is just insane, in my opinion. It turns the Tiff format into a proprietary Photoshop-only format, which completely misses the mark of the Tiff specification.

Anyway, I always avoid multi-layered Tiff files, even when working in Photoshop. They are a real pain since many applications down the pipeline have no idea how to handle or interpret them.

I see that work has been done on many levels, but things could be improved and issues ironed out. Nevertheless, Photoline is great, just not industry ready yet, in my opinion.

By writing "industry ready", you mainly mean Adobe file support? Or are other features missing in your opinion? (Honest curiosity)

[Nurz]

In a nutshell: rasterizing layers with Photoshop-specific functionality is the norm. We cannot (not should we) expect PSD files to open properly in other applications when those files include Photoshop-only features.

Problem is Photoline doesn't even come to that point.

On the other hand, Photoshop even saves smart objects, adjustment layers, and so on, in a Tiff file. That is just insane, in my opinion. It turns the Tiff format into a proprietary Photoshop-only format, which completely misses the mark of the Tiff specification.

Haha! That insanity is one of my beloved features in PS. I don't have a single PSD in my disk because a ZIP-compressed TIFF saves me 30-60% of space, depending on the complexity of the image file.

By writing "industry ready", you mainly mean Adobe file support? Or are other features missing in your opinion? (Honest curiosity)

The truth is Adobe has planted its roots deeply, since there was no real competition for Photoshop so far. Photoline and the Affinity suite (Corel maybe too) could change things, but that also requires a smooth transition for users. How can they move to another software leaving their files behind? Personally I don't use 3D and video in PS, and I don't mind for smart objects that much. But that's just me. Which format should someone convert hundreds or thousands of files into, and forget about PS once and for all, when Photoline can't flawlessly accept and produce compatible exchange formats such as TIFF, PDF, and EPS? No one in the industry will accept that. Let me deal with those properly, and I'm sold. Photoline rapes the TIFF specification as much as Adobe, yet they use different methods of doing so. I'll put it allegorically. I don't know if english is your native tongue, mine is not. Yet we communicate with eachother because we've learned to talk and write in a language common to both. Adobe has set the standards, for better or for worse, Photoline and the rest should be able to translate accordingly. I don't see any other way.

[bkh]

I'll put it allegorically. I don't know if english is your native tongue, mine is not. Yet we communicate with eachother because we've learned to talk and write in a language common to both. Adobe has set the standards, for better or for worse, Photoline and the rest should be able to translate accordingly. I don't see any other way.

The problem is that TIFFs and PDFs produced by PS contain more than just the standard (if, by standard, one refers to the published specs for both formats). Neither standard TIFFs nor PDFs can store the complex layer setup used by PS or PL. Using your language metaphor, it's like PS TIFFs and PDFs contain a short summary in English (understandable by all) and, in addition, a complete description in some obscure language only known to a handful of people, or maybe English, but encrypted. When a third party app reads the PDF or TIFF, it reads the English summary, and displays the file according to the TIFF/PDF specs. When an Adobe product reads the file, it reads the complete description instead of the English summary.

PL (or any other third party program) can try to decipher the complete description, but will probably never completely succeed (because producing the same output means knowing Adobe's algorithms bit by bit – that's why Adobe doesn't simply extend its PDF or TIFF specs). Producing something like a PSD file requires that PL translates its own secret language into Adobe's, and it will always remain a translation. And even in an ideal world, you'll only be able to use the features present in both PS and PL.

Thus, if your workflow forces you to exchange work in progress in PSD format (or the TIFF/PDF variants containing a full PSD file as well), imo you have no choice but to use Adobe products. Working with PL and all of its features means working with PLD files because only PLD files can save all that's in a PL document, and only exporting the end product as TIFF/PDF/…

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Nurz]

Thus, if your workflow forces you to exchange work in progress in PSD format (or the TIFF/PDF variants containing a full PSD file as well), imo you have no choice but to use Adobe products.

That's what I'm afraid of. Company monopoly and arrogance, especially with the mandatory subscription system, led many people in search of a serious Photoshop alternative. I'm optimistic, there's a small current of software development which shows promise one way or another. Programs like Photoline have my respect.

[Herbert123]

In a nutshell: rasterizing layers with Photoshop-specific functionality is the norm. We cannot (not should we) expect PSD files to open properly in other applications when those files include Photoshop-only features.

Problem is Photoline doesn't even come to that point.

