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?

[TheDigitalDog]

Of course, command C, command P, why didn’t I think of that.

Hopefully that simple code will do the job of showing you the layers and even let you edit them too. You’re a genius!

[Lee_Jay]

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

They aren't even written in the same language.

Look, here's why I think this is unlikely to be implemented. First, it's been like this since version 1 with very little complaining. Second, there are two very simple and straight-forward workarounds already (maximize and tiff). Finally, take a look at this thread. It's been around for a couple of months and it has three votes for it. Look at the "popular" page. The last one on the first page has 19 votes. This indicates to me that not a lot of people care about this feature request, likely because the workaround is so straightforward, especially now with gigabytes of hard drive storage down to 5 cents a piece.

Lightroom makes processing large numbers of images at least an order of magnitude more efficient than using PS for the same thing. Given its relatively low cost (compared to CS) and that very large return on that investment, many photographers have adopted it for handling large numbers of images. Many of us, myself included, don't even own PS (I have Elements for those very few images that I can't deal with entirely in Lightroom). For those very few images, I save them in TIFF. For those legacy images, I saved them with maximize on. No big deal and they are all editable in Lightroom.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

It just seems silly to me that one Adobe product cannot read another Dobe product's files properly. The requirement for maximized compatibility seems like LR is crippled in its ability to PSD's to me. Adobe has the code that reads a normal PSD and it should be fairly trivial to put that code into LR.

[Thany2]

Also, isn't it called PHOTOSHOP LIGHTROOM?

Seems all the more stupid when LR cannot properly read PSD.

[Rikk-Flohr]

Lightroom can read a properly saved PSD.

Why are you using PSD when a Tiff can handle it all without special hoops?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/for...

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

First of all, no it cannot. It needs "maximized compatibility", which seems silly to need for another up-to-date Adobe product. Such a function seems more like something for legacy applications, like older versions of Photoshop.

Why not TIFF: because when using PSD, exporting to TIFF is yet another file to manage. And compared to PSD, TIFF is "lossy" becasue it cannot contain all the things a PSD can (so not lossy pixels, but still lossy as in loss of information).

[john beardsworth]

Not choosing "Maximize compatibility" means not properly saved, and Photoshop's dialog box does provide a very clear indication of the likely results in other apps.

It's "fairly trivial" to read the embedded preview which "Maximize compatibility" adds to the PSD, and that's what LR and other 3rd party apps use. It's not so trivial to include Photoshop's rendering engine and can't be a high priority to cater for folk who have deliberately chosen a suboptimal method of saving files.

Your best bet is to write an action to convert PSDs to layered TIFs. TIF is the equivalent of PSD - with the minor exception of not supporting duotone mode images.

[Raffisys]

Besides the hassle of knowing which file is in Layers and which is flat. If it has layers I use PSD, if its flat I use TIF.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

On top of that, even if TIFF supports layers (properly), most applicaties cannot read them. So might as well have PSD for full functionality, rather than a crippled version in TIFF.

[Rikk-Flohr]

In two years, this topic has received 3 votes. That probably tells Adobe they don't need to waste the engineering time to reverse engineer the PS engine into Lightroom just to satisfy a few.

Some additional research in to Tiff vs. PSD on your parts, is probably in order. The functionality you perceive you are losing is so miniscule that the benefits of Tiff dwarf them by comparison. I have never met anyone who wished they hadn't converted over to TIFF but I have met plenty who lament having stayed (or converted) to PSD.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I don't care about votes. A long discussion says a lot more. I think Adobe is intelligent enough to disguish between what's important and what's popular.

More to the point, if TIFF and PSD are so similar, then it should be all the more trivial to get PSD working.

[Rikk-Flohr]

Good luck

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I don't understand this.
You're wishing me good luck with what exactly?

[TheDigitalDog]

It's foolish to use PSD, end of story. It doesn't provide anything useful as discussed, it's proprietary, it's far less supported on other applications. There's no reason for Adobe to waste engineering time and resources so yes, good luck in getting this requested implemented. I suspect that if you asked most Adobe engineers if they would personally prefer PSD to go away, they would say yes.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Maybe it's foolish, maybe it's superfluous, maybe it's even obsolete. But certainly it's *being used*. And that's what matters.

On top of that, like I've said a million times, TIFF doesn't work properly in each application that claims to be able to read it. Those programs almost always only read the first/top layer, and don't apply any of the effects that you could do in Photoshop, like adjustment layers. I seriously doubt that any program capable of reading TIFF would go and implement all of this. It's too much work and TIFF is almost never used like that anyway.

