Lightroom: Support Common Image Formats (EPS, GIF, PDF, BMP etc.)

181 Votes
Contributor ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Feature request: Please add Lightroom support for common Adobe publishing and Web image formats, such as EPS, AI, PDF, GIF, and PNG.

Many of us use Lightroom to manage client images in NEF, JPG, PSD and other formats. But the clients' associated images, which are used on their Websites and in their logos and publications, are invisible to Lightroom. If Adobe Bridge can display these other image formats, why can't Lightroom?

Even if Lightroom did not provide direct editing support for these other image formats, it would still be extremely useful if Lightroom could catalog and display them.

It would also elevate Lightroom from being "just" a photo editor into the realm of being a true Digital Asset Manager (DAM). Now that Lightroom includes basic video support - isn't it time to support all the common image formats that our other CS applications use?

Please vote for, as well as reply to, this request if you would also like to see Lightroom support these additional common image formats...
Idea No status

Views

1.1K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
replies 271 Replies 271
271 Comments
LEGEND ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

With you on PNG, its such a standard format and so important for websites.

Read somewhere that it makes for a better import onto facebook than jpeg, as it forces Facebook to make a better job of compressing any photos.
I don't know what its like for Picassa / Google + or flickr, but .PNG is a format that is real and supported all over.
Plus one from me

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for pointing out some of the many similar requests, John. My feature request wraps up most of those into a single request.

By the way, my above request originated in the Lightroom 4 beta forum. For practicality, it was suggested that I move it over here.

I appreciate everyone's vote for this useful, and overdue, support for additional common image formats.

...pt

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

add 3D image support as well, some camera produce them,and they are just jpeg files with a different extention so nothing needed to display them as 2D images. This would already be great.
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

OK, I'm new to this. How, where can I "vote" for this feature?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Mentor ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I think LR should support the importation and management of any file of any extension, but not by default, only through a user manually adding them. And I wouldn't have it edit, display, or export any of them.

I don't know if that counts as support for this request or not.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

At the top of this thread at the bottom of the original post, click the "+1" button to the right of "4 people like this idea".

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Mentor ,
Jan 19, 2012 Jan 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

"If Adobe Bridge can display these other image formats, why can't Lightroom? "

Because Lightroom isn't part of the Creative Suite, which has tools to display and edit the files you mention, while Lightroom doesn't.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jan 20, 2012 Jan 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

>>Because Lightroom isn't part of the Creative Suite, which has tools to display and edit the files you mention, while Lightroom doesn't.

Baloney. There is no reason to hobble Lightroom like this, Lee. Quit making excuses for its lack of support for common image formats that most of us use.

...pt

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Mentor ,
Jan 20, 2012 Jan 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Well, apparently the team thinks there is. There was even an argument as to whether .psds should be included since they aren't produced by cameras. .psds got in, but only with maximize on which means they are rendered and LR displays only the rendered image and ignores the rest.

Many people think the most important new file format for LR to support is .psb.

You didn't comment on my proposed solution above. I'm interested to know if you'd find that adequate or not.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jan 21, 2012 Jan 21, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Though a slight extra step, Lee, it seems like it would be fine to have users manually specify which file formats they want Lightroom to support. Some graphics applications let you check and uncheck desired file formats during the installation process (usually with the ability to later update those settings).

Additionally though, Lightroom should be able to display the imported images to some degree. If not, how would you know the images are cataloged or available?

Beyond that, if it is too difficult to support editing and exporting from within Lightroom, I think it would be fine to hand the editing off to another application. This could be done similar to the ability to edit Lightroom images in Photoshop.

Depending on the file type, if someone tries to edit an unsupported image format in Lightroom, the application could even display an "Edit in Photoshop?" or "Edit in Illustrator?" dialog box.

Thank you for your suggestion. ...pt

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jan 21, 2012 Jan 21, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It seems like the Lightroom "team" should start listening to users, Lee, and not just to the echo chamber of other team members.

Customers who buy and use the product have a different perspective than software engineers and product managers.

Many users agree that support for additional file formats would be helpful.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jan 21, 2012 Jan 21, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Saying Bridge has broader format support because it has the other Creative Suite applications available to send files to is a fallacy. Bridge has no problem cataloging my MS Office/LibreOffice/iWork files, and the last time I checked those aren't part of the Creative Suite. Doesn't seem to have a problem cataloging ZIP files and other archive formats. Doesn't even seem to have a problem cataloging my Aperture, iPhoto, and Photobooth libraries. Know what happens when I double click on my Aperture library from within Bridge? It opens Aperture. No error saying it doesn't know what to do with it, no dialog confirmation or question about what I intended to do, just passes the handling of it off to the proper application. Even when those applications are not part of the Creative Suite. I could, right now, completely remove Photoshop, Illustrator, and the rest of the Creative Suite from my computer. All but Bridge. And then I could direct Bridge to send PDFs to Preview, PSDs/PNGs/DNGs/etc to Pixelmator/GIMP/Acorn/etc. Know what would happen? It'd pass those files on to the proper applications without complaint.