The import of PSD files in Photoline is actually very good compared to other applications!
It imports:
- layer groups;
- layer masks;
- layer properties such as opacity and layer blend mode;
- common layer effects are supported (drop shadow, pattern, gradient, color overlays, inner & outer glow, stroke)**;
- smart objects are rasterized to a flattened layer (just like affinity Photo);
- common adjustment layers (curves, histogram, hue/saturation/gradient map/brightness&contrast);
- text layers (converted to rasterized layers, with hidden text layers retaining the text).

Great compared to many other applications.

**Photoline's layer effects such as emboss are rendered differently from Photoshop. Those must be rasterized first.

It is true that the PSD export deserves more tender care and love: at the very least I would like to see layer groups supported.

Although the problem remains that PSD was never meant as an exchange format, and as a format specification it is massive. It includes backward support for 20 years of development, and 15 major Photoshop releases. It is entirely unrealistic to expect full compatibility with PSD files when even slightly older Photoshop versions have difficulty opening a file from the latest version due to newer features that were added to the latest version (art boards and multiple layer effect groups).

On the other hand, Photoshop even saves smart objects, adjustment layers, and so on, in a Tiff file. That is just insane, in my opinion. It turns the Tiff format into a proprietary Photoshop-only format, which completely misses the mark of the Tiff specification.

Haha! That insanity is one of my beloved features in PS. I don't have a single PSD in my disk because a ZIP-compressed TIFF saves me 30-60% of space, depending on the complexity of the image file.

You do realize that those Tiff files have the PSD data embedded in them? They serve as a type of compressed wrapper. You would get the same savings by archiving your psd files on a hard drive or partition that does real time compression (such as NTFS compression).

Tiff files were meant as an exchange format, and they can still serve like that as long as the "layered" option remains unused (no matter which application is used to create those files).

By writing "industry ready", you mainly mean Adobe file support? Or are other features missing in your opinion? (Honest curiosity)

The truth is Adobe has planted its roots deeply, since there was no real competition for Photoshop so far. Photoline and the Affinity suite (Corel maybe too) could change things, but that also requires a smooth transition for users. How can they move to another software leaving their files behind? Personally I don't use 3D and video in PS, and I don't mind for smart objects that much. But that's just me. Which format should someone convert hundreds or thousands of files into, and forget about PS once and for all, when Photoline can't flawlessly accept and produce compatible exchange formats such as TIFF, PDF, and EPS? No one in the industry will accept that. Let me deal with those properly, and I'm sold. Photoline rapes the TIFF specification as much as Adobe, yet they use different methods of doing so. I'll put it allegorically. I don't know if english is your native tongue, mine is not. Yet we communicate with eachother because we've learned to talk and write in a language common to both. Adobe has set the standards, for better or for worse, Photoline and the rest should be able to translate accordingly. I don't see any other way.

The trouble is that Adobe does not provide complete specifications for the EPS and PSD file formats. I can import many EPS files with Ghostscript activated in Photoline without a hitch. But some do not import at all, or are broken. When I check those broken EPS files in GS View, errors are displayed (saying the eps files were written incorrectly). Even Illustrator may have problems opening certain EPS files, with broken links depending on the version used.

CorelDraw, for example, will encounter the identical issues while opening these "broken" EPS files, and also relies on the GhostScript DLLs to improve its EPS import. The trouble is Adobe again: Illustrator can write data in EPS files which is incompatible with just about any other application outside the Adobe ecosystem. Whether that was done on purpose or not, I have no idea. I tend to look at it in a more positive light: the newer Illustrator features causing these discrepancies. (Btw, CorelDraw is the industry standard in China, I have read).

My opinion in this is that when PSD and EPS files are used as an exchange format between applications, the original creator MUST make certain these files are prepped properly. Many professional users are aware of this, and will check if their EPS and PSD files open correctly in alternative applications outside Adobe. But many other users, unaware of these issues, will just fire and forget.

I have worked in graphics design, pre-press, CG graphics, game design, and other industries for more than 25 years. And expecting a smooth transition from one application to a new one in terms of file format support is a pipe dream. One can hope for the best. Even so-called industry standard file formats support is all over the place.

Using your analogy (an allegory is something quite different - see how one word can confuse matters?): Adobe introduced new language constructs and words in their country. Yes, the fundamental syntax is still English, but when a British speaker start yapping away to most non-native English speakers, they will only understand half of it. Many expressions and words will be completely unfamiliar to them. Thus after the initial attempt, the British speaker start simplifying his/her English to make himself/herself understandable.

