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

  • 162
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • (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

  • 457 Posts
  • 94 Reply Likes

Posted 8 years ago

  • 162
Photo of Marc Baril

Marc Baril

  • 9 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Yes Adobe please, how long do we have to beg!
Photo of Brian Rodgers Jr

Brian Rodgers Jr

  • 13 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Please add .psb support for Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC.

As a commercial photographer/digital artist using very high resolution cameras, my photoshop build files get to be really big. How big? Big enough to have the need to create .PSB files (Photoshop Large Document Format) in order to keep all of my layers.

I use Lightroom for organizing & processing all of my photo files. The problem is that LR doesn't read the .PSB files. Why is it that Adobe Bridge can see these files, but LR doesn't? It's 2017, shouldn't a program that's called Adobe Photoshop Lightroom support a Photoshop large format file? I think it should. Please add support for .psb files in LR. It would be a tremendous help for anyone working with large format files.
Photo of Jim Christensen

Jim Christensen

  • 12 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Adobe, listen up!!  Your customers are serious photographers, and we have serious cameras and computers.  Canon already has a 50MP camera, and Nikon soon will.  When we edit these images on Photoshop, AND we use Smart Object layers, the saved image files can quickly exceed 4GB.  When this happens, we can no longer use Lightroom to keep track of (manage) our images.  We have to invent some insane work-around, because Lightroom does not recognize the image format that your Photoshop program creates!!  Your customers have been asking you to plug this hole for 7 years now!  You've poured resources into that Lightroom Mobile feature (for cell phone photographers), and have left your core users to make-up DIY work-arounds for professional-sized images!  WAKE UP ADOBE.  We need a program to manage our images!  ALL OF OUR IMAGES!!

The clock has been ticking for 7 YEARS now.   You've already lost the cell phone photogs to Facebook, Flickr,  500px, SmugMug, iCloud, Google, etc, etc.   Please renew our faith in your support for professional photogs.  We know and love your programs, but images are getting bigger and Lightroom has not kept up.  Make our day Adobe... SHOW US THE LOVE (and the commitment to your loyal customer base).  We can live without bells and whistles, but the main thing Lightroom does is manage our image library.  This is really important.

- Sincerely yours,
  Jim Christensen
(Edited)
Photo of Steve Glass

Steve Glass

  • 24 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I completely agree with Jim! Pleasseeee, make this an update!

And to second what Jim says . . . Lightroom Mobile??? My clients don't pay me to show up and shoot with a cell phone. It's cute, but something I will probably never use . . . . .

Steve Glass
(Edited)
Photo of Sebastian Albert

Sebastian Albert

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This thread has been live for 7 years! Don't think that Adobe really cares about anybody, unless they are starting to sell fewer subscriptions.  
It's ridiculous that LR cannot read their own PSB files, it's an Adobe invention after all. 
If a little feature request is ignored for that long, which would be so easily solvable, I'm starting to question,  why I should keep paying Adobe for not listening to their customer base. 
Just to make a comparison: Question or feature requests to the Capture One team are actually answered by them...
Photo of vc2

vc2

  • 23 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
In total agreement with Jim. For 7 years Adobe has beat around the bush with this. Bridge has been able to read PSB forever, Please add the ability to read PSB to Lightroom. So having PSB may impact performance, but please provide it as an option. With these high megapixel cameras, Canon 5Ds, Nikon 810\850m and Sony a7rii, you can't help but to work in PSB. Please help us here Adobe, don't wait until late 2018....release this asap!!!!.  
(Edited)
Photo of Steve Glass

Steve Glass

  • 24 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Amen.
Photo of Paul Weinrauch

Paul Weinrauch

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
This should be a non-issue, for a program that claims it does digital asset management, and doesn't support its own file format is silly!
Photo of seanhoyt-dot-art

seanhoyt-dot-art

  • 316 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled update Raw Converter and LR to handle >2GB files.

