NoSi

In my opinion: no. Since the formats rarely (typically never) change, it is a question of implementation. Since it is basically just import and export, these are just entries in a drop-down list, which - in a modular concept - is self-maintaining. To support the winner of a race only after the race is quite opportunistic. Innovation and progress comes from belief in something. Especially in the field of design, this is the driving force. Users of products provided for this purpose therefore expect this "belief in something" from the manufacturers of their tools. Especially because the support on the way to the goal can contribute significantly to winning. As far as I know "webp" is no youngster anymore. And unlike the (uncounted) "png/jpeg/…" killers it is supported by chrome and others since years which may be a hint what formats should be supported because of it's expectable spreading. But "Hooray" Affinity gets it. Let's see how long it takes for the announcements to produce results.

YES. The only open question is: when will 1.9 be released? Estimated Date available — including year ;) ?

Does this mean the main lead of Affinity product functionality are the abilities of MacOS? This would be a major point for me, not using them. This would be a questionable - because unnecessary - self-limitation to the specifications of others. It is the death of innovation to rank behind others and let them dictate what is useful, what is needed or how things should be done.

I do. It is reasonable to save your own computer against being flooded with setup entries etc. If there is the option to try out something on another system using it is a good alternative. Telling a community personal impressions is the basic operation of all digital communities. I also created a forum account before the purchase. I too didn't buy Designer – because I read the entries, asked questions, … – this is a major use of communities: discussing, offering personal opinions, asking for help, … – what is your use of it? Lifting the manufacturer above any doubt and emphasize that you are satisfied? From my point of view this would be useless information because it would be only about you. I know that there are forums where member primarily post information to put themselves in a good light and to be applaused for it. But up to now I do not have the impression that this is the reason for discussing here. Therefore, I can well understand the drive why people want to share their opinions. As you did. In regard to the actual topic with a worthless contribution from my point of view. It's only message seems to be that you can not believe others that are telling their impressions. For my taste this is disrespectful and border-crossing to general forum rules to treat each other with respect.

Sometimes is »saying nothing« tremendously loud… People dump people and software for something. Whether "something" is better clarifies with some delay. It's 50:50 getting it worse.

You also love your wife/girlfriend/husband/girlfriend "as he/she is" and have accepted that "change requests" are pointless (what everyone in a relationship knows who holds on because of other reasons). Therefore, you may be sending out the wrong signals. If you »love Designer«, the management and/or development can add a »...as is" and everything is done, 😉

I draw a different conclusion from this: Even a few projects are apparently worth the use of a rental product because designers lack the required basic skills. Those who have to earn money with their work are willing to pay money for solutions, but not for "attempts". If you are amazed about paying monthly fee for a product like Illustrator, also talking disparagingly about Inkscape, you should take in regard, that Inkscape is free, what makes it very competitive. Disadvantages of a tool are relative if I have paid nothing for it. A cheaper product in compare to a more expensive one is objectively more expensive, if it is unsuitable for the requirements. Albert Einstein was in an absolute minority with his theory of relativity. Yet he was right...* * I don't want to give a review of Inkscape with this. I'll only take the liberty of pointing out that "majority" alone does not guarantee a claim to "being right".

Ehem… – I have a very very old version of Illustrator ( V 9 – Released 2000) and I am sorry having to say that, but even in compare to this totally outdated version of Illustrator in my opinion Designer is no real competitor. Because of Illustrator pricing I switched to another tool (as mentioned above Photoline). From my point of view Designer is far, far away from that I expect as »basic standards of vector editing«.

I forgot to uncheck "notify"… catched up. The fact, that it is needed? But let's have a look – another point for webp: XnView MP Windows Version 0.94.2 64bits (Dec 20 2019) 76% smaller file with webp.

To be honest: I use webp to save HTML code. I spend some time to create the webp image in a resolution that looks reasonable everywhere and stays small. Then there is no need for switches, scripts or anything else to create fast pages. Pages have less html code which is traffic, too, and they are very easy to maintain without the hassle of a framework, etc. The table Jowday offered shows something quite more interesting: The 1987 (!!) invented and technically totally outdated "GIF" format still remains with more than 22% in these "charts". ⸮ Even the web is floded by conservatives… ⸮ I will retire from this discussion because it becomes pointless.

A big, hungry, growling dog, called customer, who due to persistent inertia switches to one of the many competitors supporting webp? As a sales man I know that it is quite easy to loose customers but nearly impossible to win them back.

A good point: What about the many private web pages without the possibilities of that? They can take advantage of webp if they can create it – with other tools than Photo. This speeds up low bandwith/budget websites with e.g. family photo albums (created with several tools except Photo, saving disc space of small hosted server accounts). Just another reason for arguing Photo should have webp export.

We're talking about the advantages of using a upcoming format today. From that, it is an easy desicion: https://caniuse.com/#feat=heif vs https://caniuse.com/#search=webp One reason of the low usage is the missing support of webp, e.g. by Photo – which was the original intention of this thread: Photo should.

