Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family
philip_tobias's profile

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

Thu, Jan 19, 2012 6:00 PM

Under consideration

179

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

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...

Responses

248 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

8 years ago

If LR had a comprehensive SDK then a third party could / would deal with this and many other issues. Since LR has limited development resources and modest capabilities outside the develop module this is where I would like to see the Adobe resources expended.

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

Hi, Rory. So you are suggesting that Adobe furnish a robust Software Development Kit (SDK), which would allow third parties to provide additional capabilities, such as improved image format support?

248 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

Yes.

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

That's a fine idea, and one that could lead to many new capabilities, including better image format support. However, as someone who is involved with an SDK development team (I write the documentation), it is not a trivial undertaking. But I'd love to see Adobe pursue this. Though it is related to this topic, perhaps you should start a new feature request for a robust Lightroom SDK?

248 Messages

 • 

4.1K Points

I agree it is a non-trivial undertaking. In fact, I suspect it would be more difficult than anything else in LR development. My experience using javascipt with photoshop and bridge shows Adobe is not that good at engineering and supporting the SDK. A good example of this is the bridge SDK, where the ScriptUI is riddled with bugs since CS6 and has not been fixed even though it works in photoshop and the ESTK.

The LR SDK has been asked for before (several times)... and sort of promised at the beginning of LR. Personally I think Adobe should concentrate on the develop module, core library capabilities and a robust SDK, instead of creating almost good enough modules like mapping and books.

27 Messages

 • 

440 Points

At least it would mean that we don't have to surrender to *only* Adobe's mercy when asking for new features. This is very important with such a complex product.

27 Messages

 • 

440 Points

7 years ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Lightroom: Catalog GIF files.


Allow cataloging GIF files in the next Lightroom, please. GIFs are used for animation, and folks who want to create those neat anigifs from pieces of video, can keep those GIFs in the catalog using this feature.

Lightroom would have to support *animated* GIF as well as non-animated. Animation is technically already supported in the form of video support.

27 Messages

 • 

440 Points

7 years ago

Related to this: I also find it rather weird that in order to catalog PSD files, they need to be stored with "maximum compatibility" switched on. That feels like one Adobe product has trouble reading another Adobe product's file formats. This needs fixing too.

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.9K Messages

 • 

295.3K Points

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

40 Messages

 • 

496 Points

7 years ago

I wish the Library section worked like a regular browser, and users can manually add content they want in the catalog. This would help me see files that are new from other apps. Sync Folders is when you know there is something in it. This of course would be most useful when other image formats are visible.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

7 years ago

The need to at least acknowledge most common formats in the catalog is blindingly obvious. LR's catalog is used by many as the sole source of information about our images, and that includes EXIF, tags, location and so on. Only supporting the easy formats makes sense only to those who might not want to poison the "purity" of their product philosophy. But the real world demands solutions that work, and don't hide data.

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

7 years ago

Thank you, Kim, for agreeing that Lightroom needs expanded image format support.

...pt

223 Messages

 • 

3.5K Points

7 years ago

Precisely. If Photoshop can do it, so can Lightroom. Adobe already has all the code they need to implement extra file formats, which includes non-maximized PSD, as well as several oddballs.

The only challenge would be animated GIF and APNG, since those files are "video" and picture at the same time.

I'm not so sure about vector format, though. Lightroom works on pixels, not vectors.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Lightroom can handle video formats already and should have no problem with animated formats. Heck, every browser can do it already, so the code is nothing short of trivial.

I had a long and involved debate with Andrew over at Pixel Genius on the forums regarding ACR support at more than n-1 photoshop versions and he swore up and down that it was impossible because of the complexity. I asserted that in fact it was not impossible at all and was probably in fact trivial. But is was a marketing decision to force upgrades.

And then Adobe went to the subscription model and could not force upgrades any more, so CS6 magically works with the next version of ACR for the very first time.

This is all just a matter of Adobe getting off the high horse and supporting people in the real world. Simple to code, difficult to convince.

223 Messages

 • 

3.5K Points

The non-trivial part is APNG (supported in Firefox an all other Gecko-based browsers, possibly more), which are just everyday run-of-the-mill png files, but with extra metadata for frame 2 and beyond. The tricky bit is that these files are both animated and static.

Same for GIF files: they shouldn't always be treated as video, altough these days it's relatively likely that they are animated.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

7 years ago

You deliberately chose to save files in an incompatible format, clicking through warning messages. An action could fix them.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Are you not following the discussion? I and others are quite clear that the primary issue is we want Lightroom to own our image folders and to reflect their contents in its catalog. This allows the use of Lightroom's excellent tagging and other features to be brought to bear on everything we have created, regardless of the source editor.

Lightroom only needs to allow these formats to be recognized, the code to handle them is already there or is trivially ported from photoshop.