It's officially 2018. Time to update how large the files can be in LR and Raw Converter. I have 128GB ram and a capable system. Why does LR insist I downsize my files? Why won't it recognize PSB yet? Why is the PSD capped? Why does the pano routine die if it can't fit an image. So many questions. I'm a pano guy. Please expand the limits. PLEASE make PS Camera Raw behave the same as LR. Tired of the same tools having different interactions... IE, scrollwheel in PS doesn't adjust brush size. scrollwheel in LR does adjust the brush size. Get the teams together, settle it. 
Photo of Bruce Bigelow

Bruce Bigelow

  • 2 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
We are a high-end image production facility, and have dealt in large files as long as I can remember, with CGI, Motion and Retouching. We have dealt with professional photographers and advertising agencies for over 22 years. Lightroom is a great product for cataloging and handling files (as well as treating them), and we were hoping to use it widely to search our huge image database, but it cant read some of its own Adobe formats? We find this absurd! Even if it cant EDIT a 14gig PSB file, at least it should be able to RECOGNISE and thumbnail it! How hard is it Adobe? People have been asking here for 6 YEARS, and you have been ignoring them for 6 years. At least be polite and answer people.
Photo of Stu Schaffner

Stu Schaffner

  • 2 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
I've never used this particular forum before so I hope I am replying in the right place.  I'm an advanced amateur, yet I have enough image files that are important enough to me that I feel I need a database management system to support storage and post processing.  Although I have used Photoshop for decades and certainly intend to keep using it, I added Lightroom about 5 years ago primarily in order to organize my files.  Of course I also perform some initial image processing steps in LR, but I could easily use Bridge or Capture One for all that.  Adobe has been aware for over 6 years of a looming crisis in file size limits, but has chosen to do nothing so far about it.  That's at least two or three cycles of Moore's Law; it can't be a surprise to Adobe.
My basic problem is that I make complex composites with many layers, all in Photoshop.  This kind of post-processing represents considerable value added over the original raw files. I may work on a composite for several months before I stop changing it.  If I have to keep an elaborate informal system of flattened sidecar files in LR catalogues as surrogates for the Photoshop files, I am likely to stop using LR for database management.  Perhaps this is what Adobe wants, since they have now renamed LR to LR Classic and made the new LR dependent on Cloud storage.  For those of us who sometimes work in hotel rooms, this precludes using the new LR for database management.

I will try to use TIFF when I safely can to store Photoshop files, but if Adobe doesn't fix this problem in the next two years, I will change my workflow to stop using LR. I know one customer doesn't matter, but it looks like many customers have similar problems.
Photo of Steve Glass

Steve Glass

  • 24 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
It is absurd that they are not dealing with this, as it is a major issue. I LOVE lightroom, but this issue is a major problem for many of us.
Photo of seanhoyt-dot-art

seanhoyt-dot-art

  • 316 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
RIGHT! They could easily read the file, create a proxy and catalog the proxy and only allow edits on that. Exports would be generated from the PSB. Not sure why they are not connecting the dots here. My computer has 128GB ram. I'm fine if they say "PSB requires 64+"
Photo of Brian Rodgers Jr

Brian Rodgers Jr

  • 13 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
I've created a workaround in LR to at least get access to the PSB a little quicker than navigating through the computers OS:

Here's what I have been doing: Create a "PSB" Folder within LR. Then save your PSB file within that folder from within Photoshop. While LR won't see the actual PSB file, it will see the PSB folder, and if you right click on it and choose "Show In Finder" (on a Mac) it will open that folder from within the Mac OS, just double click on it and it will open in PS. This should work on windows as well.

Note: If you don't create the PSB folder in LR, then LR will not see that folder PERIOD. Even if you synchronize a specific set of folders. 
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4531 Posts
  • 1213 Reply Likes
To recapitulate past discussions in this topic: The amount of engineering effort for LR to support PSB is modest at most. Supporting PSB in LR is not practically constrained by the SQLite database, nor by the larger file size of typical PSBs, nor by the cost of building previews.

