P: support for un-maximized PSDs

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.

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!

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.

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?

>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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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