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.

Similar Messages

Advanced Sort, Filter (color, image size), DUPLICATES, face recognition, GUI customizeability

Hi,
here are some of my Lightroom Feature Requests (maybe later more):
- Filter based on image size. Example: show me all photos with a resolution of 1600x1200 or less.
- More complex filtering. Example: show me all photos from the Collection A that are tagged with keyword 'k1' and 'k2' but not with keyword 'k3' and that are in the date range d1-d2 and were made with camera model X.
- Automatic portrait/human face recognition
- Sort and filter by color! Example: show me all photos that are mostly green (blue, yellow, red, ...)
- Intelligent recognition and optional deletion of duplicates. Calculate some kind of fingerprint for each photo (file size won't do I guess) so that it will be possible to recognize duplicates EVEN if they are of different image resolution or orientation (landscape, portrait), i.e. really based on CONTENT of the image!
- Make the components in the side panels movable so that the user can arrange his/her own panel with the components he uses most and on that side of the screen where he wants it.
Besides that: I LOVE Lightroom. A GREAT product!! Use it A LOT!
Nice greetings from Germany,
Stefan.

I second that.
"More complex filtering. Example: show me all photos from the Collection A that are tagged with keyword 'k1' and 'k2' but not with keyword 'k3' and that are in the date range d1-d2 and were made with camera model X."
This should be relatively easy to do. Most other DAMs in the market, e.g. ACDSee, do have this feature. It doesn't really becomes a real database until you have this feature.
"Intelligent recognition and optional deletion of duplicates."
Another great feature in ACDSee. Somehow it finds duplicates, even if filenames and dates are different, shows the different photos and gives you an option on what to do.

Lightroom 2.5 Image Size When Printing

I have searched and tried several approaches, but cannot get LR to adjust an image size correctly when printing.
For example, I have a Lab Test Page tif image that has a document size of 23" W x 29" H and a resolution of 180 ppi.
I can use CSR 4 Image/Image Size to change this to 8" W x 10.5" H and a resolution of 320 ppi using resampling. The reduced image prints correctly in CSR 4 on 8.5" x 11" paper and results in .25" margins top and bottom. The same thing happens in LR 2.5 with the size reduced image.
However, if I try to print the original image using LR 2.5 to automatically resize the image it does not work correctly. I have tried all sorts of combinations of settings to get it to reduce the image (as is done in CSR 4) and print with .25" top/bottom margins without success. The image fails to resize correctly.
Is this a bug, a feature??, or operator error? Can anyone tell how to make LR 2.5 automatically resize so it prints correctly? I have tested this on other computers with the same results.
Thanks

Go to print module.
Select Print to jpg.
Set the resolution at 180 ppi.
Other output settings, sharpening, paper profile as required.
Set the margin sizes as required.
Set the cell size to the size of the image
Set the Custom File Dimensions to the size of the paper...29" x 23" in this case.
You can drag the Cell size and the various borders around until you get exactly the lay out on paper you require. Then when finished hit print to file, name the file and the job is done.
If you want to print a a different size, with a different resolution, on different sized paper, with different borders all this can be done in the print module and it is WYSIWYG so no guess work (or calculations) involved. Using LR rather than PS for this also has the advantage of using much better algorithms for upsizing images than PS and applying output sharpening for the specific media type you intend to print to, all using the RAW data

Camera raw reducing image size

All of a sudden Camera Raw is automatically reducing my image sizes. I cannot figure out why. The images were shot with a Nikon 5100 if that has any value.
The original jpg size is 15MB (jpg) and have a NEF extension.
I've tried opening the image in Photoshop and then going through Bridge to Camera Raw, and opening the image through Bridge to Photoshop and the image gets reduced from 16 inches to 5 inches keeping 300 dpi.
Thanks in advance.!

The only important “image size” is pixel dimensions.
JPGs have a JPG extension. An NEF extension means it’s a raw file.
Things that affect DPI/PPI and pixel dimensions are in the workflow options link at the bottom of the main ACR window, and only if you output the images to some other format in ACR.

Show cropped size while cropping, support detection of min. crop for a chosen image size.

Now that Lightroom gets really stable and powerful, maybe we have a better chance to get some of the "smaller issues" resolved as well?
One feature which would interest me would be indication of the cropped size while performing the cropping. Lightroom could also show always the percentage of lost or ignored pixels by the crop as a rough measure of resulting "image resolution."
With posting in web in mind, I found on many occasions that I would like to have one more feature: I would like to set for the crop the
"desired image size" as I chose for the posting, say 1200x800 pixels, and not allow the crop to select a smaller area.
Now its up to "try and error" in such cases. Once the crop is off, Lightroom shows the cropped area if selected so, and so user can see if the crop still encompasses at least the desired image size.

At Dan and others
There is a very simple reason that has been stated several times. You are not editing photos, you are making references to images through a database - its all ones and zeros with colours and hues. It is at the export stage you tell lightroom what crop you want. There is no point telling lightroom to crop 800 by 600 in the develop module (though I do see the reason for the request).
If you did specify 800 by 600, the crop would be a small proportion of a 4000 by 3000 pixel chip image ,so you would only get a tiny portion of the picture, then what?
How do you get more of the picture in the crop dimensions?
You scale it up by dragging the crop box having the constraints in the ratio of 800 by 600..... ( back to the original way LR uses....)
Wanting emperical 800 by 600 or 1200 by 800 then scaling up is 2 step process where Adobe sussed that one in the beta by saying u"se aspect rations and then use the all (powerful but ugly) export dialog."
Its has actually been thought out plenty more so "human factors mis-engineering that would make microsoft proud" kind of noise is probably incorrect.
There are some clever and overworked people battling with Lightroom . Bibble 5 was promised 6 momths ago..... still waiting for their 88% improvement in speed.......... but LR2.3 is not there yet
If you want a crop of certain "dimensions" enter them into the x and y spaces in the crop options and you will have 800 by 600 or 1200 by 800.
Then simply set up a batch export using the options long edge... compresssion %.... All these NEED to be entered for exporting at least once - even if you go Export as Previous.
that is my intrepretation of why Adobe decided not to give absolute crops, I'm sure if Adobe did comment on these forums a little more, they would explain more succintly, eloquently but a very similar explanation as mine is above.

