P: Crop to specific pixel dimensions

Hello,

I couldn't find this very basic feature and I'm surprised it doesn't exist: cropping (not resizing) to a specific pixel dimension.

I have a 60MP image (9487 × 6325 pixels at 3:2 ratio) and I want to crop (not resize) it to 20MP, which would be 5477 × 3651 pixels, still at 3:2 ratio, for example.

Another option: enter a pixel dimension and display the resulting megapixel count of the crop.

Given the current capabilities of the software, this simple tool, a frame you can move around the photo, seems extremely trivial to implement.

The idea is a native solution within the existing Crop tool.

Best regards

Just to simplify things back a bit IMO, for 1:1 pixel output, you can simply disable Resizing for the Export. At that point you do lose the ability to control the pixel dimensions of the output except by making the crop boundary show more or less of the photo. As designed, a crop is sizeless therefore its extent cannot be directly entered as a number of pixels, but only adjusted by trial and error while watching a readout.

To add a way for crops to be explicitly sized, would IMO muddle the present clarity of function. And would still not help with resolving any mismatches between the crop's own shape, and that given in a particular export specification, remembering that the same image may get submitted to multiple types of export over time.

First and easiest step would be IMO a new "Fill Width and Height" export option - which is allowed to trim edges on the fly as needed - instead of the present "Fit Width and Height" behaviour. This way the same image crop can be flexibly and precisely exported into varying aspect ratios (destructively so far as losing picture content at the trimmed edges, but that is inevitable and accepted).

I suppose if people want it, an "allow distortion" option would be possible too, scaling differently in horizontal and vertical as needed.

Also a "Native Width and Height" option would do no scaling for export; but rather, would on-the-fly override to rescale and alter the shape of the current CROP - thus delivering the stated pixel dimensions in native camera-resolution and disregarding what effect doing this has, in picture composition terms.

I think you still misunderstand the basic idea. The basic idea is not that this method gives you an identical result as a fixed pixel crop. The basic idea is that using a aspect ratio crop gives you much more flexibility to get the best possible crop, while you will still get the required output size too. And then I mean best possible from a esthetic point of view, not from a pixel-peeping one.

If you are a pixel-peeper then you may not want to resize your subject, just because resizing it may theoretically reduce the image quality. If you are a photographer then you want the best looking image, even if you need to resize it to achieve that goal. A fixed pixel crop is for pixel peepers. A fixed aspect ratio crop is for photographers who do need to achieve a certain output size, but want maximum control over what they do crop out and do leave in.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that my original image is 6000 x 4000 pixels and that I need to deliver a full hd image (1920 x 1080 pixels). If I use a fixed pixel crop, then that means I will have to crop away a huge part of my image. About 70% of all the pixels on the long side will have to be thrown out! Maybe I can achieve that because the original image is a rather boring photo of a relatively small bird against a blue sky. As long as my bird fits within that 1920 x 1080 pixels, the rest is blue sky anyway so I can crop that. But what if my bird is about 2500 pixels wide already? Or what if my photo is not so boring that I can easily throw away most of it? Then I will have a problem that cannot be solved if I insist in using a fixed pixel crop.

If I crop with a 16:9 aspect ratio however, I do not have this problem. I could only crop a little from the top and/or the bottom to get 6000 x 3375 pixels. When I export this, I can resize it to the required 1920 x 1080 pixels. If I want to crop so that my 2500 pixels wide bird fits nicely, I could perhaps crop to 3000 x 1688 pixels initially. Or anything in between the two, whatever gives me the most pleasing result.

So that is my point. If you are just pixel peeping, then forget everything I wrote and get that plugin. But if you are a photographer who cares about the esthetics of his images, then consider what I just said and you may find you will never feel the need for a fixed pixel crop again. By the way: if you do want to pixel crop but you don't want to invest in a plugin, then  realise you already have everything you need in the Photography plan, because Photoshop can make fixed pixel crops.

