why does a 1024x1024 pixel image when placed in a 1024x1024 InDesign document need resizing?

[Ian D361303828pe2]

I am new to InDesign and have to say I'm finding it a complete nightmare.  What happened to consistency between Adobe products?  It's a complete mess of inconsistencies when compared with Photoshop.

Anyway, first issue (of many) is I want to create a PDF booklet for the web using images that are sized 1024 pixels by 1024 pixels.  In Photoshop these have been created at 96ppi.

InDesign gives me no options to specify ppi - just the number of pixels.  When I "Place" the correctly sized image InDesign imports it at a smaller size and I have to waste time resizing and positioning it?

Why?  This is a VERY basic common sense function.  I tried changing the ppi in Photoshop to 72ppi (without resampling to ensure the image was still 1024 pixels) in case this was an issue as Mac vs Windows seems to set different ppi sizes for no sensible reason I can think of but that just came in even smaller, requiring even more resizing.

How do I fix this?

[leo.r]

So yes, there's no problem with a file that's just been create from scratch in Photoshop (via File > New).

Hi @leo.r , That’s not what I’m seeing on OSX. A newly created file initially Saved as JPEG (not Exported) places at 50%:

By @rob day

Here's one such file - just created it right now - placed at 100% in InDesign here.

[rob day]

Here's one such file - just created it right now - placed at 100% in InDesign here.

Yes that placed at 100%, so I made a new 200x200 px JPEG and it also placed at 100%, but my 1024x1024 px test did not! Try creating a new 1024x1024 JPEG and see how that places. I’ll just add this to my never place JPEG list.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Here's one such file - just created it right now - placed at 100% in InDesign here.

Yes that placed at 100%, so I made a new 200x200 px JPEG and it also placed at 100%, but my 1024x1024 px test did not! Try creating a new 1024x1024 JPEG and see how that places. I’ll just add this to my never place JPEG list.

By @rob day

ROTFL...

You are right - 200x200x72ppi - is placed fine...

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Here's one such file - just created it right now - placed at 100% in InDesign here.

Yes that placed at 100%, so I made a new 200x200 px JPEG and it also placed at 100%, but my 1024x1024 px test did not! Try creating a new 1024x1024 JPEG and see how that places. I’ll just add this to my never place JPEG list.

By @rob day

ROTFL...

You are right - 200x200x72ppi - is placed fine...

By @Robert at ID-Tasker

2048x2048x72ppi - 50%

3072x3072x72ppi - 25%

4096x4096x72ppi - 25%

[leo.r]

Here's one such file - just created it right now - placed at 100% in InDesign here.

Yes that placed at 100%, so I made a new 200x200 px JPEG and it also placed at 100%, but my 1024x1024 px test did not! Try creating a new 1024x1024 JPEG and see how that places. I’ll just add this to my never place JPEG list.

By @rob day

Yes, I can confirm that too: a new 1024x1024 JPEG is placed at 50%.

I went ahead and tested two more new files: 1023x1023 and 1025x1025 - they both were placed at 100%.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

And it doesn't matter if it's 2048x4096 or 4096x2048 - so halfs - it still places wrong.

Probably other sizes also will place wrong - so we can assume that if any side is a multiply of 1024(*) - it will place scaled down.

(*) as long as BOTH sides are multiple of 1024 - doesn't have to be a square - it will place scaled down.

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

Holy cow pies, he said, looking over the longest, most churned thread in years.

Is it possible that "placement" is not the precise mathematical operation that some assumptions are trying to make it, and more a case of InDesign using a process or algorithm to make an imported image with no defined boundaries a "useful starting size" instead?

That is, instead of placing an image of which you see a 5% corner, making it nearly impossible to work with until several positioning and scaling steps are executed, is it more likely that ID applies some machine judgement and makes it a roughly page-fitting size the wetware component can then see, grab, resize and place as esthetics guide? And that this placement might seem "erratic" since it doesn't follow simple rules?

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Holy cow pies, he said, looking over the longest, most churned thread in years.

Is it possible that "placement" is not the precise mathematical operation that some assumptions are trying to make it, and more a case of InDesign using a process or algorithm to make an imported image with no defined boundaries a "useful starting size" instead?

That is, instead of placing an image of which you see a 5% corner, making it nearly impossible to work with until several positioning and scaling steps are executed, is it more likely that ID applies some machine judgement and makes it a roughly page-fitting size the wetware component can then see, grab, resize and place as esthetics guide? And that this placement might seem "erratic" since it doesn't follow simple rules?