Unfortunately, Adobe is pretty much the British speaker who refuses to simplify, but rather convolute the language they speak. Whether by choice or happenstance (or both), I have no idea.

As for PDF, I will be short: PDF is a FINAL format, and is just not intended as an exchange format to be imported for further editing. And Photoline is not a pdf editor. Nor is Illustrator, or InDesign, or Photoshop. If anyone is using PDF as an exchange/intermediate file format: that is the wrong workflow. They are meant to be viewed and printed.

I do agree with you that, in truth, Adobe is king in the publishing market. I still keep my Photoshop and Illustrator CS6 around for file conversions. EPS files that are troublesome I will open in Photoshop and save as a high resolution bitmap, or use Illustrator to flatten elements as much as possible, and then resave. I also found SVG often works better as an intermediate format (because it is a well described open standard).

Unfortunately, sometimes it is still a bit of a crap-shoot (even with Adobe's products), and I am forced to do a bit of trial & error.

For anyone having trouble importing certain EPS files (and some PSD files), the CS2 products can be downloaded for free now. They make for great file converters in these cases

And if you are dependent on full Adobe compatibility for your work and livelihood, I am afraid there is no way around the CC thing. I wish it was otherwise, but realistically spoken that remains the situation for now.

[photoken]

As for PDF, I will be short: PDF is a FINAL format, and is just not intended as an exchange format to be imported for further editing.

Actually, that's wrong. To quote from the Wikipedia entry about PDF:

According to the ISO PDF standard abstract:[48]


ISO 32000-1:2008 specifies a digital form for representing electronic documents to enable users to exchange and view electronic documents independent of the environment they were created in or the environment they are viewed or printed in. It is intended for the developer of software that creates PDF files (conforming writers), software that reads existing PDF files and interprets their contents for display and interaction (conforming readers) and PDF products that read and/or write PDF files for a variety of other purposes (conforming products).

In short, it's perfectly fine to use PDF as an exchange format between applications. Using an application to successfully modify the contents and save the file as a conforming PDF that other applications can work with is a perfectly valid use of the format.

I also found SVG often works better as an intermediate format (because it is a well described open standard).

Well, there are standards and there are standards. The advantage of PDF is that it is an ISO standard which specifically intends that the PDF document can be output on a wide variety of devices, from reader software to Web browsers to editing applications to printers to sign cutting machines, and on and on.

The disadvantage of SVG is that it is a page markup language, intended from the outset as a means of telling Web browsers how to display the contents. Although it is a standard, it is maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium whose fundamental concern is to define how content is displayed in browsers.

If you've found that an SVG document created in one application can be opened and edited in another application and the newly saved document is compatible with the first application, that's cool, but should be considered a bonus rather than as an inherent function.

[Herbert123]

As for PDF, I will be short: PDF is a FINAL format, and is just not intended as an exchange format to be imported for further editing.

Actually, that's wrong. To quote from the Wikipedia entry about PDF:

According to the ISO PDF standard abstract:[48]


ISO 32000-1:2008 specifies a digital form for representing electronic documents to enable users to exchange and view electronic documents independent of the environment they were created in or the environment they are viewed or printed in. It is intended for the developer of software that creates PDF files (conforming writers), software that reads existing PDF files and interprets their contents for display and interaction (conforming readers) and PDF products that read and/or write PDF files for a variety of other purposes (conforming products).

In short, it's perfectly fine to use PDF as an exchange format between applications. Using an application to successfully modify the contents and save the file as a conforming PDF that other applications can work with is a perfectly valid use of the format.

That is not how I read that wikipedia entry: PDF is meant for document viewing exchange between users, not as a format to be exchanged and edited between applications. It is meant as a final publishling format.

I also found SVG often works better as an intermediate format (because it is a well described open standard).

Well, there are standards and there are standards. The advantage of PDF is that it is an ISO standard which specifically intends that the PDF document can be output on a wide variety of devices, from reader software to Web browsers to editing applications to printers to sign cutting machines, and on and on.

The disadvantage of SVG is that it is a page markup language, intended from the outset as a means of telling Web browsers how to display the contents. Although it is a standard, it is maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium whose fundamental concern is to define how content is displayed in browsers.

