Export - Image sizing -  Resize to Fit :  Percentage please

PLease ad the ability to resize images with percentage unit, in the export -> image sizing panel.  thanks

Lr always uses three decimals for dimensions in the export dialog. So 22 cm is exactly the same as 22,000 cm.
Maybe you're used to a dot as a decimal separator, and a comma as a thousand separator? If so, it probably looks like 22 thousand cm to you.
Whether to use a dot or a comma for a decimal separator, is set in your computer's operating system.
On windows, Control panel > Region and language.

Similar Messages

  • When exporting an image: Image sizing, resize to fit auto changes measurements eg 22cm becomes 22,000cm. How do I fix this?

    When exporting an image in LR, any measurement entered into "Risize to fit...."automatically changes the measurement from 22cm to 22,000cm. for eg. or 33cm becomes 33,000cm.
    How do I fix this?

    Lr always uses three decimals for dimensions in the export dialog. So 22 cm is exactly the same as 22,000 cm.
    Maybe you're used to a dot as a decimal separator, and a comma as a thousand separator? If so, it probably looks like 22 thousand cm to you.
    Whether to use a dot or a comma for a decimal separator, is set in your computer's operating system.
    On windows, Control panel > Region and language.

  • Problem with Export - Image Sizing

    Hello, I'm running LR3 on a relatively new iMac.  I am using LR to edit RAW photos from my Nikon D700 and one of the things I do is export to .jpg to put some photos on my website.  To do this, each photo must be the same width and height, or it causes issues with the website.
    For awhile, I was exporting images at dimensions of 960x636 with no issues.  All of a sudden, when I use the export feature, and put in the Image Sizing section the 960x636 resolution, the exported file is at a resolution of 956x636 and therefore is not the same size as previously exported photos.  I've tried changing some of the settings in the Image Sizing section (check/uncheck Don't Enlarge, Dimensions vs. Width & Height, etc.) and nothing seems to work.  Any advice why LR3 is overriding my image size settings would be greatly appreciated.

    When you specify the width and height on export, you are specifying a "box" that Lightroom will fit the image into. It will do the best it can, but if your cropped image doesn't have the same aspect ratio as the "box", then one dimension will be short. As an example, if you had cropped your picture into a square, how could Lightroom possibly completely fill a rectangle with it?
    You need to crop your images to the same ratio as the 956 : 636 that you're specifying on Export.
    Hal

  • Add better export image sizing features.

    Even the public domain Irfanview provides you with resizing feature aimed for the size of the longer of shorter edge of the image. Regardless the orientation of the image, it will be resized automatically to the same dimensions.
    I find it strange that such a simple feature is missing in Lightroom. Every each time during export with resize one must manually exchange the values in the export menu for landscape or portrait oriented images.

    Not missing just do 'Constrain Maximum size' Listing the same larger dimension in both places. You can even do dimensions larger than the image pixel dimensions for upsizing.
    Don
    Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 & Win XP, Pentax *ist D
    http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

  • Flash based website.. stage/background resize to fit browser?

    Hi,
    I've built a pretty basic portfolio-style website using Flash and Actionscript 3. All is functioning well, with the exception of stage size vs. browser size. Basically, I want the stage/background image to resize to fit the stage, while having the main content stay fixed in the middle. What is the easiest way to go about doing this? Also, if at all possible, a step-by-step guide would be amazing since I'm pretty new to AS3/coding in general.
    Thanks so much!

    That helps with it resize with the browser, but there is still a considerable gap on either side of the background(striped) image. I know I can handle the top/bottom gap with a little CSS, but how do I make the background stretch all the way left and right? I think even tiling it might work fine, but I'm still unsure of how do do that.
    I've attached a screen cap of what's seen in the browser preview.

  • LR3-Library-Export-Image Resizing:  Specifying Pixel WxH results in different WxH - tips please?

