P: support for un-maximized PSDs

Mike, others, thanks for your persistence on the topic. I'll give you some background on why this functionality isn't currently on our Lightroom roadmap. At the end of the day, product development comes down to a series of prioritization decisions. While a reasonable feature request, this is one that's never made the prioritization cut. One of the initial concerns was that the code required to interpret proprietary, layered PSD files would more than double the size of the Lightroom application. That's an incredible burden to place on all customers for something requested by a fraction. The team also believes strongly in supporting standards such as XMP, DNG and TIFF. Supporting a proprietary, layered PSD file is not a path the team would prioritize above other efforts. Also keep in mind the testing efforts required every time we update the Lightroom application. (8 releases per year) Validating proprietary PSD support could be disproportionately expensive relative to the amount of value we're providing with the feature.

While none of this background decreases the validity of your request, hopefully it gives you an idea of why the functionality has yet to make it into Lightroom.

Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems

I'm giving you a positive way forward.

>>So you suppose I should go through 10TB of image data to rename the ones with layers?

Yup (which isn't difficult with the right product), but at the very least, you could consider naming conventions in the future as a key to what the data contains and/or use the slew of metadata that's possible to embed into images. But back OT, a TIFF or PSD can have layers or not have layers. Doesn't change the needlessness of PSD when we have TIFF!

So you suppose I should go through 10TB of image data to rename the ones with layers? The file names as they are are too long. When there are visual instant response ques like icons to distinguish files, you want to sit there and read??? Sounds like you need a good book to check out from your local library using index cards to look up some titles and info.

If the content is the same, and they don't sound like they are, and if there was a CLEAR way visually to distinguish a LAYER vs a FLAT TIF, maybe I would not care of the conversion. But there isn't. It should perhaps be called a CTF(complexTiff)? or something. This way you see it in the extension, you see the icon differnece and thats it.

I'm surprised at your unwillingness and resistance to improve something that doesn't negatively effect anyone else.

This would make managing files very difficult.
I have used Adobe before it was called Photoshop. The only reason in the past 20 years I have come to the forum to voice something is with LR limitations. There have been numerous things we just except and not post about it. LR is now at the point of annoying with the limitations. If Adobe took things at face value, they wouldn't be the application they are today.

The reason for low votes? Why not take it at face value? No votes means not many people are interested in it. And imagine how many votes would be against it - if people were allowed that option.

You're most unlikely to get this to change. Rather than getting upset, create an action to convert the files to TIF, see them appear in Lightroom, and move on.

How are you supposed to distinguish a Flat PSD from a layered PSD???? File name seems doable.

>>GIMP can read layers.

Photoshop proprietary created layers (with all blend modes supported, Smart Objects etc)?

What background do you have in using this software? Anyone heavily in editing as derivatives of TIFs, the last thing anyone wants to do is mistake a layered source file for a flat file.

How are you supposed to distinguish a Flat TIF from a layered TIF????
A little color change if it were wouldn't be enough. it needs a new icon and extension. Is PSD slow? Yes, but it IS the standard of how and what photoshop is based on. Maybe PSB should be the new engine for PSD, and have that transition, but why would you associate TIF with PSD?

And Yes, last time I checked PSD is VERY key for Lightroom users. The reason why there are low votes is that many people don't get active about it. I'm surprised how you're being so COUNTER active. Whats your gain?

Its annoying enough that when you open a file from LR(defaults to a TIF format), you have to resync the folder to see it back in LR if you saved it in PSD, which is 90% of the time. If you wanted to work flat, you really have little reason for it to launch into Photoshop in the first place! Someone has got it screwing back there, and just lazy to fix it.

Wrong again. GIMP can read layers. And I'm sure there are other program that can. So now you're claiming Adobe is the only one capable of reading layers at all. This couldn't be further from the truth.

My point was that programs reading TIFF cannot read layers at all, making save-as-TIFF completely nonsense for anything but Photoshop.

If layers are 100% proprietary data, then the argument for TIFF fails again, because a PSD is 100% proprietary by itself. Interoperability can easily be achieved by exporting to PNG, since the file is going to be meant to be read only anyway.