Skip to main content
H
heidiro
Participant
August 31, 2010
Question

Placed images come in smaller than original file size

  • August 31, 2010
  • 9 replies
  • 53314 views

I just upgraded to CS5 and am having a grand time learning all the interactive features. But today when I began my project, I noticed that when I placed a jpeg from photoshop, it came over at about half it's original size. I created the document to be 800x600 pixels and was importing the background pic (also 800X600). I've changed the original jpeg file from 300dpi (what I originally created it as) to 72 dpi but either way, the image comes across somehow "downscaled".

I've tried to place without a graphic box, I've tried to place with a graphic box, I've also dragged and dropped from photoshop and they all come over the same. What's the dealio?

Heidi

9 replies

V
vapordave
Participating Frequently
February 16, 2023

I had same problem so found this thread and couldn't find correct answer so here is the correct answer after I played around long enough to figure it out. Go to Image>Image Size in Photoshop and where it says Width and Height if those dimensions are in pixels then switch to inches, and then use those dimensions (inches rather than pixels) to create your InDesign doc. Then your placed files will fit edge to edge perfectly!

    jadub77
    jadub77
    Participant
    October 12, 2023

    Wow, ha. A lot of tech talk mumbo jumbo in this thread that has gotten nowhere as far as solutions go. Just makes my head spin. I don't have the answer as to "why" this workaround works, so maybe the tech talk would be beneficial, but whatever. Anyway, a poster above already referenced this as a workaround solution, but this is what worked for me. If I just File>Export in InDesign without creating a box first or anything, and choose a JPG, it is scaling it down. Some random %... 16.6-something %. If I save that exact same JPG out in other formats i.e. PNG, PSD, etc. and take the same steps in INDD i.e. File>Export, it drops those in at 100% scale. Bizarre. So INDD is only scaling down JPGs. Not sure why. But yeah, a workaround solution, which is not perfect, esp. if you're dealing with tons and tons of images, is to convert them to PNGs or some other file format.

    jadub77
    jadub77
    Participant
    October 12, 2023

    P.S> @vapordave  I didn't mean to reply only to you, but rather to the entire thread. Not trying to insinuate that you were posting a ton of tech talk, because you def. were NOT. Ha. My bad.  😉

    U
    universe5554
    Participating Frequently
    April 23, 2019

    Seems a lot of people dont know the real issue here:
    create an image with 28 cm width and one with 30 cm width (in photoshop or wherever), and place them in indesign onto an DIN A4 page. voila one is 28cm, the other scales down to 15cm width. Both say scale 100%. My script which should import and place images automatically has no way to determine which has been downscaled and which not.

    Hence this issue is not about dpi and how to define and understand them. Its about Indesign scaling images, with no rational usage, automatically at import/placement.

    Abambo
    Community Expert
    AbamboCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    April 23, 2019

    universe5554  wrote

    create an image with 28 cm width and one with 30 cm width (in photoshop or wherever), and place them in indesign onto an DIN A4 page. voila one is 28cm, the other scales down to 15cm width. Both say scale 100%.

    You are using some fitting option...

    Both frames show 100% on the same image...but

    ...the first one is shown only at 100% and the second one is shown at 29%...when you look at the content of the frame and not the frame itself.

    Without any fitting option, assets are inserted at the size indicated in the file (size in inches, density as reported in the file).

    If there is a fitting option, the file is scaled to fit the frame and the density moves accordingly (actual PPI vs effective PPI).

    Hence this issue is not about dpi and how to define and understand them. Its about Indesign scaling images, with no rational usage, automatically at import/placement.

    So, well there is a rational...and it's about ppi and sizes. But you need to understand the fitting options.

    ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
    U
    universe5554
    Participating Frequently
    April 23, 2019

    thx for your effort, but please refer to the procedure i wrote about, dont interprete wildly and post solutions to other situations. (autofit is turned off, its a indesign bug, since this doesnt occur to pngs, only to jpgs)
    again:
    create a jpg in Ps at 30 cm width. place it in Indesign onto a DinA4 Page. Please show me a screenshot where you placed a jpg that is larger than the page. Indesign will automatically downscale jpgs. while it will keep pngs at their original 100% scale.
    so you see Indesign is scaling images for no rational reason.

    G
    GeorgePutnam
    Inspiring
    May 30, 2018

    I simply placed the PS Image as a separate layer... and that worked.

    Something about the layer I was using was at fault.

    Abambo
    Community Expert
    AbamboCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    May 31, 2018

    GeorgePutnam  wrote

    I simply placed the PS Image as a separate layer... and that worked.

    Something about the layer I was using was at fault.

    There is no by-layer-configuration for this.

    ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
    D
    deniseh66533395
    Participant
    June 16, 2017

    I have the same issue. I'm trying to place an image into the rectangle frame tool and it shrinks. I made the image size the same as the box but it shrinks it in half. I've tried both 72 and 300dpi and JPG and PNG versions but they all shrink. When I stick the PSD file into the box it stays the same size but becomes really pixellated. I'm not sure what to do now. The display performance is at high already too.