    This is a multi-dimensional question (he he).  I understand my problem is related to the original/developed WxH ratio.  If the pixel WxH I spec in Export-Image Resizing doesn't match that developed proportion, the results are not what I want.  In other words LR3 keeps the original/developed proportion and not what I want for that export.  Ok, so I just answered my own question - but..... please give me some library or export tips for doing what I want to do.
    What I do:
    1 - I edit my images in RAW and like to keep them in their original proportions from my Canon camera as that is the proportion of HxW i use the most
    2 - Later, if the image is really good (at least I like it), I may export it for different purposes and then may choose or require a different proportion.
    3 - I would really like to not have to re-crop in Develop, then go back and Export, then go back to Develop and change it back to original. 
    Besides being tedious and time consuming, can anyone recommend a better way for me to do these "one off" exports (seems to happen more often lately) without screwing around in Develop and messing up my original work?
    Background:
    One of the reasons I do this is to create wallpapers for computers, for various printing/framing proportions, and then for web site situations.  Windows XP (and I think the others) gets really slow if the program must re-size an image for wallpaper (why? go ask Mr. Gates... better get in line).  So to keep performance high, it is best to create the image in the exact pixel dimensions of the monitor.  This is always some weird number and not like anything else I do this for.  The other reason is for a quick, custom print job for someone who wants an odd matting setup for framing (don't ask).  This results in odd proportions.  Regarding the web.... well smooshing a pic into a column etc. etc...    Now while I am proud of my art and understand LR3 will expect me to re-crop to preserve my artistic brilliance, but really..... I would be happy with a proportional crop from the parallel sides of the offending dimension.
    Also, when I spec a dimension, shouldn't the DPI gray out?  What am not understanding here?
    One last request: please give me tips on solving for world peace... this one really bugs me. 
    Thanx in advance! 

    Bruce,
    As you correctly noticed, the WxH ratio in export represents a canvas, into which the exported image is fit. Here are some illustrations on what the different settings mean:
    For what you are trying to achieve, you have to crop the image to the correct dimensions before doing the export. If I had to do it, I would create virtual copies of the original image as the last step and give each virtual copy its own crop, then export the virtual copies.
    Bruce in Philly wrote:
    Also, when I spec a dimension, shouldn't the DPI gray out?  What am not understanding here?
    The DPI resolution has no meaning for the size of the resulting image if you specify pixels in your export dimensions. But the resolution tag is written into the image, which might affect the way an image is printed, depending on the printing application.
    But if you specify your export dimensions in inches or cm, the resolution together with the dimensions in inch/cm determine the size of the resulting image in pixels. I.e. if you specify 5x7" and 300DPI, your exported images size will be 1500x2100 pixels.
    Beat

  • Bug in LR 5.6 export "Resize to Fit: Dimensions" feature?

    A site that I shoot for requires uploaded photos to be EXACTLY 3000 x 2216 pixel JPGs. In LR 5.6 I created a custom crop aspect 3.000 x 2.216 (~1.354:1). When I export the images, I set the "Resize to fit" parameters to be "Dimensions" and 3000 x 2216 pixels (also, "Don't enlarge" is OFF, and resolution is 300 ppi). However, most of the Nikon D800 RAW photos I export this way end up being 2992 x 2216. For example I cropped an image using the custom aspect and the dimensions became 3320 x 4495, which is also ~1.354:1. However when I export this using the above "resize to fit" parameters, the resulting image is 2216 x 2992.Another image cropped to 4194 x 5677 correctly exported at 2216 x 3000.
    Is this a bug or am I misunderstanding something here.

    Sorry, Bob, you are confusing the "resize to width and height" setting, which preserves aspect ratio, with the "resize to fit dimensions" setting, which is supposed to set the exact dimensions, even if it changes the aspect ratio.
    From the Lightroom help pages:
    Dimensions - Applies the higher value to the longer edge of the photo and the lower value to the shorter edge regardless of the photo’s original aspect ratio. Specifying 400 x 600, for example, produces a 400 x 600 portrait photo or a 600 x 400 landscape photo.
    I'm pretty sure this is a bug, but I can't figure out a workaround other than to write a Photoshop action to fix the dimensions after I export them.

  • Export window: Image Sizing - "deselected": Resolution

    If I have Image Sizing "deselected" - does the inputted "Resolution" matter?
    I printed several photos and afterwards realized that I had "72 dpi" instead of 300 dpi.
    But I did not have Image Sizing selected - so does that box selection/deselection affect output resolution or not?
    Thank-you,

    The resolution is generally just a tag and quite meaningless. It hints at the final size of the image, but basically every application ignores the tag anyway and just displays the image at 1:1 on the screen or scaled down. It is only relevant to the export quality when you resize on export and specify a size in inches or cm. In that case your final image size will end up to be horizontal size(in)*ppi x vertical size(in)*ppi. If you specify a size in pixels, the tag is not used.
    See for example here, or here for more. 72 dpi is not used for anything anymore. Most displays are around 110 ppi, but even that is irrelevant. Just think as digital images by their dimension in pixels and ignore the ppi tag.

  • Div Background Image...Resize To Fit Browser Window...???

