Revisiting switching to Affinity Photo

[Jumpthesnark]

Are you saying that in the context of why Adobe (supposedly) switched to a subscription model?

I can't claim to know why Adobe (for example) switched to a subscription model, so I won't attempt to speak for them. But they are a business and they are probably looking at all kinds of ways to maximize their profits. As someone who makes a living by creating and licensing their work, I charge people in part based on how it will be used.

If so, while I can appreciate that trying to keep up with camera manufacturers can be a brutal thing, in the end, my belief is that control (and ownership) of software should remain with the consumer.

Nikon updates their camera, and Adobe has to re-write things, and that costs them $$$, so they release a new version and ask for more $$$? Fine. But don't force me to upgrade - which is what subscriptions do.

The only time you would be forced to upgrade, as you say, is if your cameras/OS/hardware are upgraded and no longer work with whatever photo software you've licensed. With subscriptions there's a continuing series of updates. With one-time-purchase software, the camera companies release file format changes and eventually (as with Affinity), they just release a new version and stop adding camera compatibility updates to old versions. Of course that new version will have new features as well, but if your other tools have evolved past what your software works with, then you would need to license new software in that case.

Are JPEG and TIFF proprietary? (I assume that I what I would use.)

Nope! Those are basically universal file types. You can shoot still JPEGs with basically any camera if you want to. TIFF files (mostly created during post-processing, not in-camera) tend to be larger, and so JPEGS are what's often used for most online images - smaller file sizes means faster downloads to the end user.

By the way... If I make any $$$ from this startup, it will be because of killer content and not the computer, camera, or photo-editing software that I own.

Good gear and tools help, but at the end of the day it has always been about the message.

100% agree. Those things are just tools. It all started with drawings on the walls of caves, and here we are, still telling human stories.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

The only time you would be forced to upgrade, as you say, is if your cameras/OS/hardware are upgraded and no longer work with whatever photo software you've licensed.

But that's not true with subscriptions... Every period (i.e. month/year/whatever) you are paying for an "upgrade" whether or not there are any noticeable improvements.

So subscription are the same as perpetual (forced) upgrades.

Standalone licenses (should) work forever from a licensing standpoint. (Wasn't someone asking above about trying to revive Photoshop 6 on a new machine?)

Even if next year Adobe does make noticeable changes, I want to have a say if I pay them.

It comes down to owning a home and building equity (i.e. true ownership), or renting and paying your landlord for the privilege of living in his building.

Home ownership means you (in theory) get something of equal value for every dollar you pay on your mortgage.

Renting means, well, you rent and are paying for a 'service" but never own anything.

I won't "rent" software, because using Photoshop for 3 years is worth maybe $120 to me, and NOT $720!!!!
(Photoshop subscription = $20/yr * 12 mths/yr * 3 yrs = $720 to use Photoshop for 3 years)

Other may disagree.

 

[r.harris1]

We're not supposed to get into the debate, but no one rents or owns software (unless you write it yourself and aren't licensing someone else's libraries, which themselves will be licensed for your use (OS or otherwise)). Everyone licenses the software they use in some way, shape, or form. The difference is how you pay for it and the benefits and challenges of each model.

The subscription concept has been around for centuries (at least), and the subscription idea in software has been around for decades. It has gone mainstream over the last decade or so for consumer products, with Adobe one of the leaders there. More companies are heading in that direction, and they won't change soon. In the new paradigm of mixed payment models, subscriptions arguably provide benefits if you upgrade frequently (OSs and software). One-time payments get you different benefits (e.g., choosing when or if you pay for upgrades), certainly if you don't upgrade your OS, cameras (in our context), or need the new features often associated with non-OS commercial software. Obviously, the payment model for licensed open-source software is $0.00, which can be appealing.

Some people start with the license as the most critical factor and work their way out; others, like me, start with technical needs and work their way in. The approach doesn't matter as long as you meet whatever objective you've set for yourself. I have no problems licensing by subscription when it suits my needs. I always have an "exit strategy". Others feel very differently, and everyone needs to do what they feel comfortable doing. The great thing is there's a license and payment type for everyone, with exceptional software for all approaches. It's a "golden age" of imaging software. It's all about outcomes—your outcomes, to be precise.

More interesting topics: It can be interesting to see the Library of Congress's approach to archival formats since that's what they do for their day job. TIFFs and JPEGs are there, and PSDs are reasonable approaches.

For what they think, here's a good link: https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/still_fdd.shtml

 

[Ambrosia7177]

We're not supposed to get into the debate

You mean we can't have a debate on MacRumors? Or are you implying you work for Big tech, and you are not allowed to get into debates per your employer? (Just curious)

, but no one rents or owns software (unless you write it yourself and aren't licensing someone else's libraries, which themselves will be licensed for your use (OS or otherwise)). Everyone licenses the software they use in some way, shape, or form. The difference is how you pay for it and the benefits and challenges of each model.

