Image size versus dimension

I am just trying to get my head around image size versus dimension and an answer to my following question may solve it once and for all! I save a jpg say at 1000 pixels wide and at 100 ppi at file quality 10. But if I save the same file at 1000 pixels wide and again at 100 ppi but this time at quality 5 - what is happening to the file? I have the same number of pixels in the photo but what is the quality slider actually doing?
Many thanks
Sue

21st century or not, if you are talking about file integrity, nothing beats an EPS. Although as stated previously, EPS has definitely fallen out of popularity, partly I think due to cross-platform issues -- i.e., PC's inability to deal with them (talk about archaic) and partly due to hosting applications current ability to accept native files. EPSs are totally encapsulated, totally lossless, and totally impervious to hosting software interference -- which TIFFs, JPEGs, nor PSDs can boast. Basically, WYSIWYG.
And yes, there actually are instances where you DO just re-save files -- usually in an attempt to clean up corrupt or problematic files -- but not just for the sake of re-saving. I agree, nobody does that. I was just making a point.
I'm not advocating JPEGs and by no means do I advocate the constant re-saving of them. But I will not discount them as fodder or relegate them strictly to the internet! They are simply another tool in the toolbox. I do agree with you that saving as JPEG should be the last step in the production process. In addition, a full-bodied backup should be kept in reserve (be it TIFF, PSD, or heaven forbid, EPS).
My original point was to address Sue's question of "Image versus Dimension" in JPEG format. My point with you is that JPEGs definitely have a place and some advantages when a balance of quality versus file size/storage space is an issue. It is ridiculous to simply discount JPEG to the web. Although I would not use it for a high-end brochure or an annual report, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to use JPEG for newsprint, high-end copying and some direct imaging. It is a sound format if applied properly based on the end usage. But by no means is it an end-all format. And, I think I work in the same world as you.

Similar Messages

Recommended image size and dimensions for images displayed on iPad retina?

What are the recommended dpi image size and dimensions for images designed in DPS app as displayed on an iPad retina?

Take a look at the following link:
http://blogs.adobe.com/indesigndocs/2012/03/guidelines-for-creating-folios-for-ipad-3.html

Checking Image Size and Dimensions

How do I check the size of an image like a Signature or another image without having to save it and then checking it? Is there a way to check it in Safari?

What? I don't see "Inspect Element" anywhere.
Are there any plugins (perhaps at pimpmysafari.com) where we can add functions such as "Properties" for viewing image size and dimensions, as well as "View Image" to view the image by itself? I'm trying to convert from Firefox, but these are a couple of the things getting in the way.

Image size and dimensions in Safari

Is there a fast method of viewing image size and dimentions in Safari? I can open image in new tab and see its width and height in tab/window name. I can save image to the Desktop and see file size but it's not convenient. Is there some another way without opening an saving image somewhere like Control+click -> Properties?
iMac G4 Mac OS X (10.4.3)

Pat,
You don't need to set the image size as such. The image prints on the page according to two sets of criteria:
1. Whether you set dpi to custom or a specific value, and
2. The page margins you set either as a printing once-off, or as a new printing pre-set.
For example, I print "arty" photos in a portrait format on A4 matte paper. Left and right margins are around 3cm, top margin is around 3cm, bottom margin is around 5 cm (all numbers are from memory...). I have a title just below the image.
I created this particular page setup for a certain photo and liked it so much I saved it as another print preset. Any photo I print using that preset fits within the margins defined. The very next print might be the same photo, but this time printing A3+ on Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl. Choose the photo, select the relevant print pre-set, print. Re-sizing is irrelevant - the print in both cases is coming from the processed raw at maximum resolution.
Regards,
Calx

Changing resolution and image size doesn't change result on screen?