The PSD and PSB formats are nearly identical, the only difference being that PSB uses 64-bit file offsets where PSD uses 32 bits. For my PSB Quick Look plugin, I modified ImageMagick's PSD module to read PSBs and only had to change less than a dozen or so lines.

The SQLite database used for catalogs includes references to files, not the files themselves, so inserting a reference to a PSB has the same cost as to a PSD.

The file size of PSBs can get very large, much larger than the 2 GB limit for PSDs and the 4 GB for TIFFs. In practice, many, if not most, users hit that limit by introducing additional layers, not by having very large pixel dimensions. For example, a single layer of a 50 megapixel 16-bit image takes 300 MB, so a 2 GB PSD allows just 5 layers (plus the compatibility layer).  Some people do hit the file size limit with panoramas, e.g. a 4 x 2 panorama stitched from 50 MP images would be about 400 MP, and a single 16-bit layer would take 2.4 GB.

The cost of building LR previews for PSD/PSBs is proportional to the pixel dimensions, not the number of layers. LR reads the single hidden compatibility layer of PSDs, which is the flattened composite of all the layers. Thus, the cost of building previews for PSBs is the same as for PSDs of the same pixel dimensions. For example, building a preview of a 20 GB PSB that's 330 MP / 16-bit / 10 layers would take the same amount of time and uses the same amount of storage as a preview of 2 GB PSD that's 330 MP / 16-bit / 1 layer.

LR already imposes maximum size limits on all photo types, 65,000 pixels on a side and no more than 512 megapixels, and it could easily impose those same limits on PSBs.  512 megapixels is an order of magnitude larger than the output from nearly all professional cameras, allowing most users a comfortable margin for building panoramas.
(Edited)
Photo of seanhoyt-dot-art

seanhoyt-dot-art

  • 316 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
NICE writeup man! I'd like to advocate going well beyond those dimensions. I have hundreds of 1000-4000 MP files which I sell as acrylic prints 96"+ wide online as a business. I just semi-completed a recent shot that is 26GB.

As a professional using this professional software, I'd really like Adobe to weigh in here.
(Edited)
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4531 Posts
  • 1213 Reply Likes
I think there are more users like you in recent years. I think increasing the pixel limits, however, could be significantly harder engineering than allowing for PSBs, since the performance of the Camera Raw engine is directly proportional to the number of pixels.
Photo of seanhoyt-dot-art

seanhoyt-dot-art

  • 316 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Right, and that's frustrating since I keep investing $5000 in hardware ever few years. I'm sitting here with a massive computer that laughs at LR/PS requests. I know it's malicious, but it feels like these apps are 10% efficient....  It's been a while, but I do remember seeing GPU demosaicing research using CUDA. Related, I can pull in 40 NEF files from my D850 to PS and it takes an hour to output a result. PTGUI takes <5 minutes using my GPU.
(Edited)
Photo of Stephen Newport

Stephen Newport

  • 278 Posts
  • 85 Reply Likes
8 years......
Photo of Roland

Roland

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yeah, same like the preview for the Radial and Zoom blur filter. Once found somewhere a complaint on this dated 2004. That's really quick offering solutions on customer enhancement requests and a perfect demonstration of Adobe's amazing customer awareness (may contains sarcasm). I apply that filter in Affinity Photo. Way more convenient. In Photoshop you must still guess the center and do the try and error game utillising a smart object. Just compare, 1. is Ps CC 2019, 2. is Affinity Photo 1.7.x (but it was already there in all prior version):

Ps CC 2019, tool in cool A.D. 1997 or so style


Affinity Photo's tool. 40 bucks, no subscription. As long you don't click Apply, you can move the centre anywhere without any latency. It's one of the very rare destructive filters of AP, so, make a layer copy first. However: because mostly there is a detail you do not want to have blurred in the centre, you normally mask it on a separate layer anyway:

(Edited)
Photo of Roland

Roland

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sorry, first posting did only show up empty text, because the forum software does not accept emojis and rejects all content... Now text and example images are in...