Jump to content
All Media Lab

Affinity not for webdesign? No webp? Still?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Now that Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome are able to handle webp I find in incredible that it's still not implemented in Affinity Photo and Designer. Hoped that Affinity was a bit more upfront with the latest developments as they happen, but unfortunately this is not the case. Every day I'm converting images from TIFF or  jpg to webp, but with an other application. The code for webp conversion is freely available on the Google website and easily  implemented. Be smart Affinity developers! Every web developer that's up to date  with it's skills is using it today.    

Regards,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not yet supported by Safari, though.  So are web developers really employing formats that are not universally supported by browsers?

 


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, some of the developers I know personally are using webp but use a fallback to png and/or jpg for non supported browsers. The rest are waiting for universal support. 

Mike 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Ben, some of the developers I know personally are using webp but use a fallback to png and/or jpg for non supported browsers.

I concur, the browser sniffer code serves up the best that browser can show and the web devs give the best experience they can, which may mean having a number of exported files available.


Patrick Connor
Serif Europe Ltd

There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility lies in being superior to your previous self."  W. L. Sheldon

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

I concur, the browser sniffer code serves up the best that browser can show and the web devs give the best experience they can, which may mean having a number of exported files available.

Which is why most I know don't bother. It's more work as regards the images themselves.

Safari always is the slow one to adopt/adapt to technology. They are experimenting with webp support in Safari. Or so I'm told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's not yet supported by Safari, though.  So are web developers really employing formats that are not universally supported by browsers?

You could also say that all major browsers are supporting webp except for Safari! 

With all due respect! It only proves to me that you don't know what you are talking about! It would be  nice if you take suggestions from Affinity users serious! 

I show you some code of a background image in a website I created this week and this is how it's done in 2019:

<picture>
<source media="(max-width: 475px) and (orientation: portrait)"
type="image/webp"
data-sizes="auto"
srcset="" 
data-srcset="
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Phone-webp/home-back-phone_vsimc2_c_scale%2Cw_480.webp 480w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Phone-webp/home-back-phone_vsimc2_c_scale%2Cw_905.webp 905w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Phone-webp/home-back-phone_vsimc2_c_scale%2Cw_1200.webp 1200w" class="lazyload">
<source media="(max-width: 475px) and (orientation: portrait)"
data-sizes="auto"
srcset=""
data-srcset="
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Phone-jpg/home-back-phone_vsimc2_c_scale%2Cw_480.jpg 480w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Phone-jpg/home-back-phone_vsimc2_c_scale%2Cw_905.jpg 905w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Phone-jpg/home-back-phone_vsimc2_c_scale%2Cw_1200.jpg 1200w" class="lazyload">
<source
media="(min-width: 476px) and (orientation: portrait)"
type="image/webp"
data-sizes="auto"
srcset=""
data-srcset="
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Tablets-webp/home-back-tablet_asvcpy_c_scale%2Cw_768.webp 768w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Tablets-webp/home-back-tablet_asvcpy_c_scale%2Cw_1213.webp 1213w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Tablets-webp/home-back-tablet_asvcpy_c_scale%2Cw_1536.webp 1536w" class="lazyload">
<source
media="(min-width: 476px) and (orientation: portrait)"
data-sizes="auto"
srcset=""
data-srcset="
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Tablets-jpg/home-back-tablet_asvcpy_c_scale%2Cw_768.jpg 768w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Tablets-jpg/home-back-tablet_asvcpy_c_scale%2Cw_1213.jpg 1213w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-Tablets-jpg/home-back-tablet_asvcpy_c_scale%2Cw_1536.jpg 1536w" class="lazyload">
<source media="(max-width: 4800px)"
type="image/webp"
data-sizes="auto"
srcset=""
data-srcset="
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-webp/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_500.webp 500w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-webp/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_1656.webp 1656w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-webp/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_2400.webp 2400w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-webp/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_3007.webp 3007w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-webp/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_3516.webp 3516w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-webp/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_3840.webp 3840w" class="lazyload">
<img data-sizes="auto"
srcset="" 
data-srcset="
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-jpg/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_500.jpg 500w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-jpg/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_1656.jpg 1656w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-jpg/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_2400.jpg 2400w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-jpg/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_3007.jpg 3007w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-jpg/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_3516.jpg 3516w,
Responsive-Images/Home/back-home/bg-wide-jpg/home-back-wide_q1epvc_c_scale%2Cw_3840.jpg 3840w" class="lazyload"
src="" alt="Full Screen achtergrondfoto met woonamer, daarin een bankstel met Wil Art kussens en schilderijen aan de muur">
</picture>

Regards & Have a nice day!

