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?

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

How do you save your file in Photoshop - PSD / TIFF / JPG / GIF / PNG ?

[Ian D361303828pe2]

I save it as jpeg

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

I save it as jpeg

By @Ian D361303828pe2

And that's your answer - which has nothing to do with "inconsistencies".

JPEG doesn't have DPI / PPI info - just pixel size - so InDesign imports it as 72 PPI "by default".

If you want to have full controll over the imported size - save your images in Photoshop as PSD - or at least TIFF.

Another bonus - as long as you select ZIP for TIFF compression - you won't lose quality every time you edit and save your image in Photoshop.

Every time you save JPEG - you lose degrade quality.

[Brad @ Roaring Mouse]

"JPEG doesn't have DPI / PPI info - just pixel size - so InDesign imports it as 72 PPI "by default"."

This is not true.

Every image file including JPEG includes the resolution information in the header of the file. InDesign reads this and places the file accordingly, with one exception.

A JPEG saved as 300ppi resolution will drop into InDesign at the expected size. i.e. if you had an image 1024 px x 1024 px. it will place at that exact size (1024 / 300 = 3.413" x 3.413").

A JPEG saved as 150ppi will drop at double that size (1024 /150 = 6.83 x 6.83")

Ergo, a JPEG saved as 72ppi will drop at 4.166 times that size (1024 /72 = 14.22" x 14.22")

The one exception I've noticed, interestingly, is that InDesign will sometimes drop a 72ppi JPEG at just double size (for an effective ppi of 144), but it depends on which program saved the JPG.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

"JPEG doesn't have DPI / PPI info - just pixel size - so InDesign imports it as 72 PPI "by default"."

This is not true.

[...]

By Brad @ Roaring Mouse

Yeah, it looks like there is a different behaviour when you do SAVE AS and SAVE FOR WEB from Photoshop.

And there is a bug in InDesign when placing SAVEd AS JPEGs:

72, 100, 144, 288 PPI:

SAVE FOR WEB always place as 72 PPI.

[rob day]

Save For Web actually changes the Resolution on the Export, before you place in InDesign. 

In Photoshop Export a 300ppi image via Save For Web and then reopen the exported JPEG and check its Image Size. 

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Save For Web actually changes the Resolution on the Export, before you place in InDesign.

By @rob day

Then we have conflicting reports...

You say "changes" - someone on the Photoshop forum claims "stripped":

To be clear: Save For Web and Export do not set any ppi. The ppi metadata are stripped. A file coming out of Export/SFW does not have a ppi at all, not 72, not 96, not 300, not anything.

When there is no ppi number, many applications assume a default value for internal purposes, like calculating font sizes and so on. Adobe applications assign 72. Microsoft applications assign 96.

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-bugs/different-scale-factor-when-doing-save-as-an...

In Photoshop Export a 300ppi image via Save For Web and then reopen the exported JPEG and check its Image Size. 

By @rob day

Yes, they'll import as 72PPI.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Save For Web actually changes the Resolution on the Export, before you place in InDesign. 

In Photoshop Export a 300ppi image via Save For Web and then reopen the exported JPEG and check its Image Size. 

By @rob day

Looks like the person on Photoshop forum has been right:

SAVE FOR WEB - bare minimum - zero info about ppi, size, color, etc.:

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 9.1-c002 79.dba3da3, 2023/12/13-05:06:49        ">
   <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
            xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#"
            xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
         <xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID>xmp.did:5551C03991E4EE11876CB8E52491A82C</xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID>
         <xmpMM:DocumentID>xmp.did:EE25360FE49811EE8DBAED32C4B29FA8</xmpMM:DocumentID>
         <xmpMM:InstanceID>xmp.iid:EE25360EE49811EE8DBAED32C4B29FA8</xmpMM:InstanceID>
         <xmpMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
            <stRef:instanceID>xmp.iid:7B351FDE98E4EE118412DCB6411DF655</stRef:instanceID>
            <stRef:documentID>xmp.did:5551C03991E4EE11876CB8E52491A82C</stRef:documentID>
         </xmpMM:DerivedFrom>
         <xmp:CreatorTool>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</xmp:CreatorTool>
      </rdf:Description>
   </rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>

