Photoshop question

[Dawallace99]

When I bring an image into PS for removing a small object (like a piece of zebra tail in the corner), I use "remove object" which selects the tail, then click the "Generative Fill" box and "Generate" and the tail is gone. Perfectly.

My problem is when I save the image and it goes back into Lightroom, the megapixel size is reduced from 21.0 MP to 6.1MP.....why in the heck is THAT?? I've tried a few other methods to remove but it remains the same reduction in MP down to 6.1.

Can someone help me with this? Or is this how PS works??

Thanks,
Debbie

 

[DRwyoming]

When I bring an image into PS for removing a small object (like a piece of zebra tail in the corner), I use "remove object" which selects the tail, then click the "Generative Fill" box and "Generate" and the tail is gone. Perfectly.

My problem is when I save the image and it goes back into Lightroom, the megapixel size is reduced from 21.0 MP to 6.1MP.....why in the heck is THAT?? I've tried a few other methods to remove but it remains the same reduction in MP down to 6.1.

Can someone help me with this? Or is this how PS works??

Thanks,
Debbie

It depends on how you're saving the file and also what sort of file you sent to PS. If you're saving as a JPEG, file size compression will be applied when saving and how much is determined by the setting of the quality slider.

If you're saving as a TIFF then there is still optional LZW or Zip compression applied during the save step. The good news is that both LZW and Zip compression are lossless meaning once opened up the file will be bit for bit the same as the original prior to the save step and there will be no quality lost. Lossless compression during the save step is a good thing as it reduces storage space for the file copy on your disk but doesn't cost you any quality.

If you're saving as some other file type like PSD then there are also settings that can decrease or substantially increase saved file size. For instance saving all active layers (if you have more than one active layer) can dramatically increase the size of a saved Photoshop file saved as a PSD or layered TIFF.

 

[Dawallace99]

It depends on how you're saving the file and also what sort of file you sent to PS. If you're saving as a JPEG, file size compression will be applied when saving and how much is determined by the setting of the quality slider.

If you're saving as a TIFF then there is still optional LZW or Zip compression applied during the save step. The good news is that both LZW and Zip compression are lossless meaning once opened up the file will be bit for bit the same as the original prior to the save step and there will be no quality lost. Lossless compression during the save step is a good thing as it reduces storage space for the file copy on your disk but doesn't cost you any quality.

If you're saving as some other file type like PSD then there are also settings that can decrease or substantially increase saved file size. For instance saving all active layers (if you have more than one active layer) can dramatically increase the size of a saved Photoshop file saved as a PSD or layered TIFF.

I'm saving it as a TIFF file. The file sent from LR to PS was a raw file. So you think even though my new "edited" file from PS says it's now 6.1MP, when I open it up, it should show all the quality of the original RAW file? Even if I want to print the image in a larger size??

 

[DRwyoming]

I'm saving it as a TIFF file. The file sent from LR to PS was a raw file. So you think even though my new "edited" file from PS says it's now 6.1MP, when I open it up, it should show all the quality of the original RAW file?

That's a bit of a loaded question but the short answer is yes.

The loaded part is the original RAW file has extra exposure latitude for making adjustments, doesn't yet have white balance baked in and that can be varied quite a bit with no loss in quality. The moment you convert RAW to any actual output format things get baked in like any exposure or white balance adjustments made during that conversion. So in a strictly literal sense ANY conversion from RAW to another output format, even without any compression applied, loses some of that RAW editing flexibility. Whether that costs you image quality depends on whether any of those big ticket exposure or color balance elements need adjustment or are fine right out of camera.

But if what you're seeing is just the difference between how your output TIFF was saved, especially if you selected one of the lossless compression technologies then that saved TIFF will remain very high quality. One thing to consider is how you've set up bit depth during RAW conversion and import into PS. If you convert to 8 bit files the files will get smaller but you lose some additional editing flexibility, if you convert in 'Hi-bit mode' the files will be larger but you'll retain more ability to make subtle contrast and exposure changes with less risk of things like banding or posterization in areas of subtle tone changes(e.g. soft pastel sunset skies).

The reality is that RAW files by themselves aren't viewable images and we're forced to convert to some output format for printing or electronic display so don't get too hung up on that loaded part discussion above. Processing and RAW conversion is just part of normal processing and at some point we do have to 'bake in' our RAW conversion edits. But the takeaway for things like you describe is to make the big changes to exposure and white balance up front and then send to Photoshop for things like Content Aware Fill or cloning out problems. What I avoid is sending to an editing tool like Photoshop BEFORE making the big RAW conversion adjustments, especially any exposure or white balance adjustments. Get those things right first as once you send the file to another editing tool and save it as something like a TIFF you lose some flexibility in making those big adjustments.

 

[Dawallace99]

DR,

Thank you so much for taking the time to try to help and explain thing to me. I am definitely doing some editing (WB, exposure sometimes, masking, etc.) before sending the file to PS for Content Aware fill or cloning. I'm not sure I followed you fully when you began talking about "bit depth" and such....that's a little over my head, honestly. I guess the bottom line is that I'm kind of stuck with the reduction in megapixels and there's nothing I can do about it, right?

 

[DRwyoming]

kind of stuck with the reduction in megapixels and there's nothing I can do about it, right?

If I understand you it's a reduction in Megabytes not a reduction in Megapixels. Basically the pixel dimensions and image resolution doesn't change when moving to a TIFF whether compressed, uncompressed or whether saved as 8 or 16 bit file. The number of pixels doesn't change. Only cropping, image resizing or things like canvas size extension changes the number of pixels.

But depending on how the image is saved the total file size in Megabytes can change quite a bit. When that change results from the application of lossless compression (e.g. saving a TIFF with LZW or Zip compression which are options when saving a TIFF in Photoshop) then there's no loss of quality at all. JPEG compression on the other hand is a lossy compression technique which means you can't restore the file to the exact original content. With JPEG quality set high it's generally not even noticeable but JPEG compression is definitely NOT lossless.

The bit depth thing is how many bits represent each Red, Green or Blue color (when operating in RGB mode which is the PS default). The default 8 bits per color per pixel gives you 0 to 255 distinct shades of each RGB color and it's what we typically look at on a histogram where the brightest white is described by 255,255,255 and jet black is described by 0,0,0. This is fine for most output uses like displaying an image on a screen or even printing to an inkjet printer.

But during initial editing, especially if there's a lot of exposure, color or contrast adjustments it can be helpful to work in 16 bit mode where each RGB color is described with 0 to 65535 value steps. This doesn't make bright colors any brighter or bright white any whiter but it does give a lot more steps along the way which can support very subtle color and tone adjustments.

Typical places where this can make a difference are when boosting contrast in an image shot in very soft light (e.g. very foggy day with soft light) or things like soft pastel colors in the sky. Sometimes when editing in situations like that the jumps between tones is too big when working in 8 bit mode and adjustments to things like contrast or exposure can result in visible banding in your image as there isn't sufficient subtlety between colors and tones. Editing images like that in 16 bit (aka hi-bit mode) can reduce problems like banding.

FWIW, I always convert my RAW files in 16 bit mode. The downside is the saved image files are much larger in Megabytes even though the number of Megapixels doesn't change. Basically if you store a lot more data per each pixel the files get a lot bigger.

 

[Dawallace99]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but it's a reduction in megapixels - not megabytes. I'll go from a 21 megapixel image in LR to PS, do my edits in PS, and when I save the file and it returns to LRc, it's now at 6.1 MP (or lower) from a 21 MP original file

 

[DRwyoming]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but it's a reduction in megapixels - not megabytes. I'll go from a 21 megapixel image in LR to PS, do my edits in PS, and when I save the file and it returns to LRc, it's now at 6.1 MP (or lower) from a 21 MP original file

Then something is set very wrong. If you haven't explicitly downsized or cropped the image in PS the pixel dimensions shouldn't be reduced.

Try to find someone locally who can look at your exact workflow and what steps you're taking during your editing. It's hard to guess what might be going wrong in your process but no, the pixel dimensions of the image should not be reduced after opening an image in PS.

I send images from LR to PS and back again all the time and no, the pixel dimensions do not change. Something is likely setup wrong in your workflow but it's hard to guess what.

 

[Dawallace99]

Then something is set very wrong. If you haven't explicitly downsized or cropped the image in PS the pixel dimensions shouldn't be reduced.

Try to find someone locally who can look at your exact workflow and what steps you're taking during your editing. It's hard to guess what might be going wrong in your process but no, the pixel dimensions of the image should not be reduced after opening an image in PS.