All this makes TIFF certainly usable, but it also makes for faux compatibility. Which is useful if your files remain inside the realm of Adobe. Anywhere outside it and they become unreadable and write-only.

Therefor, PSD. At least PSD is unsupported or supported. Never anywhere in between.

And if TIFF is so equivalent to PSD, like (as well) I've said a billion times before: implementing it in Lightroom should be trivial, if it already supports TIFF to its full extend as you so claim (which I seriously doubt - so prove it).

[TheDigitalDog]

>>On top of that, like I've said a million times, TIFF doesn't work roperly in each application that claims to be able to read it. Those programs almost almways only read the first/top layer, and don't apply any of the effects that you could do in Photoshop, like adjustment layers.<<

I don't know that you get it. Layers, in TIFF or PSD are proprietary Adobe data. If you are worried about access to that data in an Adobe app, either will work the same (san's Dutone support). OUTSIDE Adobe app's, TIFF or PSD, the layer proprietary data isn't available. That's why we need a flattened version! Outside Adobe app's, TIFF is vastly more supported than PSD, and both will only provide a flattened version of the proprietary layer data for editing.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Wrong again. GIMP can read layers. And I'm sure there are other program that can. So now you're claiming Adobe is the only one capable of reading layers at all. This couldn't be further from the truth.

My point was that programs reading TIFF cannot read layers at all, making save-as-TIFF completely nonsense for anything but Photoshop.

If layers are 100% proprietary data, then the argument for TIFF fails again, because a PSD is 100% proprietary by itself. Interoperability can easily be achieved by exporting to PNG, since the file is going to be meant to be read only anyway.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

What background do you have in using this software? Anyone heavily in editing as derivatives of TIFs, the last thing anyone wants to do is mistake a layered source file for a flat file.

How are you supposed to distinguish a Flat TIF from a layered TIF????
A little color change if it were wouldn't be enough. it needs a new icon and extension. Is PSD slow? Yes, but it IS the standard of how and what photoshop is based on. Maybe PSB should be the new engine for PSD, and have that transition, but why would you associate TIF with PSD?

And Yes, last time I checked PSD is VERY key for Lightroom users. The reason why there are low votes is that many people don't get active about it. I'm surprised how you're being so COUNTER active. Whats your gain?

Its annoying enough that when you open a file from LR(defaults to a TIF format), you have to resync the folder to see it back in LR if you saved it in PSD, which is 90% of the time. If you wanted to work flat, you really have little reason for it to launch into Photoshop in the first place! Someone has got it screwing back there, and just lazy to fix it.

[TheDigitalDog]

>>GIMP can read layers.

Photoshop proprietary created layers (with all blend modes supported, Smart Objects etc)?

[TheDigitalDog]

How are you supposed to distinguish a Flat PSD from a layered PSD???? File name seems doable.

[john beardsworth]

The reason for low votes? Why not take it at face value? No votes means not many people are interested in it. And imagine how many votes would be against it - if people were allowed that option.

You're most unlikely to get this to change. Rather than getting upset, create an action to convert the files to TIF, see them appear in Lightroom, and move on.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I'm surprised at your unwillingness and resistance to improve something that doesn't negatively effect anyone else.

This would make managing files very difficult.
I have used Adobe before it was called Photoshop. The only reason in the past 20 years I have come to the forum to voice something is with LR limitations. There have been numerous things we just except and not post about it. LR is now at the point of annoying with the limitations. If Adobe took things at face value, they wouldn't be the application they are today.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

So you suppose I should go through 10TB of image data to rename the ones with layers? The file names as they are are too long. When there are visual instant response ques like icons to distinguish files, you want to sit there and read??? Sounds like you need a good book to check out from your local library using index cards to look up some titles and info.

If the content is the same, and they don't sound like they are, and if there was a CLEAR way visually to distinguish a LAYER vs a FLAT TIF, maybe I would not care of the conversion. But there isn't. It should perhaps be called a CTF(complexTiff)? or something. This way you see it in the extension, you see the icon differnece and thats it.

[TheDigitalDog]

>>So you suppose I should go through 10TB of image data to rename the ones with layers?

Yup (which isn't difficult with the right product), but at the very least, you could consider naming conventions in the future as a key to what the data contains and/or use the slew of metadata that's possible to embed into images. But back OT, a TIFF or PSD can have layers or not have layers. Doesn't change the needlessness of PSD when we have TIFF!

[john beardsworth]

I'm giving you a positive way forward.