Lightroom Classic: Support cataloging PSB files (files larger than 2 GB PSDs and 4 GB TIFFs)

  • 175
  • Idea
  • Updated 1 month ago
  • Implemented
  • (Edited)
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.
Photo of Alan Harper

Alan Harper

  • 458 Posts
  • 94 Reply Likes

Posted 9 years ago

  • 175
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 6958 Posts
  • 1571 Reply Likes
Official Response
Updates to Lightroom Classic, were released yesterday and contain initial support for PSB files.   Please install the appropriate update. You can read more about the updates here.

Note: Lightroom pixel-dimension maximums (65,000 Pixels long edge or 512 MP - whichever comes first) continue to be a limitation but the team is looking into expanding this range in a future enhancement for the PSB file support. 

Thank you for your patience.
Photo of Brian Rodgers Jr

Brian Rodgers Jr

  • 14 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
I'm so happy to finally see PSB support in Lightroom Classic! PSBs are part of my daily workflow as a commercial photographer, and I have been waiting for this update for years. Thank you Adobe!
Photo of Paul Takeuchi

Paul Takeuchi

  • 22 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yes, thank you, Adobe. A very long time in coming. Such a badly needed feature. We look forward to larger dimension importability in the future. One suggestion: while I know Adobe, nor any company, wants to promise features and not deliver, it would have been considerate if 3-6 months ago, Adobe told us, hey, we're listening and we're currently developing this functionality, so stay tuned. The total silence during this lengthy request was very alienating and really was unneccessary for a company with customer-driven products like Adobe.
Photo of Jim Christensen

Jim Christensen

  • 13 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Thank you, Adobe!  This is THE feature I needed most in LR... the ability to catalog all of my images.  I was losing faith, but you came thru.  Thanks a million! - Jim
Photo of Christopher Hauser

Christopher Hauser

  • 9 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Well, it would be great if I actually COULD catalogue all images, sadly the size restrictions are still there... :(
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4880 Posts
  • 1352 Reply Likes
To clarify for others: LR restricts all images, of any format, to be no larger than 512 megapixels and no larger than 65,000 pixels on a side. The addition of PSBs to LR doesn't relax that restriction, but it does allow files larger than 2 GB (PSD) and 4 GB (TIFF).
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 543 Posts
  • 182 Reply Likes
The size restrictions affect a minuscule percentage of photographs.  I suspect most  photographers photos will be well under the limits and they will happily welcome the addition even with the restrictions.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 913 Posts
  • 188 Reply Likes
What’s is the minuscule percentage and how was that percentage value produced? 
It’s odd Adobe can’t fully support their own file format as designed. I’m not going to suspect why that is; I don’t like suspecting. 
"I never guess/assume. It is a shocking habit -- destructive to the logical faculty." -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Photo of Dmitry Smolyanitsky

Dmitry Smolyanitsky

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I hit the limit with the first image I tried. Thanks for the explanation.
Photo of Steve Glass

Steve Glass

  • 25 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thank you adobe! This is brilliant. I just tried the update. So MUCH better! Thank you, thank you thank. I'd almost lost the faith . .. .
Photo of Dominique Provost

Dominique Provost

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
This is not enough... try harder Adobe and give us NO restrictions. This is not professional !
Photo of Alex Furer

Alex Furer

  • 170 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
Thank you! Took a while, but hey as we say "Ende Gut alles Gut".

As for the 65'000 pixel limit I think this really only affects a very small hand full of people. This converts to 5.5 meters (18 feet) @300 dpi. Modern fine art printers can upscale images up to 4 times which would convert this to be 22 meters (72 feet). So technically you could work on a 22 x 22 meter image (printed) in Photoshop and Lightroom now. Besides that there's no printer that can print this in one go, that's plenty considering the viewing distance rule onto this print in real world conditions.

Off course there might be people that are, rightfully, exceeding this limitation in their work. But hey, that's why we're all called creatives.
Photo of seanhoyt-dot-art


  • 387 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
Yeah that viewing distance rule is because of shortcomings in res. My 96” wide prints are at 1200dpi and customers view them at 1-2 feet because they /can/. It’s not upscale - it’s massive telephoto stitches.
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 555 Posts
  • 187 Reply Likes
I am extremely happy they released PSB support with size restrictions now instead of waiting to accommodate the larger sizes.  They can take their time to remove the restrictions if they choose but this present feature is useful NOW.
Photo of Christopher Hauser

Christopher Hauser

  • 9 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
They shouldn’t take their time. The new support is great, but for my work I still can’t use Lightroom to get all my images catalogued. Especially since starting to work with the IQ4150 and GFX100 I easily reach the size limit on nearly all of my panorama work.
Photo of Alex Furer

Alex Furer

  • 170 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
Yeah, there's always pixel peepers. In life as in photography I always suggest to them to relax and take a step back. I'll do the same here.

Off course I agree that with growing sensors and more and more niche techniques a tool should not limit us. Give Adobe 8 more years and they'll figure it out :)
Photo of David Richardson

David Richardson

  • 144 Posts
  • 48 Reply Likes
The viewing distance rule comes from shortcomings in our eyes not our equipment or images. Good eyes can resolve around 60 line pairs per degree. At 12 inches that works out at 572 ppi and at 24 inches 286 ppi.  If you have a printer and driver capable of 1200 ppi (not dpi which are the printer dots which make up those pixels) then go for it, but only the very young or the very close are going to see it.  :-)

That doesn't mean I don't support those folk who want Lightroom to handle bigger pixel sizes. It would be great if we could catalogue all images.

Photo of seanhoyt-dot-art


  • 387 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
Correct, large prints and close viewing under 12”. Printer is a commercial large format HP ink. (Bumblejax for example).