JPEG XL support

[Foxtrot314]

Hello, I would like if JPEG XL support was added into Photoshop. It would allow me to use single format for lossy and lossless photos.

Thanks. 

[D Fosse]

I had to look this up. According to Wikipedia,

"The standard is expected to outperform the still image compression performance shown by HEIC, AVIF, WebP, and JPEG 2000. It also provides efficient lossless recompression options for images in the traditional/legacy JPEG format.

JPEG XL supports lossy compression and lossless compression of ultra-high-resolution images (up to 1 terapixel), up to 32 bits per component, up to 4099 components (including alpha transparency), animated images"

Not bad. Count me in. Why have I never heard of it?

[Foxtrot314]

You can look at some comparisons here: https://cloudinary.com/blog/time_for_next_gen_codecs_to_dethrone_jpeg Jon Sneyers is main dev and there are more in depth comparisons on Cloudinary blog.

JPEG XL could also partially replace PSD and and TIFF as working format with much better compression. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/kd42nx/jpeg_xl_as_psd_transferstorage_alternative

There is a lot to like about JXL.

[Sameer K]

Welcome to the Photoshop Community. I'll clarify this for you.

 
With Camera Raw 15.1, we've recently introduced HDR Output as a technology preview, meaning the feature is still under development and not yet final. We are actively working on several areas, including support for Windows, and Lightroom, user interface improvements, and better interoperability with Photoshop and other apps.

Check this to learn more: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/hdr-output.html

Thanks!
Sameer K

[Stephen Marsh]

That would be nice, however, it will suffer the safe fate as JPEG2000 (which also offered lossy and lossless compression) without *widespread* support from ubiquitous software in all areas of consumer, prosumer and pro graphics. 

[Dasein]

+1

[sacb0y]

Please expand HDR support to all of photoshop this has been so frustrating I've started looking for other options. 

[Foxtrot314]

Hello,

I already asked here, but recieved no answer: https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/recommended-workflow-for-viewing-jpeg...

Can you update recomanded workflow for viewing JPEG XL? Currently it says I should use Google Chrome, but it doesnt support JXL. What is new recomanded workflow? Thanks.

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/hdr-output.html

[sacb0y]

I've been doing a lot of research and I think whats happening is AVIF is becoming the preference due to being a smaller size (200kb avif compared to an 8mb jxl, both HDR). But like JPEGXL "viewers" are limited, it's supported on all browsers but edge (apparently it in canary tho), and it's not supported in any viewer on windows.

XNView MP may support it though but I dunno if it has display HDR support.

This is becoming a very broad problem of inconsistent format support. 

[sacb0y]

To help remedy this problem please vote on microsoft feedback hub, i made a post about this issue for the photos, it seems the solution for Edge is comming.

https://aka.ms/AAjwn82

[Foxtrot314]

I just noticed that save as TIFF in Photoshop can use JPEG compression. Would it be possible to add lossless JPEG XL compression here? It would produce smaller files than ZIP without loss of information.

It's very anoying that TIFF and PSD files are so big, but by using lossless JPEG XL the size could be greatly reduced.

Thanks.

[sacb0y]

I just noticed that save as TIFF in Photoshop can use JPEG compression. Would it be possible to add lossless JPEG XL compression here? It would produce smaller files than ZIP without loss of information.

It's very anoying that TIFF and PSD files are so big, but by using lossless JPEG XL the size could be greatly reduced.

Thanks.

By Foxtrot314

You can save Jpeg XL if you can manage to open the file in Camera Raw. It's already a feature just annoying to access. 

TIFF seemed to work well for me to open Camera Raw without an issue. 

[Foxtrot314]

Yeah, but what I am talking about is using JPEG XL as working format. I need to be able to save my image including all layers separately so I can keep editing later, like it's done in TIFF or PSD. But these formats have pretty bad compression. That's why I ask about using JPEG XL (lossless) in this case. Either apply JPEG XL compression in TIFF and PSD to make files smaller or directly save as JPEG XL with layers.

[sacb0y]

Oh I see, sorry my mistake. Yeah until saving is outside of camera raw i guess that won't work...

[Daniel NAG]

Yes please it is an exception improvement and a reliable solution, add quickly the support for JPEG-XL for all your products! Especially InDesign and Illustrator.

Do not let or allow that other companies decide what it is good for your customers and pro users.

Put the needs of your customers first!

Thanks!

p.s. the good old Gimp already supports JPEG-XL... 

[sacb0y]

deleted*

[Dasein]

Any update on this? 

[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