If you've found that an SVG document created in one application can be opened and edited in another application and the newly saved document is compatible with the first application, that's cool, but should be considered a bonus rather than as an inherent function.

SVG is an open file format which can be used as an intermediate file format for exchange between applications and further editing and processing (even by hand by developers). Yes, PDF files adher to a high ISO standard which is geared towards (final) output, whether for print, press, or onscreen viewing purposes - not with editing in mind, however. Just because a PDF file happens to be editable in Illustrator or Photoline does not mean it is a suitable file format for editing - it is not.

[photoken]

That is not how I read that wikipedia entry: PDF is meant for document viewing exchange between users, not as a format to be exchanged and edited between applications.
...

Then you're not reading the specification correctly. It explicitly states the format is to be used by developers and applications (among others). Besides, how the heck are users supposed to exchange the documents if they don't use an application?!? Couldn't be clearer....

SVG is an open file format
....

Like I said, although the format is "open" (as is the PDF format), SVG is maintained and controlled by the W3C for the express purpose of displaying content in Web browsers. PDF is a much broader standard maintained by the International Standards Organization, whose members reflect a very wide base of end uses.

The bottom line is that PDF is really the best way to exchange vector, raster and text content between applications. It is so because it was established for that purpose, and has become the de facto format of choice because of that. Trying to use SVG as an alternative interchange format adds nothing of value, IMO.

[Herbert123]

That is not how I read that wikipedia entry: PDF is meant for document viewing exchange between users, not as a format to be exchanged and edited between applications.
...

Then you're not reading the specification correctly. It explicitly states the format is to be used by developers and applications (among others). Besides, how the heck are users supposed to exchange the documents if they don't use an application?!? Couldn't be clearer....

SVG is an open file format
....

Like I said, although the format is "open" (as is the PDF format), SVG is maintained and controlled by the W3C for the express purpose of displaying content in Web browsers. PDF is a much broader standard maintained by the International Standards Organization, whose members reflect a very wide base of end uses.

The bottom line is that PDF is really the best way to exchange vector, raster and text content between applications. It is so because it was established for that purpose, and has become the de facto format of choice because of that. Trying to use SVG as an alternative interchange format adds nothing of value, IMO.

I think you misunderstood what I am trying to say here. My main point is that PDF files are not meant to be used as an intermediate editable format - PDF files are meant for final publication. Then again, I do understand that many users in the "real world" abuse it as such. But in the end PDF was initially conceived to solve all the pre-press issues related to PS files, and missing files, fonts, print intention, resolution, etc. PDF files were also meant to be a final document format for archiving, sharing, etc. between end users and viewing/proofing.

Sure, PDF files can be opened in various design applications for further editing nowadays- but PDF files are not optimized for that task at all. Adobe, however, decided to extend PDF files with that functionality in both Illustrator and Photoshop at a later date. Same for Tiff files in Photoshop that embed a PSD - which is a primary source of confusion and trouble when dealing with those files in any other software except for Photoshop.

The question remains whether there is ANY file format that can be utilized as a full intermediate exchange format for editing between applications - and my experience tells me that the best we can hope for is support for a simplified base feature set.

[Martin Huber]

Although the problem remains that PSD was never meant as an exchange format, and as a format specification it is massive.

The problem with PSD is not, that the documentation is massive. The problem is, that the documentation is very incomplete and - aside from minor changes - hasn't been updated since Photoshop 6. And those things, that are documented, are usually very cryptic and leave many questions open.

Martin

[Herbert123]

Although the problem remains that PSD was never meant as an exchange format, and as a format specification it is massive.

The problem with PSD is not, that the documentation is massive. The problem is, that the documentation is very incomplete and - aside from minor changes - hasn't been updated since Photoshop 6. And those things, that are documented, are usually very cryptic and leave many questions open.

Martin

Thanks, Martin. I have a feeling Adobe likes it that way.

[Nurz]

Very informative posts.

So I have a weird idea. I came across this PS plugin.
https://csshat.com
Haven't tried it myself, but it claims instant and accurate conversion of layer styles into CSS code. Now, what if I could have a feature which enables me to copy the generated code, and paste it over the layers of the imported file in Photoline? Would that make the translation easier? Still, that doesn't eliminate the fact that you must have PS installed for this to work (if at all). Man, I find it too hard to keep software at minimum.

Thanks, Martin. I have a feeling Adobe likes it that way.

You bet.