223 Messages

 • 

3.5K Points

First of all, one doesn't deliberately save in an incomaptible format. Folks just choose whatever option is most convenient. As for non-maximized PSD, such files are simply more compact, and can save a whoooole lot of disk space. As for other formats, yes, they might be more suitable, however weird that might seem. A file format for every occasion ;)

Secondly, the Lightroom user might not be the author of the files in question. Files may have been downloaded from an uncontrolled source, other files may have been handed over by a client, or a coworker with a totally different rig. Either way, not only for very large files and very large amounts of files, re-coding everything is never a desireable option. It takes effort and time, and it takes more work to keep originals and converted files in sync.

As stated, Photoshop can handle most files. So Adobe has all the sourcecode they could ever need to implement this. All that remains for them is to gather the will to do it.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

Oh sure, I am following the discussion and I agree with the main point. I'd have no problem whatsoever with these PSDs (and any other file types) being imported and displayed with OS thumbnails.

Where I differ is that I don't think non-maximized PSDs justify bloating LR with the code that would allow LR to reconstruct and display them as images. As I'm sure you know, there's a lot of weird stuff that may be in these PSDs, so that's not going to be a simple task. And why should Adobe do it when the solution is already in the user's own hands - resaving those files in a compatible format with an action/droplet. You can't expect LR to protect you from the consequences of your own decisions.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

A classic "begging the question" fallacy by including the premise in your argument that this code will "bloat Lightroom" ... As has already been mentioned, the files may have come from elsewhere and loading each one to resave it is a huge waste of time. Lightroom needs utility, and worrying about tertiary issues like "bloat" without any evidence is the moral equivalent of wearing tin foil hats to protect against alien mind invasion.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

Do you not understand that saving the non-maximised PSD principally means the omission of a composite image, which Lightroom would have to rebuild? PSD files can be highly complex, with multiple pixel layers and many other parameters which mean absolutely nothing to Lightroom. So, yes, bundling large amounts of Photoshop code into Lightroom does make bloat a pretty fair description.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Well, the PSD plugin for paint.net is 31.7Kb in a zip file. That seems like a tolerable amount of bloat, no? But of course it does down convert many of the advanced color spaces etc to its own simpler view, much as Lightroom would. It also does not handle the sub-rectangle aspects of layers, but Lightroom already understands such things. So I find it hard to believe that we would add more than a few hundred Kb of compiled code to the application for this feature. But all the other formats under discussion are also important, so let's not get completely distracted by the compatibility issue. In the end, Lightroom is a useful catalog for any files we encounter or it is not.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

Oh well, the PSD plugin for paint.net is 31.7Kb in a zip file. So must be a guide as to what Lightroom would need. Hm.

Sadly, I doubt Adobe will remove the restrictions and allow photographers to choose which types of files they want to manage in Lightroom. Displaying OS-level thumbnails would be a big step forward, but going beyond that for incompatible PSDs makes little sense since users can already solve the problem they have caused themselves.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Well, that was at least slightly more polite than the retort that you deleted. The fact is that Lightroom does not need to offer *editing* of all files. It merely needs to recognize them and allow them to be cataloged so that tags etc can be brought to bear. It really is a simple matter.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

I'll gladly restore it as it was a perfect riposte to the inanity of your post.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Consider sticking to features and facts as ad hominem road leads to the dark side ...

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

Thanks, but I referred to your post, not you, as ignorant.

223 Messages

 • 

3.5K Points

Lightroom installed is 1GB in size. Unless you have some hard evidence that proves me wrong, I don't believe adding a full PSD renderer will make it much bigger.

Better yet, Lightroom can also "just" use the PSD renderer that's already in Photoshop, if installed. Could/should be a shared component.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

Sure, it's just a 35kb bit of code in some other program.... As I explained before, the key problem is the lack of a composite image, and somehow you are going to have to reliably reconstruct pixel-based files that could be complex and large. You'd probably need Photoshop to do the heavy lifting, and handle funnies like third party Photoshop plugins on smart objects (sure those plugins are still installed?) and all the other variations that would need to be coded and tested (image mode conversion comes to mind). Even if the bloat is small in kb, the cost is high.

And why? All because the user deliberately chose the option that warned them of the bad consequences of their choice? And to placate the same users who even now, when they could immediately solve the problem they caused themselves, are still too lazy to run an action/droplet?

223 Messages

 • 

3.5K Points

It's all assumptions.

If it's really too big a thing to add (and that's a big if, one that ONLY Adobe knows the truth about), I imagine this scenario:

Photoshop installed -> can manage non-maximized PSD in Lightroom and work with them and everything. Let Photoshop render them.

Photoshop not installed -> non-maximized PSD's will simply not work, but maximized ones will.

