Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

10 Messages

 • 

570 Points

Wed, Jun 17, 2015 1:33 AM

Answered

Photoshop: What happened to Save for Web in Photoshop CC 2015?

I don't see Save for Web in the File Menu of Photoshop CC 2015. Did it move?

Responses

1 Message

 • 

160 Points

5 years ago

Please bring this feature back out, it's our most used feature! I was hoping you would take it one step further and create a quick button, not hide it or remove it.

6 Messages

 • 

312 Points

5 years ago

If you have Photoshop CS6, that you are not paying for on a continuing basis, you can keep your beloved features.

If you pay Adobe each month for the use of Photoshop, the beloved features are gradually removed. :-(

1 Message

 • 

72 Points

5 years ago

What they all said! Bring Back (don't get rid of) Save for Web!

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

5 years ago

I actually don't mind they got rid of it. They have replaced they have also given us an alternative.

File > Export > Export As

or

Right Click on the layer and Export As

I have just tested it and found the the Save For Web produced a PNG file which was 483KB where Export As produced a PNG file only 368KB. That a 23.8% reduction in File Size. I say well done Adobe

Ben Ryan

4 Messages

 • 

150 Points

When did embedded color profiles or metadata become "legacy" needs? Or even things that "most" people aren't interested in?

"Well done," Adobe?

6 Messages

 • 

312 Points

Reduced file size for the same number of pixels and quality level?

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

Same quality and same pixels. Run the image through https://tinypng.com and you can reduce the size even further. The image that I exported from PhotoShop CC 2015 was reduced to 112.5KB after using TinyPNG. Quality is still identical (and I am a stickler for quality).

Metadata can be quite handy however when it comes to using these images for Web it is just seen as extra fat on the image. Essentially slowing down the speed of your site.

A major part of my business at http://benryan.me is Web Site Speed Optimisation and this is just further improved the results I'm able to achieve.

I will look at making an example site over the next few days to show how much speed you can gain out of both Export As and TinyPNG

Cheers

Ben Ryan

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

5 years ago

I almost dove into the Adobe bashing about the moving of SFW(legacy). However, I thought I would compare 2014 CC SFW vs 2015 CC SFW vs 2015 CC Export as:
I use on my website an image size of 1860X1237 for my Full Screen Slider. The result of using CC 2015 'export as' is a 200KB savings. I decided to see what the quality was like, so I posted for comparison an image processed thru 2015 CC Export and my normal CC 2014 SFW (which was optimized with image optima). I don't see any visual differences. So I am starting to believe the new 'export as' is a winning function..... Check it out ... http://fritzimages.com/blog/ Simple House Wren

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

That doesn't appear to be a fair comparison. The Export As image is lacking a lot of detail, which means it was saved at a lower JPEG quality setting (which will result in a smaller file).

10 Messages

 • 

272 Points

Where is the quality slider? (part of the problem)

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

The comparison is fairly basic. One Image processed with same parameters with the PS 2014 Vs 2015. I have an image preprep workflow which maybe why I am not seeing the problems some other have.

I have followed up more detail with this article http://fritzimages.com/blog/2015/phot...

I am not seeing a deprecation of quality and the file size is 60% smaller. I am running two images of the same subject on a full screen slider (1890px) at fritzimages.com using an image processed from 2014 CC SFW and processed from 2015 CC Export as. I don't see any visual quality issues and I have a 200KB file reduction.

@ Bernhard Quality slider is there in Export As. You need to change the file setting format to JPG the slider appears. For my analysis I used 60% for CC2014 vs cc 2015

2 Messages

 • 

130 Points

@Ed Using the slider on your Wren image, I can see a big difference in the blackpoint. The export image seems to have had its histogram compressed towards the whites.

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

Hi Daniel,
Thanks for putting your eyeballs on the images. I can see the differences in blackpoints. thanks again

4 Messages

 • 

194 Points

5 years ago

One vital item that is missing from Export is an option to save animated gifs. These are still used for banner ads and social media. Adobe... PLEASE DO NOT ELIMINATE THE SAVE FOR WEB features until you have replaced the functionality.

I don't need artboards or your stock image marketing... I need the functions I'd depended on for years.

1 Message

 • 

140 Points

5 years ago

I wonder who makes these types of software UX decisions. I agree, please bring this feature back to the main menu, FILE -> Save for Web. My goodness, I use it a bajillion times a day.

2 Messages

 • 

132 Points

5 years ago

Save for web is an export with options. The present export has a handful of options, and by every test, the image is less than what can be provided in save for web. Every. Single. Image. Test.

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

Hi John what tests are you doing ? For images uploaded to the web I do not see any quality reduction. Perhaps our workflows are different. Here is my recent article on Photoshop CC 2015 Export as Jpeg...I am very interested in where you see the quality reduction. thanks

http://fritzimages.com/blog/2015/phot...

3 Messages

 • 

242 Points

Hi Ed. Not everyone is looking for a smaller file size. Save for Web allows you to optimize to a specific file size. It also allows you to embed a color profile. And you can choose which (if any) metadata you include in the file. Export As offers none of that functionality.

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

Hi Douglas. Understood and Agree with your points. My pre post workflow sets color space, color mode, quality, resize dimension and dpi before I goto SFW and I understand now that a significant amount of users make those adjustments inside the SFW Interface. I have taken a look at the info files found in PS for both of my images and I am still checking how the color space is set. It does look like Export As is using the industry standard of sRGB. A person can work around the lack of metadata in Export as, by creating a Meta file and importing into info box. I know it is a kluge, but I'm going to see if I can action it. Thanks for the points you brought up, I think I will be amending my article with comments about SFW like yours.... All the best....

2 Messages

 • 

132 Points

Our workflows are different, in that I want to quickly render a flat image and be able to change what kind of color (sRGB), see how it will play out, and include all my metadata. I think you have a workflow that is happening, but it will take me longer to accomplish this. I want to edit my photo, then render fast and quick and be able to change the compression and all this very fast. I do think Export As, will go here, but SFW is essentially an Export As feature with numerous fast easy options. I can not find any of these features with the present Export As. You have done a nice job of finding ways, as I see in other posts, to include metadata, but man that's a lotta work for what SFW already does and does well. I would like to see the compression enhancements added to SFW, as they have been in previous versions.

4 Messages

 • 

150 Points

Hi Ed, I think you're misunderstanding a few things. The idea that SFW "corrects" parameters that you could have established earlier in your workflow isn't always or even usually the case.

For example: setting a color space in which your photoshop work occurs doesn't "pre-empt" or remove the need to embed a color profile in the JPEG you export.

Embedding a color profile tells any software that renders your exported JPEG which color space you actually used. If you don't embed a color profile (and you can't with the new "export" feature) then the software rendering your images doesn't know what color profile you used. Some will assume it's a generic flavor of sRGB. (Usually, software picks the flavor that's most convenient for the software--not the most accurate for your image's color.) This, of course would result in colors rendered *all wrong* if you worked in AdobeRGB or some other space.

This is a real problem for photographers, many of whom work in larger color spaces like AdobeRGB (oh the irony) or ProPhotoRGB. These larger color spaces offer more latitude for retouching, proofing, and print preparation--all vital things that PHOTOshop was engineered to enable.

Consider: just by default, if you're a photographer and you shoot RAW with Adobe's companion Lightroom product or Photoshop's Adobe Camera RAW plugin, your Photoshop work automatically occurs in the ProPhotoRGB color space--it's not even generic sRGB by default.

I hope this helps explain why this new "export" feature is asking for trouble in many possible ways.

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

Hi Mark,

I understand color space from camera up to SFW, like you said we start out with Adobe RGB from our camera raw files then convert to and work in ICC profile prophoto then I preprep by converting to ICC profile sRBG for a few reasons before SFW. I can see from file info in PS that I am at sRGB at this point going into web upload. I just checked and like you said if i process with Export As it strips the ICC Profile sRGB and what remains is color mode 3 photoshop which in RGB mode. If I process the file with Save As the ICC Profile remains in the info file as well as all other meta data..... interesting

For my purposes, I need to import copyright data back into Export as log. Glad for the conversation, thanks for your feedback .. I appreciate it

10 Messages

 • 

272 Points

5 years ago

+1

1 Message

 • 

120 Points

5 years ago

Adding my voice here, but I use Save for Web all the time. The Export As doesn't have most of the functionality as Save for Web and it's really slow. Also it's in a sub-menu now.
Sad bears :(

1 Message

 • 

120 Points

5 years ago

I don't often do a "Me Too" but ME TOO. I use this all through the day for web development and to create comps for draft layouts. To say nothing of sending family photos to people who don't have Infinity Super Speed Broadband. It was one the best things about PhotoShop.

Stop messing about and please put it back.

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

5 years ago

I was ready to jump on the Adobe bashing for SFW change. However I began to run thru some comparisons of Export as vs SFW. I wanted to see if the quality remained and the image optimization impact. I tested on a large file 1890px which I load to the web. I found that the image file size reduced by 70% and I don't see any quality issue. You can check my website fritzimages.com the image 'Simple House Wren' to see how the Export as compares to Save file As.

I have also written an article with more details, screen shots and 950px image comparison. Also all images in the article used the cc 2015 Export as. I think the quality for web is there as well as reduced file sizes. I also have an Image PrePrep for Web workflow, which you may want to consider.

Just trying to add a different voice to the conversation. If SFW is legacy then what has Adobe provided in its place and how does it perform ? Could be an opportunity and change can be a good thing.

http://fritzimages.com/blog/2015/phot...

54 Messages

 • 

846 Points

5 years ago

On this point, does anyone know of a way to revert to an older version of Photoshop?

Photoshop 2014 was perfect for me, I'm not gaining anything from 2015 that I will miss, and would rather just continue to use Save for Web then risk them removing it.

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

5 years ago

Hi Anthony,
You can still use Save for Web in CC 2015 it is now called Save for Web (Legacy)


You can revert to older version of Photoshop if you installed CC 2015 with the Advance option. In any event Adobe has instructions to reinstall CC 2014,
https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-clou...
Some people seem to have had problems with their presets with a reinstall though.

I have some information here which also may be use to you...Good luck

http://fritzimages.com/blog/2015/phot...

54 Messages

 • 

846 Points

Hi Ed,

Yep, realize you can still use Save for Web, but prefer it under the File Menu rather than as a sub option of Export. A Adobe employee has already confirmed in this thread they will be getting rid of it in a future update, so figure I might as well revert early rather than wait until they actually do remove it.

Thanks for the info on getting back 2014.

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

Just wondering, What configuration or feature in SFW makes it so important for you ...All the best

54 Messages

 • 

846 Points

5 years ago

Hi Ed,

Many reasons, but I would say the largest ones in defense of Save for Web:

1. Easy to access from the drop down menus (great for myself and in training others)

2. Saves previous quality settings rather than resetting each time its used like Export As

3. Produces higher quality JPEG images (as noted in this thread, a 65% in Export As functions like a 35% in Save for Web)

4. Side by side comparisons of quality

5. Full image view by default rather than zoomed out

I would love to see this feature improved, rather than them build something new from the ground up as they seem to prefer (although the only thing I can think of is improve Save for Web to handle larger images... otherwise its worked fine for years).

4 Messages

 • 

150 Points

Hi Anthony,

Can I add two critical Save for Web features to your list?

(1) The ability to embed a color profile in your JPEG.

Now that many web browsers and even Facebook (!) will actually read color profiles, this is a critical feature helping a broad web audience actually see the color you've worked hard to create and perfect. It's vital for color-accurate needs, too (e.g., clothing displayed for an on-line store).

(2) The ability to preserve and pass on embedded metadata.

I can't imagine any artists are pleased about losing the embedded copyright, terms, or contact information that Save-For-Web allows them to pass along.

54 Messages

 • 

846 Points

Hi Mark,

Please do!

Save for Web had a ton of features. Everyone used it differently and there are things that a lot of people will miss. My list was self-serving in how I used it, others can provide even more reasons it should be kept.

22 Messages

 • 

272 Points

Hi Anthony, Mark, Stephan123, Dave C thanks for those answers. It is interesting to see how others use SFW in the real world and what they like and what they miss with Export as.

I took a look at the info files for both images in PS CC15 that I am using for comparison, it is interesting to see what metadata is coming across in both file types. It is apparent that copyright info is not avail in Export as, so I just created an export table that I'll use to import into Export as (if that makes sense)..a kluge work around but maybe I can Action it..

In my workflow, I set the color profile,color mode and resizing and dpi before it ever gets to SFW...I never liked to rely on SFW or myself to get all the setting adjusted correctly....this may be where I branch away from other users who use and need that capability which is in SFW.

I don't have any heartburn where they place the command SFW, as I use a Photoshop action work flow which points to SFE to get my images out to the web

I really am having a hard time with the quality issue though. I have uploaded files with Export as and for Web purposes and the quality looks identical (yet export as has 70% file size reduction) but I'm starting with a Nikon D4s Image to begin with... I will keep on eye on this and test it some and check it out on retina screen.

http://fritzimages.com/blog/2015/phot...

All the best and thanks for your info and comments