I'm using Photoshop CS3. I am trying to change the resolution of several images that will be printed in a newspaper. So the current images are 72 ppi and really huge -- for example 36 x 27 inches (document size), and when I change them to 300 ppi, the image sizes shrink to about 8 x 6 inches, as I expect. But the image I see on the screen doesn't change. So, for example, when I open up the image originally, it's at 33% and the entire image is visible. After I change the resolution, and the image size has changed accordingly, the image still appears the same and it remains at 33%. Shouldn't the image shrink on the screen since its size has shrunk? Or if it remains the same on the screen, shouldn't the percentage shift? I mean if the document size is now 8 x 6, it should be able to be displayed at 100% and not fill my whole screen... I'm so confused. Thanks...

gradded,
The "Document Size" area of the Image Size dialog is just to indicate the size (in inches) that your document will be printed. The ppi adjustment has nothing to do with what is displayed on your monitor. Your monitor doesn't care anything about ppi. The monitor contains a certain number of pixels and after you change that ppi setting, the monitor will still have that same number of pixels.
As long as you leave the "Resample Image" box unchecked, your image size (Pixel Dimensions) will not change. You will see no change on your monitor. If you check the "Resample Image" box, then your image size (in pixels) will change.
Hope this helps.

Very confused about ppi, resolution, and image size...

I have read so much on these things and even posted along these lines here and there, but remain totally confused.
Say the size of my pictures is around 2000 x 3000. Once I download them to PSE, the resolution is 72ppi. Is this default and could I/should I change this?
I generally do four things with my pictures.
First I edit them.
Next I email to family members.
Then I order prints (99% are 5x7 or smaller)
Finally I store them (on computer with CD backup).
Now, space is a bigger concern than quality since I print small prints generally. So what would be my best options for saving my files, but getting very nice prints?
Right now, once I edit, I save my files in .jpg, baseline "optimized" at 72ppi. Only following the computer defaults though, not because I think this is best. Would I be better off saving in TIFF or is this not necessary?
Any links with further info would be appreciated also.
Thank you,
Amy

Amy,
1. I just took a picture today, and when I look in Image>resize>image size the dimensions are as follows:
W=2288px H=1712px W=31.778" H=23.778" @72px/in. resolution
When I change resolution to 325 px/in., W=7.04" H=5.268"
As the resolution is increased, the dimensions decrease. This is what is called an inverse relation.
Why did I change to 325px/in? Because for printing it is desirable to have a resolution of 240-300 px/in, or so. Also, note that this resolution gives me almost a perfect 5x7 size format, and one can crop off the excess readily. If one desires 4x6 size, one can crop to that dimension.
2. I enhance the pictures next, leaving sharpening for the last step
3. I save primarily in PSD and/or JPEG. Both PSD and TIFF allow one to retain layers, are lossless, and thus one avoids degradation with sequential editing. JPEG is is a compression format which conserves disk space (in comparison to PSD and TIFF), and is most likely required for your e-mail and your photo finisher. I save some of the JPEG files. I usually elect baseline optimized, and the JPEG allows me to elect quality 8, which is good for my purpose and results in a manageable file size.
4. Right after I download my picture files from the camera, I burn them to a CD (i.e. before I do anything else), and right after I finish the final edits I burn them to CD as well. This is my "film", if you will. If the computer fails or if I should accidentally delete a file from disk, I still have it available.
I am sure that others will post, but that is my current work flow.
Ken

Wrong image size

Image size H dimension does ot match image size on screen which prduces a gap between image and extension ? Conray.

Ray,
I think I understand what you are trying.
When you start with the image showing 6" rather than 8", I take it you are reading off the rulers on the left and top. Are you sure that there isn't a scroll bar on the right of the picture to move the image to show the bottom 2"? Try using Ctrl & 0 to fit the image to the window.
Do you work with images in floating windows?
The way I would get a 2" border at the bottom is to use Image - Resize Canvas Size and use relative changes.
Add the 2" height and make sure the anchor point is moved up.
Hope that might help
Brian

Where is it possible to batch process the size of images?--I am able to change pixel dimensions in image processor but not image size in inches.

Hi- I need to batch process images for video project. I am able to change the pixel dimensions in the image processor but don't seem to have the option to change image size in inches. Please advise! Thanks

You don't need inches for video (or screen viewing in general). It all goes by pixel count. Inches is for print, nothing else.
But to answer the question, you can run actions in the Image Processor, and this is where you set size in inches. Just bring up Image Size, uncheck "resample image", and specify size. You'll notice resolution changes to reflect the fact that the existing image pixels are now redistributed over the new print size.
But again, screen doesn't care about size or resolution. It only counts pixels.