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?

Image size changes when moving an image between Lightroom and CC.

Image size changes when moving an image between Lightroom and CC.
I opened a .dng image in LR and then opened it in the Develop module. I clicked on Crop Overlay and then on the ‘As Shot’ drop down menu (the lock is closed) and cropped to 11 x 17 and clicked ‘Done’-.
I click Cntl-E and the image opens in CC. There I click on Image > Image Size and the Image Size is 13.288 inches by 20.533 inches.
Why does the image size change?
I believe there is a menu to control the size of the image and I've looked everywhere I can think of in LR and CC, I googled various descriptions and I checked two of Scott Kelby's books, but I just can't figure out how to keep the image a consistent size when moving between LR and CC.
Help!...Please?

The penny will drop soon or maybe the cloud will lift.
In Lightroom all editing is undoable/nondestructive.
Hence a crop of 3x2 is not inches, centimetres, pixels or anything else. It is jst a ratio. When a file is exported, either to PS or disk, then the crop ratio has size determined in respect of pixels and inches or cms.
So my 6000x5000 pixel image I will crop to 3x2 that leaves (before exporting) a 6000x4000 file.
Now when exported it can be set to export at
100pixels per inch and will end up at 60x40" when printed.
200pixels per inch will end up at 30x20"
300ppi will end at 20x13.3"
You will notice in the Crop Tool there are no size denominations such as inches or centimetres as an image file only has pixels and the determination of size is done through exporting or printing.
Hope that helps somewhat..

Lightroom 3 Beta-Image Rotate and Crop Tool

Good Morning Adobe,
First of all let me say Lightroom 3 is fantastic! I do have a couple of suggestions that might make the image editing more efficient. I find that I use the image rotate and crop tools frequently and think that possibly locating these 2 features below the image in the tool bar with the loupe view/zoom fit/before and after will allow the user to edit the images more efficiantly.
I believe that this is an incredible program and can't wait to see the finished product!
I will offer more suggestions as they evolve.
Thank you Adobe! You are the BEST!
D.A.

Thank you...I discovered this answer online from another post last night and tried it. (Since I didn't re-size the thumbnails, I wasn't aware that you could do this.) After re-starting Lightroom and my computer, the crop issue corrected itself. Thank you very much for your response. It worked!

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).

I am trying to get a photo printed in canvas, b0 size. The original photo is 5472 x 3648 px, 193x128 cm. What happens is: if I adjust the photo in Photoshop it keeps the image size but if I import it into Lightroom to adjust it there, the photo is being

I have checked all the settings when importing..the maximum size Lightroom will keep it is 30x 40cm... Lightroom is doing it to all the photos I import into the program.
I need to be able to export my image from Lightroom in its original size and stop Lightroom of making it smaller.. Any clue on what should I try?
Thanks!
Carol

Digital files don't have sizes in centimeters or inches, meters or yards. They have only pixels. If LR is not changing the number of pixels, it is not changing the digital image. When the image is printed, the number of pixels packed into every inch has a large effect on the quality of the print. This is the pixels per inch number, or "ppi". For a smooth print paper it is generally accepted that 300 ppi produces optimum quality, but for canvas a lower ppi, as low as 150 even, will do. Unfortunately, your camera puts a tag on the digital file which sets a default ppi of only 72. The reason is very anachronistic and silly and is a hangover from 30 years ago when Apple monitors had a resolution of 72 dpi, a measure long ago abandoned. That tag is misleading because it gives the impression that a very large print can be made from the pixels just as they come from the camera (the smaller the ppi, the larger the print) and some beginners think that is the only size print that can be made. But that not true. It is only a default tag, a suggestion, and it can be disregarded or changed (LR changes it to 240 ppi) and any sized print made. The real, operative, ppi will be the pixel dimensions divided by the print dimensions. Your image with all its pixels (uncropped other than to the 1:1.4 paper ratio) will have an operative 93 ppi on b0 paper which is a bit low. I would suggest using LR's resize function to double it to 7296 pixels on the short side.

[Macro Crop VS Manual Crop] Crop position out of image Size

Hi,I have been trying to crop my images using Macro.
When i do it manually, Upon pressing the crop button, the Crop is positioned in the MIDDLE of the Image size which is alright for me.
I'm Cropping it into a square. The problem is when I choose to crop it with Macro, It returns an image with larger height creating this blank space in my imageI have attached two images, One is with Macro, the prblem.
The other without macro which is what i wish macro to do(Crop position Middle, It's like slicing the excessive image on both side off. Without having to increase the image which leads to blank white space
Trying to get this with Macro

Jonathan920 wrote:
Size is different for different image. When i record the Crop, it records that particular image's Crop Position, Size etc. It doesn't automatically detect the image size and not crop perhaps based on % or whatever.
I don't think you understood me. Try recording your action again, but before you do, set the rulers to Percentage (by right clicking inside the ruler).
Select the Crop tool, and in the Options bar add values for width and height of 1 and 1. Don't try and specify units. Just type 1 in the first field, tab to the next, and enter another 1. This will give you a square crop with a pixel dimension of the images shortest side.
I suspect this might work, so do give it a try.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for