P: Support cataloging PSB files

[alanterra]

Lightroom should catalog psb files, just as it does psd files. I have many psb files that are not over the 65,000 pixels per side or 512 megapixel limits, but are larger than the 4GB limit on psd files, and it would be nice to see them in Lightroom.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I've created a workaround in LR to at least get access to the PSB a little quicker than navigating through the computers OS:

Here's what I have been doing: Create a "PSB" Folder within LR. Then save your PSB file within that folder from within Photoshop. While LR won't see the actual PSB file, it will see the PSB folder, and if you right click on it and choose "Show In Finder" (on a Mac) it will open that folder from within the Mac OS, just double click on it and it will open in PS. This should work on windows as well.

Note: If you don't create the PSB folder in LR, then LR will not see that folder PERIOD. Even if you synchronize a specific set of folders. 

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Agreed!  With higher MP cameras becoming normal I'm hitting that 4gb limit more and more often when stitching even moderate to small sized panos.  I do all my cataloging/sorting with LR.  What's the point in using LR for that if it can't catalog/sort a file type I use often?

[davescm]

Just adding another vote for this.
At one time it was only occasionally that I needed to use psb but with larger camera image sizes as the basis for multi-layered files, I use psb more and more often. I don't pretend to understand the development and engineering implications of adding psb - but after 7 years it hard to believe that Lightroom still will not catalogue  Adobe's own image format.
Please Adobe - add this functionality and allow us to keep using Lightroom as our DAM of choice.

Dave

[Ole Pa]

I've posted this concern / request / plea also (on a different thread, years ago).  Adobe has made some strange business decisions over the years, but supporting your core customer base remains a sound business practice.  We need to manage our digital images and videos... please don't abandon us Adobe and drive us to another software vendor!

BTW - I'm using a workaround that's a Lightroom plug-in.  It's nowhere as good as real PSB support, but automates the manual workaround I was using.  Here's a link. http://www.johnrellis.com/lightroom/anyfile.htm

- Jim

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I just went and bought On1 instead of renewing my "cloud crap." Hopefully, this will work better than Lightroom and Bridge for me.

[danmarker]

Every day I get this issue... until Adobe's Photo cataloging app will accept Photoshops PSB file I'm left to inefficient workarounds. Files are getting bigger, where is the support Adobe?

[StevenMColorado]

This is a major issue, AND it is just getting worse. Come on Adobe!

[PhotoSvein]

I have been using Brige to come around this problem, but yesterday Bridge stopped working too, wont load, no splash screen, tried to reinstall 5times, the old versions wont work ether, latest W10.So with Brige not working for who knows how long and LR still not supporting PSB files......

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Lightroom was always a transitional product.  It had an image processor and a database management system.  Other products like Phase One and Photoshop now have almost all of the image processing features of Lightroom.  You would think that Adobe would emphasize the database side.  Most professional and many serious amateur photographers have image databases containing thousands of objects. These databases each represent a considerable investment in time and money.  I am not aware of any product that competes with Lightroom's capabilities to maintain large catalogues with keywords and suchlike.  However, if pressed, I could make do with Photoshop and perhaps Adobe Bridge.
By not supporting the many new cameras with big sensors and high shutter rates, Adobe is writing off many of the leaders in its customer base. By not improving tethered input they are writing off many others. I guess they were signaling that when they renamed it Lightroom Classic.  If they concentrate on the lower end of the bell curve, someone like Apple will destroy their entire business model with a $20 app.
I don't know about others, but I often get asked by Adobe about what is needed for Lightroom.  I have several times mentioned the lack of support for .psb files.

[Lumigraphics]

This is almost certainly a result of switching frameworks for the new UI. Settings are completely different and its now tied to the overall theme.

[creativeguide]

I have been a regular Photoshop user since 1991 and am a photographer and color correction specialist. I am dismayed that you can no longer create a custom color interface in Adobe Bridge and new versions of ACR. It is important for my workflow to have a consistent 18% grey throughout my entire process from Bridge to ACR to Photoshop. Currently, only PS allows for a custom color background. Bridge and ACR have removed that option in recent versions. Please reinstate those options if at all possible! Thanks, David Ulrich

[J453]

Camera Raw has never had an option for "Custom" background/apron color. I'll make that part of this a feature request

[J453]

Separating out separate request for Camera Raw team

Please reference the new conversation here: Camera Raw: Ability to specify "Custom" background/apron color

[Kukurykus]

That was enough to change title only as the content is exactly the same 🙂

[J453]

I wanted to add his vote for the Bridge issue.

