P: Export Resizing Problem

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Bug in Photoshop Lightroom. When I go to export a number of files, I have the resize option selected to resize the long edge with the "do not enlarge" checked. This works on the vertical files but not the horizontal files. The files I'm exporting ar DNG files created by the same camera and resolution. I've tried resize by inches and by pixels but still only the verticals ar resized, the horizontals are native resolution. I am running Mac OS 10.6.5 with Lightroom 3.4. My only solution was to select the horizontals separately and then export resize hight and width with only the width value. I didn't have this problem with previous versions.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

I can't replicate this. Can you post a screenshot of the export dialog so I can try to reproduce your exact settings please?

[Zakhar_Amirov]

LR4.2 Win7 64b
In Export with file size limit "don't enlarge" does not work.

[dorin_nicolaescu]

Cannot reproduce.
Neighter wide, nor tall images ignore the "don't enlarge" box.

[Zakhar_Amirov]

Of course, because it's not this bug. It's has no relation with wide or tall images.
Take usual image say 4000x3000
Select Export to disk
Set File size limit to, for example, 10000Kb
Set Resize to 10000x10000
Check "don't enlarge"
Export
Result image is not 4000x3000 (as it should) but 10000x7500.

Do the same again, but dont limit file size, just set qulity percentage and you get the same size 4000x3000 as expected.

[dorin_nicolaescu]

Ok, I can reproduce now.

It was not clear to me from your first post that one have to use "Limit File size" (using some punctuation would help).

[easygoing_connoisseur01AC]

Let me be perfectly clear . . .

Since upgrading to LR5 latest release 5.3, specifying a short side limit to an export (in my case, 640) does nothing; the file is exported in the original size.

A workaround is to specify the desired long side so as to get a short side of 640 pixels.

EXCEPT . . . for some files, nothing works. I've not found anything special about those files, and I've tried both processed and as imported versions

In case it's not clear, it does not matter what numbers you enter in there. It fails consistently.

Just so there is no assumption regarding me being an idiot unable to work an export dialog (I might be for other stuff, but not this), I can go to LR4, LR 5, and 5.2, and the same files export without any problems with regard to resizing.

The files are all NEF files imported directly from camera, but I tested with other files (JPG, TIFF, PSD), and same problem occurs.

I can't help inability to duplicate at your end; I can only report what I'm running into.

But I find it difficult to believe the same code works differently at my house than at some other location.

As for settings, nothing seems to affect the behavior . . . if I choose short edge resize, regardless what other stuff I ask for, it does not work. However, for the record, I choose a location, I choose 72dpi, I choose do not enlarge (I tried without it), JPG at 80%, sRGB, normal sharpening for screen, and a watermark (I tried without the watermark).

It's not comforting to find no mention or admission of a bug.

I am a big fan of LR, but putting out releases to "fix" minor bugs and add compatibility, and screwing up a basic function that has worked for years is no way to inspire confidence on future updates.

ejd

[areohbee]

Exportant fixes "do not enlarge" bugs introduced in Lr5.3.

http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAn...

[Rikk-Flohr: Do not Use]

Just uncheck the Do Not Enlarge box as a workaround.

[areohbee]

I guess if you have no need for "do not enlarge" feature, it's hard to appreciate that others do.

[Jim Wilde]

In the context of this specific bug, having "Don't Enlarge" checked seems entirely superfluous, i.e. the bug can only happen when attempting to downsize an image in some way, and when downsizing there's no point in having that option checked, right?

[areohbee]

The "Don't Enlarge" option is for when you are exporting a batch of images, some (or most) of which will be reduced (down-sized), but those that are already smaller than exported dimensions, mustn't be enlargen'd (up-sized).

It's a very useful option for some people, and not useful at all for others.

PS - The initial bug reported here is 3 years old, but the new round of "do not enlarge" bugs started with Lr5.3.

[Rikk-Flohr: Do not Use]

"it's hard to appreciate" but not so hard that you can't turn it off at need. Bottom Line. It is broke but it isn't work-stopper.

[areohbee]

For some people (or should I say "in some situations"), simply turning it off is not an acceptable "solution" (more accurately: it's not a solution at all). Granted, if one pre-filters their exports by size, and exports in 2 different batches (those that need to be down-sized, and those that don't) they can work-around that way, provided they aren't depending on contiguous sequence numbers...

[Rikk-Flohr: Do not Use]

So, as I said: No one is dead in the water.

It is reported. It will hopefully be fixed shortly. I have to say in 7 years of using Lightroom, I have NEVER had to check that box. Others have;that's fine. Until it is fixed, you can either lament or uncheck the box as necessary.

[areohbee]

Right, and another option is to not export any files until the next version of Lightroom is released - so what's the problem?

I'm not sure why you are trying to minimize the impact of this bug - if it affects you, it's a disruption to your workflow, and if not, it isn't - just like most other bugs in Lightroom. Nobody is claiming it's a show-stopper (or if they are, then they are probably exaggerating) - there is one exception I can think of, as noted above (if you are dependent on contiguous sequence numbers, your show may be stopped by these bugs).

To reiterate: in all cases when this feature is needed, simply unchecking the box is completely unacceptable (isn't a work-around, and isn't a solution) - if you need the feature, you need to take other steps as well to work around these bugs.

That said, until these bugs are fixed, it seems a good idea to reconsider whether your situation really warrants having "do not enlarge" checked, or not.

[Rikk-Flohr: Do not Use]

"I'm not sure why you are trying to minimize the impact of this bug" When you propose from an incorrect thesis, you will never understand.

I think this discussion is over. It is there. It is reported. It will be fixed WHEN Adobe gets it fixed.

[areohbee]

|> "When you propose from an incorrect thesis, you will never understand."

It seems to me that you don't really understand the purpose for the "do not enlarge" feature, and therefore why/how these bugs are impacting the people who do make use of (or depend on) the feature.

The fact that *you* have NEVER seen the need to use it, does not mean it isn't useful, and used...

Note: these bugs, like so many in Lightroom, may be more of a problem *before* you are aware of their existence, and have a work-around in place, than *after*...

PS - I agree: 'nuff said...

[Rikk-Flohr: Do not Use]

It seems to me Rob, that you do not really understand what I do or do not understand. My recommendation is to read what people write - more carefully-without agenda. Are we done here?

[areohbee]

It seems to me, regardless of what you do or do not understand, that you have an agenda to discredit people's legitimate complaints about bugs they've encountered, which genuinely and adversely affect their work and/or their experience of Lightroom. It's true - I have no idea why - my theory is that you are compelled for some reason to defend Adobe on principle, even when such defense seems unnecessary and counter-productive to me.

FWIW, I also get aggravated sometimes when it seems people are "over-complaining", given the nature of the problem...

[Rikk-Flohr: Do not Use]

We are done.

[areohbee]

OK - you can have the last word ;-}.

[easygoing_connoisseur01AC]

Hmmm . . .

So, since some of the comments obliquely refer to me and what I do, here's my take on all this.

I normally do two exports when posting my blog. One is for my SmugMug account, and one is for my blog.

Absolutely no problem with unchecking the box for the SmugMug export.

Now . . . when I post photos to my blog, I sometimes crop to show the photo at full resolution (1:1, actual pixels). I do so because most readers don't click on links, and therefore do not go to see the full size, original photos on SmugMug.

By cropping to 1:1, I can show them details they might otherwise miss about a photo. Those crops can be, and sometimes are, smaller than my normal 640 pixels width maximum (the maximum that I can show on the blog without WordPress messing with the photo).

Having the box checked allows me to not worry about it, knowing the program will take care of it.

It took me a while to figure out the problem because it was not listed anywhere I could find (could be I'm just not that smart). Then I had to still go through the photos I post (I do long posts), and manually request the correct size if smaller than the 640 pixels (having the crop enlarged defeats the purpose of showing the original size).

So, no . . . not dead in the water. I am a tad annoyed, and even more so when I'm told to suck it up.

Last I heard, Lightroom purports itself to streamline and speed up the workflow, something this last edition did not do for me. I thought I should mention it, but did not know I should abase myself when doing so.

I'll suck it up, of course (and revert back to an earlier version), but now I'm also a little less happy that a "champ" finds my issue (which when I first reported it last week and went unanswered) somehow my fault.

After all, he never had to check that box, and he's been using Lightroom seven whole years (coincidentally about how long I've been using it).

Perhaps then, the suggestion to Adobe should be, given that Champs have no need for it, for them to remove that superfluous box. Stupid box! Begone!

Perhaps the Champs collective should get together and come up with a list of features users should have no use for (since the Champs themselves don't use them), and lobby for Adobe to remove them too.

No, I'm not pissed off; just having fun . . . and perhaps learning that the place to go and get helpful answers without condescension is not on this forum.

[Rikk-Flohr: Do not Use]

Emilio,

What more can we tell you at this point than: it doesn't work correctly and there is a workaround, albeit annoying? Acknowledgement, immediate mitigation and hopefully a dialog that can get it fixed.

I also apologize that you were pulled into a regrettable two-way discussion that was better taken offline. If it offended you, realize that no comment was directed toward you specifically.

It is great that you explained your workflow and need (thought the need was never doubted - I simply said, I had never used it - ergo, would not have ever stumbled upon it) Please don't read more into that than was there.

What else can we do to help you? This a good forum and today you saw it at its less than stellar light. Don't give up on it!

[areohbee]

|> "It took me a while to figure out the problem..."

Indeed, much of the aggravation of such bugs is that which leads up to the discovery, after which work-arounds can be sought and remedial action can be taken, but before which one often ends up scratching one's head for hours or days wondering what the !@#$%^&* is going on...

|> "So ... I am a tad annoyed, and even more so when I'm told to suck it up."

Understandable and understood...

~R.

[easygoing_connoisseur01AC]

No help needed right now.

And I'll reiterated, not pissed off (just in case someone might think so).

BUT . . . perhaps someone can direct me to a site consolidating reported bugs. There might be one, but I could not find it.

That way, you know, I don't have to vent - I would not have posted anything if I could have found the bug already reported.

Yes, I had done a search on the forum, hence why I posted on this thread . . . it was the only one that came up when searching for "resize" and "export". Others had other issues relating to exporting which did not affect me.

Regardless, I too am done with this. Thanks for the responses.