I send images from LR to PS and back again all the time and no, the pixel dimensions do not change. Something is likely setup wrong in your workflow but it's hard to guess what.

OK, that's what I gathered....thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to try to help.....

 

[David Berry]

When the image is saved back into Lightroom, the megapixel size is reduced from 21.0 MP to 6.1MP.

Debbie…

To assist the Adobe gurus amongst us — that does't include me — determine whether the problem relates directly to Photoshop's AI features, could you try the following:

1. Start with an unedited file in Lightroom Classic—LrC (example: test-1.arw).
2. Choose: Edit in Adobe Photoshop 2024.
3. Make a 'negligible' change in Ps (example: make the image a tiny bit brighter). Nothing to do with AI, please.
4. Save.
5. A new file — test-1-Edit.tif — will appear alongside the original in LrC.
6. Is the new image (test-1-Edit.tif) exactly the same size in MP as the original (test-1.arw)? It should be!

If you are brave, please run the test a second time (let's call this original file test-2.arw).

This time, the 'negligible' change should involve a very simple Generative Fill alteration at stage #3. Once again, check whether the output file (test-2-Edit.tif) is exactly the same size in MP as its original.

… David

 

[MMoretti]

Thanks for this explanation of 8 and 16-bit editing, @DRwyoming. Though I’ve been using Photoshop since 1990 when I ran it on my Mac, I’ve never risen to an expert level, so I’m always learning new things!

@Dawallace99, it seems that your image’s resolution is being changed somewhere in your workflow, essentially halving your original image’s vertical and horizontal dimensions. I suggest that you first check your resolution settings in LrC Preferences > External editing for exporting to PS (default is 240). Then, open an image in PS and navigate to Image > Image size settings. In this dialog, is the Resample option checked? If so, when you select to view the image Width and Height in pixels, it should display 6048 x 4032 (or the reverse).

Btw, I find the generative fill functionality in LrC (and in the cloud version), to be perfectly capable of removing an errant zebra tail, though for removing unwanted edge objects, it can be stubborn if you don‘t give the selection plenty of buffer around the object.

(Remember, I mentioned that I’m not an expert… hope this helps, though.)

 

[Dawallace99]

Debbie…

To assist the Adobe gurus amongst us — that does't include me — determine whether the problem relates directly to Photoshop's AI features, could you try the following:

1. Start with an unedited file in Lightroom Classic—LrC (example: test-1.arw).
2. Choose: Edit in Adobe Photoshop 2024.
3. Make a 'negligible' change in Ps (example: make the image a tiny bit brighter). Nothing to do with AI, please.
4. Save.
5. A new file — test-1-Edit.tif — will appear alongside the original in LrC.
6. Is the new image (test-1-Edit.tif) exactly the same size in MP as the original (test-1.arw)? It should be!

If you are brave, please run the test a second time (let's call this original file test-2.arw).

This time, the 'negligible' change should involve a very simple Generative Fill alteration at stage #3. Once again, check whether the output file (test-2-Edit.tif) is exactly the same size in MP as its original.

… David

Hi David. I did as you asked and my original raw file is 21 megapixels, but when in PS I just changed the contrast a wee bit (no AI stuff) and saved it, when it went back to LRc, the megapixels are now 3.2....????

 

[DRwyoming]

Hi David. I did as you asked and my original raw file is 21 megapixels, but when in PS I just changed the contrast a wee bit (no AI stuff) and saved it, when it went back to LRc, the megapixels are now 3.2....????

I'd take a look at your LR Preferences (Settings) with particular attention to External Editors

Looking at my LRc preferences I still don't see how handing to an external editor like PS would result in automatic image downsizing so perhaps it's something in your PS setup but at least make sure you've selected your file format (TIFF or PSD) and bit depth, color space, etc. in LR's External Editor preferences dialog.

I just looked through all my LRc and PS Preferences (settings) and I really don't see any way to set things up so that a LR file handed off to PS for external editing would by default come back downsized to smaller pixel dimensions. There are plenty of ways to make the file size in Megabytes larger or smaller by choosing different bit depths or different file formats but I can't see any settings that would cause what you're describing.

This one is a real head scratcher. You might try directly opening up a file from your storage drive into PS and then save it as a TIFF and see what its pixel dimensions are. That would be one way to test if PS itself is doing some kind of default image downsizing or whether this only happens when you hand a file from LR to PS and back again.