    [b]hello again[/b]...
    I would like to have a background image (.jpg) automatically resize to fit any browser's window...& I read somewhere on the web it should be accomplished by placing the image in a layer (as a background image); & then set the layer size to 100%.
    can someone please tell me how the coding goes for this...?
    [or...if that [i]is[/i] in fact the correct approach?  I don't care if it's html or css...I just want it to work.  (&...I'm starting off w/ a larger image (so resolution doesn't get lost when going bigger)]
    thanks very much,
    [b]mark4man[/b]
    btw - I should add that it's the image's [i]WIDTH[/i] I'm interested in resizing...while it's aspect ration remains in tact.

    http://css-tricks.com/how-to-resizeable-background-image/
    For the record, I'm not a big fan of huge background images on web pages. They take forever to load on slow connections.  And some mobile devices won't display them at all. So all that weight just for eye candy is kind of a waste IMO.
    I think the safest, most practical way to achieve backgrounds that fill available viewport is to use a small, seemless tile and repeat horizontally, vertically or both.
    More on background-images:
    http://alt-web.com/Backgrounds.shtml
    Nancy O.
    Alt-Web Design & Publishing
    Web | Graphics | Print | Media  Specialists
    www.alt-web.com/
    www.twitter.com/altweb
    www.alt-web.blogspot.com

  • Exporting photos for UHDTV or Native 4K TV, what are the best settings ? (File: Quality File: Color Space, Image Sizing and resolution)   Or in other words; How can I get the smallest files but keep good quality for display on new UHDTV

    Exporting photos for UHDTV or Native 4K TV, what are the best settings ? (File: Quality File: Color Space, Image Sizing and resolution)   Or in other words; How can I get the smallest files but keep good quality for display on new UHDTV

    You're welcome, and thank you for the reply.
    2) Yesterday I made the subclips with the In-Out Points and Command-U, the benefit is that I've seen the clip before naming it. Now I'm using markers, it's benefit is that I can write comment and (the later) clip name at once, the drawback is that I have to view to the next shot's beginning before knowing what the shot contains.
    But now I found out that I can reconnect my clips independently to the format I converted the master clip to. I reconnected the media to the original AVI file and it worked, too! The more I work with, the more I'm sold on it... - although it doesn't seem to be able to read and use the date information within the DV AVI.
    1) Ok, I tried something similar within FCE. Just worked, but the file size still remains. Which codec settings should I use? Is the export to DV in MOV with a quality of 75% acceptable for both file size and quality? Or would be encoding as H.264 with best quality an option for archiving, knowing that I have to convert it back to DV if I (maybe) wan't to use it for editing later? Or anything else?
    Thank's in advance again,
    André

  • Lightroom 5.3 Image Sizing in export not working as expected

    When I export an image and specify the maximum dimensions in the Image Sizing section, Lightroom only honors the maximum width or height if both original dimensions are below the requested setting.
    For example, I have an image with original dimensions of 2592x1936.
    If I export using 1935x1935 in the Image Sizing section with option "Width & Height" or "Dimension", I get an exported file with dimensions 1935x1445. The "width" is properly constrained to the maximum value I've entered.
    However, if I export using 1937x1937, the resulting exported file has dimensions 2592x1936--the original size of the image.
    I've tried the same with an original image of 1936x2592 and get similar results.
    Am I not applying this setting correctly?

    There's cuurently a bug in the LR5.3 export process (been reported many times, and hopeful of a fix come 5.4). The bug is caused by having the "Don't Enlarge" option checked, so unchecking it will fix the problem. If unchecking it is a problem, see this thread for help:
    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/publish_service_harddisk_ignores_ima ge_sizing_resize_to_fit_short_edge_setting_when_source_image_is_a_dng_on_lightroom

  • CS4 Image Processor: Why does "Resize to Fit" kill my action?

    I had some JPEG's that had some dark shadows.  I already had a custom action in CS4 that was worked for what I needed that I could use with the image processor.  What I did was just open, do my action and save as a JPEG.
    The existing action simply was:
    Convert to Smart Object
    Shadow/Highlight
    Smart Sharpen
    Create Vibrance Layer
    It worked fine until I added the "Resize to Fit" option in the Image Processor dialog.
    While I could see the actions being stepped through, the final photo was just a resized version of the original without actions applied.
    Why?
    I used to do this in CS2...I thought.
    Any help would be appreciated.
    John J J

    Thanks for your response.
    I had already ended up using the "Fit Image" command which works...but the point is that I wanted run the script on several sets of images for different purposes which required specific sizes.  It's convenient to do that in the "Image Processor" dialog when I run each set.  I don't want to have to edit the action each time I do a different group of photos.
    It's more a question of why this does not work than finding an alternate ways to accomplish the task.
    i.e. Is it a bug or a misunderstanding on my part?
    Thanks again,
    JJJ

