Skip to main content
_
_progress_
Participating Frequently
November 18, 2008
Question

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

  • November 18, 2008
  • 166 replies
  • 259016 views
It seems the monkeys have been at the file formats again...!

Open an exr with an alpha in CS2 and the image displays normally and the alpha is retained.

Open an exr with an alpha in CS3 and the alpha channel is applied to the transparency and then lost... which is really STUPID considering you might apply 0 alpha values to parts of the image you retain visually, as you might just want to use the alpha to drive an effect and not just be myopic and think it's just for transparency.

So, can this be fixed? I can't see any info on it?

Will CS2 non intel plugin work on an intel system in CS3

If not, effectively PS is useless for exr work for us.

Or is this fixed in CS4?
      This topic has been closed for replies.

      166 replies

      L
      lamer3d
      Participant
      October 9, 2009

      Well.. I was searching for a solution regarding EXR and alpha and found this thread. Man.. I swear, this is THE best thread in the entire Web. I dont remember when I was laughing that much. Chris, you are my favorite 

      The thread is now over 1 year old, and we still did not get the solution to the simplest case one can imagine. What can be simpler? Make alpha as separate channel as it was in previous version? Wow.. I need a rest from laugh

      L
      lamer3d
      Participant
      October 9, 2009

      Ok Chris. Please pay a little attention one more time.

      Back in the days of Photoshop 7. When it was released, there was a change in the way TGA files are loaded. There was exactly same situation as now with EXR - alpha now applies to the whole image and turns pixels into transparent, instead of loading as fourth channel. At that time, the problem WAS fixed by ADOBE. They released another loader, that user could install. Here is the link with description of problem:

      http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=1544

      Here is a quote from official Adobe statement (yes, its the place where you are working!):

      Versions of Adobe Photoshop earlier than version 7.0 saved the first alpha channel in a file into the fourth channel when writing Targa files. Photoshop 7.0 changed the application's default behavior to save transparency information instead of an alpha channel, resulting in incompatibility with some existing workflows. In response to user feedback, this plug-in restores the earlier behavior of the Targa plug-in.

      You see, they DID admit that problem exists and DID release an alternative loader. So what you can say now? Its still impossible?

      Chris Cox
      Chris Cox
      Legend
      October 13, 2009

      Read the thread again "lamer".

      You seem to have missed a lot.

      T
      Toastman3000
      Known Participant
      September 8, 2009

      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!

      T
      Tommy L2
      Participating Frequently
      September 8, 2009

      My sentiments exactly.

      Mike_Ornellas
      Mike_Ornellas
      Participating Frequently
      September 7, 2009

      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
      September 8, 2009

      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...

      Mike_Ornellas
      Mike_Ornellas
      Participating Frequently
      September 8, 2009

      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...

      T
      Toastman3000
      Known Participant
      September 5, 2009

      Wow, you'd make a great polititian Chris.

      Mike_Ornellas
      Mike_Ornellas
      Participating Frequently
      August 30, 2009

      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.

      T
      Toastman3000
      Known Participant
      August 30, 2009

      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.

      T
      Toastman3000
      Known Participant
      May 18, 2009

      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
      Chris Cox
      Legend
      May 18, 2009

      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.

      J
      JoeyP41
      Participating Frequently
      September 2, 2009

      What that tells us: you still don't understand alpha channels and transparency, or what 100% transparent means.

      And I don't think you fully appreciate that Photoshop does not work with premultiplied color (we have to convert it to straight color for editing).


      What that tells us: you still don't understand alpha channels and transparency, or what 100% transparent means.

      No.

      I do understand what alpha channels are.

      I do understand what transparency means.

      I do understand what transparent means. 100% or otherwise.

      I do understand that Photoshop steals my alpha to support Photoshop's concept of transparency.

      I do understand that this unwanted confiscation of my alpha contributes to the alteration and destruction of my image and subsequent quarantine of its alpha.

      I do understand that you told me that you don't know how I got the results I claimed with the damage to my images.

      I do understand that your response to me providing an example of this case is that I don't understand.

      I do understand that I just illustrated to you in detail that Photoshop does damage my image by simply reading it and saving it.

      I do understand that you did not reply with an explanation as to why Photoshop damages my image.

      What I don't understand is why an application touted to be the worlds best image editor damages an image format that is formally supported by an importer written by Adobe.

      And I don't think you fully appreciate that Photoshop does not work with premultiplied color (we have to convert it to straight color for editing).

      I already suspected this, experienced this, and knew this but now I formally understand that Photoshop cannot do what every other Professional compositor in the CGI industry can do.

      I understand then that if Photoshop cannot support premultplied images then Photoshop is an inadequate tool to composite or edit the vast majority of CGI images created or rendered by animators.

      No. I don't fully appreciate, I don't even partially appreciate, I don't appreciate at all  that Photoshop can't support my premultiplied images. I'm 0% opaque with this reality. In fact not only does Photoshop not support my premultiplied Softimage images, it destroys the image too. Why should I appreciate that? But then you knew that already because I wrote 17 single space Word doc pages to that effect. That was what you called a rant I think.


      I do also understand that I find it a bit ironic, if not amusing, that I am accused of not understanding alpha channels and transparency while at the same time you admit that Photoshop cannot support premultplied images.

      Now having said all that, my last post  had nothing to do with Alpha Channels or Transparency or premultiplication. It was about why does Photoshop damage my Softimage PIC file by simply reading it and then immediately saving it.

      I don't understand why Photoshop should be programmed to destroy any user's image in this way.

      Would you please educate me.

      Joey Ponthieux

      _
      _progress_Author
      Participating Frequently
      February 12, 2009
      agreed.
      T
      Tommy L2
      Participating Frequently
      May 1, 2009

      Hi guys,

      Ive read the whole thread and I have a new question to add to the mix...

      Does ProEXR support Photoshop CS4 Extended (on XP64) ???

      Ive been trying to get this thing working for ages, no joy, any shared experiences would be very welcome.

      Tommy L.

      _
      _Mike_Ornellas_
      Participating Frequently
      February 12, 2009
      Yes, but you have to understand that Chris can only do what he can in his environment. He has people to answer to and more then one company as well. To be honest, Adobe is out of control at this point and they have lost the essence for fear of retaliation by its customers. It's a case of damn if you do and damn if you don't. The real problem is the people higher up who have NO BUSINESS making decisions on how shall an industry be steered are the ones pissing off the majority of people that are being affected by said changes.

      All this comes down to the lack of market research in the industries they cripple based upon their semi tempest decisions - do to the lack of actual real world experience because they are developers and not entrenched in any specific field they affect.

      I call it irresponsible plight for the sake of corporate stock holder edification.

      But we all do what we can as individuals - but the real problem is tunnel vision because Adobe REALLY does not understand the markets they cater to...
      _
      _progress_Author
      Participating Frequently
      February 12, 2009
      I know what your saying Mike, but one has to remember that people had adopted HDR for quite some time before PS started playing with it.
      Show more replies
      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices