Saving PSD files after exporting from Lightroom saves incorrectly

Question

I've only recently moved to Lightroom from using Photoshop/Bridge together, so I'm not 100% sure how saving files exported from Lightroom should go. But here's what I experience:
Base edit of file within Lightroom
In library view, right click on image -> Edit in -> Open as Smart Object in Photoshop
Perform all my necessary edits and such
File -> Save As, and save it to another location as a PSD file (totally different HDD)
Perform more edits....
Shortcut CTRL+S to save, and it saves it as the TIFF file under the location it was originally in within Lightroom
Eh...? Am I missing something. It should just save as the original PSD I created when I went "Save As". I have seen on a few occasions, immediately after "Save As", the file name resorts back to TIFF and not as PSD.
My settings for External Editing in Lightroom are as follows:
File Format: TIFF
Color Space: ProPhoto RGB
Bit Depth: 16 bits/component
Resolution: 300
Compression: None
Does anyone have any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Also, to note, that sometimes I double click on the Smart Object within Photoshop to load Camera Raw and perform some edits, but not often.

Answer 1

Modesto Vega wrote:
Replying to your last 3 posts.
Re Camera Raw being used to pass an image to Photoshop
a) I am assuming this is independent of the Compatibility level in Preferences\File Handling DNG creation.
b) Does the same apply to other photo editing software made by Adobe like Elements?.
Reply: Yes, the principle is the same. Photoshop Elements cannot read raw data either. That's why it has to be converted before it's opened.
c) Assume that I have LR 5.7.1 and CS5. Is Camera Raw is still used to pass an image to Photoshop? If so, why is there a need to get LR to behave differently?
Reply: Camera Raw is used IF you choose the option to open anyway. Then Camera Raw will be used to convert the image that's opened in Photoshop. But since it is older than Lightroom some of the new adjustments might not be transferred to Photoshop. That's why there is a need to let the user make the choice.
d) Sometimes it does seem as if Adobe might be using Camera Raw updates and process version updates to get consumers to change their habits, this includes having to buy subscriptions or having to change workflow to some ideal that somebody at Adobe or working with Adobe might have in mind.
Reply: The fact is that in the past, when a new version of Photoshop is released then all support and updates cease for the previous version. Since the introduction of the creative cloud, at least users of Photoshop CS6  get support for new cameras. They just don't get the new features. Yes, there's motivation to upgrade. Adobe is a business. What do you really expect?
Re stacks
I find impossible to see collapsed stacks on the film strip. Stacks are only visible on the Library module and using a grid view; I don't say clearly visible because they are only recognisable by the label at the top left corner with the image count; I don't even think it is possible to change the colour of that label or the grey colour surrounding an image. Also I cannot name stacks. If I could name stacks, see them as virtual folders underneath a library folder and make them glaringly visible I would use them extensively.
Reply: The only reason I can think of that you are unable to see collapsed stacks on the filmstrip is if you have the filmstrip reduced in size to the point that Lightroom can't display all the icons. I'm able to see the collapsed stacks in the library grid view and on my filmstrip
Re storing your Raw files and processed files in separate locations
Assuming Raw files are negatives and Photoshop files are transparencies or prints, would you want negatives being handled/read on a regular basis? If anything happens to your negatives, you would never be able to produce another print or another transparency again.
Reply: The raw files or the negatives, as you put it, are never modified by Lightroom. They always remain in their pristine state they were in when they were imported. If I have a backup of that raw file then I can do whatever I want to the one in my working folder. Resetting that raw file so that it looks unaltered is just a click away.
I have worked extensively with databases and database systems, it is a standard feature of database systems to be able to choose where to store different database objects. I don't see why LR cannot do the same, it is a database after all. I do agree with both the OP and photo.
Reply: Well, I won't argue that point. If that's what you really want than lobby for it. It just won't get my vote because I don't see any real advantage.
If you read back through this quoted message you'll find that my replies are included. I don't know how to separate them out so they are highlighted properly. Read through it and think about it. But personally, I don't want to waste anymore time on this discussion because it isn't accomplishing anything in my opinion.