By @James Gifford—NitroPress

But 1024x1024x72ppi placed on A4 paper - will fit perfectly fine...

A3 Portrait - 1500x1500 and 1024x1024:

[rob day]

Is it possible that "placement" is not the precise mathematical operation that some assumptions are trying to make it, and more a case of InDesign using a process or algorithm to make an imported image with no defined boundaries a "useful starting size" instead?

I’m only seeing this with the JPEG format—PSDs, TIFFs, PNGs, etc all place correctly.

[leo.r]

...and similar thing happens with JPEGs created in Preview.

[rob day]

But doesn’t happen with a JPEG Exported from InDesign!

[Ian D361303828pe2]

It's hilarious to me how the fanbois will defend an utterly broken feature, come what may.

And for the record the issue DOES arrise on PSDs as well as JPGs. The image comes in at 2/3 the size - bigger than JPEG but still plain wrong.

[rob day]

And for the record the issue DOES arrise on PSDs as well as JPGs.

I can’t replicate that and have never seen it happen. Can you attach or share the PSD?

I always get this:

[Ian D361303828pe2]

Attached. When placed in InDesign it looks like this...

[leo.r]

Attached. When placed in InDesign it looks like this...

By @Ian D361303828pe2

Yep, here on Mac it's placed in InDesign as 768x768 px claiming it's 100% at 96 ppi.

While in Photoshop it's 1024x1024 @ 96 dpi.

AND if you resize it in InDesign to 1024x1024, its effective res becomes 72 ppi.

[rob day]

As @leo.r  points out your image resolution is 96ppi, not 72:

In PS set the Image Size to this:

Resave and it will place at 100% and match the InDesign 1024x1024 page dimension:

At 100% scale the placed image measures at its print output dimensions. If you change your Ruler Units from the Pixel Unit to Inches you will see the width and height of the placed image matches the Photoshop Image Size—14.22" x 14.22"—and the InDesign page which is also 14.22" x 14.22" (1024/72 = 14.222):

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Attached. When placed in InDesign it looks like this...

By @Ian D361303828pe2

Like others said - it's 96ppi not 72ppi - so you should check your files before you start accusing anyone for being "fan boy"...

[Ian D361303828pe2]

I called you a fanboy because you were drying to defend indefensible behaviour (Bugs). I'd already said in my original posts that Photoshop itself went with a default of 96ppi. It's not my fault you ignored that and just went into "Oh Photoshop sets a point size that InDesign can't cope with. And that's perfectly fine and it's your fault".

Like I said "fanboi"! I'm done with shills. Bye!

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

I called you a fanboy because you were drying to defend indefensible behaviour (Bugs). I'd already said in my original posts that Photoshop itself went with a default of 96ppi. It's not my fault you ignored that and just went into "Oh Photoshop sets a point size that InDesign can't cope with. And that's perfectly fine and it's your fault".

Like I said "fanboi"! I'm done with shills. Bye!

By @Ian D361303828pe2

At which point I've been defending this bug?

You've set 96 instead of 72... PSD file won't create by itself...

[rob day]

I am new to InDesign and have to say I'm finding it a complete nightmare

I think you are confusing fandom with experience. I’ve been using ID for 25 years, and I know that if I’m designing for screens I don‘t need to prepare placed assets in a flattened web format at any specific pixel dimension or resolution—that can be handled at export. So rather than preparing a JPEG copy to place, I can place an original, layered, high resolution PSD or PDF.

For screen usage the InDesign page has to be Exported to a web format or PDF, so the conversion to a specific pixel dimension and format happens there. Consider this PSD placed on a 1024 x 1024 px page—it’s 900MB, has 15 layers and has an Effective (output) Resolution of 443 PPI. Because the file is Placed and Linked the InDesign file is only 3mb:

I can Export the page with high res assets to a 1024 x 1024 px JPEG file simply by setting the Export JPEG Resolution to 72 ppi—in this case there is no double compression, which would happen with a placed JPEG:

The Exported JPEG:

[rayek.elfin]

Did some quick testing:

