P: Allow JPEGs to be embedded, to save disk space

For the record, I've done a similar test myself and here are my results:

1. Completely empty Photoshop document with a white background (3000x3000 in size)
= 650k

2. Same document containing a 836k JPEG embedded as a smart object, shrunk down in the document to a tiny size
= 1.8 meg

3. Same document with the JPEG smart object now filling the entire document
= 25 megs

4. Same document with the single JPEG smart object copied several times, flipped, warped, distorted etc.
= 31 megs

5. Same document with all the layers set to invisible
= 23 megs

6. Same document, but with the full-size JPEG moved to the very top - meaning it looks identical to document (3) above
= 34 megs

7. Same document, but with the embedded JPEG blanked to white, meaning all the copies are white
= 3.1 megs

Conclusions:

• Embedded JPEG smart objects really are retained as JPEGs, meaning no space is wasted on the smart object itself.
= Efficient storage

• However, every single instance of the smart object in the document is saved as (compressed) raster data. Even instances that are hidden or turned off - they're still being saved as (compressed) raster data which adds to the filesize.
= Inefficient storage

I see no need for this. All Photoshop should reuiqre is the original JPEG, information about where each instance is positioned, and a single preview image, which should be of limited resolution. I'd be quite happy for all my preview images to be limited to 1920x1080 and use maximum quality JPEG compression.

I feel like you're misunderstanding what I'm asking for.

I am a designer and I work in Photoshop. I don't want to lose my Photoshop documents, nor would I ever save a Photoshop document as a JPEG because that would destroy all the layer data, make it lossy, and uneditable.

What I'm trying to do is bring JPEGs into a Photoshop document and retain them as JPEGs instead of converting them to raster data.

Now with the help of another user here (Max Johnson) I have found out that Photoshop already allows you to do what I want and embed JPEGs (just go to File > Place Embedded and import the JPEG that was). The problem is that these files are STILL being saved as raster data, making the document far bigger than it needs to be.

Because its not a 1 meg JPEG file. Compressed and uncompressed are two different things. You just said that you don't want lossy compression.

But if all your layers are just copies of a 1 meg JPEG file, why should any pixel data be saved other than the 1 meg JPEG file?

What if Adobe made a new JPEG in 16 bit (for camera files) that auto-converted to 8 bit JPEG (uncompressed) for printing and embedded files this way you would still have a compressed 16 bit in the camera and a "lossless" 8 bit JPEG ("TIFF").  I think this would be the same as a TIFF that converts to a JPEG which nobody liked.  Don't beat me up, it's only a suggestion.  

You wrote:

"The "parametric" editing (good word) offered by Lightroom and ACR does sound great. So why not allow it in Photoshop? It's certainly not "beyond the scope" of Photoshop, it simply means files are smaller. 

Which proves my point that there is no incompatibility between Photoshop and ACR or Lightroom or Elements with ACR.  It's up to you to be the 'smart' user of the tools at your disposal. I think most LR users are happy to edit 90% of their files in LR and  100% with additional work in PS. Same for me in PSE plus ACR.
The simple fact that editing jpegs 'parametrically' does not create a new version and only adds a tiny amount to the unchanged original pixels offers the best solution to save disk space. The editing is non destructive. The original is available. The virtual version does not need to be in jpeg to avoid compression losses.
Imagine I have to create a composite 12" x 12" page from a dozen of 4000 x 6000 pixels jpegs from a camera. Those assets have been edited parametrically. Since I am working in Elements, when I drag them from the photobin to my canvas, they appear as smart layers. (embedded with parameters, no linking in PSE).  Most of the time, I can resize, move rotate those assets at will and add adjustment layers to each one. The resulting composite tiff/psd keeps the ability to re-edit everything from scratch without wasting diskspace.  If I only want to allow small ulterior changes (text, a few image replacements), I 'flatten' (rasterize) the smart layers, and the file size shrinks significantly. If the next year I don't see any reason to re-edit, I flatten and save as high quality jpeg.  

Thanks, Mr Johnson 🙂

It's still cumbersome but better than having to measure the JPEG first. Oh and you also need to make sure you have this preference disabled: "Resize image during place" (I assume most of us have it turned off as it's really annoying LOL)

What you want isn't possible. You either have a lossy compressed format or you retain all the editing data and layers and have a large file.

This forum is full of people wanting a single app to be at the same time a pixel, a parametric and a vector editor. All that 'smartly integrated'. And of course, smarly integrated with FB, Google and all social media on the 'cloud'!

Well I haven't mentioned any of those other things. (I hate applications connecting to the internet, and the only thing my firewall allows to connect is my web browser.)

As for there being some kind of incompatibility between pixel and parametric editing - there's no incompatibility. It just means you want to be able to work with images without destroying them. Photoshop has offered this for years in the form of Smart Objects.

Very well explained, sir!

it literally copies the jpeg file and saves it into the document like a secret zip file. If you open the smart object, the title of the new tab has a name like "whateverthing.jpg"

Wow, I did not realize this. Because of how big the psd files are, I was assuming that any JPEG compression had been discarded and turned to raster data.

So you're right: Photoshop is already doing what I want it to do. It's already embedding JPEGs! That's half the battle. The only problem remaining, then, is the way that files are saved.

I don't suppose you know of any way I can "retire" this idea, or mark it solved, allowing me to create a new idea that's more specific to the problem?