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

Known Participant

Chris, I'll be straightforward here.

All we're after is an option to keep the Alpha Channel. We don't care if it's hidden away like ProEXR plugin.

We don't care if we're wrong

We don't care if there's premultiplication errors

We don't care what the file spec says

We use the Alpha Channel for a lot of uses too.

TGA files do it why can't we have an option for all the other formats or at least EXR and IFF? For all I care you may put a warning dialogue box that says "THIS IS WRONG!"

This is the real issue and this is why the thread is created. We don't need someone telling us how to use Alpha Channels. We just want to use them!

Tommy L2

Participating Frequently

My sentiments exactly.

Participating Frequently

Pretty much sums it up. The user is stupid and Adobe have everything right. That's why the wonderful world of graphics is so stream lined for the best possible pile of crap Adobe can deliver.

J

Jeff Schewe

Participating Frequently

Mike Ornellas wrote:
Pretty much sums it up.

Mike, there's an old saying...if you can't say anything nice, keep your friggin' mouth shut. You think you know (but don't) the nature under which engineers like Chris work...but you don't have the empathy (ore the understanding). So, the question ya gotta ask yourself is...do you wanna be part of the problem or part of the solution. So far, you've always come down on the part of the problem side bud. I do honestly thing that deep down you do mean well but your evil twin keeps getting ahold of your keyboard and essentially stepping on your member. So, do you really want to have a positive impact? If so, you've done nothing to prove it...

Participating Frequently

Everyone has to live with their decisions in life Jeff. It's unfortunate my voice has become such a political sounding board - when in fact I hate politics more then anything... If you really see what Adobe is doing to its customers Jeff, you will understand the bigger picture. Not that you don't have an idea what is going on.... The dismantling of industries due to the power of one company for the sake of out of control features - for only profit margins, is corporate suicide. Tons of jobs are vaporizing in many areas of graphics or moving overseas to areas of the world that apparently Adobe could care less about strangely enough. Adobe is basically cutting their own throat through corporate marketing decisions that are half baked. When you only feed the mind and don't exercise the body, eventually the quality of life fails. Adobe is really cutting their nose off despite their face when dealing with how things should work vs. how things are done. I can only blame the developer for not whole heartily digging deeper into the true meaning of how industries function - right or wrong.

I have always been part of the solution Jeff, but arrogant attitudes of misunderstanding has been the blockage. If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen I always say. If you can't listen to the hard side of the real world, then maybe you should turn a deaf ear to the problems. That is pretty much my experience from Adobe. I'm not into blowing smoke up anyones a$$ telling you have done a great job. Nor am I interested in playing political tennis with a bunch of people that can't stand some harsh constructive criticism. The real problem is restriction and control of a product for the benefit of the ONE company and not for the industries they serve. Again, demise of the ONE theory.

Continued out of control features is not the solution to corporate health. People are pretty much getting fed up with the piles upon piles of nonsensical features that pretty much leave new and old users alike lost in a sea of confusion. I don't find that progress intelligently planned....

Don't worry about me shooting my mouth off Jeff. Worry about me when I stop talking...at that point, I don't care anymore...

Known Participant

Wow, you'd make a great polititian Chris.

Participating Frequently

Joey - just accept that you shall be a victim for an extended period of time until Adobe has some real competition. Maybe then the crack smoking gerbils will understand.

Known Participant

I totally agree on all the above listed bullet points! Is there some feature request form I can send to Adobe on the matter? I personally know a lot of people in this industry that do not like the way Alpha channels currently work in Photoshop. The people in this thread are not the only ones in the forest.

Known Participant

Interesting to read where Alias and Autodesk stand on alpha channels:

Maya image files also contain an alpha channel (or mask channel) which represents the presence and opaqueness of objects, and a luminance channel which represents the intensity or brightness of the image.

There is no reason why PS should automatically remove the corresponding RGB values for us according to the alpha channel. But then maybe Adobe is trying to change format standards again...

I hope this thread keeps on going until something gets changed.

Chris Cox

Legend

Toastman - it helps a lot if you read the thread before posting.

Adobe is not removing anything, only doing exactly what the file says to do.

Participating Frequently

Mike,

Reviewing that excerpt a little closer, I did omit a step here. In order

to reorder the column you have to duplicate the Background layer and

delete the background layer. I omitted that step in the example. The

background that is created, again because it is locked, must be

duplicated again in order to manipulate it.

I have no knowledge to the contrary, but I can't see how the Background

layer is any different than any other layer other than it is not movable

and can't be unlocked. But you can duplicate it and you can delete it so

aside from being some kinda useless freaky teenage mutant ninja layer it

has to still be a layer. If it had some kind of special meaning or was

unique beyond being locked and unmovable in the layer column, I don't

think you would be able to delete it. That would not make sense.

Frankly the background layer never made any sense to me. Deleting that

thing is the first order of business after creating a new file or

opening a new file and duplicating the background. Whats the reasoning

behind this thing anyway? Are the users not smart enough to know whether

to lock the image if they need to, position it as the last image in the

column if they need to? Why am I required to go through these extranous

steps of nuking the locked background just to edit my image?

I'm really not sure what its reason for existance is but the day it gets

permanently removed will be a glorious day.

Joey

I have no knowledge to the contrary, but I can't see how the Background
layer is any different than any other layer other than it is not movable
and can't be unlocked.

Again, A background is not a layer and does not support transparency. You can unlock a background by double clicking on the icon in the layers palete. It then becomes a layer and not a background technically. Therefore, you now have active transparency in that object - like it or not.

You can move the contents of a background by moving channels one at a time. It's a total cludge to do what you require, but it's not completely locked per say. There is a huge bug in the app whereas if you toggle the eyeball in the channels palet on and off after moving said channel out of the canvas area, it will lose the data outside of the canvaa and is vaporized for good. So in conclusion ur kinda screwed either way you look at it unless you work with an oversized canvas and are willing to move one channel at a time on a background canvas area.

yea right..

_

_progress_Author

Participating Frequently

agreed.