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

  • 156
  • Idea
  • Updated 4 weeks ago
  • (Edited)
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...
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 156
Photo of Hamish Niven

Hamish Niven

  • 61 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
With you on PNG, its such a standard format and so important for websites.

Read somewhere that it makes for a better import onto facebook than jpeg, as it forces Facebook to make a better job of compressing any photos.
I don't know what its like for Picassa / Google + or flickr, but .PNG is a format that is real and supported all over.
Plus one from me
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 3229 Posts
  • 801 Reply Likes
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thanks for pointing out some of the many similar requests, John. My feature request wraps up most of those into a single request.

By the way, my above request originated in the Lightroom 4 beta forum. For practicality, it was suggested that I move it over here.

I appreciate everyone's vote for this useful, and overdue, support for additional common image formats.

...pt
Photo of Babar_e

Babar_e

  • 138 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
add 3D image support as well, some camera produce them,and they are just jpeg files with a different extention so nothing needed to display them as 2D images. This would already be great.
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...
Photo of Wayne Lattuca

Wayne Lattuca

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
OK, I'm new to this. How, where can I "vote" for this feature?
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 2510 Posts
  • 515 Reply Likes
At the top of this thread at the bottom of the original post, click the "+1" button to the right of "4 people like this idea".
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
I think LR should support the importation and management of any file of any extension, but not by default, only through a user manually adding them. And I wouldn't have it edit, display, or export any of them.

I don't know if that counts as support for this request or not.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
"Additionally though, Lightroom should be able to display the imported images to some degree. If not, how would you know the images are cataloged or available? "

You'd have an icon, with the filename in it, like you have in an OS for a file type the OS doesn't recognize.

"Beyond that, if it is too difficult to support editing and exporting from within Lightroom, I think it would be fine to hand the editing off to another application. This could be done similar to the ability to edit Lightroom images in Photoshop."

That's actually quite complicated. How about a "just open the file like what would happen if you double click it in the OS"?
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
No, Lee. Lightroom needs the ability to actually *display* these other common image types, just as Bridge can do.

I noticed that Bridge provides Open and/or Open With context menu choices to open files. For consistency, that approach would probably be best for Lightroom.

Thank you for your ideas towards a solution. ...pt
Photo of Barry Jefferson

Barry Jefferson

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It is actually worse than this - Lightroom gives certain file types (e.g., jpeg and png) the same namespace. Thus, if you have two files of the same name with these different extensions, only one can be shown in Lightroom. 
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 3161 Posts
  • 758 Reply Likes
In general, LR allows you to have many files in a folder all with the same basename but different extensions, e.g. a.arw, a.dng, a.jpg, a.mov, a.nef, a.png, a.psd, a.tif:



There's a special case of JPEGs getting paired with raw files, but you can disable that behavior with the option Preferences > General > Treat JPEG Files Next To Raw Files As Separate Photos.

Have you observed otherwise?
Photo of Barry Jefferson

Barry Jefferson

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks, John, for this reply. I'll look into this. Assume your suggestion worked unless you hear otherwise.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
"If Adobe Bridge can display these other image formats, why can't Lightroom? "

Because Lightroom isn't part of the Creative Suite, which has tools to display and edit the files you mention, while Lightroom doesn't.
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Bridge is essentially a folder browser tool that happens to be able to broker requests from other apps. So, in that respect it is completely unlike Lightroom.
Photo of PhotogRaffi

PhotogRaffi

  • 39 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
and a good reason why it crashes and it has been useless for large files and network image storage
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 747 Reply Likes
You might want to get some help with that -- since other people are using Bridge just fine without so many crashes and problems.
Photo of PhotogRaffi

PhotogRaffi

  • 39 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
It might help. I think it has issues with large files, and the way it exoprts resize is amateur and clunky at best....Although I have only used it when CS5 was on its second update. I also read that it has issues with 64bit Win7 . Who doesn't use more mem than 4Gb these days when working with the average camera producing 14mpixels and more. In my case 22 to 40. and @ 16bits with a few layers within minutes you have a GB size file. If Bridge can't handle it..hand off to LR.
Photo of PhotogRaffi

PhotogRaffi

  • 39 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I have gone and removed all the files it makes the 2 cache files in each folder and left it at that. ACDSee is much better at this, as it the Batch Resize tool alone , other than Batch Export is leaps ahead.
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
>>Because Lightroom isn't part of the Creative Suite, which has tools to display and edit the files you mention, while Lightroom doesn't.