  • How do I modify the behaviour of "Image Sizing" Module in Export

    As part of the export process I want to re-size an image to a fixed size e.g., 5400x3600. The iamge should be scaled symmetrically and therefore some fill-in of black or white may be necessary.
    I know I can do this as a "post-process" action, but then I need to re-do sharpening, assigning colour profile etc.
    So is there a way in the SDK to "replace" the "Image Sizing" Module with one of my own making?
    Best wishes
    Terry

    You can disable the image sizing portion of the UI and use the updateExportSettings() function on your export service provider to force the image size to your desired size. (This function is not well documented. It takes a single parameter, exportSettings, which you may modify in place before the export starts.) For example (this would go inside your export service provider declaration):
    updateExportSettings = function( exportSettings )
        exportSettings.LR_size_resizeType = 'wh'  -- specific width and height
        exportSettings.LR_maxHeight = 3600
        exportSettings.LR_maxWidth = 5400
    end,
    hideSections = { 'imageSettings' },  -- hide the sizing panel
    However, there is not a way to get Lightroom to render a file that is cropped to a specific aspect ratio. Whatever sizing parameters are specified, we will always honor the aspect ratio of the source file. In your processRenderedFiles function, you could use a third-party tool like Mogrify to regenerate the output file with the fill necessary to satisfy the desired aspect ratio.

  • Exporting images from LR

    I want to export images from LR. But when I nominate a size - eg. portrait 5x7", images that are in landscape are resized incorrectly.

    Hi,Thanks for that Richard.I'll fiddle around with that one.jv
    Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:51:35 -0700
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: exporting images from LR
        Re: exporting images from LR
        created by richardplondon in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion
    If you set a resize-to  7" width AND 7" height, then landscape aspect images will be made 7" wide (with the height correspondingly less, depending on the shape of your current crop), and portrait aspect images will be made 7" high (with the width correspondngly less, depending on the shape of your current crop). In effect you are defining a "sizing box" that all output must fit inside; like that frame for measuring carry-on bags at the airport. You can alternatively set a 7" dimension to be used for the longer side, which amounts to the same thing; although if you also have selected a filesize limit, this particular selection might not work reliably (apparent bug).
         Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4846212#4846212
         Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4846212#4846212
         To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4846212#4846212. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
         Start a new discussion in Photoshop Lightroom by email or at Adobe Community
      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

  • Why are exported images (jpg) in LR3 so huge?

    I am importing jpgs into Lightroom 3, work on them, and export them as jpg again, with a quality settig of 100% (the rest of the settings are the default ones).
    The original, imported images are typically around 3MB in size, the exported images range anywhere between 6MB and 9MB!
    I tried mimimizing the embedded metadata, but that had only the slightest effect. The file sizes are huge even if I crop the picture in LR, which is even stranger.
    Does anyone have any idea what's going on? Any help is much appreciated!

    All I wanted was to save my images at the same quality level and roughly the same size during export as they used to be before I imported them into LR. I guess this proves much harder than I thought, and there is no definite answer.
    I don't think anyone actually answered your question directly! When your camera creates a JPEG file from the RAW image it uses a quality level that is selected in the 'Quality' menu as High, Low, or Medium, or something similar. You are using the highest quality setting and want to use the same compression level and resolution for exported images. Suggested procedure:
    1) Find a typical image that you have imported into LR and make sure all Develop settings are at default zero (0).
    2) Export this image using JPEG, sRGB settings, 'Limit File Size to' unselected, 'Resize to Fit' unselected, 'Sharpen for' unselected.
    3) Using the above settings set the 'Quality' setting and 'Export.'
    4) Repeat as necessary by fine-tuning the 'Quality' setting until the "exported" file size is the same, or close to the "original" camera file size. That may be a number such as 74, or whatever!
    5) You have now found the closest quality setting of LR's JPEG compression engine that matches your camera's! You can use this number with confidence, for any JPEG picture shot using that specific in camera 'Quality' setting (i.e. High) with that camera.
    Please remember that LR is a non-destructive editor and therefore never over-writes your original image files (JPEG or RAW). Your original files will NOT degrade due to any work done in LR. This is only an issue for exported JPEG copies that you continue to “resave” after opening in other applications. If you never have to “resave them, they will never degrade! If you need to do extensive work on a specific image outside of LR, use the “loss-less” TIFF file format in LR’s Export options. Yes the file size will be bigger, but you can select ‘ZIP’ compression to reduce the file size somewhat.
    A JPEG compression setting of 100 will not necessarily produce a "sharper" picture than a 70 setting. The biggest issue with JPEG compression is introduction of artifacts, which is well described and illustrated at the link PhotoGap provided. Also, keep in mind that full-size exports images are rarely viewed at 100%. For smaller enlargements up to 8” x 12” and when using resized exports for web posting, JPEG artifacts will be much less visible.

Maybe you are looking for