P: Support JPEG 2000 file format, please

My comment to 3dworks was lost when their comment was transferred here -- but it is even more relevant in this thread. Check out AnyFile for these kinds of problems — it solves my issues with many file types.

If anyone in Lightroom development is listening: I use Lightroom to not only manage digital files created by digital cameras, but also images created on film and scanned.  Scanned images can be a huge space hog on a hard drive.  It would be really nice if you could support the Jpeg2000 format in lightroom and bridge so I can more easily manage my files.   As a start,  I would even take the ability to see a thumbnail of the jpeg2000 file as a win. 

If anyone in Lightroom development is listening: I use Lightroom to not only manage digital files created by digital cameras, but also images created on film and scanned.  Scanned images can be a huge space hog on a hard drive.  It would be really nice if you could support the Jpeg2000 format in lightroom and bridge so I can more easily manage my files.   As a start,  I would even take the ability to see a thumbnail of the jpeg2000 file as a win. 

I find a $50 plugin for Lightroom to handle .jp2 (JPEG2000) files, but I find it hard to believe that Lightroom cannot handle a basic photo file. I'm assuming it is operator error for now. Thank you.

I have been using Photoshop for years to archive my scanned film negatives. Your own jpeg2000 file format has allowed me to save the photos in a lossless format that also meant huge savings in digital media storage until only a few short years ago, but which has admittedly become less and less significant a factor.

Having just got my first "real" digital camera I decided to get Lightroom 5 to help me handle the workflow. You can imagine my utter dismay when I find out that Lightroom cannot handle the jpeg2000 format. This means I can use it with any new pictures taken, but with all of my photos dating from earlier this year back to 1993 (some 2000+) it is completely useless.

Would it have been that much effort to "port" your Photoshop plugin for your "professional" digital photographer's tool? I can understand that you probably would not be making any money on it, but isn't NOT alienating a number of dedicated users (albeit a niche, but I have since discovered that I'm definitely not the only one) in supporting your own products also worth the while? Or is optimizing shareholder value the only the reigning principle these days?

Wishing I could return Lightroom 5 (I could just as easily work with Photoshop alone),
Pato

Michael,

Perhaps it would be best if I don't venture to speak for Adobe.

But you're right, and I stand corrected: Lightroom does support two kinds of files:
* those that come from cameras.
* those that come from editing such photos in an external editor such as Photoshop.

My point was really that Lightroom is not a general purpose image editor, whereas Photoshop is (and cost much more, and has been around for decades longer, and has more users than Lightroom..).

Again - don't get me wrong: I'm on your side - I fully appreciate that some Lightroom users also want to use it for scans, or any other image files they might have around regardless of origin, and for that reason jpeg2000 support would be worthwhile.

PS - When I said something comes off the table, I meant for everything you do there is an opportunity cost - every feature request unimplemented and bug unfixed is an example of what came off the table (or never went on) when video was implemented..

I'm pulling for you.
Rob

I think that it would be great to hear directly from Adobe on why JPEG 2000 isn't supported in LR? Rob, I'm not following some of your assumptions:

"Lightroom need not support jpeg2000 because no cameras save jpeg2000 files." Assuming that is true, then why would it support RGB-rendered TIF, a standard few cameras create natively? Or is the TIF argument really being stretched thin in this case to TIF/EP-based raw formats?

"If jpeg2000 goes on the table, something else must come off" So LR development is never additive? What came off the table when video formats support went on the table and into full production between LR v.2 and v.3, for example?

As outlined in this thread, I believe JPEG 2000s compression efficiencies are real and demonstrable . I also believe that as time goes on, efficient data compression will become even more important in all digital imaging than it already is. This fact hits both the pro with their large MP Nikon or Sony, or the casual shooter on vacation with their new Nokia camera phone sweeping a multi-shot pano. If Adobe doesn't want to support the format in LR, that is fine. I'd just like to know the evidence and logic behind the decision, so I can better understand the decision.

At the risk of speaking for Adobe, Photoshop and Lightroom have very different targets:

* Photoshop: top-o'-th-line all-purpose image editor.
* Lightroom: Camera-taken non-destructive photo editor.

Photoshop MUST support jpeg2000, because people expect it from a general-purpose image editor.

Lightroom need not support jpeg2000 because no cameras save jpeg2000 files.

Don't get me wrong - I'm on your side: I hope Adobe continues to expand Lr import (and export) file format support, so people using Lightroom to manage camera images can also use it to manage scanned images, or any other images saved in format-x even if not direct from camera, or export in whatever format they feel like.

Bottom line though: If jpeg2000 goes on the table, something else must come off, and most people would not give much up to gain jpeg2000 support. Thus the reason it's not been implemented, yet.

PS - it's not trivial to port code from Photoshop to Lightroom: different language, different environment.. - probably wouldn't require a herculean effort, but still: time-consuming..

Cheers,
Rob

Ignoring the circular argument that JPEG 2000 adoption may be partially undermined by lack of software support, lack of software support derives from a lack of broader format adoption, I'd just like to ask... Why, when Adobe already has a Photoshop-supported JPEG 2000 encoder/decoder, isn't the format also supported in Lightroom? Is it viewed as a particularly difficult feature to port over to LR? I ask simply out of curiosity, naivete of LR's codebase and how Adobe itself views LR's purpose and audience.