Baloney. There is no reason to hobble Lightroom like this, Lee. Quit making excuses for its lack of support for common image formats that most of us use.

...pt
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
It seems like the Lightroom "team" should start listening to users, Lee, and not just to the echo chamber of other team members.

Customers who buy and use the product have a different perspective than software engineers and product managers.

Many users agree that support for additional file formats would be helpful.
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
The devil is in the details. What does "support for additional file formats" mean to you? Because it won't necessarily mean the same for someone else.
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
>>The devil is in the details. What does "support for additional file formats" mean to you? Because it won't necessarily mean the same for someone else.

Hi, John. At its most basic, support for additional image formats means that Lightroom would be able to display and catalog more formats. So when browsing, say, a client's photo shoot images, I could also see their logo and Web banner files too. Juggling Lightroom and Bridge to do this today is a real time waster.

While it would also be nice if Lightroom could edit more image formats, I can live without that if editing is too big of an engineering challenge. In that case, just open the image for editing in its native application. But let's at least be able to see and organize these other files from within Lightroom.

If that makes sense to you, please vote for this feature request.

Thanks. ...pt
Photo of PhotogRaffi

PhotogRaffi

  • 39 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
AMMMMMMMMEEEENNNN!!!!!! For the love of imagery! Somebody listen to this man! (PT). I've been saying this myself and now found the right place!

Do not let it edit other foramts, No...just so we can see they exist! Hand off to the correct app to edit.
It should act as the MOTHER of Bridge and image files, as Bridge is crippled when it comes to networks, large files...it has no clue what to do and crashes. Lets leave bridge out of this.

We image makers need a MANAGER for ALL our image files, and since LR is being such a good Librarian, Give it some support to at least SEE! You have bottled up LR as if its some Fine Art ONLY tool that I'm gonna make some award winning archival print of Yosemite...Come on..We make images that get published in magazines, and websites and different color spaces...GEEZ why cant I know if the file is RGB or CMYK??16Bit or 8Bit..its in the Meta...Why cant I see that info??

People please ..if you think you should at least see previews of images...VOTE for this!

Only other option is to have another DAManager to license the preview of RAW developers from ACR/LR, and Capture One.

If LR does support other images, it would surely pull far ahead and gain large market share from C1 users.
Photo of Philip McAlary

Philip McAlary

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Wholly in agreement with what Raffi and Phil have to say!
Photo of Peter Frandsen

Peter Frandsen

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
@PhilipTobias
I do FULLY support your feature-request for a extended, in the world outside Adobe, STANDARD and daily used fileformats! I'm going over to vote now on your request.

FYI:
I have, like you, made this request in many Adobe- & Apple-related forums since even before 2009. Also Apples Aperture does support all formats already, but it's way to slow to work with when you have like 80' or so mediafiels to keep track of. In our case, we're 4 people using a mix of CS5 (mostly Photoshop), Lightroom, iPhoto, Final Cut Pro, Xcode etc and a central Lightroom media archive on a NAS that we all could share and maintain (metadata etc) would be just fine - IF it just supported all common filestypes. Don't know now yet if Bridge CS5 will work for us (looking at it now...).

So I think Adobe is actually shooting themself in the foot here, since I'm actually just started to look around for a DAM solution (again), taking another look at other competitors etc. I'm definitly not alone doing this. Just how patient do you have to be with Adobe?

Keep the request-fire going, we all need this common file-support. God job Phillip :-)
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thank you, Peter, for your support of this needed feature request.

Although Adobe Bridge supports more file formats, it is a nuisance to use alongside of Lightroom. If you're already in the correct folder in Lightroom when you realize a file you are looking for isn't there, it can take minutes to launch Bridge and navigate to exactly the same folder to look again. That is a major productivity waster - it takes you entirely off task.

It would be much better if Lightroom itself could catalog and display these other common file formats that many of us every day.

Thanks again. ...pt
Photo of Simon King

Simon King

  • 103 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
*aside*
wasn't that the reason Bridge had so many problems - it was supporting just about every format known to man?

(I know it might be fixed now but I gave up on bridge a few version back as it was completely unusable , I was told at the time, for this reason - (whethertrue or not ) it was the version (CS3?) that just had a mind of its own

Anyway point is: if it risks making LR run badly or slowly then forget it, not worth the hassle
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 817 Posts
  • 124 Reply Likes
One could just as well point to many other image cataloguing apps of the same era - iView, Extensis ACDeeSee etc - that performed well while supporting many different file types. It's just an obvious line in the sand, and perhaps those who draw it are the same as those who were once against video features?
Photo of Simon King

Simon King

  • 103 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Not agin Video features here;)
I'm definitely not against any features in LR, just saying , hope it doesn't screw anything up;)
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Hi, Simon. Of course, none of us want to add features that will make Lightroom run sluggishly.