• any file without transparency (either a loaded file or a new file) saved from Photoshop via File-->Save As-->JPG and 72ppi will be placed at 144ppi (instead of the expected 72ppi and in a 1024x1024px Web intent InDesign document.
• No other FIle-->Save As format that I tested causes the same issue in InDesign. Only the classic JPG.
• I created the same image in PhotoLine (alternative image editor), saved as JPG and no issues in InDesign.
• Exporting JPGs from Photoshop using the new Export As does not trigger this issue in InDesign.
• The Export As option does save the PPI parameter. But using a different meta data format and parameter compared to either the Save As JPG option or legacy Save For Web with all metadata activated during export.
• The legacy Save For Web export also triggers this issue in InDesign when all metadata is activated. If no meta data is embedded, no PPI info is embedded and InDesign treats the resolution "as-is" at 72ppi and correctly places the file.
• I checked the meta data (using ExifToolGui) that Photoshop's classic Save As --> JPG and SFW-->JPG generates, and compared with the newer Export As and PhotoLine's JPG export, as well as Irfanview's JPG output.
  Classic PS JPG export and SFW both use the old Exif IFD0 format to express XResolution and Yresolution (set to 72). Classic PS JPG export does also include a second set of Photoshop specific meta data parameters for the x and y resolution (in addition to the EXIF ones). This older meta data format does not include standard Xmp values for resolution. Newer software avoids Exif and uses Xmp and a different parameter format altogether.
• If both the Exif and Photoshop specific meta data is removed, the file no longer contains any PPI information.
• When Exif IFD0 res meta data is missing, software tends to fall back to the xml values. If these are also missing, no PPI parameter is set, and (for example) IrfanView leaves the PPI empty. Software like InDesign and OSs fill in the blanks for x and y PPI resolution with default 72 PPI.
• If a JPG (or other images in different file formats) lacks a PPI parameter InDesign just places that file at 72ppi.
• InDesign has no issues reading xml meta data. If it finds the resolution in the xml data/jfif/ whatnot, it will happily use that PPI parameter.
• If InDesign encounters a classic Photoshop JPG file generated with File-->Save As or the legacy SFW with full meta embedding active, AND a resolution of 72PPI (in classic Exif format), InDesign somehow decides to place the file at 144PPI instead of the original and correct 72PPI.
• I compared the CS6 file with the CC2024 JPG file that I generated, and there is NO difference in meta data structure. Therefore, it seems that the Save As-->JPG code hasn't seen an update since at least CS6 times.
• InDesign can deal with more up-to-date meta data structures in JPG files (XML based) just fine.
• When I delete all Exif info from the original PS file, and open it in PhotoLine, and define a PPI, the file no longer acts problematic in InDesign (as expected). A new xml meta data entry for x and y resolution is then set that InDesign reads properly. This also works with the new Export As option in Photoshop.

All of which means that:

• Photoshop's classic Save As-->JPG is in dire need of an update how it embeds meta data.
• InDesign needs a fix to identify these type of JPG files and avoid importing 72PPI files as 144PPI.
• To avoid this from happening in the current version: use the newer Export As export. It embeds the resolution data in a modern meta data format. (This may not be a good solution depending on the context that the jpg is prepared for, however)
• If working in an older version such as PS CS6: you are out of luck. The trick with setting a slightly higher or lower PPI will work, but is an ugly work-around. Or use the SFW to output JPG images without any resolution set.
  If the 72ppi parameter is important, prepare your work either as PNG files and export from InDesign with JPG set for images, or switch to another image editor or image conversion tool to create 72PPI JPG images that are compatible with InDesign.

...It's a really odd bug, though. I have no clue yet why InDesign decides to place 72 PPI images using the Exif PPI parameters as 144PPI while any other PPI rez seems to bypass that behaviour. Must be a rounding errror in the code, or intended, or something else. And with JPG files using a different meta data format it's not an issue. Weird.

It almost seems intentional.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Did some quick testing:

• any file without transparency (either a loaded file or a new file) saved from Photoshop via File-->Save As-->JPG and 72ppi will be placed at 144ppi (instead of the expected 72ppi and in a 1024x1024px Web intent InDesign document.

[...]

By @rayek.elfin

The bug is even when it's A4 for print - and - from tests performed by me and others - only when size of both width and height of the JPEG is a multiple of 1024 - doesn't have to be square - unless I'm reading this whole point incorrectly?

[rob day]

In the end none of this matters because Actual Resolution is not considered at Export/Output—the Effective Resolution is used. So if any of the JPEG variations with the 1024x1024px dimension are placed and fit to the 1024x1024px InDesign page, the Effective Resolution will always be the same—72ppi. The concept of Effective Resolution could easily be lost on a first time user.

[leo.r]

@rayek.elfin:

>InDesign needs a fix to identify these type of JPG files and avoid importing 72PPI files as 144PPI.

Unless you're experiencing a different bug from discussed here, then the problem is that InDesign places such images scaled at 50% (which results in the effective resolution of 144 ppi, as also pointed by @rob day ). InDesign correctly reports their actual resolution as 72 ppi.