Change in EXR open from CS2 to CS3 can this be fixed?

Break interoperability with what exactly?

Because for now the interoperability you say is already broken and prevents me from bringing any EXR that went trough PS to my comp package as it was and should remain.

And even tho I do get your point regarding the specs I still can't see how something as simple as this, which could be easily solved by a really silly PS Action if it worked the other way around would do more harm than good.

The OpenEXR docs haven't been updated since 2006 and it says "By CONVENTION, all color channels are premultiplied by alpha" and not "All color channels MUST be premultiplied by alpha", so even by that time they've left room for different ways of dealing with this.

But as you said there are other tools that are more suited for the job, in this case the current Photoshop built-in EXR reader just isn't one of them.

Meanwhile if you really need OpenEXR files in Photoshop better spend 95 bucks on the ProEXR plugin from fnord or just dump Photoshop till ILM takes the time to update those three text lines on their docs to make Adobe happy about it.

PPS. This forum software blows when you want to format the text.

You seem to be confusing your segment of an industry with the larger audience of Photoshop users. People are using the EXR plugin shipped with Photoshop, in many industries. Only a few have complained. VFX represents a very small fraction of the people using the EXR file format. But Photoshop has to support everyone using the format, in many different workflows, interoperating with many other applications.

If you don't like the way EXR is designed, you are free to use another file format, or petition the EXR folks to update their spec. But we implement the current spec.

None of you have really talked about what you're trying to accomplish -- you're still asking for your imagined solution to a problem as you understand it (back the the screwdriver for nails thing). If you want a useful solution, we're going to have to talk about the larger problem, larger workflows, and consider alternative solutions (you know, reach for a hammer).

PS. Inviting drive-by postings by people unfamiliar with the issues really is not helping your case.

Have you seen the ILM's photoshop exr loader Chris?

You can downloaded from the openEXR site.

It let you unpremult the alpha and even gives you an option
to change the gamma and exposure.
I've been using it and I love the OPTION I have with that plugin.

The reason I wish you guys would come up something like that is that
the ILM exr plugin doesn't support 32 bit, and it's been causing
some issues in recent shows we've been working.

I assume over 95 % people who use the exr format in Photoshop are people in the VFX related, and at this point as I read this thread, pretty much 100% of the users WANT to have the option to unpremultiply the alpha.

Even if you are right about how you implemented the spec, no one is happy with it, and don't want to use it.

Then, I don't see why you would even have exr format support in photoshop. You might as well mention in the spec sheet that Photoshop supports exr but no one in the VFX industry likes it, and recommend to buy proEXR as a alternative solution.

Wouldn't you want to have a feature that makes people happy, and actually use?

Photoshop does read EXR data in and write it out with minimal change.

Yes, specs evolve. But the EXR spec. has not changed. Again, we'll reconsider when the spec. changes. Trying to "evolve" the spec. by ignoring it just leads to trouble (and I'll offer this topic as exhibit #1).

If you try to use OpenEXR and expect un-premultiplied behavior - then it was broken the moment you wrote the data into an EXR file.
But according the the EXR spec. Photoshop is doing what it is supposed to do. If Photoshop did what you ask, it would break interoperability, and would still not do what you need (unless everyone agrees to always treat EXR as non-premultiplied all the time, and that just breaks all existing files and existing versions of applications).

No matter how many people try to use a screwdriver to drive in a nail, that doesn't make it the right tool for the job. You have other tools, that are more appropriate for the job -- use them.

Hi Chris,

I read all the posts before I posted. Yes, this has been cross-posted to the Nuke users list.

Strict adherence to the spec may work in the world of engineering, but we're in a business where specs evolve. The spec was designed for doing professional visual effects work. If you're going to implement the spec, it would be helpful if you learned a bit about how it is used in professional visual effects/CG production. I've seen contributions to this thread by people whose names are on the spec. They might be able to point you in the right direction.

The number one requirement that all of us have is that if a tool reads in data, the tool should be able to write it out without changing it. Clearly, this is broken for some users.

You're reinforcing a frustration that so many of us have with working with Adobe products- there's the Adobe interpretation of computer graphics, and there's an industry consensus, and they're not the same, and the ways that they are different often seem pointless.

No, OpenEXR files are premultiplied by definition. If you want to change the definition, talk to the OpenEXR folks. Photoshop is using the existing definition for the file format.

We do listen to users, a lot. But sometimes users make mistakes. Sometimes they ask for things that would do more harm than good. Sometimes, they even ask for things they really, really don't understand. And we try to explain, we try to help them understand (and help us understand why they're asking for something bizarre). Are you listening?

When the OpenEXR file format specification changes, we will reconsider. Until then, I strongly suggest that you use a file format more appropriate to your workflow needs.

These "people" you are so flippantly addressing, are industry professionals who have spent the last 2 decades or so up in the small hours of the morning writing elaborate scripts or awkwardly contorting already strained pipelines to decieve Photoshop into reluctantly relinquishing relivant images, so you can casually claim your product was used on [insert film here].

Adobe Photoshop Engineers would be wise to listen to their user base, especially when they have so patiently explained the situation. And rest assured, as gut wrenchingly painful as it is to read this mindlessly repetative thread; we have.

consider this fromt he open exr documentation ( http://www.openexr.com/photoshop_plugin.html )
"Un-Premultiply: by convention, OpenEXR images are "premultiplied" - the color channel values are already matted against black using the alpha channel. In Photoshop, it's more convenient to work with unmatted images. It's important to use this option rather than un-premultiplying the image within Photoshop, because the plug-in will un-premultiply before applying exposure and gamma correction.
This option will have no affect if your image does not contain an alpha channel."

by convention OPENEXR images are premultiplied, sure, by convention, you shouldnt wear white socks with sandals, but that wont stop vfx folk from doing it!

Point being, this is not an unreasonable request, it is entirely trivial to impliment, and noone has been anything but patient when requesting it.

would you kindly reconsider.
_sam

janz - read the existing posts.

m. hutch - read the existing posts. You've already burned the bridge with the one person who could or would have helped.

This is seemingly a dead end, in terms of working with this particular representative. Is there another Adobe representative that can weigh in on this topic?