Also, when you first open the file in PS, what are its image dimensions in pixels prior to sending it back to LR? You can check that up in Image>Image Size. IOW, is the downsizing of the file in pixel dimensions happening as soon as the file is handed to PS or does it happen on the return trip when saved to LR? Again you might open a known file directly into PS to see what image size that appears at on initial open as well as after it's saved from PS.

Gut feel is that one or both apps aren't behaving properly and perhaps a PS or LR re-installation might be in order but I'd probably try to nail things down a bit further with some thoughtful testing.

 

[DRwyoming]

Also, just to remove assumptions. Are you:

Sending images to PS by selecting Photo>Edit In>Edit In Photoshop... or Cmd E (Ctrl E on PC) and not doing something via LR's Export dialog?

Are you saving images back to LR by hitting Cmd S (Ctrl S on PC) or using Save from the File menu?

I assume that's exactly what you're doing but just making sure you're not handing the files back and forth using some other method.

 

[Dawallace99]

I'd take a look at your LR Preferences (Settings) with particular attention to External Editors

Looking at my LRc preferences I still don't see how handing to an external editor like PS would result in automatic image downsizing so perhaps it's something in your PS setup but at least make sure you've selected your file format (TIFF or PSD) and bit depth, color space, etc. in LR's External Editor preferences dialog.

I just looked through all my LRc and PS Preferences (settings) and I really don't see any way to set things up so that a LR file handed off to PS for external editing would by default come back downsized to smaller pixel dimensions. There are plenty of ways to make the file size in Megabytes larger or smaller by choosing different bit depths or different file formats but I can't see any settings that would cause what you're describing.

This one is a real head scratcher. You might try directly opening up a file from your storage drive into PS and then save it as a TIFF and see what its pixel dimensions are. That would be one way to test if PS itself is doing some kind of default image downsizing or whether this only happens when you hand a file from LR to PS and back again.

Also, when you first open the file in PS, what are its image dimensions in pixels prior to sending it back to LR? You can check that up in Image>Image Size. IOW, is the downsizing of the file in pixel dimensions happening as soon as the file is handed to PS or does it happen on the return trip when saved to LR? Again you might open a known file directly into PS to see what image size that appears at on initial open as well as after it's saved from PS.

Gut feel is that one or both apps aren't behaving properly and perhaps a PS or LR re-installation might be in order but I'd probably try to nail things down a bit further with some thoughtful testing.

I just spent an hour with Adobe on this matter. They firmly state that when sending a RAW file from LRc to PS, and EVEN IF YOU MAKE NO CHANGES, PS will downsize the file upon saving it since they cannot save it as a RAW file. So in PS, after you save the image, when you get the image back to LRc, the TIFF file (I set PS up to save as a TIFF file) is 3.2 megapixels. They claim (as DRWyoming stated) that TIFF files are lossless files and are USUALLY not losing image quality but cannot guarantee it. I argued with them over this stating that why on earth would ANY photographer use Photoshop knowing that their image could lose quality.....????

 

[Dawallace99]

If I understand you it's a reduction in Megabytes not a reduction in Megapixels. Basically the pixel dimensions and image resolution doesn't change when moving to a TIFF whether compressed, uncompressed or whether saved as 8 or 16 bit file. The number of pixels doesn't change. Only cropping, image resizing or things like canvas size extension changes the number of pixels.

But depending on how the image is saved the total file size in Megabytes can change quite a bit. When that change results from the application of lossless compression (e.g. saving a TIFF with LZW or Zip compression which are options when saving a TIFF in Photoshop) then there's no loss of quality at all. JPEG compression on the other hand is a lossy compression technique which means you can't restore the file to the exact original content. With JPEG quality set high it's generally not even noticeable but JPEG compression is definitely NOT lossless.

The bit depth thing is how many bits represent each Red, Green or Blue color (when operating in RGB mode which is the PS default). The default 8 bits per color per pixel gives you 0 to 255 distinct shades of each RGB color and it's what we typically look at on a histogram where the brightest white is described by 255,255,255 and jet black is described by 0,0,0. This is fine for most output uses like displaying an image on a screen or even printing to an inkjet printer.

But during initial editing, especially if there's a lot of exposure, color or contrast adjustments it can be helpful to work in 16 bit mode where each RGB color is described with 0 to 65535 value steps. This doesn't make bright colors any brighter or bright white any whiter but it does give a lot more steps along the way which can support very subtle color and tone adjustments.

Typical places where this can make a difference are when boosting contrast in an image shot in very soft light (e.g. very foggy day with soft light) or things like soft pastel colors in the sky. Sometimes when editing in situations like that the jumps between tones is too big when working in 8 bit mode and adjustments to things like contrast or exposure can result in visible banding in your image as there isn't sufficient subtlety between colors and tones. Editing images like that in 16 bit (aka hi-bit mode) can reduce problems like banding.

FWIW, I always convert my RAW files in 16 bit mode. The downside is the saved image files are much larger in Megabytes even though the number of Megapixels doesn't change. Basically if you store a lot more data per each pixel the files get a lot bigger.

Wow, you are a plethora of knowledge! Thank you for trying to "dumb it down" for us who aren't so technical. How do you know you are editing in a 16 bit mode rather than 8 bit?

 

[bleirer]

Wow, you are a plethora of knowledge! Thank you for trying to "dumb it down" for us who aren't so technical. How do you know you are editing in a 16 bit mode rather than 8 bit?

In photoshop the menu is image/mode. But make sure lightroom is sending 16 bit in lightroom preferences.

 

[bleirer]

A follow up question would be how you are sending the file back to lightroom? Ctrl-s should return the tiff back to lightroom with no loss of pixels.

 

[Dawallace99]

I'd take a look at your LR Preferences (Settings) with particular attention to External Editors

Looking at my LRc preferences I still don't see how handing to an external editor like PS would result in automatic image downsizing so perhaps it's something in your PS setup but at least make sure you've selected your file format (TIFF or PSD) and bit depth, color space, etc. in LR's External Editor preferences dialog.

I just looked through all my LRc and PS Preferences (settings) and I really don't see any way to set things up so that a LR file handed off to PS for external editing would by default come back downsized to smaller pixel dimensions. There are plenty of ways to make the file size in Megabytes larger or smaller by choosing different bit depths or different file formats but I can't see any settings that would cause what you're describing.

This one is a real head scratcher. You might try directly opening up a file from your storage drive into PS and then save it as a TIFF and see what its pixel dimensions are. That would be one way to test if PS itself is doing some kind of default image downsizing or whether this only happens when you hand a file from LR to PS and back again.

Also, when you first open the file in PS, what are its image dimensions in pixels prior to sending it back to LR? You can check that up in Image>Image Size. IOW, is the downsizing of the file in pixel dimensions happening as soon as the file is handed to PS or does it happen on the return trip when saved to LR? Again you might open a known file directly into PS to see what image size that appears at on initial open as well as after it's saved from PS.

Gut feel is that one or both apps aren't behaving properly and perhaps a PS or LR re-installation might be in order but I'd probably try to nail things down a bit further with some thoughtful testing.

I just spent an hour with Adobe on this matter. They firmly state that when sending a RAW file from LRc to PS, and EVEN IF YOU MAKE NO CHANGES, PS will downsize the file upon saving it since they cannot save it as a RAW file. So in PS, after you save the image, when you get the image back to LRc, the TIFF file (I set PS up to save as a TIFF file) is 3.2 megapixels. They claim (as you stated earlier) that TIFF files are lossless files and are USUALLY not losing image quality but cannot guarantee it. I argued with them over this stating that why on earth would ANY photographer use Photoshop knowing that their image could lose quality.....????

 

[bleirer]

I just spent an hour with Adobe on this matter. They firmly state that when sending a RAW file from LRc to PS, and EVEN IF YOU MAKE NO CHANGES, PS will downsize the file upon saving it since they cannot save it as a RAW file. So in PS, after you save the image, when you get the image back to LRc, the TIFF file (I set PS up to save as a TIFF file) is 3.2 megapixels. They claim (as you stated earlier) that TIFF files are lossless files and are USUALLY not losing image quality but cannot guarantee it. I argued with them over this stating that why on earth would ANY photographer use Photoshop knowing that their image could lose quality.....????

It's easy to mix up megabytes and megapixels. There should be no difference in megapixels unless one resizes on purpose in photoshop. Megabytes are just how much storage it takes to save the file.