Nope.It's the favorite of sites with high traffic: https://w3techs.com/technologies/market/image_format May be that they are the minority of sites but they are the majority of traffic. And their advantage of higher rating, delivery, … , should be supported by image tools, right?

This statement meets the arguing of those against webp. No one else here is claiming that. It is a building block in the overall design of a website. No more but also no less. Be a good son and tell your mom that the rest of us are extremely happy about her announcement to you.

@All Media Lab I didn't had those nice (english language) links describing it perfectly. And I didn't want to be so strict with the guys who argue past the actual topic. You made my day. Thanks.

no direct correlation <> none. And I can get 50/50 results using webp only. [Holy crap – What is the point of this comparison?] As far as I can remember weakly, the original intention was that Photo should support the webp format. What each individual then does with it is, objectively speaking, irrelevant for the time being. It's just that a now widely supported format (see a "caniuse" link in messages above) is ignored by Photo, which is incomprehensible.

I changed a website from jpeg to webp. Page Speed Insights elevated the result from 91/89 before to 99/100 (desktop/mobile) after. Because all other parameters kept the same I'd say it has a appreciable effect on Google's SEO ranking. Testing a single picture is nonsense, because there are too many additional aspects involved - especially if it is done locally with the browser tools. Even a slight fluctuation of the connection is enough to get a completely distorted result. If you will achieve reasonable results with this method, then please repeat it 100 times, always clear the cache before and take the mean of that and – highly relevant – do it with the same browser. But even then it has no real meaning to the average speed of a website. In my experience webp does impact this positively. In particular, this reduces the amount of data, which is a relevant cost factor for mobile devices and an advantage for slow networks/connections.

To be honest, webp for me primarily is relevant because of SEO and website use. This is the reason why I miss it in Photo. It is a matter of respect and consideration for my website visitors that I keep their data volume as small as possible, especially if they want to visit my pages with their mobile phone. webp offers the possibility to save a lot of bandwidth with comparable presentation to jpeg or png. So a modern pixel graphics tool should support this format. Nobody here demands that other formats should be abandoned or replaced with it. It is only a matter of offering webp additionally, so that photo as a tool remains interesting for web workers.

I wonder, if we are talking about »WebP in Affinity Photo« or the impact of Google to our lives. I admit that regarding to the Google impact to us »WebP in Affinity Photo« is a completely trivial and insignificant problem. Nevertheless, I'd like to repeat my introducing comment that I was expecting Affinity Photo supports spreaded web standards. And my disappointment, that it doesn't. New is my hope that this thread may stick to the theme given in the headline…

→ Edit → Options → Extended → DigiCam Focal: RX 100 is not in the list (to be more precise: in my list). Press Help (Windows: F1) in the dialog and read the description how to add your camera (focal length required): Then you should be able to load your raw files with → File → Open and → File → Browse…, too. Generally, "F1" is a useful companion because it offers context sensual support in almost any menu or dialog.

There are several more interesting formats, of course. HEIF has "HDR included" because of it's capability to store multiple images in one file.But this is – in my option – one of the reasons of its very low distribution. It is typically implemented in high end cameras only and currently, there is not support in any browser ( → https://caniuse.com/#search=heif). It covers primarily a niche market (at the moment). ⸮ If a meanwhile well known format like webp is nothing to think about at development of Affinity, I will not bet if this (and some other) format(s) is known there.🤣 ⸮ (This is by no means meant disrespectfully, but the assumption is obvious.)

Oh – I see – I appologize, regardless to the fact, that @Ben seems to be wrong

In compare to i.e. jpeg webp supports transparency, lossless compression, ICC color profiles, animation and – of course – 32bit support (often named "floating point" which is technically not correct – it is "huge integer") → see WebP Container Specification ( https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/riff_container ). As far as I know and use it, HDR ist a technique to create a high dynamic range image out of more than one which means that this is not a property of an image but the result of processing images ( "TVs" = a sequence of pictures that can be processed by HDR techniques). In compare to the specs of jpeg, tiff, png and others, webp is far in front to formats "Photo" supports. Therefore, it makes me wonder, why it is not in focus of development. The "long term winner" is not determined by technical aspects or advantages. See i.e. "gif" as animation format which is in all technical aspects far behind other formats available. "Long term winner" are determined by support and spreading. I can at least state that webp replaces jpeg and other image formats with all major providers, because it requires significantly less memory, loads faster and gives excellent results in almost all browsers → see https://caniuse.com/#feat=webp (Apple will also see this - some things just take a bit longer: »Safari is experimenting with supporting WebP images«.).

Hm – as a developer my prioritization are led by "What an impact has a new ability in advertisement for our products" and "What effort is to take to get rid of a years lasting discussion?" Breaking this down to webp implementations first answer is "high" second is "very low" together it would lead me to "do it". I am a developer, too, and have to admit that this is a very simple but effective method to keep customers happy.