This content has been marked as final. Show 13 replies
You have a 10000 px width or height file size limitation in LR.
Maybe you have some big scans or large panos?
The solution to this is to create smaller placeholder files for the images. That way you can at least see them in LR.
Thank you, Andreas. Yes, I do have some large panos.
LR cannot handle over 10k on any one side, so PS at 30K is about all there is as far as I know for all of us MF & LF scanners to work on biggies.
What a sad state of affairs. 3 DSLR shots (say, 3500 pixels each across) stitched together at the edges will exceed 10,000 pixels across easily. That means any more shots in panos are out of the question.
A 6.1 Mb DSLR will give you a 3 shot pano under 10K. Get a smaller DSLR for your Panos, maybe.
That would also depend on how much overlap on the shots you used.
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.10 & Win XP, Pentax *ist D
Use Placeholders as someone said. You wouldn't want to wait while LR loaded a 10k by 10k file anyway :) This issue was raised during the beta process and Tom Hogarty (if memeory serves) indicated that going over the 10k on a side was a major coding hurdle--so the only Adobe product that is going to handle those for the near future anyway is PS.
Many thanks for all the suggestions. I really think it would best for a serious pano guy to trash Lightroom and go the Bridge/ACR route. It's a bit sad that this Lightroom Cecile B. DeMille has been so misleading.
Truth in advertising would have had Adobe promoting the software for digital photographers - with 6MP or less cameras.
LR works great with my 12.8MP camera. I even have several panos in there, just not at full resolution. I always create panos at at least three sizes anyway - full res, 7200 horizontal pixels, and 1200 horizontal pixels. LR always imports 2 of the 3, and many times it gets the big one too.
"Adobe promoting the software for digital photographers"
It is...which is why the original hard limit for 10K was programed in by Thomas Knoll when he first designed Camera Raw, which is what Lightroom is built on.
Out of the millions/billions(?) of image being shot and processed by Camera Raw and Lightroom just what percent do you suppose exceede 10K? While you may call youself a "digital photographer", you are taking those images and doing pixel level edits in Photoshop or elswhere to manipulate the original images beyond their original size. Even in medium format nothing comes close to being over 10K and the only camera I know of that does is a Betterlight back-which is a trilinerar array not a Bayer sensor. So, I think it's pretty accurate to say that of the million/billions on images and countless numbers of photographers, only a subset really need to be able to work beyond 10K and that makes it an "edge case" not mainstream.
Will Lightroom and Camera Raw do something about it? You bet if the numbers of users who need really large panos grows-and Photoshop CS3's new auto-align and auto-merge may make that a real possibility. I realize you feel left out...sorry. Lightroom isn't for AVERYBODY who may work with digitzed images...it won't work with CMYK and only limited Lab support. And it won't work, currently with images that are over 10K.
Don, if you use PSB in Photoshop, you can go up to 300K pixels in either direction, if I'm not mistaken...
But printing such a file would be another story...
It was also mentioned in the literature on the website that there was a limit of 10K pixels.
Still, its a digital asset, and I argue that LR (if it wants to be a DAM) should at least show that the image exists in the library, even if not able to actually do edits in LR, you could still get the option to open in in Photoshop.
Even PS Elements will show me that the file exists, and tell me the file name (even IF it doesn't show a thumbnail image at times.) Better than LR's assumption that the image doesn't exist.
Would be nice to see that (and maybe a tool that could somehow automatically generate a low-res thumbnail jpeg sidecar for those files that could be used in LR's library.)
There ARE solutions to mitigate this limitation if LR team is willing to listen... I'm so tired of the response that 'well... you just can't do it in LR... a pano doesn't come directly from camera... too bad for you... blah blah blah'. [I have ALOT of edited pictures in my LR library that didn't come directly from my camera!]
Would be much more encouraging to hear 'we realize that limitation; it's a difficult problem, and we're working on a solution for some future version of LR'
Adobe realizes it's a problem...it's a difficult problem to do anything about now. They're thinking about what to do about it and will respond at a time that is feasible.