    EDIT: I restarted indesign and made a new rectangle box and imported the 72dpi png and it works fine now

    BobLevine
    Community Expert
    BobLevineCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    June 16, 2017

    Stop drawing the frame and just click to place it.

    annamariar27946049
    annamariar27946049
    Participant
    December 10, 2016

    i had the same problem but once i started using the rectangle box in the tool bar and them file open what ever i want to be placed. it all went normal again think sometimes we forget to do the rectangle box first

    jimdeasy
    jimdeasy
    Participant
    June 15, 2016

    This thread has done a good job of why this problem is happening..but I still don't see a clear answer to the question of how do you create an image in Photoshop that will place into Indesign at the same size? And let's assume we're all going to print so flipping your res from 300 to 72 is out of the question.

      Abambo
      Community Expert
      AbamboCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      June 16, 2016

      There is always confusion about dpi, pixel size and image size in inches or mm!

      A Photoshop picture has always a size of x pixels by y pixels. This does not change if you are changing its mm value or its dpi value and those are interconnected. Making a picture smaller in mm/inch will get up the resolution value and vice versa. It is important to understand, that in this case, the image does not change, but only the interpretation of some parameters. If however, you change the dpi value or the mm/inch value independently from each other, Photoshop needs to resample the image, ie adapting the amount of pixels the image has.

      The whole hype comes from the printing industry, where (incorrectly expressed) a picture needs 300dpi for print. This is related to the printing process used. A lower resolution image will be smaller shown as a high resolution image at 300dpi.

      The 72dpi for screen viewing comes from the initial Macintosh computers, where the screen fitted exactly 72 screen pixels into one inch. Newer screens have a much higher resolution. This means that the 72dpi is quite obsolete and no figure you can rely on.

      ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
      BobLevine
      Community Expert
      BobLevineCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      June 16, 2016

      That last statement is incorrect in the context of InDesign. The original problem here was due to DPS applications where the InDesign page was defined in pixels with the understanding that all images needed to be 72 ppi.

      If you were to change the page measurement to inches you would see that the images were coming in at the proper dimensions defined by Photoshop if the image itself was not also defined as 72ppi. It’s really that simple.

      How this discussion turned to print I’m not sure.

      H
      heidiroAuthor
      Participant
      September 1, 2010

      Hmmm, well are there any recommendations on fixing the bug? I did recreate the image as a png file but it did the same thing when I placed it. Today I was able to successfully drag and drop the file from photoshop into indesign and the size remained the same, but I'm still unable to paste an image - it always changes.

      The 800X600 jpeg file places as a 400X300 image (scale says 100%) and the 800X600 png file places as a 192X144 image (scale says 100%).

      Odd.

      I'm very confused. I never had this issue with previous versions of InDesign.

        Scott Falkner
        Community Expert
        Scott FalknerCommunity Expert
        Community Expert
        September 1, 2010

        InDesign does not support pixels as a unit. All InDesign files use physical measurements for sizes, such as inches, centimetres, or points. InDesign CS5 introduced a measurement called “pixels”, but it is not pixels, it is points (1/72 inch).

        When a raster image is imported, InDesign determines the physical size on the page by dividing the resolution (in pixels) by the ppi setting on the image (ppi for Pixels Per Inch). If your image has a resolution of 72 ppi, then each pixel is 1/72 of an inch, which is the same size as InDesign’s wrongly named pixel. If your image has a resolution of 300 ppi, then each pixels will be imported at 1/300 of an inch, completely ignoring the pixel unit of measure you are using. The pixels in that image will be much smaller than 1/72 inch, so the image imports smaller. Adobe made the same mistake years ago with Illustrator and nothing but confusion  has been the result.

        You can either scale the image up so that it’s effective resolution is 72 ppi (416.67%) or open the image in Photoshop and go to Image > Image Size and change the resolution to 72 ppi. If you do the latter, be sure you set Resample to None. Resave, then import that image and the size will be what you expect.

          H
          heidiroAuthor
          Participant
          September 1, 2010

          Eureka. This makes a lot of sense, actually, and you're right: I went back to the image and changed the pixels from 300dpi to 72dpi and it placed at exactly the same size it is in Photoshop.

          Thank you for the explanation.

          Heidi

          Peter Spier
          Community Expert
          Peter SpierCommunity Expert
          Community Expert
          September 1, 2010

          ID usually only scales images with huge pixle dimensions and low or no saved resolution, but there is also apparently a bug that causes some specific image dimesnsions to scale as well. Try changing the dimensions and see if it still scales, if so, it looks like that's another dimension affected by the bug.

          tomaxxi
          tomaxxi
          Inspiring
          September 1, 2010

          Hey!

          Try exporting same file to PNG or when you import JPEG check picture scale. In my case, when I placed JPEG, InDesign scaled image to 50%, but PNG was ok.

          --

          tomaxxi

          http://indisnip.wordpress.com/

          Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
          Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices