I'm using Generate to export .jpgs and have noticed the quality settings result is hugely different outputs from the Save for Web dialogue generated files.
Here's an example where the Save for Web (legacy) dialogue exports a decent looking 12KB jpg at 11%.
Even at 1% .jpg quality, the 10KB output isn't too bad.
The same area exported via Generate at 11% (generate-11-percent.jpg11%) is 6KB and revolting.
Why aren't the results comparable?
Any help greatly appreciated.
Here's an example where the Save for Web (legacy) dialogue exports a decent looking 12KB jpg at 11%.
Even at 1% .jpg quality, the 10KB output isn't too bad.
The same area exported via Generate at 11% (generate-11-percent.jpg11%) is 6KB and revolting.
Why aren't the results comparable?
Any help greatly appreciated.
Posted 3 years ago
irina maderych, Employee
Did a little testing this morning and i think the issue you're having is with the default generator compression. Have you tried setting a custom compression suffix?
Comparing a jpg with 90% quality vs the default generator isn't a fair comparison...
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/usi...
Comparing a jpg with 90% quality vs the default generator isn't a fair comparison...
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/usi...
I've tested this extensively on many different files, and as detailed in my Github post, I'm not just comparing the default quality — many different compression and output settings — attempting to get the same results, without success.
(Please also take a look at the file sizes when you are testing too — there are significant differences when aiming for the same quality of final output. This is an issue for production web environments, a few KB here and there on every single file has a significant cost at scale.)
That's all I'm after, the same quality of output in Generator as what it is replacing. So far that's not possible.
(Please also take a look at the file sizes when you are testing too — there are significant differences when aiming for the same quality of final output. This is an issue for production web environments, a few KB here and there on every single file has a significant cost at scale.)
That's all I'm after, the same quality of output in Generator as what it is replacing. So far that's not possible.
Without sRGB, which I think Generate still fails to export, you'll never get web ready outputs. Otherwise, your github post seems to mirror the problems identified above. No fix yet, apparently.
I've just hit this issue also.
Was aiming to use the feature to speed up the image export process but the lack of sRGB export has killed the vibrancy of my images.
Left image is exported using File > Generate > Image Assets.
RHS Image is the PSD file.
Has there been any progress or solutions found?
Was aiming to use the feature to speed up the image export process but the lack of sRGB export has killed the vibrancy of my images.
Left image is exported using File > Generate > Image Assets.
RHS Image is the PSD file.
Has there been any progress or solutions found?
Yeah, it's not great isn't it. That's just one of many problems with the output quality.
They are still working on it apparently, but it's quite difficult to get some firm answers.
See the latest reply to this though:
https://github.com/adobe-photoshop/generator-assets/issues/348
They are still working on it apparently, but it's quite difficult to get some firm answers.
See the latest reply to this though:
https://github.com/adobe-photoshop/generator-assets/issues/348
(Edited)
Generator will remain useless until it is properly Colour Managed and the lets the user embed Colour Profiles, and full EXIF too, when they wish to.
Ann, I disagree. If sRGB was supported today I could probably utilise Generate for a wide variety of asset exports for use in website user interfaces and site population.
I have previously embarked on such a workflow when doing template design but ended up having to manually export in the end due to Generate's shortcomings.
With sRGB assets creation from Generate I would still be limited non-transparent, 256 colour, GIF files and 8-bit PNGs (due to lack of matte colour management support etc), but 24-bit PNGs and JPEGs would be fine. Naturally I'd have to tweak the JPEG quality settings to ensure the quality was okay.
I'm interested to know for what uses Generate would be a time saver, when the export required other colour profiles and full EXIF. My scope for using Generate may be too narrow!
I have previously embarked on such a workflow when doing template design but ended up having to manually export in the end due to Generate's shortcomings.
With sRGB assets creation from Generate I would still be limited non-transparent, 256 colour, GIF files and 8-bit PNGs (due to lack of matte colour management support etc), but 24-bit PNGs and JPEGs would be fine. Naturally I'd have to tweak the JPEG quality settings to ensure the quality was okay.
I'm interested to know for what uses Generate would be a time saver, when the export required other colour profiles and full EXIF. My scope for using Generate may be too narrow!
SFW is superior to EA for posting photographs (JPGs) to websites because conversion to sRGB can both be done automatically and the colour profile can also be instantly embedded in the JPG.
The better web browsers can read that profile and clients who need to download the file receive one that they can open, view and edit correctly in colour-managed applications (instead of getting a lump of Mystery Meat from EA dumped into their machines!).
The inclusion of full EXIF , or some subset of the EXIF, is often desirable when posting images on Photography forums on the Internet.
SFW provides these features (and a lot more in addition!) while Export As still fails to offer these essential tools.
SFW needs to be preserved as a separate entity from the Generate/Export As module; and it also needs to be returned to its top-level position in the File Menu.
The better web browsers can read that profile and clients who need to download the file receive one that they can open, view and edit correctly in colour-managed applications (instead of getting a lump of Mystery Meat from EA dumped into their machines!).
The inclusion of full EXIF , or some subset of the EXIF, is often desirable when posting images on Photography forums on the Internet.
SFW provides these features (and a lot more in addition!) while Export As still fails to offer these essential tools.
SFW needs to be preserved as a separate entity from the Generate/Export As module; and it also needs to be returned to its top-level position in the File Menu.
Of course Save For Web is a fabulous tool (I actually never use Export As for this reason). But I think that debate is quite separate from the issues related to Generate. Generate exports Layer objects from PSDs as individual files. I can't see how this would be used for creation of resized images with EXIF data for Photography forums or correctly colour managed files which might be required for printing. Do you usually compose many of these in one PSD?
My concern is that Adobe seems to be intending to replace SFW with Generate/EA; or to enfold SFW into EA (hence the insertion of the word "Legacy"); and Export AS is still missing a number vital tools (including CM, EXIF options and comparative windows).
The poor quality of the EA-generated JPEGs (and the lack of better controls in the EA Panel including the embedding of the sRGB Profile) is a very strong reason for keeping SFW totally separated from the EA module.
So the issues with the poor quality from Generate/EA could directly affect SFW unless they are kept as completely separate operations.
The poor quality of the EA-generated JPEGs (and the lack of better controls in the EA Panel including the embedding of the sRGB Profile) is a very strong reason for keeping SFW totally separated from the EA module.
So the issues with the poor quality from Generate/EA could directly affect SFW unless they are kept as completely separate operations.
(Edited)
Sadly, this does not seem to have been fixed in Photoshop CC 2015.5 - just released.
Chad Rolfs, Employee
The defaults will still exhibit the previous results, however, updates were applied to the FLITE transcoder for better jpg optimization. You can set Generator to use FLITE with optimization via a configuration file. Here are the resources you can leverage to do that:
https://github.com/adobe-photoshop/generator-core/wiki/Generator-Configuration-File-Format
https://github.com/adobe-photoshop/generator-assets/wiki/Configuration-Options
https://github.com/adobe-photoshop/generator-core/wiki/Generator-Configuration-File-Format
https://github.com/adobe-photoshop/generator-assets/wiki/Configuration-Options
You might like to update your WIKI to reflect the need for "module.exports = {" for .js files... and maybe add some additional clues that might facilitate self-help. Thanks though. Finally got it working!
Oh, it does... just overlooked/misunderstood by a novice. :(