How do I determine the size of an image ( bytes not dimensions )?

I am working on an application which downloads images from the web and caches them for speed reasons. I want to allow the users to browse the cache and dump selected images to free up memory. Ideally I would display the image size in bytes for each cache entry, but I haven't seen any way to access this info.
I do not want dimensions. getIconHeight() * getIconWidth() doesn't address bit depth at all, which can make a huge difference. If there was some getBytes() method I could use that, but I haven't found one yet.
Help?

Only if you use a stream and count the bytes. I'm loading it like this:
ImageIcon foo = new ImageIcon( new URL( "http://foo/bar/baz.gif" ) );

How do I change the dimensions of an image? The Image Size dialog box will not allow me to change it

How do I change the dimensions of an image? The Image Size dialog box will not allow me to change dimensions. I am taking an online class and the Image Size dialog box looks different than the one I am seeing in Photoshop CC. It has the option to change the dimensions.

When you say chage the dimentions, do you mean crop the image and adjust the size of the image at the same time, or do you mean you want to just resize the image? Can you post a screen shot of what you're trying to do?

Adobe recently downgraded the "Image Size" function in Photoshop. How do I get back to the old utility in which I could directly input the image dimensions in pixels?

How do I undo the damage Adobe did to the Photoshop Image Size function?

No, it's not downgraded.
You can still enter the dimensions in pixels with the current dialog. Just check [ ] Resample and change the units to Pixels before entering the number. Voila.
The difference in the layout just takes a little getting used to, after which it becomes very natural to use. To me it seems more logical now than one in the old versions of Photoshop, and of course the new Preserve Details (enlargement) resampling setting is WELL worth having.
-Noel

Sorting photos by dimensions or image size?

Has anyone heard of or found a way to do this? I have upward of 10000 images and I need to sort out the ones that meet a certain minimum pixel dimension. A smart folder would be sweet.
Any help is appreciated.

I created some custom Keywords in Preferences>Keywords for specific image sizes, then went through my library and assigned the Keywords to the corresponding images using Photos>Get Info (or Cmd-I). It's time consuming, but you can select multiple images and assign a Keyword to all of them at the same time to speed things up. Once you're done you can create Smart Albums and use the Keywords as criteria. Hope that helps!

LR 5 - Image Sizing Dimensions - wrong image size

Hi,
Image Sizing Dimensions produces wrong image sizes upon export for certain images.
Example, I have export set up for iPad resolution, 2048x1536px at 264ppi. If I now export an 3264x4928px image it should be resized to 1356x2048px. What I get is 1356x2047 instead, one pixel too short on the long side. This doesn't happen for all images source resolutions and ratios though. I haven't figured out the pattern yet.
Here a link to an image which exports at wrong size (export dimension set to 2048x1536px).
http://www.bobtronic.com/files/IMG_0289.JPG
I would appreciate a speedy fix for this problem. Thanks
cheers,
Matthias

