Lightroom Classic: Add PSB as a file format for external editing

  • 3
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • (Edited)
Now that LR 9.2 supports importing PSB files, it would be a little more convenient if you could specify PSB as the default format for editing in Photoshop (Preferences > External Editing > Edit In Adobe Photoshop > File Format). 

As it stands now, if you want to save an edited file in PSB format, you must remember to do File > Save As and select Large Document Format.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5132 Posts
  • 1455 Reply Likes

Posted 5 months ago

  • 3
Photo of David Lauer

David Lauer

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Very much agree with this!  When I saw the release notes that PSB files are supported I was shocked to see that it isn't an option to use that format for external editing in Photoshop.  
Photo of Sumeet Choudhury

Sumeet Choudhury, Employee

  • 64 Posts
  • 24 Reply Likes
Thanks for your valuable input John. Will pass this on to the team.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1347 Posts
  • 370 Reply Likes
Or ask Adobe to remove any need for PSB?
Photo of Amit Zinman

Amit Zinman

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Add PSB for external editing.

Now that PSB is supported it's time to add it to the External Editing options

Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Lightroom Classic: Support cataloging PSB files (files larger than 2 GB PSDs and ....
Photo of Steve Taylor

Steve Taylor

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It may well support PSB but you try importing them a modest 4.5 gb comes back with a too big error message
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 7578 Posts
  • 1730 Reply Likes
Lightroom Support for PSB is currently limited to files whose long edge does not exceed 65K pixels or the entire image is less than 512 Megapixels and it must be saved in Max Compatibility. Photoshop is capable of exceeding these values. 
Photo of Steve Taylor

Steve Taylor

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
so whats the point of that

we need more 
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1347 Posts
  • 370 Reply Likes
It's sufficient for the vast majority of the small minority who are forced to save as PSB.
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 725 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
I don't think Adobe needs to spend valuable development time to support files greater than 65K pixels or 512MP in Lightroom.   I am sure the percent of people that need this is very close to zero.  
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5132 Posts
  • 1455 Reply Likes
There are two general use-cases for needing to use PSBs:

- Starting with a high-resolution image, well under LR's pixel limits, and adding many layers in Photoshop to implement a non-destructive workflow. 

- Starting with a ultra-high-resolution image exceeding LR's pixel limits, produced by a panorama merge or a specialized (very expensive) camera.

I believe that the great majority of LR users of PSBs fall into the first camp.  My belief is based on monitoring this forum and the community forum for a decade and on feedback from customers of my PSB Quick Look plugin for Mac OS.

A typical example of the first use case: The retouchers in an ad agency start with a full-frame DSLR photo of a running shoe and, responding to requests from their art director, end up with more than two dozen layers.
Photo of David Lauer

David Lauer

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I disagree.  With ultra high resolution cameras like the GFX 100 and the desire to composite 16 bit images in Photoshop I routinely run into the 4GB file limit of TIFF files. A side benefit is uncompressed PSBs, although can get huge actually save to disk much faster than compressed TIFFs so they always would be my preferred choice. 
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1347 Posts
  • 370 Reply Likes
The "side benefit" being that compression takes longer than saving uncompressed?
(Edited)
Photo of David Lauer

David Lauer

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hi John, I think you misread. The side benefit is the uncompressed PSBs save much faster than compressed TIFFs on any large file sizes, not just ones approaching 4GB.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1347 Posts
  • 370 Reply Likes
You need to compare uncompressed PSB against uncompressed TIF, Matt. I doubt you'll see any difference.
Photo of Steve Taylor

Steve Taylor

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I think the point being made is that you cannot use tiff above 4gb so you either need to compress the file of save as psb and the psb saves and opens quicker than a compressed tiff