Lightroom is essentially Bridge+ACR with much more limited file format support. Giving Lightroom broader file support isn't requesting that it be able to edit these files, we just want to be able to catalog them, to make Lightroom a proper DAM so we don't HAVE to use multiple programs to keep track of our day to day work.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Mentor ,
Jan 21, 2012 Jan 21, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

"Additionally though, Lightroom should be able to display the imported images to some degree. If not, how would you know the images are cataloged or available? "

You'd have an icon, with the filename in it, like you have in an OS for a file type the OS doesn't recognize.

"Beyond that, if it is too difficult to support editing and exporting from within Lightroom, I think it would be fine to hand the editing off to another application. This could be done similar to the ability to edit Lightroom images in Photoshop."

That's actually quite complicated. How about a "just open the file like what would happen if you double click it in the OS"?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jan 22, 2012 Jan 22, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

No, Lee. Lightroom needs the ability to actually *display* these other common image types, just as Bridge can do.

I noticed that Bridge provides Open and/or Open With context menu choices to open files. For consistency, that approach would probably be best for Lightroom.

Thank you for your ideas towards a solution. ...pt

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jan 22, 2012 Jan 22, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you, Jay, for your vote for adding to Lightroom "broader file support."

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jan 30, 2012 Jan 30, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

@PhilipTobias
I do FULLY support your feature-request for a extended, in the world outside Adobe, STANDARD and daily used fileformats! I'm going over to vote now on your request.

FYI:
I have, like you, made this request in many Adobe- & Apple-related forums since even before 2009. Also Apples Aperture does support all formats already, but it's way to slow to work with when you have like 80' or so mediafiels to keep track of. In our case, we're 4 people using a mix of CS5 (mostly Photoshop), Lightroom, iPhoto, Final Cut Pro, Xcode etc and a central Lightroom media archive on a NAS that we all could share and maintain (metadata etc) would be just fine - IF it just supported all common filestypes. Don't know now yet if Bridge CS5 will work for us (looking at it now...).

So I think Adobe is actually shooting themself in the foot here, since I'm actually just started to look around for a DAM solution (again), taking another look at other competitors etc. I'm definitly not alone doing this. Just how patient do you have to be with Adobe?

Keep the request-fire going, we all need this common file-support. God job Phillip 🙂

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Jan 30, 2012 Jan 30, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you, Peter, for your support of this needed feature request.

Although Adobe Bridge supports more file formats, it is a nuisance to use alongside of Lightroom. If you're already in the correct folder in Lightroom when you realize a file you are looking for isn't there, it can take minutes to launch Bridge and navigate to exactly the same folder to look again. That is a major productivity waster - it takes you entirely off task.

It would be much better if Lightroom itself could catalog and display these other common file formats that many of us every day.

Thanks again. ...pt

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Feb 06, 2012 Feb 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

*aside*
wasn't that the reason Bridge had so many problems - it was supporting just about every format known to man?

(I know it might be fixed now but I gave up on bridge a few version back as it was completely unusable , I was told at the time, for this reason - (whethertrue or not ) it was the version (CS3?) that just had a mind of its own

Anyway point is: if it risks making LR run badly or slowly then forget it, not worth the hassle
Mac OS Monterey, 64 GB RAM 27" 2019 iMac 3.6 GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Community Professional ,
Feb 06, 2012 Feb 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

No, it wasn't. Bridge and Lightroom are completely different programs.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Feb 06, 2012 Feb 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for the correction John, it was just what I was told at the time (that Bridge suffered from trying to support so many formats)
Mac OS Monterey, 64 GB RAM 27" 2019 iMac 3.6 GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Community Professional ,
Feb 06, 2012 Feb 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

One could just as well point to many other image cataloguing apps of the same era - iView, Extensis ACDeeSee etc - that performed well while supporting many different file types. It's just an obvious line in the sand, and perhaps those who draw it are the same as those who were once against video features?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Feb 06, 2012 Feb 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Not agin Video features here;)
I'm definitely not against any features in LR, just saying , hope it doesn't screw anything up;)
Mac OS Monterey, 64 GB RAM 27" 2019 iMac 3.6 GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Contributor ,
Feb 06, 2012 Feb 06, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi, Simon. Of course, none of us want to add features that will make Lightroom run sluggishly.

But as John replied, other applications handle numerous file formats without undue problems. With proper engineering, Lightroom would seem capable of supporting some additional file formats, too.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report