Fair enough.

The subscription concept has been around for centuries (at least), and the subscription idea in software has been around for decades. It has gone mainstream over the last decade or so for consumer products, with Adobe one of the leaders there. More companies are heading in that direction, and they won't change soon.

That last point really worries me...

In the new paradigm of mixed payment models, subscriptions arguably provide benefits if you upgrade frequently (OSs and software).

I use iMazing - which is AMAZING - and they offer both a standalone license and a subscription license somewhat based on what you mention above. The difference is 1.) iMazing gives you a choice, and 2.) iMazing doesn't force you down a path, and 3.) iMazing has its customer's backs - TRULY.

As I recall, for a brief period in the early 2000's, I think Adobe did that too, and I was cool with Adobe. Then they went full, scorched Earth, sell-your-soul to us, and well, you know how I feel about that...

One-time payments get you different benefits (e.g., choosing when or if you pay for upgrades), certainly if you don't upgrade your OS, cameras (in our context), or need the new features often associated with non-OS commercial software. Obviously, the payment model for licensed open-source software is $0.00, which can be appealing.

I started off with the free version of DaVinci resolve last Summer - first time ever doing video-editing.

After maybe a month or two, there was this noise-reduction filter that I REALLY needed, and so I gladly coughed up $300 to buy the paid version of DaVinci Resolve.

Didn't blink doing that.

Why?

1.) Because Blackmagic Design gave me a CHOICE to upgrade.
2.) Because Blackmagic Design EARNED my business.
3.) Because I think Blackmagic Design is in it for the RIGHT reasons.
4.) Because - from what I hear - Blackmagic Design will give me FREE UPGRADES - when they come out - for probably the next 3+ years BEFORE I will have to pay to upgrade. (Again, in it for the right reasons.)

Interestingly enough, Blackmagic Design is kicking Adobe's butt when it come to video-editing software.

Just my observations and personal experiences.

(I feel like in the 1990's, Adobe used to be that kind of a company. Not anymore...)

Some people start with the license as the most critical factor and work their way out; others, like me, start with technical needs and work their way in. The approach doesn't matter as long as you meet whatever objective you've set for yourself. I have no problems licensing by subscription when it suits my needs. I always have an "exit strategy". Others feel very differently, and everyone needs to do what they feel comfortable doing.

Agreed.

The great thing is there's a license and payment type for everyone, with exceptional software for all approaches. It's a "golden age" of imaging software.

Except Adobe no longer gives people a choice - which is their right.

It's all about outcomes—your outcomes, to be precise.

True.

More interesting topics: It can be interesting to see the Library of Congress's approach to archival formats since that's what they do for their day job. TIFFs and JPEGs are there, and PSDs are reasonable approaches.

For what they think, here's a good link: https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/still_fdd.shtml

Sorry if that went over my head... Can you explain a little more about what you want me to take away from that?

Is it that the Library of Congress supports .PSD files?


@r.harris1, thanks for your thoughts, and don't take my vigorous response as an attack. ;-)

 

[Allen_Wentz]

We're not supposed to get into the debate, but no one rents or owns software (unless you write it yourself and aren't licensing someone else's libraries, which themselves will be licensed for your use (OS or otherwise)). Everyone licenses the software they use in some way, shape, or form. The difference is how you pay for it and the benefits and challenges of each model.

The subscription concept has been around for centuries (at least), and the subscription idea in software has been around for decades. It has gone mainstream over the last decade or so for consumer products, with Adobe one of the leaders there. More companies are heading in that direction, and they won't change soon. In the new paradigm of mixed payment models, subscriptions arguably provide benefits if you upgrade frequently (OSs and software). One-time payments get you different benefits (e.g., choosing when or if you pay for upgrades), certainly if you don't upgrade your OS, cameras (in our context), or need the new features often associated with non-OS commercial software. Obviously, the payment model for licensed open-source software is $0.00, which can be appealing.

Some people start with the license as the most critical factor and work their way out; others, like me, start with technical needs and work their way in. The approach doesn't matter as long as you meet whatever objective you've set for yourself. I have no problems licensing by subscription when it suits my needs. I always have an "exit strategy". Others feel very differently, and everyone needs to do what they feel comfortable doing. The great thing is there's a license and payment type for everyone, with exceptional software for all approaches. It's a "golden age" of imaging software. It's all about outcomes—your outcomes, to be precise.

More interesting topics: It can be interesting to see the Library of Congress's approach to archival formats since that's what they do for their day job. TIFFs and JPEGs are there, and PSDs are reasonable approaches.

For what they think, here's a good link: https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/still_fdd.shtml

You fail to acknowledge the key issue with paying for Adobe software license via their subscription model, which is that unless the model is paid up every month, a user cannot access that user's own work [layers IP]. The user can only access the TIFF or whatever files exported while the license was valid. That is a huge issue, basically meaning one must pay Adobe forever.

