Working in 16 bit with high resolution images, with every kind of machine, even with a workstation, is a pain. I mean, real pain.
Smart objects are cool but they are not the "always way to go".
Smart Objects are cool but you don't have to use them all the time. I think that Photoshop has so much more to offer than just this problem with the 16 bits images and Smart Objects. Photoshop is still, and will be the standard in the industry. Affinity is not.
Just for curiosity: what computer u working on? Do you have enough ram and a fast ssd? How big are the images you are working on and how many ppi?
All my best bro,
Thanks Martin for a comment. I know 16 bit is a problem here.
I have 32 gb of RAM and a couple of pretty fast 512 gb SSD. Images are usually 1024x2048 or 2048x2048 files having a lot of smart objects keeping links to complex hi res 16 bit sources up to 4096x8192 each to keep ability to be re- scaled and mesh deformed non-destructively anytime. I know it's those hi res files that takes forever to save, even with compression off in settings.
Still same approach works super quick in Affinity Photo where it all sits in RAM or something and I save things only when I want it. In Photoshop I am just looking at progress bar all the time with only SSD that really working hard. Don't know what the magic they use but works brilliantly.
And I don't even need 16 bit for the whole image , just for depth "channel" layer comp and "normal map" one I have to keep in the files. For example Corel Painter has full scale depth channel for impasto effects within otherwise 8bit image files . It's one more ancient dinosaur I love but you can't do much with this depth channel there , even export it without special open source voodoo. Another soft :Photoline can keep one layer being 8 bit and another one 16 bit. Sure Photoshop could do something too to make my life easier.
Yeah bro I see what you mean. Finger crossed they will speed up this process.
All my best mate, If I find a workaround for this I'll let u know,
One thing to keep in mind when working with 16bit images in Photoshop: Photoshop's so-called "16bit mode" is actually a 15bit mode, and supports a range of 0-32768 values, while a true 16bit mode supports 65536 values.
For most photography it doesn't matter, since sensors produce less than 16bit.
For effects, HDR, and 3d work (texturing displacement maps, for example) it DOES matter, because any 16bit output will be capped to 0-32768 values in Photoshop, and when you resave your work, your file has just lost its full 16bit range.
Therefore, avoid Photoshop if you require the full 16bit value range to be maintained in the pipeline.
Thanks Rayek for the info . I didn't know that. But in fact Photoshop has enough gradations in 16 bit mode to be stepless and usable with normal and height/depth textures when the depth is representing quite limited depth variations in displacement maps. At least I never had a problem importing depth/displacement back in Zbrush.
I don't expect Photoshop to rival Nuke or any true deep pixel editors still there is a whole CG field beyond just Photography with a lot of disciplines where Photoshop is turning gradually into rather toy than pro tool. Even so simple thing like composing photogrammetry based materials in Photoshop is turning into a pain in the a....
So why do some useless 3d and video modes nobody using really and not just focus on a modern non-destructive image composer/editor. I would happily buy Illustrator subscription would it support 16 bit, special depth blending modes without necessity to do crazy layer stack and a quick edge feathering like in Xara.
Should I look into After Effect for just photogrammetry based image composing, static, no animation? I didn't try it for ages.
Does it capable to do non-destructive or expression based masks, more ol less advanced mesh deform and simple Z(depth) combine in-between layers?
I create 16bit full-range 3d renders, and require those to stay like that, but Photoshop just frags them by remapping a 0-65536 range to a 0-32768 one when I open the files. So I moved to PhotoLine for this.
I agree wholeheartedly with you: Photoshop is no longer taken that seriously by professionals working in either 3d or video/effects. Far better applications are on the market for that type of work.
The trouble is indeed that the legacy functionality in Photoshop is becoming a ball & chains that gets ever heavier each year, and instead of improving the basic workflow, the developers and Adobe Management seem hell-bent on dropping ever more patchy feature bloat into an already confused mix-and-match soup.
But I suppose the focus is on graphic designers, photographers, and users with little or no knowledge of image editing. Many users want a "all-in" application: some basic video, some basic 3d, etc. 3d, video, and effects is a niche. Adobe rolls where the money is.
Not saying here that Photoshop is terrible - just that it could be SO much better if only they'd rethink some of the legacy workflow stuff that's been there since Photoshop 4. You only have to look at Affinity Photo and PhotoLine for inspiration.
And not having a proper 16bit mode in this day and age is just bordering on the ridiculousness: almost insulting. Things have progressed, and we are living in the second decade of the 21st century, not the nineties. And we STILL have to deal with the banding issue in 16bit mode when zooming out?! And why can't we use all functions in 32bit? Silly.
I agree with every your word. But both Affinity Photo and Photoline lack a lot of convenient small things I've got so accustomed in Photoshop through decades. Photoline for example can't recreate same Z combine trick I do with photogrammetry based textures due to lack of layer chain links . I find Photoshop layer blending way no worse actually than Substance Designer "Height Blend" node and I hate the whole Substance Designer Gordian knot of nodes on a screen.
So I consider myself a Photoshop target customer , who actually love simplicity of layer approach.
IMO it's time to wake up for Abobe. Even so popular "patch" tool is somehow better in Affinity Photo allowing to rotate the patch interactively.
Well, that is why an application like Clarisse has made its appearance on the market, one that caters to the compositing artist's workflow and allows them to work with a more image-based artist-centered way once again.
Try it, you may like it.
I tried Clarisse and probably invested not enough time but my impression was it's just one more 3d rendering tool, not even GPU accelerated. I haven't got an idea of why I should prefer it over regular 3d package + Arnold or rather Redshift/Octane for example. Besides nothing looked especially artist friendly or super convenient and intuitive imo, contrary to what they promised.
It's too complex and "flexible" for my taste where I want something simple like a hummer, same as Photoshop. Just a bit more friendly for images with Z depth which is "must have" for anything CG related. Anytime I open Corel Painter (rarely now) I wonder why, why they don't allow to do something useful with their layers depth channel. It just sits there for nothing except some silly useless "impasto" effect. Would Adobe implement something like this in Photoshop with ability to combine depth of layers a few different ways resulting in dynamic masking, I would be happy.