P: support for un-maximized PSDs

[Mike--Palmer]

I saw a post in 2009 about this, but nothing since. Lightroom NEEDS to support Unmaximized PSDs in some form or another. Right now they are invisible to Lightroom!

A multilayered photo file can be 200MB Un-Maximized, yet it's only 89 MB Maximized.

I'd even settle for saving a small composite image in the PSD that Lightroom can use.

As the guy said in 2009 - It's PHOTOSHOP LIGHTROOM, how can Lightroom completely ignore files native to Photoshop?

[Lee_Jay]

In order to support them, LR would have to have PS's full ability to process all layers and such. I could imagine this capability could easily triple Lightroom's size.

Maximize forces PS to render an image using its resources, and Lightroom can then read that image from the file and thus avoid having to render it itself.

I would be very annoyed if LR increased in size by a huge factor just to support this one feature.

[Mike--Palmer]

Not suggesting LR needs to decode Photoshop's complex layers. But LR could at a minimum show the file exists and perhaps Photoshop could put a composite file in the Unmaximized file to let LR present an image of what's in the file. I thought that what was what maximize did, but it shouldn;t take 100+MB to do so.

Right now maximized is 200+ MB, Unmazimized is 89MB. I'll settle for 90MB with a 1MB composite image. I would not expect LR to be able to make changes to the file.

It's ludicrous to waste 100+ MB just so LR can see it.

[ssprengel]

A more imaginative request that will likely occur sooner and be more useful but still allow for accomplishing what you want would be to request an Import Plugin Framework for Lightroom or an Import Photoshop Action where a Photoshop droplet could be invoked to, in this case, add a composite layer to each incoming PSD. It would keep the bulk of Photoshop's processing out of LR, itself, but make it available to people who needed it. Right now droplets and plug-ins are only part of Ligthroom's Export processing.

Is there a reason you're insisting on Adobe adding a feature to LR instead of using existing features of Photoshop in your workflow to accomplish the same thing?

[Mike--Palmer]

What Photoshop features could I use to allow LR to see the PSD? I need to edit the PSD from LR, but that's tough since LR can't see it.

It just seems amazing to me that LR can't see my PSDs unless they are more than twice as big as they need to be.

Isn't the maximize option supposed to put a composite file in there for other apps to use? If so, why is it so big?

[Lee_Jay]

"Isn't the maximize option supposed to put a composite file in there for other apps to use?"

Yes.

"If so, why is it so big?"

I would guess because it's an uncompressed image.

Perhaps your request belongs in Photoshop, and it should be to have an option to include a JPEG in a PSD instead. Perhaps that would cause other interoperability problems.

Since TIFFs hold what PSDs with maximize on hold, maybe you could use TIFFs instead, and use one of the compression options. I don't know.

[TheDigitalDog]

>Since TIFFs hold what PSDs with maximize on hold, maybe you could use TIFFs instead, and use one of the compression options. I don't know.

Exactly. That’s why I never use PSD and always TIFF. There’s nothing PSD provides, other than duotone support that TIFF doesn’t as far as I know. Add Zip compression, the files are smaller albeit slower to open and save. TIFF is an open format, vastly more compatible in other applications. PSD is a proprietary format. Why use PSD?

[Mike--Palmer]

I tried compressed TIFF and it's still 170Mb (almost double the unmaximized PSD file) and it's incredibly slow (and that's on fast computer).

Again, I just don't see what the problem is with Adobe providing some compatibility with unmaximized files for two apps that are supposed to work closely together.

[TheDigitalDog]

The problem are layers! Lots and lots of app’s don’t support em. Probably only Photoshop if you consider all the differing layers, blend modes etc. A flattened version is required.

[ssprengel]

Just to make sure, what is an Un-maximized PSD? I assumed you meant a PSD saved without Maximize Compatibility turned on, right? To make LR see it you just turn on maximize compatibility when you save it. There is a preference to always, never or ask about this when you saev. Do you not know how to do this or have you decided you don't want to do this, or does it not work when you try it?

What are the dimensions in Pixels of the PSD? Do you need the PSD to work on in Photoshop after you edit a copy in LR, or is it just a stage in your workflow that isn't optimal, yet, and Photoshop won't need to see it, anymore after LR sees it?

[Mike--Palmer]

Hi Steve,

The maximized file is 208MB, the unmaximized file is 89MB. Pixel size is 2448 x 4288.

I organize in Lightroom, but do re-touching in Photoshop. It's not unusual to re-edit in Photoshop several times, so lightroom needs to be able to see the edited file.

Up until recently I didn't save the layers so compatability wasn;t a problem. But a new work flow has everything done in layers and saving them makes sense for future edits.

I can tolerate a few extra MB for compatibility, but a 120MB compatibility penalty is a lot.

It's worth noting that Adobe Illustrator can read the non-maximized file, though it collapses thd layers. Is it asking too much for Lightroom to do the same?

[Lee_Jay]

Yes, it is.

That size difference doesn't make sense to me. At that pixel size, a fully-rendered image even in 16 bit should be 62MB. In 8 bit, it should be half of that.