The Adobe subscription debate has nothing to do with archiving file formats or final work product output (TIFF or whatever). The issue is that if I build a 200-layer file with Adobe then want to continue work with the layers of that file of my work next month (work and layers are constantly repurposed), I must pay Adobe next month. In the past I owned the Adobe CS Design Collection and could forever access and work on my own files; with the CC subscription model I can no longer access my own files.

 

[r.harris1]

You mean we can't have a debate on MacRumors? Or are you implying you work for Big tech, and you are not allowed to get into debates per your employer? (Just curious)





Fair enough.




That last point really worries me...




I use iMazing - which is AMAZING - and they offer both a standalone license and a subscription license somewhat based on what you mention above. The difference is 1.) iMazing gives you a choice, and 2.) iMazing doesn't force you down a path, and 3.) iMazing has its customer's backs - TRULY.

As I recall, for a brief period in the early 2000's, I think Adobe did that too, and I was cool with Adobe. Then they went full, scorched Earth, sell-your-soul to us, and well, you know how I feel about that...




I started off with the free version of DaVinci resolve last Summer - first time ever doing video-editing.

After maybe a month or two, there was this noise-reduction filter that I REALLY needed, and so I gladly coughed up $300 to buy the paid version of DaVinci Resolve.

Didn't blink doing that.

Why?

1.) Because Blackmagic Design gave me a CHOICE to upgrade.
2.) Because Blackmagic Design EARNED my business.
3.) Because I think Blackmagic Design is in it for the RIGHT reasons.
4.) Because - from what I hear - Blackmagic Design will give me FREE UPGRADES - when they come out - for probably the next 3+ years BEFORE I will have to pay to upgrade. (Again, in it for the right reasons.)

Interestingly enough, Blackmagic Design is kicking Adobe's butt when it come to video-editing software.

Just my observations and personal experiences.

(I feel like in the 1990's, Adobe used to be that kind of a company. Not anymore...)




Agreed.




Except Adobe no longer gives people a choice - which is their right.




True.




Sorry if that went over my head... Can you explain a little more about what you want me to take away from that?

Is it that the Library of Congress supports .PSD files?


@r.harris1, thanks for your thoughts, and don't take my vigorous response as an attack. ;-)

I totally don’t take anything as an attack. As to debate (or not), I think it was perhaps you or another participant who said at some point that we shouldn’t get into the debate, but it seems to have continually been mentioned, so I thought I’d jump in

 

[r.harris1]

You fail to acknowledge the key issue with paying for Adobe software license via their subscription model, which is that unless the model is paid up every month, a user cannot access that user's own work [layers IP]. The user can only access the TIFF or whatever files exported while the license was valid. That is a huge issue, basically meaning one must pay Adobe forever.

The Adobe subscription debate has nothing to do with archiving file formats or final work product output (TIFF or whatever). The issue is that if I build a 200-layer file with Adobe then want to continue work with the layers of that file of my work next month (work and layers are constantly repurposed), I must pay Adobe next month. In the past I owned the Adobe CS Design Collection and could forever access and work on my own files; with the CC subscription model I can no longer access my own files.

Yeah, Adobe’s model comes with choices you have to make, for sure, and you’re right, I didn’t acknowledge it (and hadn’t intended to since it has been discussed for 10+ years). Other companies have different subscription models.

You are astutely correct that the subscription debate has nothing to do with archival formats. I was commenting on separate things from this long thread.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Standalone licenses (should) work forever from a licensing standpoint. (Wasn't someone asking above about trying to revive Photoshop 6 on a new machine?)

Even if next year Adobe does make noticeable changes, I want to have a say if I pay them.

That may be what you want, but it's not your software. You didn't create it. You are licensing a copy.

As someone who earns a living from creating and licensing their work, I charge clients in part on how the work will be used. If someone licenses a picture for one time use small on a website with one story, that's one fee. If someone wants to license the same picture to be published across the country, or put up on billboards across a region, that's a different fee.

Same work, but the client wants to do different things with the image. I would not license the photo for one time small website use and allow them to also make calendars and coffee cups and album covers without paying more. That would be ridiculous. That's why I wouldn't sell a photo to someone unless they truly pay through the nose.

Software licensing is different than licensing a photo in many ways, but there are similarities. One similarity is the duration of the license. It's pretty rare for me to license an image forever (which is what you're asking to do, with software). Other photographers may do that, it's their business model. Likewise, not every software creator is going to sell a perpetual license to their work, and there are different ways of controlling that. Subscriptions or making a piece of software basically useless after a time (thus forcing an upgrade on the consumer) are ways that software creators monetize their work.

I'm not happy that Adobe went with a subscription model. It was a change, and change can be scary. But I charge my clients for the subscription (as I used to with standalone licensing), so I really don't notice it. There are different ways to deal with the issue, and other people have different solutions.

