P: Remove the 8192px limit on Save for Web [2013]

Because save for web is 20 years old and being replaced by File>Export>Export As

FOUR YEARS LATER AND THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE?! What an absolute joke, what exactly is the reason for limiting the size of "save for web".

THANK YOU for this!!! Such a ridiculous limit!!!

I posted this below, and I think it would work. First, I would choose transparency rather than color, unless you need some of your image to be transparent. Color selections always have the opportunity to select half a pixel, so your size might be off by one pixel.

But basically, you could create a layer comp for each of your images. Yes, that's a LOT of layer comps. But that way you get names, and you don't even have to flatten anything.
You can then export layer comps to files, then crop your images with an action.

It would be a bit nicer if there was an "export groups to files" option. Layer comps are very nice because you can reuse the same parts over and over. But if you have all of your assets in groups, then you're just doubling your work of naming right?

But that way you get named files.

You can't name each frame, your right. But the composition name does come through. So you COULD create a 1 frame composition for every image, and even have them all at their correct size.
Setting all of that up may not be worth it unless you do lots of iterations though.

Sizing and positioning each would probably be the biggest pain. But once everything is set up, saving each time should be a breeze. Just select all in your bin, export to media encoder, hit render, get some coffee.

But you had a good idea with a script. If you set up layer comps for each item/group, then export layer comps to files. THEN create a simple action that selects the contents of a layer and crops, then saves. Run that action on all of the files, and you've just cropped to the size you need.

Believe me, I considered the same thing, or at least something similar. I was thinking that size doesn't actually matter, as I could letterbox it in a flat color which could easily be trimmed away using an action. The biggest problem is that you can't individually name the frames, so I would be looking at some kind of scripted renaming... It may still be an option, though, if Photoshop doesn't offer us a solution, once the need arises again. 

Well, I have an idea, but you might not like it. Before smart objects were useful I was creating a brochure for a company called impact athletic. It was something like 12-14 pages. But each had a graphic that had to be photoshopped onto a product a few times, some of which even needed to be warped onto a curved leg. Then each product also had 10 standard colors, and customers could request specific colors as well.
So I actually turned to after effects....for print work!
I loaded each page, then created some expressions that linked every color change to one color. Every "frame" of the animation was a different page, in order. I had a couple compositions, one in order for standard pdf, and layed one out as a spread. So All I had to do is set the intended color, change the graphic on One place, and render. A few seconds later all I had to do is compile the PDFs and and I was done.

I Don't think that AE has a size limit that's less than what your graphics card can handle, but that's likely something like 40k square. Shouldn't be a problem. Now, You can't export multiple sizes from one single composition. So instead, you'd need to set up a composition for each size, but you can mass export them all at the same time.

It may not work for your exact issue. I'm not exactly sure, but it's definitely something to look in to. If you aren't familiar with AE, then you'll definitely want to talk to someone who is. You can load your photoshop files in pretty useful ways that can help speed up setup. And organization will be important when working with 520 pieces.

It's been a long time since I posted this problem. Since then I've mostly moved off of PhotoShop and into Sketch for web mockups. My team uses an online tool called invisionapp.com to show mocks to stakeholders. There is an option in InVision (free accounts available) which will let you save your source file to your project. All layers and artboards on a project are automatically extracted and turned into flat png images which can be viewed or downloaded.

A bit of a workaround if all you want is the flat images but completely leapfrogs the problem if you already use, or think you could use InVision.

My team and I keep getting stumped by this arbitrary legacy limit. For many years, we have been using large PSD sheets to export screenshots for mobile platforms in various sizes, from one PSD. Case in point was a game which needed 5 screenshots with marketing copy, in 13 different languages, in 8 different resolution aspects, including the absolutely gigantic iPad Pro resolution. (That's 520 exports, btw).

There is no way we can fit all these aspects (8x5, Layer Comps takes care of the language overlay) into one PSD and have Save for Web work, although that would obviously have been a greatly preferable setup (one file to load, "only" 13 manual operations for export).

Adobe's insistence to dump Save for Web has left us scratching our heads, looking for other ways to automate this task. Obviously, Generator doesn't work, since it doesn't support Layer Comps, and as such would force us to include ALL 520 screens in one file. Ugh.

Have been looking into using InDesign, it almost might work, but would still necessitate the setup of a monster export document with 520 pages with non-uniform size. And it has its own infuriating arbitrary limits, like imposing a limit of a maximum of 10 pages side-by-side in Layout view.

I haven't found enough trustworthy documentation on scripting to consider it a safe alternative.

Does anyone have any ideas? Really, anything would be much appreciated.

Actually, in my experience, PNGs exported with Save for Web and tossed into PNGGauntlet still lose around 20% of their weight. My sample depth should be in the ten-thousands by now. So Mr. Darke's point might still be vaild, Mr. Cox.