PhotoLine Forum

Hi,

I created a simple benchmark to see how Photoline is dealing with Adjustment Layers in comparison with Photoshop. I found that most of the adjustments works quite nice, some of them with some offset values in comparison with the Photoshop file and also I found 6 adjustment layers that are completely wrong.

Here are some examples:

Photoshop Photo Filter:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/vsgrbt.jpg

Photoline Photo Filter:
http://oi67.tinypic.com/23ljfr8.jpg

Photoshop Exposure:
http://oi63.tinypic.com/98ttlv.jpg

Photoline Exposure:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/huht9j.jpg

Photoshop Vibrance:
http://oi63.tinypic.com/15n3a85.jpg

Photoline Vibrance:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/10rs9dk.jpg


And you can find the entire set of images on this folder:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing


So far the full status of each adjustment layer on Photoline 20.51 is this:

black & white: wrong
brightness & contrast: wrong
exposure: wrong
photo filter: wrong
selective color: wrong
vibrance: wrong
threshold (slightly off)
gradient fill (slightly off)
gradient map (slightly off)
invert (slightly off)
levels (slightly off)
color balance (slightly off)
color lookup (slightly off)
curves (slightly off)
hue saturation (very slightly off)

samcameron hat geschrieben: ↑Mi 15 Nov 2017 23:53 I created a simple benchmark to see how Photoline is dealing with Adjustment Layers in comparison with Photoshop. I found that most of the adjustments works quite nice, some of them with some offset values in comparison with the Photoshop file and also I found 6 adjustment layers that are completely wrong.

What, exactly, are you comparing? Some adjustment layers in PL are different from their PS counterparts, and sometimes adjustment values don't translate literally. And PL doesn't have "Vibrance" at all, what did you use instead? But maybe you are talking about PSD import, in fact?

In any case, adjustment layers in PS are different, not "wrong" imo (PSD import may be wrong, of course). Also, most adjustment layers also depend on the working colour space, which may be different in PL and PS.

Cheers

Burkhard.

Let me explain you a real case than many will have to face... Let's say you have clients that uses most of the time Photoshop (not at all an unrealistic scenario as you might know). These clients are sending to you PSD files but when you try to work with these files on Photoline you get completely different results than using Photoshop, then when you send back the file or you print the file from Photoline the client screams at you because the result is completely different and you lose the client forever.

What do you think we should do?

I understood what you were talking about.
A designer drew a poster with PhotoShop and sent me the PSD file. While I opened that file, the document was quite a different thing from what she was editing on her computer.
The interoperability between PhotoLine and PhotoShop was really a problem.

PhotoLine is not a cheap Photoshop replacement and will never be. That's so, because they would not spend their algorithms to us. So we try to build this algorithms as near as possible.
To show you the "real" picture, we load the preview picture and put it on top of the layer stack. If you can't live with the layers in PhotoLine, just use the preview picture.

I agree with Gerhard here. It is quite amazing that PhotoLine can open PSD documents at all that include non-destructive Photoshop unique adjustment layers, layer effects, and even smart objects.

However, this conversion will NEVER be 1:1. The PSD format is badly documented (outdated) and missing newer feature additions. Any developer wanting to import PSD files with any of the live non-destructive effects and adjustment layers intact, will have to reverse engineer the PSD format. Besides, Photoshop's internal workings and algorithms are secret, and obviously never shared with outsiders (read: competitors!).

To expect a great PSD conversion 'out-of-the-box' is quite a naive notion. The only guarantee to get a good conversion is to ask the original PSD author to convert all non-destructive layers to bitmap layers before sharing it with you.

If complete PSD compatibility is essential for your workflow, there is only one answer: rent Photoshop. Simple as that. I have a CC license, but for 99% of my work I use PhotoLine, Krita, and other tools. I open Adobe's tools mainly for interoperability with clients who use Adobe software. Or for file conversions.

Having read Gerhard's reply, I agreed with him.
PhotoLine has its great merit. It is not only hard to import PSD to PLD, but the same hard to convert PLD to PSD as well.

samcameron hat geschrieben: ↑Do 16 Nov 2017 02:03 then when you send back the file or you print the file from Photoline the client screams at you because the result is completely different and you lose the client forever.

What do you think we should do?

Use Photoshop, simple as that.

There is no way I could use Photoline professionally because others in the company and outside the company need to work with the files I create. And they all use Photoshop, whether I like it or not. I can't risk putting a lot of work into a file that others will not be able to use or that looks different on their system in any way from from what I created.

This only works for very small projects where the end product is a single layer picture that noone else needs to put work into.

This is no different from one person using Word and another using LibreOffice. If you are going to collaborate, you will in alll likelihood need to use the same software, especially if it is proprietary.

Lately I have been doing my editing in PhotoLine, then saving a copy as a flattened .tif to print with Photoshop/Canon print plugin, without any problems. I prefer PhotoLine’s brush to Photoshop’s, and really like the Lab adjustment layers and advanced color filters/blend ranges.