 

[r.harris1]

You mean we can't have a debate on MacRumors? Or are you implying you work for Big tech, and you are not allowed to get into debates per your employer? (Just curious)





Fair enough.




That last point really worries me...




I use iMazing - which is AMAZING - and they offer both a standalone license and a subscription license somewhat based on what you mention above. The difference is 1.) iMazing gives you a choice, and 2.) iMazing doesn't force you down a path, and 3.) iMazing has its customer's backs - TRULY.

As I recall, for a brief period in the early 2000's, I think Adobe did that too, and I was cool with Adobe. Then they went full, scorched Earth, sell-your-soul to us, and well, you know how I feel about that...




I started off with the free version of DaVinci resolve last Summer - first time ever doing video-editing.

After maybe a month or two, there was this noise-reduction filter that I REALLY needed, and so I gladly coughed up $300 to buy the paid version of DaVinci Resolve.

Didn't blink doing that.

Why?

1.) Because Blackmagic Design gave me a CHOICE to upgrade.
2.) Because Blackmagic Design EARNED my business.
3.) Because I think Blackmagic Design is in it for the RIGHT reasons.
4.) Because - from what I hear - Blackmagic Design will give me FREE UPGRADES - when they come out - for probably the next 3+ years BEFORE I will have to pay to upgrade. (Again, in it for the right reasons.)

Interestingly enough, Blackmagic Design is kicking Adobe's butt when it come to video-editing software.

Just my observations and personal experiences.

(I feel like in the 1990's, Adobe used to be that kind of a company. Not anymore...)




Agreed.




Except Adobe no longer gives people a choice - which is their right.




True.




Sorry if that went over my head... Can you explain a little more about what you want me to take away from that?

Is it that the Library of Congress supports .PSD files?


@r.harris1, thanks for your thoughts, and don't take my vigorous response as an attack. ;-)

The archival format topic was an observation from other parts of this thread and was separate from the license discussion. Sorry for the confusion. More of…what do people/groups who have to do archiving for a living think of the topic. Just thought it was interesting is all.

Also, to your “Big Tech” reference, I do work for a Fortune 50 company, and I am involved with writing software for a living, but we aren’t a commercial software company. So I am very familiar with licensing, subscriptions, and so forth, because I have to be.

To be clear, I have no interest in convincing people they should or shouldn’t do something when it comes to choosing their software tools. Ultimately it’s a tedious discussion. People have very passionate views on the topic. I don’t have a passionate view. I use the best software I can find that does what I want and need and that works for me. The license type isn’t too interesting. I make sure that I have an exit strategy that works for me if I need it. Everyone should use what works for them.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

You fail to acknowledge the key issue with paying for Adobe software license via their subscription model, which is that unless the model is paid up every month, a user cannot access that user's own work [layers IP]. The user can only access the TIFF or whatever files exported while the license was valid. That is a huge issue, basically meaning one must pay Adobe forever.

The Adobe subscription debate has nothing to do with archiving file formats or final work product output (TIFF or whatever). The issue is that if I build a 200-layer file with Adobe then want to continue work with the layers of that file of my work next month (work and layers are constantly repurposed), I must pay Adobe next month. In the past I owned the Adobe CS Design Collection and could forever access and work on my own files; with the CC subscription model I can no longer access my own files.

Excellent point!! Thanks for pointing this out!!

 

[Ambrosia7177]

That may be what you want, but it's not your software. You didn't create it. You are licensing a copy.

As someone who earns a living from creating and licensing their work, I charge clients in part on how the work will be used. If someone licenses a picture for one time use small on a website with one story, that's one fee. If someone wants to license the same picture to be published across the country, or put up on billboards across a region, that's a different fee.

Same work, but the client wants to do different things with the image. I would not license the photo for one time small website use and allow them to also make calendars and coffee cups and album covers without paying more. That would be ridiculous. That's why I wouldn't sell a photo to someone unless they truly pay through the nose.

Software licensing is different than licensing a photo in many ways, but there are similarities. One similarity is the duration of the license. It's pretty rare for me to license an image forever (which is what you're asking to do, with software). Other photographers may do that, it's their business model. Likewise, not every software creator is going to sell a perpetual license to their work, and there are different ways of controlling that. Subscriptions or making a piece of software basically useless after a time (thus forcing an upgrade on the consumer) are ways that software creators monetize their work.

I'm not happy that Adobe went with a subscription model. It was a change, and change can be scary. But I charge my clients for the subscription (as I used to with standalone licensing), so I really don't notice it. There are different ways to deal with the issue, and other people have different solutions.

I understand your points above, but at the end of the day, it comes down to how much value a thing has.

I might pay $2,000 for a MacBook Pro because that seems like a fair value to me, but I would not pay Apple $2,000 per year forever.