But as John replied, other applications handle numerous file formats without undue problems. With proper engineering, Lightroom would seem capable of supporting some additional file formats, too.
Photo of Simon King

Simon King

  • 103 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
My point really was the Bridge simply did not work in one version, (on my system - and on quite a few other people's) it was as frustrating as blazes. I would just hate to have that happen in LR. Thanks for the reassurances:)
Photo of PhotogRaffi

PhotogRaffi

  • 39 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Bridge in CS5 doesn't work either. It is really waste of time.

I think of course it would be smart to approach LR like other DAM viewers...Enable the format you want it to support..Like ACDSee is rather good at this...but has other issues as it tries to be a RAW dev, and stretching itself as Video as well...so. (Besides its lack of support within its other amanger apps with Metadata ..a mess really).
LR has a very logical approach with organization. Metadata, libraries...lots of "safety warnings" before an execution, etc and makes it easy to use and manage. I think the LEAST LR can do is support its on family of product file tiypes..CS!!?? ..that is the you getting used to just marketing corporate mumbo jumbo...You the heck are you making this stuff for?!! Internal use only??
Photo of Royal Scanlon

Royal Scanlon

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Phil I'm with you on this. Lightrooms inability to access png files is a big, big drawback. I like the program a lot. It's wonderful in conjunction with Photoshop but it would sure be a lot more user friendly (for me personally) if I were able to access the png "parts" files that I create in Photoshop each and every day.

I can't remember if you said i, or another, but i concur, "Adobe is shooting itself in the foot" insofar as photographers using Lightroom as their DAM when Lightroom can't even access many of the images (or parts of images) used in their work. It just doesn't make sense out here in the real world.
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thank you, Royal, for your hearty agreement that additional file support would make Lightroom an ever better product.

Now let's encourage everyone to VOTE for this feature request.

Regards. ...pt
Photo of Simon King

Simon King

  • 103 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
OK- I voted;)
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thank you, Simon, for voting to add support for more of the common file types we use all the time.
Photo of Peter Frandsen

Peter Frandsen

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Just voted to support this idea of your's Philip :-)
- w my extra suggestion for e prefs panel to choose which format to support.
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thank you for your vote, Peter.

Yes, a preference panel that allows each person to specify which files types to support, would be a nice refinement.

...pt
Photo of Dino Paulesc

Dino Paulesc

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Just voted for it too. Hopefully this comes to fruition!
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thank you for yet another vote for this feature request, Dino.

...pt
Photo of Dan Claro

Dan Claro

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Are there any plans to make it possible to import pdf files, view them and embed metadata in the same way as you can with other images in Lightroom?

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Lightroom: PDF File support.
Photo of splatigan

splatigan

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I had an idea for those who have lots of PDF files and would like a similar cataloger function like which Lightroom provides.

You could have a collection of pdf files, but when each is clicked on you get a grid view of the pages, similar to the grid view you get in the Library module. You could switch between grid and loupe views.

It would also let you add other images/pages to the pdf (like adding to target collections) and also remove images. You would need to confirm changes for the pdf to be updated.

I have seen that Acrobat could do this but I feel that if Lightroom could be programed to at least have this minimal functionality as well as its inherent library it would be an added bonus to the whole package,

Thanks

Jon

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
PDF integration.
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thanks, Splatigan (and Dan) for your support of having Lightroom manage PDF image files. I hope you have both voted for this feature request.

By the way, for people interested in cataloging and managing PDF text documents, applications like DevonThink and Eagle Filer are worth a look.

But with Adobe supporting PDFs in Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, FrameMaker, and so on, it makes sense to add some support to Lightroom, too.

Regards. ...pt
Photo of abivia.net

abivia.net

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'll settle for PNG export, which should be dead simple. Photoshop uses APNG extensively so it's not like they aren't familiar with the format.

Every time I want a PNG, I have to export as TIFF, fire up GIMP (an open source photo editor) and save. Every time I use GIMP, I wonder how Darktable (an open source version of Lightroom) is coming along.

One of these days I'll be able to save time by using free software instead, and that's not good for Adobe.
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
If we export PNG, we have to be able to import it, too. This is a sort of contract the app has with itself.