Or, since everything is very cloudy these days, let the cloud render PSD's in the background, and have Lightroom treat those renders as smart previews.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

Oh, all assumptions, yeah right. And let's upload PSDs to the cloud....

All because we're too lazy to fix the problem we caused ourselves, and which we can easily fix for ourselves, today?

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

Hi, folks. Before we get unduly concerned about the nuances of supporting some particular image format, we need to convince Adobe that expanded file format support is needed by many of us.

To do that, a united front would seem to be helpful. So please encourage more people to vote for this general idea.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Arguments claiming "bloat" or "difficulty" have come up in the past, when in reality Adobe has all the skills and existing technology to accomplish the cataloging support we need, and even editing support if they chose to. Adobe could support basic import and cataloging operations with trivial amounts of code, but the lack of same is purely a marketing choice.

Fatuous apologist arguments appear to be coming from a position of ignorance of software architecture issues as did past arguments against Adobe supporting newer versions of ACR in existing Photoshop versions, a position that Adobe reversed as soon as it suited them.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@John -- you are focusing on one narrow issue and totally missing the point here. We want support for cataloging of all known image and video formats, not just the ones that LR can parse. This makes the cataloging section of LR much more useful to those of us who want to to rely on more than the LR catalog for a sense of organization of related files. Visualizing and editing of those formats is secondary and could be added after the fact for the most important formats. Offline tools could be created to provide the re-rendering and / or conversion. But this would all work much better *once the files are cataloged!* Seriously, try to see the big picture.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

Thanks, but I don't need you asking me to see the big picture. As I said before, I've long been in favour of LR letting the photographer choose what types of files to manage in the catalogue. No argument there. Non-maximized PSDs are the issue Martijn raised, and to which I responded.

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

7 years ago

John, Many people NEED to save related files together. We don't want to change their formats. We want Lightroom to support these formats. ...pt

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

I am totally in favour of your request, Phil, and have often expressed similar views. But that doesn't mean I think it's a great idea to bloat LR with the code (which isn't trivial) to decipher a proprietary file format where the user has explicitly chosen to make files incompatible.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

You are presuming that the user knows that it is Adobe's own products that will become incompatible. You are further assuming that the code is not already in there but disabled (Adobe makes decisions like that all the time.) Too many presumptions invalidates the argument.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

Too much ignorance invalidates the rant?

5 Messages

 • 

122 Points

7 years ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Lightroom needs to catalog AI files..


Even photographers have logos and artwork to go with their photos.

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

Indeed, reinecke. That is why it would be extremely useful for Lightroom to provide support for more of the common image formats.

Thanks for supporting this feature request. ...pt

5 Messages

 • 

122 Points

7 years ago

I found a work-around with "AnyFile" Lightroom plugin. It has limitations but with the 30 day free trial and a cost of "a donation" it is worth examining. I found it at
http://www.johnrellis.com/lightroom/a....
I installed it and have had no problems.

223 Messages

 • 

3.5K Points

AnyFile is way too fiddly for me. It's very badly integrated into Lightroom's regular functions. And it creates extraneous "placeholder" files that just goes against my principles.

One might as well use a second program to catalog unsupported files, which why this needs to be either natively in Lightroom, or waaaaay better integrated with a plugin.

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

7 years ago

I'm glad, reinecke, that the AnyFile plugin workaround meets your needs.

I tried Anyfile a couple of years ago and found it annoying in my own situation. Although I have since forgotten the details, I seem to recall a clutter of placeholder files. And due to the way my network attached storage device allocates space, I think each placeholder was taking up much more space than one would expect.

In any event, I quickly gave up on AnyFile. For me it was not a satisfactory replacement for Lightroom providing adequate file support in the first place.

But I'm glad you like it. Others might want to check it out, too. ...pt

40 Messages

 • 

496 Points

7 years ago

yup, I too tried it, and I wish I could use it. Its been a while maybe it is rewritten, but I had to stop using it also.

5 Messages

 • 

122 Points

6 years ago

Hey Adobe. Why is not possible, practical or worth the effort to support .ai and other formats?
Yes, this is my second post.
It is annoying to have to open Bridge to see my .ai files.
I am not a programmer, but untutored logic suggests that if Bridge can see the .ai files, then Lightroom should be able to.

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

Yes, reinecke.

You are right - "It is annoying to have to open Bridge to see" our other graphics files.

Lightroom should support more common image formats.

Best regards. ...pt

133 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

and bridge get ́s no love either as you may noticed......

6 Messages

 • 

144 Points

6 years ago

I couldn't agree more. I'm doing all kinds of photography tasks for my client including post processing images they give me. I need Lightroom to help me catalog all the files I work with.

68 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

Yes, Barry, Lightroom would be more useful if it supported more common image file formats.