I might pay $300 for DaVinci Resolve for it to be useable for 3 years, but I wouldn't pay that much each year.

And nothing against what you do, but I might pay $100 for am image, but I personally wouldn't pay for it in an ongoing fashion - although I get the whole coffee mug, billboard, etc thing.

In the end if comes down to perceived value and what the market will support.

For me, I no longer see value in what Adobe has to offer from subscription, to bloatware software, to trying to force people onto "the Cloud" to edging towards using AI to steal people's IP.

Other disagree, and that is fine.

I just don't understand paying for the same thing over and over when the thing really hasn't changed.

And to the above point, why should I have to pay in perpetuity to use a tool to open something?

If I am using the same, unchanged, unpatched software that I bought, why should I have to pay again for the same thing so I can open a file?

People are getting tricked into paying many times more than software is worth.

The entertainment industry has done a good job on that with media.

I still own my cassette tapes and CD's and DVD's and digital files, and would never "license" an album for the "privilege" of being able to listen to it years later.

But it is a free world... (Or is it "free" after all???). ;-)

 

[Ambrosia7177]

Also, to your “Big Tech” reference, I do work for a Fortune 50 company, and I am involved with writing software for a living, but we aren’t a commercial software company. So I am very familiar with licensing, subscriptions, and so forth, because I have to be.

What languages do you program?

What sector are you in?

 

[r.harris1]

What languages do you program?

What sector are you in?

Telecommunications + Entertainment. Rust, Java, Scala, Python.

 

[r.harris1]

I understand your points above, but at the end of the day, it comes down to how much value a thing has.

I might pay $2,000 for a MacBook Pro because that seems like a fair value to me, but I would not pay Apple $2,000 per year forever.

I might pay $300 for DaVinci Resolve for it to be useable for 3 years, but I wouldn't pay that much each year.

And nothing against what you do, but I might pay $100 for am image, but I personally wouldn't pay for it in an ongoing fashion - although I get the whole coffee mug, billboard, etc thing.

In the end if comes down to perceived value and what the market will support.

For me, I no longer see value in what Adobe has to offer from subscription, to bloatware software, to trying to force people onto "the Cloud" to edging towards using AI to steal people's IP.

Other disagree, and that is fine.

I just don't understand paying for the same thing over and over when the thing really hasn't changed.

And to the above point, why should I have to pay in perpetuity to use a tool to open something?

If I am using the same, unchanged, unpatched software that I bought, why should I have to pay again for the same thing so I can open a file?

People are getting tricked into paying many times more than software is worth.

The entertainment industry has done a good job on that with media.

I still own my cassette tapes and CD's and DVD's and digital files, and would never "license" an album for the "privilege" of being able to listen to it years later.

But it is a free world... (Or is it "free" after all???). ;-)

I have one more post on this area (we'll likely get hammered for being off-topic). You're right; it's down to each person's value equation. No one's getting tricked, though. Don't confuse your not liking a business model with other people being tricked; "just sayin'."

I start by assuming most people are pretty smart and go into a situation because they want to. That's true with me. I use the best tools I can find that add value to me and provide the outcomes I want. The ones that meet my personal value equation. My raw converter, for me, is about as important as my lenses or tripod. It's the tool that stands between me and whoever views my image output. It helps me get the most out of my raw files.

The license type is of minimal importance to me.

I upgrade my OS every year and my hardware every 2-4 years, depending. I keep up with my raw converter (Capture One for me) with every upgrade, at least for bug fixes, performance improvements, and OS compatibility. It's way more than worth it to me. New features come along that I find helpful too. The cheapest way to get Capture One is via a yearly subscription. They do something different to Adobe's license approach where they also provide a way to license a given version "in perpetuity".

On top of that, the longer you subscribe, the cheaper such a license would be, and it's free after 5 years. So, at any point, because I've subscribed for quite some time, if I decided "to heck with photography, I'm done," I could pull a free license, stop my subscription and be on my way. And as long as my version supports my OS or cameras, I'm good. It's about choices.

I have an Adobe subscription because I love the features of Photoshop for a pixel editor. I don't do a ton of layers and such - I tend to stay in my raw editor for as much as possible - and I could get away with Affinity if I needed to. I don't like Affinity as much, though that probably translates to: "I don't know it as well.". Whatever, right?

In my development world, I subscribe to a number of tools. I do so because I find the features valuable and save me time and increase my productivity. All of them have a "fall back version" when I stop a subscription.

The only company I use that doesn't offer such a license option for either my photography work or my day job is Adobe, which doesn't really do that. Go figure.

Use whatever tools go with your value system - plenty of high-quality ones to go around.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

I use the best tools I can find that add value to me and provide the outcomes I want. The ones that meet my personal value equation. My raw converter, for me, is about as important as my lenses or tripod. It's the tool that stands between me and whoever views my image output. It helps me get the most out of my raw files.

