JPEG-XL is what we need

[Daniel NAG]

After several proofs with my Designer Team, we have decided to store full image resolution with transparency with JPG-XL, it doesn't matter if Adobe does not support it, we have plenty of alternatives to get any kind of size and format from it.

However it would be a great  improvement if PSD are by default compressed in JPEG-XL, if the latter is integrated in all the Adobe Products, for what is my concern inDesign and Illustrator, but it is good for the web as well.

Here my test:

JPEG-XL is the smaller format while still preserves losseless high quality pixels and transparency. It outperforms JPG "HQ" which is our alternative to the venerable format to PSD. WEBP also outperforms JPEG, but the format is limited in many ways, also it can be shutdown by its own creator anytime soon, it is really an unreliable technology on what I won't bet all.

We can leverage the right technology if we can make our voice loud. There is not any need to please another company, perhaps a partner, against the good and the will of its own users and customers.

Please do the right thing!

[Test Screen Name]

JPEG-XL is lossy, not an alternative to PSD... under no circumstances should you use it as your image repository for re-editing...

[sacb0y]

I would also add avif to your tests as i think thats even smaller. 

Really this would be solved if they didn't relegate features to camera raw for some dumb reason.

[Test Screen Name]

Hmm, I see JPEG-XL also supports lossless, but with a much reduced compression ratio (but still around 35% below PNG). So... it could be possible. But that would be a new PSD format. Like PSB was a new PSD format. The take-up rate for PSB has been really poor, as I understand it - I don't think that after all these years it's even supported across the full Adobe suite. Now, the reason PSB was given a new name was so apps that claim PSD compatibility wouldn't be broken, so you'd be looking at a new format of PSXL, to add to PSD and PSB, both of which have to work forever. Is this extra complexity really worth it?

[davescm]

I would have no objection to an additional compression option as long as it is additional.

Many of us prefer PSD saving without compression and disable compression in Preferences - File Handling. The trade off on saving and re-opening is speed vs file size. For many of us speed is more important than file size, disk space is cheap - time is not.

Dave

[Daniel NAG]

@davescm storage isn't cheap at all... Price for SSD/NVMe is still high, it is cheaper only for rust drives, but time to update your server because it is running out of space it is expensive too. For our uses case space is more relevant that waiting 30 second more to save a file. However I agreed with you that it would be cool having compression as option for the ones that need it!

[Foxtrot314]

When saving to TIFF you can already use lossy JPEG compression.

It shouldnt be much work to add lossless (or even lossy) JPEG XL as compression option.

Even lossless JPEG XL could cut size of files in half when compared to TIFF with ZIP compression.

And thats totally worth it.

[Test Screen Name]

I think it would be a great idea for Photoshop to offer JPEG-XL saving as JXL files. JXL files are already a standard. I think it would be a bad idea to add JPEG-XL to TIFF. In graphics circles, adding JPEG to TIFF was considered a great mistake - and it was only done because at that time there was no JPEG file type defined. Why do I think it would be a bad idea? Because people would be sent a TIFF, and they would have no idea whether their software and hardware would work with it. They would blame the apps that hadn't been updated in years, or they would blame the people that sent them a "stupid TIFF that doesn't work". If they are sent a JXL file they will know where they stand. Managing new file formats is sensitive work, and wrong decisions can kill its chances.Why did Google drop JXL support in Chrome, does anyone know?

[davescm]

That is a very good point on compatability. Sending, or receiving, a Tiff or PSD that won't open in another application because it has used a new compression option that is not supported in the target application would be frustrating in the extreme. Avoiding such an issue would require updates of many Adobe and non-Adobe applications such as video editing, print RIPs ,  3D apps, page layout..... etc

I do understand the balance of storage cost vs speed is different in different businesses. Here I use NVMe drives for applications and temp storage, with several SSDs for storage. I only use spinning drives for nightly backups. I turn off  compression for PSD and PSB. It makes a huge difference in speed on large files. For others that balance will be different and compression options will be more valuable.

Given the idea has received only 2 votes in 2 weeks though, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Dave

[Foxtrot314]

Google Chrome killed JPEG XL because they dont want competitor to their own AVIF format. It's simple anti-competitive behavior combined with "Not invented here" syndrom.

Btw, another more popular thread for JPEG XL support is here: https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-ideas/jpeg-xl-support/idi-p/13420524

[davescm]

I was going to merge the two threads, but the two ideas are different. One asking for JpegXL support in Photoshop as a file format , this thread asking for JpegXL compression within the existing PSD format.
It is therefore appropriate to keep them separate.

Dave

[sacb0y]

Given the idea has received only 2 votes in 2 weeks though, I wouldn't hold my breath.\

@davescm 

People aren't really paying attention to the format issues arising partly cause compatibility of these formats is so poor elsewhere. 

We could have a content revolution for HDR images like we have for video but the fact programs like photoshop don't make it easy to make, and browsers and websites don't make it easy to view is extremely frustrating.

I just wish photoshop at least stopped relegating things like this to entirely photography workflows not workflows for PSD cause this stuff is really needed for Games or Animation. 

Don't just take feedback Adobe be ahead of the curve 😞

[Foxtrot314]

And about speed/compression.

If people need speed and have enough space, then use no compression, ok.

But for example I have many photos in TIFF that are done. They just sit on my drive. I dont need speed for something I dont open for months/years. I need best compression because I want to save space.

So there definitely is strong usecase for JPEG XL either as TIFF/PSD compression method or as separate working format.

Right now I use TIFF with ZIP compression because thats the best compression for working format I can get. I dont care that saving takes long. And if JPEG XL can get me even better compression I want it.

[Daniel NAG]

I opened it exactly because there was the other one, becaude I thought it consequential that when you support a format you already have the bit to extend the PSD capability. I would say that it does matter merging the two "requests".

[Nancy OShea]

Why not just ZIP files to save storage space?

[Foxtrot314]

You mean zipping already compressed image files? Did you ever tried that? Because ZIP doesnt work for already compressed files. It doesnt make them smaller than they already are.

I think that comparison of compression methods for one example photo will best demonstrate what I mean:

Original RAW (.NEF): 23MB

PSD: 58MB

PSD + external ZIP: 46MB

TIFF uncompressed: 60MB

TIFF LZW: 30MB

TIFF ZIP: 28MB

PNG: 27MB

WEBP lossless: 19MB

JPEG XL lossless: 16MB

As you can clearly see JPEG XL is the best solution for lossless compression. And because it support layers it can by itself be used as high compression alternative for TIFF.

Or just as compression method inside TIFF. I dont care, but I want that compression.

JPEG XL can offer better compression by 43% in comarision to TIFF ZIP as a working format.

[Nancy OShea]

I keep native PSD files for future editing.

Under no circumstances would I replace PSDs with flat files.

[Jon Sneyers]

JPEG XL also supports layers. It only supports normal blending (and a few other blend modes but certainly not all of the blend modes of Photoshop) and it doesn't support layer effects, but for the basic use cases of layered images, it can be used to store an image (lossy or lossless) with the layers preserved, no flattening/merging needed. Layer names can be preserved too.

Of course it's not a replacement for PSD — there are plenty of things it doesn't support, like text layers etc. But it could be quite useful as an interchange format, like TIFF but with better compression.

[davescm]

For anyone interested in learning more about the encoding /decoding methods of jpegXL I've linked a white paper below:

http://ds.jpeg.org/whitepapers/jpeg-xl-whitepaper.pdf

Dave

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

As @sacb0y notes, Adobe Camera Raw does support saving/opening JPEG-XL, so there is limited support, just not directly in Photoshop for layered saves/opens.