[rickburress]

Jeffrey Tranberry, compare Bridge 2018 and 2019 preference: interface. The removed feature will be obvious.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

It really is time LR supported PSB files, modern camera resolutions are increasing all the time, couple that with large panoramas, focus stacking and luminosity masks and you soon exceed the file size limit of 2Gb for PSD and 4Gb for TIFF. I don't mind having to use PSB for large files but, to get them catalogued, I have to resort to various cludges which waste time. I can't see why LR can't support a proprietary Adobe file format.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Given that this thread is seven years old I think it's clear that Adobe aren't listening at all.  I'm amazed that they think it's acceptable for them not to support their own image file format within Lightroom.  Imagine a car manufacturer not supporting it's own parts and the disgrace and criticism it would face.  

[DMEEPhD]

It is not so much that Adobe is not supporting their own file format; that's a red herring.  The issue is that the underlying Lightroom catalog—which is a database built on SQLite—has size limitations.

For Adobe to increase the sizes of supported files would mean a structural change to a full-fledged relational database such as MS SQL or Oracle.  SQLite is basically free; the others cost money.  A great deal of money.

Therein lies the rub.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Then might I suggest they provide a Lightroom-based automated / automatic way of referencing PSB files for those of us that have thousands of them.  For example, whenever Lightroom Import sees a PSB file it has a check box that affords the user the option to add a reference image of the PSB to the catalog without having to add the actual PSB file.  

Frankly, if there are limitations that can't be resolved then IMO Adobe should be actively looking for a suitable workaround.  It's clear that the demand for PSB support is enough to warrant a response / reaction.

[DMEEPhD]

I agree completely.  However the cost, Adobe needs to move away from the open-source freebie database engine regardless.  So many of the performance issues users are seeing could be wiped away like magic if the program was built on a solid foundation.

[naestyoh]

Hold the phone. What’s this now about the database not being able to store a PSB? The database definitely does not store the image file within but merely references it. Isn’t it more of an artificial rendering limitation? I don’t see the huge challenge for them here. Seems like they could reference the PSB and force “Smart Previews Only” for rendering. Or handle them for now like they deal with video: show the preview but no Develop (or limited editing).

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Absolutely agree.  At the very least, creating a Smart Preview would allow us to actually 'see' our PSB files in our databases.  Perhaps right-clicking the thumbnail would then allow users to edit the original referenced PSB file in Photoshop and update the  Smart Preview in Lightroom.

[DMEEPhD]

Sean, you are correct that LR references the image file, but it does host the previews and when generating previews from files the size Carson is using, the underlying DB simply cannot handle the preview file size.

You can see this issue "live" when LR is building previews from large image files (85MB)—the free space in the drive where the preview cache is stored drops dramatically in real time, especially if the preview building has 1,000 or more images.  We're talking 100GB plus.

I can't imagine what happens when the image files is 2-4GB—20 to 40 times the size of a raw file from a 50MP camera.

[John R Ellis]

To recapitulate past discussions in this topic: The amount of engineering effort for LR to support PSB is modest at most. Supporting PSB in LR is not practically constrained by the SQLite database, nor by the larger file size of typical PSBs, nor by the cost of building previews.

The PSD and PSB formats are nearly identical, the only difference being that PSB uses 64-bit file offsets where PSD uses 32 bits. For my PSB Quick Look plugin, I modified ImageMagick's PSD module to read PSBs and only had to change less than a dozen or so lines.

The SQLite database used for catalogs includes references to files, not the files themselves, so inserting a reference to a PSB has the same cost as to a PSD.

The file size of PSBs can get very large, much larger than the 2 GB limit for PSDs and the 4 GB for TIFFs. In practice, many, if not most, users hit that limit by introducing additional layers, not by having very large pixel dimensions. For example, a single layer of a 50 megapixel 16-bit image takes 300 MB, so a 2 GB PSD allows just 5 layers (plus the compatibility layer).  Some people do hit the file size limit with panoramas, e.g. a 4 x 2 panorama stitched from 50 MP images would be about 400 MP, and a single 16-bit layer would take 2.4 GB.

The cost of building LR previews for PSD/PSBs is proportional to the pixel dimensions, not the number of layers. LR reads the single hidden compatibility layer of PSDs, which is the flattened composite of all the layers. Thus, the cost of building previews for PSBs is the same as for PSDs of the same pixel dimensions. For example, building a preview of a 20 GB PSB that's 330 MP / 16-bit / 10 layers would take the same amount of time and uses the same amount of storage as a preview of 2 GB PSD that's 330 MP / 16-bit / 1 layer.

LR already imposes maximum size limits on all photo types, 65,000 pixels on a side and no more than 512 megapixels, and it could easily impose those same limits on PSBs.  512 megapixels is an order of magnitude larger than the output from nearly all professional cameras, allowing most users a comfortable margin for building panoramas.