The license type is of minimal importance to me.

I upgrade my OS every year and my hardware every 2-4 years, depending. I keep up with my raw converter (Capture One for me) with every upgrade, at least for bug fixes, performance improvements, and OS compatibility. It's way more than worth it to me. New features come along that I find helpful too. The cheapest way to get Capture One is via a yearly subscription. They do something different to Adobe's license approach where they also provide a way to license a given version "in perpetuity".

Maybe the difference is that you are much more successful than me, and you see things as a "cost of doing business" whereas I see Adobe's licensing as a major "burden".

Maybe someday I will get there, and I won't be so hung up on the small things? ;-)

 

[r.harris1]

Maybe the difference is that you are much more successful than me, and you see things as a "cost of doing business" whereas I see Adobe's licensing as a major "burden".

Maybe someday I will get there, and I won't be so hung up on the small things? ;-)

Ha, well we all have our “small things”, just maybe different ones.

 

[throAU]

Using photoshop because affinity *might* one day turn into photoshop is silly.

Use affinity if it works for you. Any commercial software can change license at any time so worry about that if and when it happens. Not before.

 

[Herbert123]

You shouldn't assume. I didn't say that OP should use those JPG or TIFF images as their archive. It's not what I do and it's not what I said.

I said export so OP could easily use finished images in their thumbnails and other use cases that they mentioned, even though they might be shooting in other formats, and creating layered images with type, etc.

Aaah, my bad. Apologies: within the context of the entire conversation it seemed to me as if you were suggesting not to save your final work in a source native file format. It is sometimes difficult to understand the intent of a post with all the noise.

Is there a lossless format(s) that are good to use for archiving?

Is there a file format that preserves most, if not all, of one's work, but would open/work in other photo-editors?

While proprietary, file formats like .XLS and .DOC are widely supported among office productivity tools.

Likewise, .WAV and FLAC are pretty universal.

It is of some interest that no one perfect interchange file format exists for images. Each file format has its own limitations depending on the context in which it is used.

The ideal bitmap format would have to support:

- (as good as) limitless pixel dimensions and file sizes
- 1bit, 8bit, 16bit, 32bit depth per channel
- RGB, CMYK, LAB, HSV/HIS, YCbCr, and other (custom?) image modes
- 1bit, 8bit, 16bit, 32bit transparency
- HDR (High Dynamic Range)
- an arbitrary number of alpha channels
- an arbitrary number of custom channels
- animation frames
- both lossless and lossy compression algorithms
- colour (chrome) subsampling control
- masks/selections
- pages/tiles of bitmaps
- storage of multi-resolution images (mipmaps or ripmaps)
- layers
- encoding and decoding speed control
- meta data support for both common as well as custom fields
- storing of additional supporting data
- colour management
- browser displayable

Regular Tiff only saves up to 4GB large files, for example. Also a potential issue with tiff: Adobe decided to add their own proprietary Photoshop data stream, which means a tiff saved from Photoshop may include layers, which often cannot be read by other software. Incompatible with browsers and the web. No animation support.

But it does support 1bit up to 32bit depth per channel. And CMYK/RGB. Multiple pages. Both lossy and non-lossy compression. Colour management. Vector clipping mask.

JPG is quite restricted, uses an outdated compression method, and is not a great lossy-only 8bit-only bitmap format, unless we are stuck in older workflows and web standards. WebP and AVIF as a JPG replacement are a much better choice: lossless and lossy, transparency, better compression vs quality (in particular lossy AVIF vs JPG), animation support, 16 bit per channel.

But neither WebP or AVIF support CMYK. Bummer. JPG does.
Another example: PNG. Non-lossy, 1 to 16bit depth, full transparency, animation support. But no lossles support, and, while great for low-colour art, compression of full colour artwork or photos is less than stellar. And it lacks CMYK support.

PSD sounds like an excellent alternative: it pretty much supports all of the above. But it is a proprietary file format, and isn't documented very well - Adobe made certain of that (at some point their PSD file format spec was no longer updated to prevent the competition from having full compatibility with Photoshop's native file format). And Photoshop sets a paltry 30,000 pixel limit to width and height for its PSD files and a max 2GB. Even PSB files saved from Photoshop only scale up to 300,000 px in width and height.

Which doesn't seem to be a theoretical limit (and only one that Photoshop enforces on the user), because I can save PSD/PSB files from PhotoLine that easily exceed those limits. While PhotoLine will open these files, Photoshop absolutely refuses ;-P

Most of the common kitchen sink bitmap file formats can't practically (and technically) handle more than 16K or at most 65K in width and height. Compressing such large files using a lossy format tends to be super slow anyway.

A file format used in the 3D and visual effects industry comes close:
OpenEXR is an open non-proprietary spec bitmap file format, and has (almost no) theoretical limits to file resolution. It works with multiple (render) layers, allows for masks to be embedded, is by default 16bit or 32bit depth, lossless and lossy compression methods, alpha channels, and so on.

Well supported in software as well. But no animation support, and not suitable for lower-spec common bitmap tasks, such as average 8bit photos and images. Basically: EXR is complete overkill for most users. And doesn't play well in lower-end contexts nor are displayable in web browsers!

Anyway, it depends on the context, content, and user(s) which bitmap file format will work best for which particular job. No simple answers here.

@Ambrosia7177 Confused yet? Most people are and stick to older formats such as JPEG and PNG. Many still even use GIF these days. Which is a crying shame, because it wastes a lot of bandwidth and energy online. Various JPEG replacements have been doing the rounds, some met some success, others failed. JPEG XL would be a grand replacement. Let's hope it succeeds. WebP and AVIF are generally a better choice than either PNG or JPEG on the current web.

Adobe Photoshop is one of the main factors to blame behind the slow adoption of newer web formats. Photoshop's support for these is ABYSMAL and (in my opinion) an UTTER DISGRACE. The so-called 'new' Export As dialog doesn't even support WebP yet. After a decade of users pleading for it, only Save As supports saving WebP images. [facepalm]

AVIF can't even be saved from Photoshop. Those &$#@ developers even REVERSED full 8bit transparency support for indexed PNG images a few years ago!!! Only 1bit transparency is now possible!!! Seriously frustrating, and it wreaked havoc with the workflow of many screen and web designers.

Check out image file support of various image editors here:

Comparison of raster graphics editors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My primary use will be to edit (and optimize) photos that I take with my iPhones (and future mirrorless camera) for my mobile website.

But creating professional-looking YouTube thumbnails is a close #2.

Use AVIF for all your web exports on the mobile website. Much smaller file sizes at a higher quality and higher resolution. Faster download and display speeds for your average mobile user. WebP is also an option, but AVIF is just superior on all counts for web photographic images right now.

"avif" | Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc

caniuse.com

Avoid JPG(JPEG) in my opinion. Terrible outdated format compared. (I realize I might be poking a Hornest's nest with this comment ;P)

Problem is: Only a few image editors support AVIF export. Yet 95% of the world's currently used browsers read and display AVIF without issues.

More interesting topics: It can be interesting to see the Library of Congress's approach to archival formats since that's what they do for their day job. TIFFs and JPEGs are there, and PSDs are reasonable approaches.

For what they think, here's a good link: https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/still_fdd.shtml

@r.harris1 Thanks for that link! Useful, even if those archivists are also somewhat behind the times. Well, they're supposed to be conservative (pun intended) in their approach

 

[Herbert123]

Btw, ORA (Openraster) is a proposed open interchange file format spec intended for exchanging layer-based images between image editors.

OpenRaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While open source software such as Krita and GIMP support this open format, commercial software support is almost non-existing, unfortunately.

Btw #2 A really nice up-to-date web optimization tool is Squoosh. Loads of control.

Squoosh

Squoosh is the ultimate image optimizer that allows you to compress and compare images with different codecs in your browser.

squoosh.app

Also great to compare the various file formats in how they compress vs quality vs file size.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

@Ambrosia7177 Confused yet? Most people are and stick to older formats such as JPEG and PNG...

@Herbert123

Wow!!

Confused yet? YES!!

I am going to "fork" this thread and paste your post above in a new thread, because you just shared a wealth of information, and I think that deserves a conversation of it's own!

Thanks!

 

[Ambrosia7177]

Btw, ORA (Openraster) is a proposed open interchange file format spec intended for exchanging layer-based images between image editors.

OpenRaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While open source software such as Krita and GIMP support this open format, commercial software support is almost non-existing, unfortunately.

Btw #2 A really nice up-to-date web optimization tool is Squoosh. Loads of control.

Squoosh

Squoosh is the ultimate image optimizer that allows you to compress and compare images with different codecs in your browser.

squoosh.app

Also great to compare the various file formats in how they compress vs quality vs file size.

@Herbert123,

You are a WEALTH of useful information - so thanks!!

I will pick up there other topics in new threads, as I am eager to learn more about modern digital photography and modern digital photo-editing!

Thanks again!! 👍

 

[cSalmon]

Reading through the how/what you want to use an imaging software I would say you will not like Affinity (I do use it a lot) it's primary use is working on a single image at a time. Not reviewing a bunch of images, not basic edits and get them out the door workflow. Slow manipulated work with layers and brushes workflow, honestly stuff Reuters is not after nor should journalistic images incorporate.

Even though web browsers arent 100% supporting jpegXL (jxl) yet, I think it's a safe bet this will be the internet's photo file format so make sure the program can export it.

For basic needs I would look at Nitro or Photomator. Would like to know Apple's plans oh well. What I like is they are on the App Store. Over the years I love the App Store I can do clean installs, buy new machines, and there's my software. Updates right there as well.

