>click "save as .PNG" in Adobeshit Photoshit >takes

get better hardware

>>62435156

i'm using a god dang 6 core ryzen processor

i bet intel has paid Adobe to only optimize for corelets

File: 1499202792674.jpg (3KB, 126x114px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 126x114px

>>62435141
>Using CC
>Saving non-line art images as PNG

Well no shit, stick with CS6 and don't save your photos as PNG, what do you need a 36mb+ image for?

>>62435141
Then export without compression and do it properly outside the program, retard.

>>62435370

lossless image

Why does Adobo use bicubic/bilinear resampling rather than lanczos?

Also why does Adobo refuse to make thing multithreaded? Namely OCR in Acrobat. Shit's slow as fuck.

>>62435141

fudking this

>save image in PSD format
>Adobe uses 2GB ram but only 5% CPU power
>seemingly stuck at 93% progress for atleast 2 minutes

File: 1491422615092.jpg (47KB, 580x346px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 580x346px

>>62435141
GIMP wins again.

>>62435141
Saving as PNG takes no time at all nigger
>Forgot to say, I used Save-To-Web
That's why, it's only single threaded using save-to-web since it's deprecated and won't ever be updated.

>>62435503

I ain't touched that save for web you fucking troglodyte

i just tested saving as .PSD (Adobes proprietary bullshit nigger format) and it also takes 5 fucking minutes like this guy says: >>62435493


Oh well, Intel's shitty 4 core 7th gen processors will reach end of life after only hitting the shelves 6 months ago and Adobe will receive new bribe money to optimize for the 6 core Intel 8th gen processors i guess

>>62435422
Just save it as a raw and then convert it to lossless webp you tiddy.

>>62435566
>webp
>using a dead image format
>ever

>>62435141

>18 megapixel
>Not using paint

File: 1469309230745.png (2MB, 1011x3032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1011x3032px

>>62435591
It's 25-50% more efficient than PNG and being used by ebay as we speak.

infraview supports it afaik

>>62435547
sounds like you just have a shit system then.
because you know what motherfucker.

Works on my machine.

>>62435710
No different versions of PD have bugs like that. I gave up and encoded my pics with an ffmpeg script after I saved the raw TIFF.

>>62435628
>25-50% more efficient than PNG
Maybe shitty, unoptimized ones. And the lossy mode is garbage unable to work with full resolution chroma.
A new format is needed, but it definitely isn't WebP. It's trash abandoned by Google itself.

>>62435765
>Maybe shitty, unoptimized ones.
Nope, lossless webp is that much more efficient than PNG in general. However you could use PNG lossy encoding but that's not really fair anymore.

>And the lossy mode is garbage unable to work with full resolution chroma.
Not really a problem. A WebP file half the size of a JPG looks the same or better.

>A new format is needed, but it definitely isn't WebP. It's trash abandoned by Google itself.
Then why is ebay using it?

File: WOAH.jpg (20KB, 367x346px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 367x346px

>>62435422
The only difference in quality is in the numbers, there is no visual quality difference when saving an 18 megapixel image as a JPEG with quality set to 10-12.
There is literally no reason to save a photo that large as PNG, all you're doing in placeboing yourself and getting bloated file sizes/slowdowns.

>>62436062
bait

>>62437417
not an argument