Browser should show ALL images, in all formats.

Question

I recently opened an image for editing from Lightroom to Photoshop, corrected some perspective distortion, and saved the result as a PNG.  Lightroom then failed to show the new image, even after I synchronized the folder.  A respondent in the Lightroom forum said that Lightroom doesn't support PNG, to which I ask, WTF?
Lightroom should support any format supported by Photoshop.  It displays JPEGs, which aren't a raw format.  Exactly how many products should we have to run concurrently to simply manage images?  Lightroom is supposed to be the product that does it, but if it fails to show all images in each directory, it fails at its purpose.

Answer 1

MikeLeone wrote: So you think LR should support BMP? PCX? How many cameras store their
photos in these formats? PS supports them, but why should LR?
I'll agree with support for PNG, at least as far as exporting, as some
web sites like using this format rather than JPEG (although the
reasons for using PNG aren't technical, but legal, AFAIK - licensing
for using the JPG format - rather than something technical, like
smaller file size, etc).
Very true, though I am more arguing that LR should be able to leverage formats available to other Adobe products installed on the same machine more than anything.
BMP and PCX, no most cameras don't use those formats *anymore*. But I remember having an old camera that took photos in BMP format (it may have been a webcam, but still a camera) which I have in my library from a long time ago. In my day job we still actually use applications that suprisingly enough can only display PCX images; though I never would intentionally keep anything in PCX.
I think anything it is able to import it should be able to export; but again if you have it natively supported in the Adobe product or universally supported by the OS without additional codec installation it should be supported, even if it is something obscure as PCX.
MikeLeone wrote:
That should be a feature request for the camera manufacturers, then,
shouldn't it? Ask them to share their non-published, proprietary
drivers with Adobe? Or at the very least, publish an API so LR (and
presumably, other programs) can call the code (presuming that the code
is modular enough to be called by other programs, of course).
Yeah, I understand that neither Canon nor Nikon are supporting DNG files straight out of the camera yet and both still maintain a propreitary formated RAW file, but I would suspect that generally a Canon .CR2 file doesn't change all that much if at all other than the camera identifier from a 20D to a 5D Mk II to the 7D for example.
Why do current Lightroom users need to wait until Adobe releases 2.6 or 3.0 to be able to use Lightroom with their 7D?
Why if Adobe releases a Camera RAW update for PS that includes the 7D does it still not work in LR?
Yes the mfg. need to be more open or pick a standard and run with it, but it just seems excessive for Adobe not to play nice too.
It is in Canon/Nikon/Adobe's best interest to play nice and share this information with Adobe. So I am betting they are not withholding it. I was getting Canon SDK notifications for the longest time and sometimes months before a Camera was available, and sometimes it was even annouced this information was made available to developers on new camera models. I am sure Nikon does the same thing and Adobe is getting this information from all mfg.
Christopher