popster

Yes, licensed under Apache with permissions listed here: https://github.com/webmproject/WebPShop/blob/master/LICENSE For other questions: https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/#!forum/webp-discuss

As far as I'm aware, there are no licensing fees for WebP's use. It's an open source project and Google has provided the API's. Also, I don't think implementing WebP would involve a major update to AP. The current Photoshop plugin is available for free on Github. It doesn't work in AP (or at least I've not been able to make it work), but maybe it wouldn't be a very difficult rewrite for someone who knows their stuff. And I would be remiss if I failed to mention that there are a few places one can have a jpg/png/gif/ ---> WebP conversion made. It's not the end of the world if Serif chooses not to officially add the capability, but it would save time.

I do not necessarily disagree (says another old man), but I build sites for clients who expect results. WebP is a simply a tool that gets the job done a little better than some other tools.

As I am new to AP, I'm still working my way through its functions and capabilities. When I saw that it (AP) does not have the ability to export to WebP, I performed a Google search looking for the reason. After reading a couple of threads on this forum I see a lot of passion for adding the capability, but that passion is being met with a lot of indifference and misinformation in some of the responses. For example, from the Affinity Photo Lead: and I'm waiting to see if anyone ends up caring about WEBP.. I must say that statement does not exemplify an understanding of web page design and construction. Allow me to put this subject in perspective for you. 1. WebP offers approximately 25-34% smaller file sizes in comparison to JPEG. (https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/webp_study) 2. Given that images account for 51% of the content (in total page size) on a typical web page (https://www.keycdn.com/blog/image-cdn), a reduction of that magnitude is a significant factor both on a micro and macro scale. 3. It is a fact that ~90% of all searches are performed through Google (https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/). Therefore, the necessity of appearing on the front page of an organic Google search is critical to the huge majority of websites. 4. Page speed scores are a vital component of SEO. The better the SEO score, the higher a website appears in SER. It then follows that a page with a smaller footprint will otherwise load more quickly and the faster a page will load the higher it will rank. (https://gtmetrix.com/) (https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/) 5. Google decrees the SEO rules and guidelines. I don't necessarily agree with or even like how they've dictated policy, but they have the market share and we have to live with it. So, if they write the rules and build the hoops, one either jumps through those hoops or is left in a detrimental position. 6. The argument that Apple Safari doesn't support WebP, therefore it (WebP) must not be very popular or some fringe property is weak at best. Chrome currently has 60+% market share and Safari ~15%. Although the other browsers have small numbers, they support WebP which results in only a ~15% share of browser traffic that doesn't. A good designer/developer will include both formats as options when constructing a page, but it would be nice if Apple stopped their snobbery and went with the most efficient solution. (https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share) 7. Why the reluctance to change? Old formats, codecs, standards have come and gone. Some hang around because nothing better has been developed (TIFF, maybe). Others are not let go simply because it's what we're comfortable using. There are undoubtedly various other reasons for why adoption is sometimes slow; however, from a technical point of view, there is substantial evidence that WebP is superior to both JPEG and PNG (just do a Google search) for both the web and printing. In my opinion, it's time to move on.

As I am learning how to use AP after using PS for many years, I am having trouble duplicating a workflow I often use in PS. The description can be found on this page (it is marked as the appropriate answer): https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/21685/replacing-whiteness-with-transparency-in-photoshop The steps as given: 1. Add a hue/saturation adjustment layer 2. Add an invert adjustment layer 3. Add a curves adjustment layer 4. ctrl+A (select all) 5. ctrl+shift+A copy combined grayscale result (*** Need equivalent command for AP) 6. create layer mask on original layer 7. alt+click in layer mask to enter direct edit mode (seems to work, but not sure) 8. past b+w image from #5 into mask (doesn't seem to work) 9. click on original layer and hide all adjustment layers Result: fail in AP. White areas are retained and no transparent background.

I am currently test driving Affinity Photo as I may soon move away from CC. I have a question about RAW workflow. Typically I open a DNG/CR2 file in PS which of course opens ACR. I will create my layers in ACR by making adjustments then using ALT-OPEN to open a copy of the original RAW file. I will repeat this until I have the necessary copies for my layers. Once I'm done, I will move the images onto the base layer which creates layers that I will then mask, etc. How does one recreate that flow in AP?