SAVE AS:

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 9.1-c002 79.dba3da3, 2023/12/13-05:06:49        ">
   <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
            xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
            xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
            xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#"
            xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/"
            xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/"
            xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
         <xmp:CreatorTool>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</xmp:CreatorTool>
         <xmp:CreateDate>2024-03-17T19:04:48Z</xmp:CreateDate>
         <xmp:MetadataDate>2024-03-17T19:59:30Z</xmp:MetadataDate>
         <xmp:ModifyDate>2024-03-17T19:59:30Z</xmp:ModifyDate>
         <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
         <xmpMM:InstanceID>xmp.iid:7B351FDE98E4EE118412DCB6411DF655</xmpMM:InstanceID>
         <xmpMM:DocumentID>xmp.did:5551C03991E4EE11876CB8E52491A82C</xmpMM:DocumentID>
         <xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID>xmp.did:5551C03991E4EE11876CB8E52491A82C</xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID>
         <xmpMM:History>
            <rdf:Seq>
               <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource">
                  <stEvt:action>created</stEvt:action>
                  <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:5551C03991E4EE11876CB8E52491A82C</stEvt:instanceID>
                  <stEvt:when>2024-03-17T19:04:48Z</stEvt:when>
                  <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</stEvt:softwareAgent>
               </rdf:li>
               <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource">
                  <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action>
                  <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:7A351FDE98E4EE118412DCB6411DF655</stEvt:instanceID>
                  <stEvt:when>2024-03-17T19:59:30Z</stEvt:when>
                  <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</stEvt:softwareAgent>
                  <stEvt:changed>/</stEvt:changed>
               </rdf:li>
               <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource">
                  <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action>
                  <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:7B351FDE98E4EE118412DCB6411DF655</stEvt:instanceID>
                  <stEvt:when>2024-03-17T19:59:30Z</stEvt:when>
                  <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</stEvt:softwareAgent>
                  <stEvt:changed>/</stEvt:changed>
               </rdf:li>
            </rdf:Seq>
         </xmpMM:History>
         <photoshop:LegacyIPTCDigest>00000000000000000000000000000001</photoshop:LegacyIPTCDigest>
         <photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode>
         <photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile>
         <tiff:ImageWidth>1024</tiff:ImageWidth>
         <tiff:ImageLength>1024</tiff:ImageLength>
         <tiff:BitsPerSample>
            <rdf:Seq>
               <rdf:li>8</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>8</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>8</rdf:li>
            </rdf:Seq>
         </tiff:BitsPerSample>
         <tiff:PhotometricInterpretation>2</tiff:PhotometricInterpretation>
         <tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
         <tiff:SamplesPerPixel>3</tiff:SamplesPerPixel>
         <tiff:XResolution>720000/10000</tiff:XResolution>
         <tiff:YResolution>720000/10000</tiff:YResolution>
         <tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit>
         <exif:ColorSpace>1</exif:ColorSpace>
         <exif:PixelXDimension>1024</exif:PixelXDimension>
         <exif:PixelYDimension>1024</exif:PixelYDimension>
         <exif:ExifVersion>0221</exif:ExifVersion>
      </rdf:Description>
   </rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>

[leo.r]

First, I can't reproduce the discrepancy between pixel sizes in Photoshop and InDesign you describe: for example, a 200x200 pixels Photoshop image is also measured 200x200 in InDesign when InDesign rulers are set to pixels. (Although I think there are also legitimate reasons for the discrepancy you experience, which other users may explain.)

Second, pixels don't have any meaning in the context of PDF (as you're creating a PDF booklet). Acrobat doesn't even have pixel rulers. PDF objects are only measured in physical ("print") dimensions. (Once again, a deeper explanation may be offered by other users.)

[BobLevine]

There is absolutely no such thing as resolution on the web; only pixel measurements. InDesign will fake it by assuming your images are 72 ppi no matter what you specify them as.

That said, if you're exporting to PDF, why does it even matter? Make sure the images have enough data to look good and you're done. In short, you are overthinking this.

[Ian D361303828pe2]

How am I overthinking this?  The ONLY thing that seems to be overthinking things is InDesign! This should be a really trivial job: I just want to make a PDF of some photoshop files. It should be simple but InDesign makes it ridiculously difficult.  It MATTERS because I don't want to have to resize every single page in the document. Why should I? The dimensions are the same. I am creating a WEB document to tell InDesign exactly what i want. It asked me for the pixel dimensions. I gave them. It seems to have ignored them, bringing in a 1024 x 1024 pixel image into a document it stated was 1024 x 1024 pixels and resized it to be a quarter of the size it should be. I'm sorry, but by any standards, that's just crap.  And life's too short to have to fanny around fixing things resizing every single image on a page just because the software is "complex" and "needs a lot of training". 

A friend of mine told me he "gave up on Adobe" 15 years ago and didn't understood why I hadn't too. "Its way too expensive because they think they have a monopoly, it's way too buggy, way too complicated and there's no real support, just shills and fan boys in their forums banging on about you neededing to spend your life learning it like they did".

It's beyond depressing to see that 15 years on the situation appears to be exactly the same as he said it was back then.

To end on a positive note, this experience on here has given me the kick up the arse I needed. I can think of much better things to waste £52/month on.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

[...] This should be a really trivial job: I just want to make a PDF of some photoshop files. [...]

By @Ian D361303828pe2

But you can export PDF from Photoshop directly...

No need for InDesign to just export PDF - unless you are adding a lot of extra text ... but if what you are doing is just a banner - you can still add texts in Phtoshop...

[Ian D361303828pe2]

Thanks. After Googling I discovered the "Automate" command under the "File" menu which does indeed allow you to generate a PDF from multiple PSD files and does a pretty good job too.   Need to figure out how I can make some of the text/images hyperlinks which Photoshop seems to have some basic functionality for, but I suspect might mean having to dive into Adobe Acrobat, which I'd rather avoid given my experience with InDesign.

[Derek Cross]

Yes, it's always wise to use the correct tool for the job – here's a link to the Photoshop forum (there is also an Acrobat forum):
https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem/ct-p/ct-photoshop?page=1&sort=latest_replies&lang...

[rob day]

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.

Hi @Ian D361303828pe2 , An InDesign page has no resolution—it is a vector object. There is a static measurement unit (Pixels), but it has nothing to do with output resolution, and is defined as 1/72". So if you want an image Placed at 100% to match a page set to 1024 x 1024 Pixel Ruler Units, save it from Photoshop at 1024 x 1024 px at 72ppi.

[Ian D361303828pe2]

As I explained, that's what I did. By default Photoshop selects 96 which comes in at about 2/3 size so I thought "OK Let's try 72" which came in even smaller.

[Derek Cross]

InDesign is the industry standard publishing application with a steep learning curve. Instead of complaining about consistency between Adobe products, I respectfully suggest you undertake some training. Adobe provides some free video tutorials.  The rule of thumb for images Placed in an InDesign document is to have an Effective Resolution of around 300PPI – look in the Links panel for information about the resolution and more. For digital publications (as Bob has mentioned) resolution is irrelevant, the document dimensions are the important thing.

The InDesign process is that you create a page or pages and you add text and Place images on the page.
From your screenshot it looks like you've created your "page" the same size as your image; although you can do that, the result may be causing you confusion.

[Ian D361303828pe2]

Thank ytiy foir your patronising reply. It's Adobe who keep mentioning how their products integrate seamlessly and charge me £52 for their pleasure

Ten years ago I gave up on InDesign as a  buggy mess and vastly inferior to the PageMaker and Ventura Publisher products I'd easily managed to use before then. I foolishly thought things might have changed in the 10 years they've had to improve things.  Even basic things that should be there based on other products aren't.  WHERE is the consistency? Move the mouse over a tool in Photoshop to get a short, succinct and informative overview of the tool. In InDesign? They couldn't be bothered.  There's nothing. I could give a hundred other examples of actions that SHOULD be the same (even something as basic as putting a stroke on text) across the suite of software products and there's no reason they're not, especially given Adobe's promises over 20 years now that they were properly integrating the products.

I bought the Adobe Classroom In A Book for InDesign. As a former software instructor myself, I know the importance of training.  The book for Photoshop was good training material - it focussed on "real world" projects and was interesting and TAUGHT things. 

The equivalent book for InDesign is tedious in the extreme. Why teach when you can just trawl through "This is what a panel is, and this is how you can close it" nonsense for page after page. That's NOT training. It's just regurgitating the reference manual.  I lost the will to leave before I even got to the end of Chapter 1.  

Time to move on I guess. I have already moved from Premiere Pro to Da Vinci and wish I'd done it years ago.  Now to do the same for InDesign and Photoshop. 

[James Gifford—NitroPress]

Well, not surprisingly perhaps, I don't think his answer is patronizing. ID is a phenomenally complex app and very few can come to use it effectively without training. it's not, in other words, a web-based tool for secretaries and admin assistants to make web banners and presentations.

(As for Ventura and PM... I don't think either had 1/10 the features that ID does. They're similar in abilities to lay out pages for print, and... /fullstop.)

I understand that in an era where every tool out of a bubble-gum machine can do web-based design, InDesign's distance between its core operation and pixel-based design and output is something of an anachronism. But all that's asked here is that you understand it's not and never has been a pixel-based design tool, and learn the routines to get from its layout strengths to a raster output... which requires something a lot like training.

[Ian D361303828pe2]

If, as you say, InDesign is "not and never has been a pixel-based design tool".  Nobody said it was.  But maybe if InDesign doesn't want "bubble gum machines doing web-based design" it shouldn't have a ruddy great tab on the "Create" page with a ton of options labelled "Web"!  And maybe when you go into that tab it shouldn't ask you to specify a page size in pixels.  This is not frigging rocket science.  Its supporters seem to want to have their cake and eat it: it doesn't do pixel sizes - that's why it has a ton of options asking for them!  

And if training is SO important how hard can it be to add video rollovers on the toolbars the way Photoshop did eons ago.  No consistency. No integration. Despite 20 years of promising it was now here!

[rob day]

so I thought "OK Let's try 72" which came in even smaller.

Check your Links Info panel, looks like for some reason your JPEG is placing at 50% Scale with an Effective Resolution (the scaled resolution) of 144ppi.

Your intuition might be to place JPEGs for screen design, but try placing .PSDs, which would be a better choice. There are no benefits with placing JPEGs—Placed images are linked not embedded, so they would not make the InDesign file smaller or more efficient, and on an Export there would likely be a double compression.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

[...]

Check your Links Info panel, looks like for some reason your JPEG is placing at 50% Scale with an Effective Resolution (the scaled resolution) of 144ppi.[...]

By @rob day

https://community.adobe.com/t5/indesign-discussions/why-does-a-1024x1024-pixel-image-when-placed-in-...

[Ian D361303828pe2]

The Photoshop file comes in at the exact same (incorrect) size as the JPEG.

[James Gifford—NitroPress · Accepted solution]

The short, sweeping answer here is that InDesign is not an online design tool, despite a few features that seem to work in pixel-scaled layouts. If your destination format is an online banner or document, you have to maintain a continuous "conversion viewpoint" of a non-pixelated source.