jpeg xl-files of panoramas are huge.

Forum|Forum|6 days ago
September 29, 2026
5 replies
113 views

This only applies to stitched photos (panoramas). Jpeg and avif does not generate this problem.

5000x4000px

J

Jonnyawsom3

Participant

Hey there, I’ve helped work on the encoder the past few years and this certainly isn’t “a known limitation of the current JXL encoder (libjxl)”.

Any chance you could upload one of the huge files and send the link here? Then we can take a look and check for any obvious mistakes in how Adobe are saving it (Like being Lossless instead of Lossy, ect).

JesperJohagAuthor

Known Participant

Ofcourse! Here’s a folder with the dng and jpegxl.
JpegXL-files from panoramas in Lightroom

If a export the same image in Lightroom om my Iphone, the same thing happens.

J

Jonnyawsom3

Participant

Good news and bad news.

Good news is, I can immediately see the problem and it’s a (relatively) simple fix.

Bad news, it’s on Adobe’s side and means currently the saved images will range from just being very large, to looking corrupted. So we’ll have to sit and wait until they (hopefully) see this and fix it.

If a developer sees this, you need to set uses_original_profile to false during lossy encoding with libjxl. The color space still gets preserved via metadata during decoding, but it will fix the huge sizes and bad looking output. It’s noted here.

Thanks for sending the files, hopefully this gets sorted soon!

Claire H.

Community Manager

Hi @JesperJohag, The behavior you're seeing with JPEG XL exports of panoramas producing unusually large files is a known limitation of the current JXL encoder (libjxl). Certain image types compress poorly with JPEG XL compared to other formats, even at the same quality settings.

Unfortunately, there isn't a fix available at this time. We're monitoring future libjxl updates that may improve compression efficiency for these cases.

As you mentioned in your post, exporting your panoramas as AVIF instead of JPEG XL will help with this issue. AVIF handles these image types much more efficiently and should give you comparable quality at significantly smaller file sizes. ^CH

K

Koushakur

Participant

Just replying to bring light to a dev in this comment thread confirming the issue is on Adobe’s end and how to fix it, and it should probably be investigated rather than dismissed.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.