Tiff files are bigger than raw files in terms of megabytes because raw files are monochromatic. The raw converter converts to RGB so the extra color info takes more storage to save.

 

[DRwyoming]

I just spent an hour with Adobe on this matter. They firmly state that when sending a RAW file from LRc to PS, and EVEN IF YOU MAKE NO CHANGES, PS will downsize the file upon saving it since they cannot save it as a RAW file. So in PS, after you save the image, when you get the image back to LRc, the TIFF file (I set PS up to save as a TIFF file) is 3.2 megapixels. They claim (as DRWyoming stated) that TIFF files are lossless files and are USUALLY not losing image quality but cannot guarantee it. I argued with them over this stating that why on earth would ANY photographer use Photoshop knowing that their image could lose quality.....????

It will definitely downsize in megabytes (unless you save something like a layered TIFF) but it should NOT downsize the pixel dimensions as you describe.

If it’s just smaller file size in bytes as I assumed at the top of this thread then all is good. But if the image size in pixels has decreased that’s not normal.

 

[Dawallace99]

It will definitely downsize in megabytes (unless you save something like a layered TIFF) but it should NOT downsize the pixel dimensions as you describe.

If it’s just smaller file size in bytes as I assumed at the top of this thread then all is good. But if the image size in pixels has decreased that’s not normal.

I know....but I argued ad nauseum with Adobe about it to no avail. Not sure what else I can do....

 

[DRwyoming]

I know....but I argued ad nauseum with Adobe about it to no avail. Not sure what else I can do....

Have you tried the import and export tests I described above?

 

[Dawallace99]

Have you tried the import and export tests I described above?

Yes, I tried no AI edits, only minor brightness/exposure adjustment but is the same result - reduction in. megapixels. Then I tried importing an image into PS from LRc, but making NO CHANGES, and the result is still the same. Adobe tells me this is working as it should. Their explanation was that PS cannot save as a RAW file so will have to decrease the megapixels. Sounds like BS to me but I was getting nowhere with them. In LRc under Preferences > External Editing, I have Adobe Photoshop 2024, TIFF, Adobe RGB, 16bit/component, 240 resolution, ZIP compression. That should all be correct, right?

 

[DRwyoming]

Yes, I tried no AI edits, only minor brightness/exposure adjustment but is the same result - reduction in. megapixels. Then I tried importing an image into PS from LRc, but making NO CHANGES, and the result is still the same. Adobe tells me this is working as it should. Their explanation was that PS cannot save as a RAW file so will have to decrease the megapixels. Sounds like BS to me but I was getting nowhere with them. In LRc under Preferences > External Editing, I have Adobe Photoshop 2024, TIFF, Adobe RGB, 16bit/component, 240 resolution, ZIP compression. That should all be correct, right?

The tests I suggested break the problem down to try to isolate the problem areas.

1. Forget about LR for a moment, open PS and from PS open a RAW file from your hard drive. Then within PS check the image size in the Edit Image Size menu. Does it show the correct pixel dimensions for the type of camera you are shooting? If not, PS has a problem and do a software reinstall for PS alone. If you see the correct pixel dimensions in PS then go onto the next test.

2. Open a RAW file in LR and send it to PS using Cmd E (Ctrl E on a PC) or via the menu. Without any changes check the image size in PS via the Edit Image Size menu item. Are the pixel dimensions correct for your camera? If yes then LR is correctly passing the file to PS and the problem is on the return trip when files are sent back to LR. If no, then LR has a problem sending files to PS and I’d try a LR software reinstall.

The basic idea is to divide and conquer by breaking the bigger problem into steps and testing each step to try to figure out where things are going wrong. If you check file size after the image is sent back to LR you’re still testing the entire process which makes it hard to nail down the problem area. The tests above test: PS alone to make sure it opens files without pixel size reduction then passing a file from LR to PS to make sure that part works properly. If both those work then something is going wrong during the PS save to LR step which might require more tests to nail down the exact problem.

If this doesn’t make sense then I’d find someone locally who can get on your computer and troubleshoot the problem as it really is hard to do this kind of troubleshooting via forum messages.

Before you do those tests, one thing that might help is to post screenshots of the file in LR before PS and the file in LR after Ps making sure to capture the whole LR workspace especially the part where you’re seeing reduced pixel dimensions.