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, All Media Lab said:

It only proves to me that you don't know what you are talking about!

All he did was ask a question. Who said anything showing we don't know what we are talking about?

19 minutes ago, All Media Lab said:

It would be  nice if you take suggestions from Affinity users serious! (sic)

By definition, asking this question is taking you seriously. We will not implement every request without question, and you would not want it bloated like that either.


Patrick Connor
Serif Europe Ltd

There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility lies in being superior to your previous self."  W. L. Sheldon

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Patrick,

No need to get all excited!

We are discussing a photo editor Affinity that clearly states on their website "The standout choice for professionals".

When we are talking about image extensions like webp and someone doesn't know  what webp is and how it is implemented in webdesign fair enough. But I understand that Ben is a Affinity developer and I find it rather strange that someone like that who is working on a photo editor  is asking a question like that. When It was just someone I could understand the ignorance, but I taste irony in that question.

Why do you think webp is implemented in 3 major browsers? Because webdesigners make use of that possibility. 

Regards,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, All Media Lab said:

Hi Patrick,

No need to get all excited!

We are discussing a photo editor Affinity that clearly states on their website "The standout choice for professionals".

When we are talking about image extensions like webp and someone doesn't know  what webp is and how it is implemented in webdesign fair enough. But I understand that Ben is a Affinity developer and I find it rather strange that someone like that who is working on a photo editor  is asking a question like that. When It was just someone I could understand the ignorance, but I taste irony in that question.

Why do you think webp is implemented in 3 major browsers? Because webdesigners make use of that possibility. 

Regards,

David

Actually, this area of the forum is about Designer - not a "photo editor".

 

My question was legitimate.  Just so you know - I was a web developer since 1994.  I have seen all the changes - and all the headaches that have gone with features being partly or badly implemented by the raft of available browsers.  As a developer I would have opted for the features that have the widest support. Safari and IE have a considerable install base - so lacking webp support would be an issue for me.

 

I've also read that Apple did look into webp, but their conclusion was that other formats were better.  Whether they will ever support it is still an open question.  The real decider is never about which format is technically the best - it is only ever about which big players put their weight behind it.  There's plenty of proof of that through history.

 


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use webp you also have to code the fallback behaviour too. That is not something casual users can do. But as a whole, more is merrier with file formats too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Actually, this area of the forum is about Designer - not a "photo editor".

 

My post was placed here by the moderator, I created the post on Affinity for desktop that services both Photo and Designer.

Quote

As a developer I would have opted for the features that have the widest support. Safari and IE have a considerable install base - so lacking webp support would be an issue for me

 

Well Ben, That's your personal opinion and has nothing to do with the real world reality,  millions of websites use webp and jpg as fall back and even all image cloud services (like cloudinary)  do the same thing. Did you even looked at my code snippet!?  It's common 2019 technology that's used  by millions of developers around  the world. But If you think your personal opinion is more important then  legit arguments to make Affinity Photo more up to date with modern technology go ahead. 

Regards,

David 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, All Media Lab said:

My post was placed here by the moderator, I created the post on Affinity for desktop that services both Photo and Designer.

Well Ben, That's your personal opinion and has nothing to do with the real world reality,  millions of websites use webp and jpg as fall back and even all image cloud services (like cloudinary)  do the same thing. Did you even looked at my code snippet!?  It's common 2019 technology that's used  by millions of developers around  the world. But If you think your personal opinion is more important then  legit arguments to make Affinity Photo more up to date with modern technology go ahead. 

Regards,

David 

I would add Facebook et al also supports webp and serves a fallback when needed. Same with the Washington Post, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, All Media Lab said:

My post was placed here by the moderator, I created the post on Affinity for desktop that services both Photo and Designer.

Well Ben, That's your personal opinion and has nothing to do with the real world reality,  millions of websites use webp and jpg as fall back and even all image cloud services (like cloudinary)  do the same thing. Did you even looked at my code snippet!?  It's common 2019 technology that's used  by millions of developers around  the world. But If you think your personal opinion is more important then  legit arguments to make Affinity Photo more up to date with modern technology go ahead. 

Regards,

David 

 

Reality? Millions of developers??  I doubt there are that many developers in the whole world - and if there are, you are suggesting that they are all using the latest tech?  I'd also doubt that there are "millions of websites" employing tech that has only been widely adopted in the past six months by even Edge, Firefox, numerous Android browsers, etc. I don't doubt that some major websites are already employing it - they have the financial resources to jump on new tech - but your statements are pretty sweeping.  What data are you basing your assertions on??

 

You are also jumping to conclusions that no one here has stated.  We will consider webp as and when.  There are other file formats people have asked for which we have yet to implement.  Am I right in thinking that even Photoshop does not have built-in webp support?

 

I did look at your code snippet.  Not really proving anything new to me, to be honest.  Websites have long had layered image complexity.  That's nothing new - the languages have changed over time, but the methodology has not.  What is also not new is the nightmare job of managing, testing, profiling, validating multiple deployments of the same website.  I refer to my past experience in having to do this commercially.  I guess you don't find that relevant.  So, employing a tech that is not properly supported by major platforms always was an issue.  What is wrong with that statement?  That's my experience - not my opinion.  It also has nothing to do with whether we at some stage add webp to our export formats.

 

My initial, genuine, question was about the real take up of the webp format - not what you imagine it is.  Bear in mid that we have seen many contender formats come and go. JP2000 anyone?  Browser support is also not the same as utilisation, and as I say - formats popular with developers have many times been superseded by others due to the constraints of who adopts the standard.  If Apple decide never to adopt webp, the direction might well change.


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again - you are missing the point and taking conclusions that are not being stated.

 

Also, people use things because they are implemented.  Not the other way around - no one used webp before any browser supported it.  And, again, my point is that if the tech does not get fully adopted, then there might still be a shift towards another format.  Regardless of what you say - this is young tech in light of the past 20 odd years.  And until the tech is universally adopted, using it comes with the headache of having to manage all those alternative fallbacks.  Large companies can justify that resource - their large bandwidth justifies it - small companies probably can't for the reduced real world benefits.

 

All this still has no bearing on when we add webp support - it's just to answer your very sweeping and logically puzzling assertions.


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Reality? Millions of developers??

No you are missing the point! Of course there are millions of websites using these techniques on the server of the domain or in the cloud (it's a big business those cloud services) . Why do think webp is implemented in those browsers?  Just for fun because nobody is using webp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ben said:

 What is also not new is the nightmare job of managing, testing, profiling, validating multiple deployments of the same website.  I refer to my past experience in having to do this commercially.  I guess you don't find that relevant.  

Exactly, why would I want to spend extra time having to test my websites in browsers that support WebP and then test them again in browsers that don't support it

Better just to stick to JPGs for now until WebP is supported by all browsers and "everyone" has upgraded their browser to a version that supports WebP. At least I know the same JPG will show the same across all browsers.  So that's one less piece of testing I need to do.

Developers have been optimising JPGs for websites for ages with no adverse effects, so it's not as though there is a current overwhelming need for a new web format for images.

WebP may (or may not) be the future for images but right now not everyone supports it, which means more coding and testing, which for most developers outweighs any image size benefit you will get in using it.


Due to the fact that Boris Johnson is now our Prime Minister, punctuation, spelling and grammar will never be worried about ever again.  We now have far bigger problems to be worried about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@carl123 Thank you for a sensible comment on the matter.  A lot of developers like to jump on new tech bandwagons though - looks good on the CV.  As I say - big companies can afford to fund that - smaller companies might well question the overheads relative to the slim real world gains.

 

Apple have concluded that other formats return better results than webp - that might well shift the balance if they adopt them instead.  There are always other reasons for companies pushing tech - whether it be to get around patent or rights, etc.  It's not always about the pay off to the end user.

 


SerifLabs team - Affinity Developer
  • Software engineer  -  Photographer  -  Guitarist  -  Philosopher
  • iMac 27" Retina 5K (Late 2015), 4.0GHz i7, AMD Radeon R9 M395
  • MacBook (Early 2015), 1.3GHz Core M, Intel HD 5300
  • iPad Pro 10.5", 256GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the same discussions are going on at the Adobe forum. That's one of the reasons I purchased Affinity, because I hoped they are a bit more up to date with what's going on in the image world.  

But can you explain me why do think webp is implemented in those browsers?

You did not answer that question! 

browser use

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.