The image has a resolution of 3264x4928. Exporting using Dimension resizing of 2048x1536 results in an 2047x1536 image.
The scaling factor 4928 down to 2048, is 0.4155844155844156...
Assuming that LR is working to only 3 decimal places here, which indications discussed in another thread would suggest, then there are several ways to achieve that:
truncate down to 0.415 by discarding the subsequent digits
"quick-rounding" of the third digit by inspecting the fourth-place digit only, and incrementing the third-place digit when the fourth-place digit is larger than 5, which it is not in this case, resulting in 0.415
"math-rounding" by inspecting all of the following digit pairs in turn, until you reach a pair that is lower than 50, and then working back again to simplify. This procedure rounds 0.41558 up to 0.4156, then after doing that, rounds 0,4156 up to 0.416
Speculation: the difference between 0.415 and 0.416, is the difference between a result with 2047, and one with 2048, when executed.
Most of the time the "quick-round" procedure will work out fine, also truncating will usually be good enough, assuming the above has anything to do with the reality (which it may not). Just occasionally, though, there'll be an error in the final digit, compared with what the theoretically accurate procedure would have given. So if I am right this is not strictly speaking a bug (something failing to execute as it has been designed to do), but the result of a software design choice. "Works as designed", iow .
It seems that LR, perhaps differently between versions, is working this through by simple calculation (from the front-end), without comparing the back-end outcome against what you have requested. How much this (intermittent) issue actually matters, is a question of judgement, and of particular requirement.
[ alternative method: I find the Print module, outputting to JPG, is completely reliable when it comes to making a standardised JPG as to the dimensions, as well as offering some different technical and design options, than what you get with Export. For one thing, you get the option of on-the-fly cropping to shape, which you can then adjust interactively where (as here) the image is a different aspect than the Retina display. So if you want it, you can fill the screen instead of getting letterbox, all without having altered your main (Develop) crop for that image. Alternatively, if you don't want the Zoom to Fill option (e.g. with landscape images to be shown in portrait orientation as part of a sequence) you can still make all your images to the same dimension, but controlling the appearance of the borders that are left (which become part of the image) ]
RP
ps: AFAICT one would expect simple truncation to produce the appropriate answer half of the time; one would expect simple rounding to just one further digit, to be wrong half of the times when the following digit happened to be 5 - or to put in another way, to be right in 95% of cases; and proper rounding, examinng as many places as it takes, to be right 100% (within precision limits).

Lightroom - FIlter by image size (cropped or dimension)?

Is there no way in Lightroom to filter a catalogue by the image size?
The new filter system in V2 appears compact and tidy, but I can't believe there is not a method to filter by all information contained in the Metadata list? Any help gratefully appreciated. Thanks

_Moon_ wrote:
So, there's nothing I could do within Bridge? Is there any other Adobe application that would be able to do this that isn't Lightroom?
As I stated you can use the Bridge Search (Find) function.

Opening jpgs as raw... image size

My office color corrects thousands of images per day for newsprint. These come in mostly as jpgs and some tifs and eps files. Most of these need a lot of color correction work, and I've found that opening jpgs with the RAW dialogue box and tweaking them there can be a huge time-saver (one menu with a bunch of sliders, versus opening curves, shadow highlight, hue/sat, color balance, etc.)
However! There are two things preventing us from utilizing the ability to open jpgs and using the raw dialogue box:
1. Image size. We are dealing with images from several customers who need us to maintain their original image size and dpi, whatever that may be. Other customers want us to maintain the width/height and rasample the image down to 200dpi. (example: take this 3x5" @ 956dpi and make it 3x5" @ 200dpi) If I open one of their images in raw, I don't know what the original width/height were because the file has been resized to whatever I used on the last image. I've noticed it defaults to 240. The original jpg dpi changes with each image we get. Is there any way to make the raw dialogue box not change the image size? Which leads me to...
2. Once I've opened a jpg using the raw dialogue box it will always open up again in raw (always changing the image size.) If I want to just open my jpg as a regular image in photoshop, I have to go to camera raw preferences and disable the ability to use raw on jpgs. Is there a faster way to ignore the raw settings on a jpg once it has been altered as raw?
So this is why we don't use raw, even though it'd be a huge advantage for us to be able to make these color corrections. If anyone has any ideas how to get around these, or even an easier workflow, I'd appreciate it!

For #1, if you look at the image in Bridge you can note the dimensions and resolution...you would then need to put that same resolution in the ACR resolution field.
For #2, no...as you note the ACR Preference controls whether or not Camera Raw will be used to open the image. You can use the Shift key when double clicking in Bridge to open the image directly into Photoshop and bypass the ACR dlog, but Camera Raw will still be used if it's set to be used in the Preferences...
You'll need to keep your image resizing just in Photoshop because Camera Raw is not designed to do that sort of resize/resampling...it's designed first and foremost as a raw processor and later added the ability to open and process camera JPEGs and TIFFs. Putting those kind of controls into Camera Raw wouldn't make sense since the end result of an image opened into Camera Raw is supposed to be an image processed and opened into Photoshop. So, what you are wishing for is really outside of the scope of the development design...sorry.

Image size versus dimension

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for