PS: if you are interested about how I look at bird photography and esthetics, then have a look at what I do myself in this respect: http://www.johanfoto.com/birds-gallery/

I tried it out on another crop that was a well over 100 pizels on each edge, and exported it at 3000 X 2000 with 'do not enlarge' checked. It exported it at 3000 X 2000 alright. I then loaded that picture and the full sized one that is 6000 X 4000 into photoshop and auto aligned them. What happened is when photoshop auto aligns them, it stretches the cropped picture to align it with the larger original. I was wrong in the first test and didn't look at the dimensions of the layers, I just looked at the end result. I reloaded both those first test crop images and tested them again in photoshop and, yes, it stretched those. I'm pretty bummed out about it because I really thought it was working, but unfortunately it is not. 

Thank you anyway for trying to help. I do appreciate that.

Thank you Johan, I tried it on a picture of a downy woodpecker, two different crop exports at slightly over the size, and one full sized export of the same picture. I set the dimensions as you specified and checked don't enlarge when I exported the two cropped versions. I then loaded all 3 them in photoshop as a stack and auto aligned them. Then tweaked the alignment slightly till both cropped images were perfectly aligned with the full sized image. Then turned off both of the cropped images, and turned each on and off and I could see no movement between the layers showing that all three images of the woodpecker were exactly the same size. 

It works that way. Thank you very much! I appreciate it!

Thank you Johan. I'll give that a try and see if I can make it work. 

By that I mean, we are currently limited in that we can only guess at what the outcome will be and 'hope' to 'get it close' and then set the dimensions of the final image when it's exported.

No you are not guessing, that is the whole point (and possibly the reason why Adobe also does not see the need for fixed size crop). Currently you can crop using a certain aspect ratio, and then when you export you resize to the exact pixel dimensions you want. Just make sure that the aspect ratio of the crop matches the aspect ratio of the desired output. So as an example let's take 3000 x 2000 pixels again. If you want to export a cropped 3000 x 2000 pixel image, then you must crop with a 3:2 aspect ratio, and then export with the settings shown below. Just make sure you do not crop so heavily that the result is already smaller than that (or uncheck the Don't Enlarge checkbox). If you know the inital image size, that isn't too difficult.

No guessing, no uncertainties, you'll get exactly what you want.

Johan, it's a "fixed size" only in that instance, (and can be changed to any other size when desired), and that is exactly what is needed in the sitiuation I described, you could move it around to place it where you want it. Then export it and the photo would be that exact size without being upsized or downsized. I'm puzzled as to why anyone would think that would be 'limiting' in anyway, when in fact it would remove the limitations imposed by the croping method now employed by Lightroom. By that I mean, we are currently limited in that we can only guess at what the outcome will be and 'hope' to 'get it close' and then set the dimensions of the final image when it's exported. And then we end up with an image that is slightly upsized or slightly downsized, or, we end up with a bunch of random sized exports if no final dimensions are specified. 

In my first post I stated 3000 X 2000 for a crop size, I thought at the time that people would understand that I meant that as an example... I clarified it in latter posts and explained that I gave that only as an example. 

And you are right, it is very low on Adobe's to do list. Why that is I can't understand because many people have been asking for it, for years. And many more want it but do not post about it. They instead search and search for a way to crop to specific pixel dimensions only to find out that it can't be done in Lighroom and they give up, resigning themselves to just live with the current limitations of the crop tool in Lightroom. 

Thank you for trying to help, I do appreciate it. Hopefully one day Adobe will wake up and fix this limitation. 

You are missing the point. A crop size in pixels is a fixed size crop for that particular image, period. As soon as you set the size to pixel dimensions, you will have a fixed size that you can only move around, but not make bigger or smaller. It doesn't matter that you'd use different sizes for different images. It's still fixed, just at a different size for each image. Anyway, like I said before, if you want to have that option then get the plugin. I think it's clear that this is very low on the Adobe to do list.

It appears you will be comparing apples, pears, peaches and grapes. If you wish the images to display at the same size at 100 i.e. at 1:1 then the pixel dimension and crop needs to be the same. The images may need to be resized to the same pixels width and hight. Hope you can figure it out.

I believe you can send via edit in photoshop and do the crop there with the pixel dimensions and save to Lightroom when completed but I am sure the images will be resized to achieve the required dimensions.