[john beardsworth]

Partly, if you deliberately chose not to maximise compatibility, you shouldn't be too disappointed to discover that it means what it says on the tin - however LR is branded.

However, that is a bit brutal and I agree it is right to expect to be able to import particularly these PSD files. Regardless of whether LR can display a thumbnail or preview, users expect LR to help them manage picture files.

In the interim, how many files are involved? Wouldn't it be best to (a) convert them to TIFs with an action/droplet and (b) get more disc space?

John

[Mike--Palmer]

Thanks for all your workaround suggestions, but TIFFs are too slow and so are 200MB PSDs. I'll manage the unmaximized files myself until such time Lightroom steps up to the plate.

[Mike--Palmer]

One workaround that does work, is to save the file maximized, let LR read the file, then save it unmaximized. LR now complains it can't read the file, but at least it displays the (maximized) image and lets one access the file.

[shoot me now]

Today, I just installed LR for the first time and I was completely taken off-guard that LR cannot read PSDs to display a preview or even add them to a catalog. I am 100% in Mike's corner regarding the Maximize Compatibility option -- don't want it, don't need it. And, given the number of legacy PSDs that I have, the notion of re-saving them all with MaxComp invoked or as Tiffs is not a work-around I intend to employ.

This is close to being a deal breaker.

Bridge has always had this functionality and it seems ludicrous that LR does not. There is surely some way to add this feature without bloating LR. Given that my CS5 folder is nearly 400mb and my LR folder is 50mb, tripling LR's size as was suggested might happen would be nothing compared to adding the MaxComp bloat to every PSD file.

Make it an add-on that can be downloaded by those of us who don't mind incurring a one time disk-space penalty to have LR behave as it should have in the first place.

Please.

[Lee_Jay]

"Given that my CS5 folder is nearly 400mb and my LR folder is 50mb, tripling LR's size as was suggested might happen would be nothing compared to adding the MaxComp bloat to every PSD file. "

That's not the kind of bloat I mean. I mean memory footprint, size and speed to change modules, and processor load to handle such files.

My suggestion would be to re-save all your PSDs as layered TIFFs with compression. Much more compatible and less proprietary than PSDs.

[TheDigitalDog]

>My suggestion would be to re-save all your PSDs as layered TIFFs with compression. Much more compatible and less proprietary than PSDs.

Yup, just build a droplet to do this for all legacy documents and move forward saving TIFFs with compression.

[shoot me now]

Well, for the sake of my edification, if I *do* decide to go the tiff route -- at least from this point forward -- is LZW compression reliable? I seem to remember having file corruption with LZW encoded tiffs in the long ago past, so I'm a little leery. I've toyed with the ZIP option and, sure, it makes smaller files but it's so freakin' slow.

Any thoughts?

[TheDigitalDog]

Very much so. You’ll save a good deal of disk space. But there is no totally free lunch, opening and saving the data is a bit slower. For me, its worth the small speed hit.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Adobe should either support un-maximized psd files or take Photoshop out of the name! Maybe it should be renamed "TIFF Lightroom"? Bridge can read un-maximized psd files, so it is outrageous that Photoshop can't.

All this speculation about the size of Lightroom ballooning to fully support un-maximized files is also silly; the Bridge executable is only 12MB, so why would Lightroom gain much weight?

While I appreciate all the band-aide solutions offered here, they are NOT viable solutions. They a) waste incredible amounts of disk space and b) waste a lot of time reading and writing the huge disk files. (Every save takes 5 times longer!)

Adobe, fix it please!

[TheDigitalDog]

Bridge is a simple browser, it doesn’t have to alter or effect the layered data. Even the Mac finder can show a thumb of a layered TIFF without the compatibility on but not much more.

>Bridge can read un-maximized psd files, so it is outrageous that Photoshop can't.
Reading (seeing a preview) and editing the data are quite different tasks.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

So why can't Lightroom show the image and say "no Lightroom editing". At the moment it completely ignores the file (after saying it can't read it)! Totally unacceptable.

[TheDigitalDog]

For one (and I suspect many other reasons), it would have to have support for layers, their opacity, blend modes and all the stuff in Photoshop to show you this data. Huge engineering when a solution exists that not only allows you to see the compounded effect of the layers, it allows tons of other applications to do so as well (the rendered embedded TIFF data).

Bottom line is, you have to use the compatibility option, it aint going to change anytime soon if at all.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

The engineering's already done - just copy it from Bridge! Do you speak for Adobe on "it ain't gonna change"?

[shoot me now]

Mike, I'm still on your (our) side here. Given that LR can't do anything with layered files, I suppose it seems logical to the propeller heads at Adobe to have it (nearly) ignore PSDs altogether. In fact, I read recently that initially there was not going to be any support in LR for PSDs at all. I guess something is better than nothing, but not by much.

So, being a LR newb, I'm trying to figure out how to modify my workflow to take advantage of LR's strengths but, in the meantime, I'm still not sold on the idea of converting all my legacy PSDs to tiffs just to make LR happy. For that matter, I'm not yet really sold on LR.

The jury is still out.