Skip to main content
I
ivframes
Inspiring
November 7, 2018
Answered

Photoshop JPG Export inferior to Save for Web legacy - why?

  • November 7, 2018
  • 3 replies
  • 720 views

Wondering why Adobe made it this way?

Surely, Export tool is "state of the art" in terms of offering a SVG file option and probably using the latest JPG algorithms. I tried using it but I always ended up on Save For Web.

Save for Web:

1. Starts almost instantly.

2. All tweaking work faster. Much faster.

3. Has 0-100% slider for fine tuning.

4. Easier to preview.

Export as:

1. Slow start, slow generation of JPG previews

2. Has inferior decimal percentage menus vs 0-100% slider.

3. Slow, slow, slow - compared to SFW.

4. SVG option as the only real plus.

So legacy or not, Adobe should upgrade Export tool to be at least on the same level as SFW, if not even better.

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer D Fosse

I agree that Export is still too slow. OTOH it handles big source files better than Save For Web. SFW is based on the old ImageReady code from Photoshop 7.0, when today's file sizes were unheard of.

Export has been a work in progress for some time now. I feel it still isn't "finished", and the promise from Adobe is that SFW will not go away until all the relevant functions have been implemented in Export.

The jpeg quality scale works in discrete steps anyway, so a single-digit scale is just an illusion.

The "Quick Export" function could potentially be a big time-saver - except there's still no way to embed the profile. So to me it's useless. On the other hand display color management ("Preview") has been very sensibly simplified, throwing out the useless "Internet Standard" option. Export now shows the fully color managed version with Embed Profile checked, and the non-color managed version if it's unchecked. That makes perfect sense. It wouldn't hurt if it was on by default, though.

3 replies

Ussnorway7605025
Ussnorway7605025
Legend
November 8, 2018

svg is not a common file type for the web because it is a cpu heavy file

jpeg is a terrible file type for images but it is small and easy for phones, tablets and wifi laptops to get so that is the standard

svg is small file size but you pay for that by asking the user to unpack it at the other end and a lot of small devices will just block them and not try so svg is dangerous to use on the web and really only good for small icons

Chuck Uebele
Community Expert
Chuck UebeleCommunity Expert
Community Expert
November 7, 2018

As Dag mention export as is a work in progress in an attempt to update the outdated Image Ready code. I spoke with the program manager for PS regarding this, and he said the algorithms in export are much better than SFW, and that you will get better results.

    Daniel E Lane
    Daniel E Lane
    Inspiring
    November 7, 2018

    Export as is a much cleaner export. Yes, it takes it a little longer to load, but it's a cleaner final file and its got a lot more options involved in the actual save. also, you don't need the actual graphic sliders to change it. Just click to the left of the number you are trying to change (on the name of the parameter) and slide left or right. Works just the same without the clutter of an actual graphic slider. Also, it's a big one for productions. On the left side you can set it up to save the same file multiple different ways at one time. A batch save if you will. So when I have clients wanting images in a bunch of sizes (for your phone, web, small print and large print for example), I can save them all off at one time. You are just wanting a basic tool and pulling out something that is very much not a basic tool. Geo Metro compared to a Lexus IS the comparison I'm going for here.

      I
      ivframesAuthor
      Inspiring
      November 7, 2018

      SFW is not a basic tool. If you save as GIF or PNG, SFW has lots more options. Each of us have different needs. I don't need 3-4 sizes done at once. It is useful, of course, but not for me. I pixel peep finals for web and is crucial for my blogger to have a balance between max. possible quality for least the size.

      Speed is my main issue here. Export takes ages to load, takes time to render an image (and a very small one - 800x600). It takes time for every change in 0-100% settings. Every single percentage change needs reloading.

      If I have to do lots of images for web, SFW just works, well oiled and instant. 'Export' just stutters. Since you're comparing cars, SFW is like an old Lamborghini to half-charged Tesla.

      Daniel E Lane
      Daniel E Lane
      Inspiring
      November 7, 2018

      Well of course. It's also meant for just saving images into web sizes. The Export As is meant for a lot more than that. Its strength is not in downsizing an image for the web, but for saving it in multiple, full resolution sizes at one time. Different tools for different jobs

      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices