*** From the Archives ***

This article is from January 22, 2004, and is no longer current.

Industry Analysis: The Quiet Revolution in Proprietary File Formats

5

From The Pfeiffer Report. To learn more about The Pfeiffer Report, click here.

One of the most important contributing factors for the success of desktop publishing was the arrival of standard file formats. Encapsulated PostScript (EPS) and Tagged Image file format (TIFF) were revolutionary efforts to do away with the limitations and complexities of proprietary encodings of pixel and vector illustrations. EPS and TIFF were little revolutions in their own right, which made it possible to build and output complete pages, including illustrations. The advantages of these file formats were so obvious, and the limitations at the time so negligible, that EPS and TIFF moved on to become cornerstones of any self-respecting professional publishing workflow.

And They Lived Happily Ever After?
For the best part of the last decade, these workflows have not changed. But not all was quiet behind the scenes. Photoshop moved on to become increasingly powerful as well as ubiquitous, computer hardware did what computer hardware tends to do: it became more and more powerful, and digital photography erupted as a major force in the market.

And all of a sudden, it became clear that those wonderful standard file formats weren’t so wonderful after all: having to convert files from Photoshop into TIFF or EPS slows down creative work, especially when several revisions are required. Even worse, JPEG (another long-time favorite, which is used in most digital cameras), does not do justice to the dynamic range and capacities of modern CCD or CMOS sensors.

Moving Ahead in Creative Workflows
Whenever you question an IT manager about what his preoccupations, streamlining the workflow comes in as the clear winner. However powerful computers and software have become, nobody likes to spend precious time repeating unnecessary operations if it can be helped.

It was therefore not surprising that the possibility to work with native files rather than their standardized counterpoints has become a hot trend in the market It all started with Adobe InDesign which allowed users to place native Photoshop and Illustrator files in a page layout. And when version 2.0 of the program included the possibility to bring in transparency information directly from Photoshop, more and more designers took notice. With the Adobe Creative Suite released this fall, working with native file formats has become even more generalized across several applications.

The productivity gains of working with native files is in any case very appreciated. In a recent research project conducted by Pfeiffer Consulting, IT managers in publishing companies almost universally named this possibility as one of the major attractions of the Adobe Creative Suite in general and InDesign CS in particular.

But Wait, There’s More…
However appreciable productivity gains of native Photoshop files can be, there is an area where accessing proprietary data instead of a standard file format is even more ground-breaking, and that is in the realm of digital photography. Adobe Photoshop CS now can access the majority of RAW or native file formats of digital cameras. These formats capture the totality of image data “seen” by the image sensor (provided the camera allows saving these files, which is the case of many modern prosumer models.)

For a photographer, accessing a RAW file is pretty much a dream come true. Not only does the format generally store 16 bits per color channel instead of 8, but it allows changing camera specific settings such as exposure or light temperature, using the full amount of data which was captured by the CCD — which means for instance that an over exposed picture can recapture some of the detail lost in the lightest area, or that seemingly invisible shadow detail can be extracted.

There’s No Turning Back
While there is not much point in using RAW files for family snapshots, professionals should only use this format if at all possible. There is of course a downside: file sizes are much larger, which means that for instance on a 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 10D only about 50 pictures fit on a 512MB compact flash card — while the same card could store several hundred JPEG images of the same pixel count. But the gain in flexibility is certainly worth it. I have yet to see a professional photographer who is not immediately taken by these possibilities.

The Social Life of Standards
All this goes to show that we may have to redefine our notion of standards. Now that Photoshop has reached near-total ubiquity (according to a recent global research project conducted by Pfeiffer Consulting, 97% of creative professionals use Photoshop) switching to the native file format makes complete sense, and it is clear that we are witnessing the beginning of a profound change in professional publishing workflows.

And as far as digital photography goes, support for RAW file formats , along with the quality of the latest spate of digital SLRs are a decisive step towards an all-digital workflow.

Sometimes revolutions arrive without making much noise…

 

  • anonymous says:

    The article hits the nail on the head. Using InDesign with native Photoshop and Illustrator files saves a great deal of time. Adobe Creative Suite is simply the best for working with most file formats.

  • anonymous says:

    Love it, support it, and use it. It only gets better from here!

  • anonymous says:

    Andreas, I’m highly sceptical about the promises Adobe makes for its PS-ID-PDF workflow; I’m also highly sceptical of people who parrot their sales pitches as journalism and consultancy. As of last year Adobe was still admitting that native file support for its model of live transparency is not entirely trustworthy. Anyone producing quality prepress artwork who closely examines the role of flattening/rasterising within InDesign at output time will recognise it for the kludge it is. It creates TIFF and EPS formats on the fly, allowing only the most rudimentary controls for this process, and then ‘stitches’ them back into the artwork! The way Illustrator 10 does this is especially ruinous, and the majority of people I know are happier with Illustrator 8 for this reason. While you mention TIFF & EPS standards as being a bit long in the tooth in your first paragraph, the rest of the article tells us what we know already – digital photographers like the RAW format – so what’s new? Are they the people who have to colour separate those images – I don’t think so. TIFF & EPS evolved over 17 years when Adobe was obliged to consult with the industry at large; now, when they have 97% of the market with PhotoShop, they do what the hell they like. That includes releasing beta versions of InDesign as a commercial product. Finally, to claim that IT managers are somehow responsible for content creation is both misguided and irresponsible. I’ll stay with a TIFF/EPS workflow I can trust, thankyou.

  • anonymous says:

    I enjoy the Adobe products. I love Photoshop and and I love InDesign. I don’t like the fact that Adobe is getting SO big. I’m afraid they’ll turn into another Microsoft.

    I, myself, appreciate being able to use native formats, so that when I make a change in Photoshop, I can update it in InDesign without having to make multiple files in EPS or TIF. I’ve also looked into DAM solutions where you can have a native file as an asset and then generate other formats on the fly. I think this is also beneficial to getting the most current image, etc. in the format you need (i.e., JPG for web, TIF for print).

    However, I don’t see how everything can migrate to native file formats. Quark won’t even use Adobe’s PDF; Quark generates its PDF’s in another way. So what makes you think that they will eventually allow you to import Photoshop documents? I don’t think you can even import InDesign documents… at least not yet. Yes, I know that there is the possibility that Quark will go the way of PageMaker, but it will take a LONG time for that to happen as well.

    You also have those who are creating whole newsletters and proposals in programs like Microsoft Word, and I don’t ever see Microsoft importing native Photoshop documents. And, even though the web grows by leaps and bounds, I can’t see using a native Photoshop document as an asset in a web page, there is just too much data there to download.

    So, I guess I’ll say that I don’t see everything going to native formats ONLY, but I will say I like the workflow that Adobe is trying to create among it’s programs.

  • Terry Veiga says:

    I agree with your article. File formats, like most other evolving technology, come and go. File formats exist only until a “better” fix appears. Then one day, BANG! a format begins to “walk” upright to better serve it’s needs… anyway, you get the idea…

    Sure, it’s frustrating as working stiffs in the trenches to chase our tails keeping up. However, no one has to welcome rapidly changing file formats with open arms, but a gentle embrace should serve us well.

    IRONIC CANNIBALISM?? – the initial release of what we call “Photoshop” today was primarily invented out of the need to convert amongst file formats.

    BTW – Alluding to your comment about InDesign starting this PSD format revolution: PageMaker actually imported native Photoshop files way BEFORE InDesign…with Transparency!

  • >