For each supported standard format, there are a number of possible variations and options for the format. So, an app has to decide how much of the standard to adhere to, as well as what sorts of modifications are allowed (if any.)

There is a reason Darktable is moving slowly, and why a round-trip to a pixel editor is sometimes a perfectly reasonable alternative.
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Yes, abivia.net, the sort of time-wasting workaround you cited is why many of us would benefit from additional image format support - right in Lightroom.

I hope you and others continue to vote for this. ...pt
Photo of จักรี อภิญญา

จักรี อภิญญา

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Let us INCLUDE at least the most common digital camera raw file formats too.

This can be done so easily, any manufacture could just upload them to an online repository, given how Adobe already has sufficient cloud space to provide them these tiny files or they forge an alliance to provide them.

Fastpictureviewer.com codec pack v3.1 supports raw file formats for 45+ Raw Image formats and 380+ digital camera models in just 22.8 MB! So what makes it difficult for Adobe to provide support for their own file formats, like DNG Codec v6.6 to display thumbnail previews in Windows 7 32/64 bit systems?

Even Microsoft has failed to demonstrate adequate adaption of current industry standards, with their own (lame) camera codec pack.

Link: www.microsoft.com/download/en/details...

Must everyone need a dozen different photo viewers and a dozen different media players just to view photos and videos? This doesn't even contend with ODF, DOCX, XML or PDF/WPS compatibility issues, as everyone would and will experience.

Even Lightroom LR4 when exporting v6.6 DNG photos will NOT be viewable by the Windows operating system basic programs such as Windows Explorer and Windows Photo Viewer, since Adobe only provided DNG Codec as v5.6!

This isn't even rocket science, it's only a matter of coordination before releasing their own product into the market by insuring it functions on that platform (operating system). But, I seriously doubt anyone at Adobe will read any of these comments.

It's all for "show"... The real way to get exposure is to put up your own web site, and get it syndicated by the media. So everyone joins in on the boycott as a measure of getting satisfaction?

Consider "Outlook's broken—Let's fix it" (www.fixoutlook.org ) or “Fixing Windows 8′′ (www.fixingwindows8.com ). These sites kindly show there is a need to fix the product, but fail to get satisfaction since both do not take any steps like boycotting the failure until reformed or fixed.

Gandhi had liberated India from the Crown of England, without having fire single shot. But it seems in this present development nobody wants to expect higher standards, certainly not in their leaders, as evidence of the usurper in office.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 738 Reply Likes
You might want to take the time to read the site, and all the responses, before guessing about who reads it and what action might be taken.
Photo of PhotogRaffi

PhotogRaffi

  • 39 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I totally agree, and have mentioned...Why not make a Raw Dev viewer?!! Have the DAManager read the preivew with the recipe used in LR or Capture One, or other developers ...And I don't mean this as a DNG solution. there are reasons not to us DNG. The developer makes a preview file in sidecar or someplace. Other viewers should be able to see this. period. This is 2 years nowI have been asking..I guess after buying over 5 pieces of software that SHOULD work somehow...they all lack this...COORDINATION as ummm, the sanscript name guy put it above. Its almost as bad if not worse in ways than the construction industry!
Photo of PhotogRaffi

PhotogRaffi

  • 39 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
On that note...WHY in the world would we have different color coding, Rating and metadata standards across viewers...WHY shouldn't I see what I rated X photo in ACDSee as I rated it in LR? Same with my Metadata info. Just no excuse for this type of un-professionalism.
Photo of Fred M. Rhoades

Fred M. Rhoades

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Now that CS6 is going to recognize (and perhaps even partly interact with) stereo photograph formats such as JPS and PNS, Lightroom should do the same.
Photo of Geoff Vane

Geoff Vane

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
For newsroom and webroom systems, Lightroom would be great.
But TGA and PNG files can't be read it.
TV Stations tend to have a lot of TGA files.
I'd really like to alter and catalog them with Lightroom.
It would be ideal.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Lightroom: More file format support please.
Photo of Phil Tobias

Phil Tobias

  • 62 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thanks, Geoff, Fred, and other recent responders.

Please keep voting for Lightroom to include support for additional file formats. That capability would make Lightroom even more useful (and expand its market potential - are you listening, Adobe?).

As has already been discussed, one way to implement this would be through a preference setting, where users could check boxes for their desired formats. Each user could include the image formats they most need.

Regards. ...pt