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

Hmmm, that's an interesting test. Though I'm not sure what it proves, and I don't see the point of using a JPEG for the test? If you open a JPEG in Photoshop and make it into a smart object, Photoshop doesn't know the data originates from a JPEG and doesn't retain any of the compression information?

Thank you Mr Johnson for understanding me and not being as dismissive as the others here. If you think my idea could be worthy of Adobe looking into it then perhaps you could vote for my idea (which no one seems to have done yet).

sounds to me like what they're asking is for being able to save a multi layered psd with SOs and adjustment layers as a jpg?

Eartho, you have misunderstood me. This idea has nothing to do with saving as a JPEG. It's about embedding JPEGs into Photoshop documents. (And for the record, you referred to me as a "they". I'm a he! How many women do you know called Jim?)

Agree.  I have jpegs that are as much as 37 mb.

If I saved as a JPEG, I'd never be able to edit document again! Most designers retain their psd files so they can make future changes.

I cannot see how a JPEG would be 4 megs.  I can see how it would grow to a larger file, but a JPEG file is NEVER that large.  It's usually around 4Kb not megs. 

You must be mistaken. Maybe some web designers work with 4Kb JPEGs, but high-quality online JPEGs are usually a couple of megs, and the original JPEGs from cameras are typically around 4–8 megs.

This is never a problem for me. If I only need simple adjustment layers, I can do much more parametric editing in Lightroom

Not everyone wants to use Lightroom, or has a workflow suited to it. I've been using Photoshop since 1994, long before Lightroom came along. I personally would not want to use a program which denied me the full range of Photoshop abilities, but each to their own.

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. That should never be beyond the scope of any program.

There's no such thing as saving layered files out as the original jpgs.

I don't follow you. Microsoft Word can embed JPEGs. InDesign uses linked JPEGs. Why not Photoshop?

What's the actual complaint/request? You're only interested in saving HD space?

Yes, it's purely about space. Sure, a lot of Photoshop documents have layers containing unique raster data, which needs to be saved. However, most of the time my Photoshop documents don't contain unique raster data, they only contain JPEGs that have been duplicated, flipped, etc, with adjustment layers. There's no reason why the Photoshop file needs to be much larger than the JPEGs it contains.

If you're doing this professionally, then it's a requirement of the job to have an abundance of available disk space ... i don't think saving a little bit here and there is worthy of a request.

You might not care, but a lot of people appreciate the importance of making files as small as they can be, for maximum efficiency. It's means:

1. Faster online transferring of files
2. Faster backing up (especially to the cloud)
3. Drives fill up less quickly
4. Less need to add/replace drives in your computer
   
5. Less money spent on storage (and backup)

I have approximately 27 terabytes of hard drive space on my system, and plenty of room. But I am always interested in saving space. If I could free up hundreds of gigs by reducing the size of my Photoshop files, I would be interested.

Google has a vast amount of storage space, but if you offered them a way to make all their files a tenth of the size, they would bite your hand off.

@4271024, I did my test again, converting to a linked instead of embedded object and the difference in file size was literally only the size of the original jpeg. Which makes sense.
Saving w/out preview only saved a few Kb... because I suspect that only is a single small preview image of the whole document for OS and bridge to display...

Good idea, but there was no significant file savings there, sorry. 😞

Max, this is why we have linked smart objects and we can work around file save sizes by saving without the preview.

3. Install Photoshop on an SSD disk, the performance is greatly improved. The files in use also in the SSD and then to mechanical disks is RAID.

Of course I use an SSD. Who doesn't in 2019!? But it's no excuse for sloppy coding. The difference in speed between CC2015 and CC2018 was really significant. Plus CC2018 had an annoying bug on my computer that made dialog boxes invisible in full-screen mode. I was very happy to revert back to CC 2015!

8. Photoshop allows you to change between four tones one of them a very light gray

The lightest option is still darker than it used to be. Plus I'm nervous that Adobe will remove the lighter options completely, like they did with Premiere. Adobe products are tending more and more towards darkness.

2. Change keyboard shortcuts? That can be done.

I mean full customization, like in other Adobe products. Currently, shortcuts are severely limited. I list those limitations here:
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/please-can-you-allow-fully-customizable-keybo...