The open source software to look at is Darktable and the expensive non-lightroom software is DXO

 

[Ambrosia7177]

Reading through the how/what you want to use an imaging software I would say you will not like Affinity (I do use it a lot) it's primary use is working on a single image at a time. Not reviewing a bunch of images, not basic edits and get them out the door workflow. Slow manipulated work with layers and brushes workflow, honestly stuff Reuters is not after nor should journalistic images incorporate.

@cSalmon, thank you for challenging me on this!

It's hard to know what you want when you don't have any experience?!

You make some interesting points...

Yes, I suppose a.) Handling a bunch of images b.) Quickly are important considerations.

Since you bring it up, it is true that I "bracket" like crazy.

I do a lot of street photography looking for examples and metaphors for my articles and news pieces.

So I might be walking down the street, and see XYZ, and I whip out my iPhone and take 10 quick photos with different compositions - and maybe varying exposure a tad - and then it's back down the street.

I probably take 300-400 snapshots like that per week, and have been doing that for decades - do the math of how many unedited photos I have on hard-drives in my storage unit?!

In some ways, I suppose I am like a fashion photographer in that I take tons of photos to the "the one" that I publish.

And in the scheme of things, I suppose my needs are pretty basic: cropping, adjusting levels, adjusting color curves, removing a blemish or annoying artifact, and saving for a mobile optimized end photo.

(Although I also do want software that helps me to make my images "POP". If you can get National Geographic or Time or Life magazine quality, why not?)

Even though web browsers arent 100% supporting jpegXL (jxl) yet, I think it's a safe bet this will be the internet's photo file format so make sure the program can export it.

For basic needs I would look at Nitro or Photomator.

Who makes those?

Are they proprietary?

And why would they be a better fit for me and my workflow than Affinity Photo?

Would like to know Apple's plans oh well.

What do you mean?

What I like is they are on the App Store. Over the years I love the App Store I can do clean installs, buy new machines, and there's my software. Updates right there as well.

Are they for desktop of mobile?

The open source software to look at is Darktable

What is the learning curve on that one?

and the expensive non-lightroom software is DXO

What does it offer?


You mention Lightroom - is that still available?

Didn't Apple make that?

It was supposed to allow you to view and edit LOTS of images quickly, right?

 

[cSalmon]

(Although I also do want software that helps me to make my images "POP". If you can get National Geographic or Time or Life magazine quality, why not?)
photographer not software

Nitro and Photomator are both found in the App Store, Apple recently bought Photomator (don't know their, Apple's, plans???)

I believe they are a better fit is because they allow you to browse through a collection of images and then edit. I use Nitro all the time for quick stuff, however I really wish it allowed renaming of image files.

Adobe makes Lightroom it comes with the Subscription

DXO offers a lot - a browsing software that lets you edit raw images. The benefits are too numerous to mention if the price doesn't scare you then you should test it out. Like with all software the learning curve is based upon how far down the rabbit hole you want to fall.

Test Affinity out, test out all the softwares it might help your photography. Testing out software is 1000 times more productive than discussing them. Nothing is perfect yet the level any software is at far exceeds what I could do 20+yrs ago 8bit no layers yet still publishable

 

[arkitect]

(Although I also do want software that helps me to make my images "POP". If you can get National Geographic or Time or Life magazine quality, why not?)

As @cSalmon points out, the photographer and not the software is the important thing and oh, don't we all desire to see our images at that level? 😁

Still, if you have a good eye — and it seems you have been shooting for decades at around 400 a week I think you will have developed your own "look" and vision by now. So that's an excellent start.

Though having a good base photo (RAW and a decent Post Processing errm… process makes a huge difference.
Even running iPhone's HEIC's though Snapseed can work wonders to give you that bit of "pop" Though it is such an overused word that one has to ask, "define pop". 🙂.

What is the learning curve on that one?

Darktable? Rather steep! It is opensource and has so many bells and whistles that you can micro-tweak settings to your hearts desire. BUT! It was never designed with ease of use.

You mention Lightroom - is that still available?

Lightroom can be bought as part of the Adobe Suite… and yes, alas, subscription.

Didn't Apple make that?

Nope. That was Aperture. A rather lovely piece of software that Apple in their infinite wisdom canned around 2015.

photographer not software

100% Agree.

DXO offers a lot - a browsing software that lets you edit raw images. The benefits are too numerous to mention if the price doesn't scare you then you should test it out. Like with all software the learning curve is based upon how far down the rabbit hole you want to fall.

Again, 100% Agree.
My go-to is DXO PhotoLab… still on v.7 as I only upgrade every couple years.

Test Affinity out, test out all the softwares it might help your photography. Testing out software is 1000 times more productive than discussing them. Nothing is perfect yet the level any software is at far exceeds what I could do 20+yrs ago 8bit no layers yet still publishable

Truth! 👍