Different Scale factor when doing SAVE AS and SAVE FOR WEB - on Windows?

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Hi,

There is a thread on the InDesign forum:

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

and it looks like - at least on a PC - there is a difference after using Place - placed JPEGs are 50% smaller - when JPEG is SAVEd and when "exported"...

TIA

[D Fosse]

Place creates a smart object, and smart objects obey special rules. The most important to know about is that it honors physical sizes as defined by the ppi number, not native pixel dimensions.

In other words, you may get unintentional scaling if you don't watch the ppi numbers.

Why are you using Place? Is there any particular reason you're not simply opening the jpeg? Then Export and Save will match.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@D Fosse 

For some reason - I can't quote your reply...

Have you checked the thread? Or at least the link intself?

It's about InDesign placing JPEG files incorrectly.

And it looks like only PS & InDesign on Windows are affected...

[D Fosse]

Well, same explanation, actually. Place in InDesign does the same thing - it honors the physical size as defined by the ppi number.

Export strips the ppi number from the file altogether. When reopened into another application, PS or ID, a default value of 72 is assigned.

So if the original ppi number is not 72, they will come in at different sizes on the page.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@D Fosse 

What is wrong with this forum??

InDesign's part is working fine - I can reply and quote the person I'm responding to - here, I can only respond to and quote my original post?!?!?

Well, same explanation, actually. Place in InDesign does the same thing - it honors the physical size as defined by the ppi number.

Export strips the ppi number from the file altogether. When reopened into another application, PS or ID, a default value of 72 is assigned.

So if the original ppi number is not 72, they will come in at different sizes on the page.

OK, so here is the kicker:

SAVE AS - 72DPI - imports 50%:

SAVE FOR WEB - 96DPI - import 100%:

Would you like to revise your comment??

Can't attache files here - again, what is wrong here ?!?! - so please check here:

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

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@D Fosse 

Just in case - screens from Bridge 2024:

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@D Fosse 

100 DPI / PPI files:

Inside:

Outside:

[D Fosse]

@Robert at ID-Tasker 

OK, I finally got around to trying it. Yes, you're right. Save As jpeg does indeed place in ID at 50% size - but only if the ppi number is exactly 72!

Change ppi to 71, and it behaves correctly.

So, as the conclusion also seems to be in the ID thread, this has to be a weird bug. I have no explanation for this.

(BTW, the Explorer screenshot showing 96 ppi - that's just Microsoft's default when there is no ppi number. Open this in PS or ID, and it will come in as 72 ppi).

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@D Fosse 

Have you checked my last screenshots??

Even with 100 DPI / PPI - it imports INCORRECTLY - but this time it's not 50%.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

OK. It looks like SAVE AS saves PPI info in the JPEG file - SAVE FOR WEB - strips it or sets it to 72ppi.

[D Fosse]

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.

You're correct that there is a strange bug with jpegs saved with an embedded ppi number of exactly 72. But aside from that, I could not see any unexpected behavior when placing jpegs in InDesign.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@D Fosse 

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.

Looks like it.

You're correct that there is a strange bug with jpegs saved with an embedded ppi number of exactly 72. But aside from that, I could not see any unexpected behavior when placing jpegs in InDesign.

It looks like only in InDesign - Illustrator is importing "correctly" - higher ppi = smaller file - but please check SCALE value for each PPI:

If the PPI is set in the JPEG - and is recognised by Illustrator - why it shows that imported image is scaled down??

It should be 100% - no matter what PPI "inside" the image is??

Or am I missing something??

So the bug is only in the InDesign - effect after Place:

Act(ual)

Eff(ective)

(size after Place in inches)

72, 100, 144, 288:

1st - 72 - should be much larger - but is the same size as 144...

[D Fosse]

The first four "Link" screenshots look correct - the higher the ppi, the lower the scale. If 72 is 100%, then 144 should be 50%, and so on. Remember, Place in InDesign honors the physical size, and that is determined by the ppi number.

But again, your last screenshot shows this weird 72 ppi bug.

I can't see anything wrong aside from that.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@D Fosse

But first 4x screenshot are from Illustrator - images should be placed at 100% - no matter what PPI...

[D Fosse]

Got it. Sorry if I seem to be speed-reading and misunderstanding these posts, right now I'm just doing this while waiting for other things to process. That usually works well for more trivial questions 😉 But this wasn't as trivial as it first seemed.

Since no one else seems to respond, I've been trying to follow up, but hopefully someone else can pick this up.

Still - maybe you shouldn't confuse the issue by bringing Illustrator into this. In fact, it seems to me that this belongs in the InDesign forum, not the Photoshop forum. The bug seems to be an InDesign bug, not a Photoshop bug.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Got it. Sorry if I seem to be speed-reading and misunderstanding these posts, right now I'm just doing this while waiting for other things to process. That usually works well for more trivial questions

No problem

But this wasn't as trivial as it first seemed.

Since no one else seems to respond, I've been trying to follow up, but hopefully someone else can pick this up.

Still - maybe you shouldn't confuse the issue by bringing Illustrator into this. In fact, it seems to me that this belongs in the InDesign forum, not the Photoshop forum. The bug seems to be an InDesign bug, not a Photoshop bug.

At firts - it looked like Photoshop's problem on Windows - confirmed by Mac users.

I've mixed Illustrator in just to check and confirm - if it's Photoshop's or InDesign's - or both - problem.

On a Mac - Save As is working fine when placed into InDesign - but placing Windows generated JPEGs is still wrong on Mac - so it looks like there is a problem with Photoshop on Windows?

And there is definitely a bug in the InDesign when placing 72ppi JPEGs.

Only one thing left - checking how JPEGs generated on Mac will place into InDesign on a PC?

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Got it. Sorry if I seem to be speed-reading and misunderstanding these posts, right now I'm just doing this while waiting for other things to process. That usually works well for more trivial questions

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

No problem

But this wasn't as trivial as it first seemed.

Since no one else seems to respond, I've been trying to follow up, but hopefully someone else can pick this up.

Still - maybe you shouldn't confuse the issue by bringing Illustrator into this. In fact, it seems to me that this belongs in the InDesign forum, not the Photoshop forum. The bug seems to be an InDesign bug, not a Photoshop bug.

At firts - it looked like Photoshop's problem on Windows - confirmed by Mac users.

I've mixed Illustrator in just to check and confirm - if it's Photoshop's or InDesign's - or both - problem.

On a Mac - Save As is working fine when placed into InDesign - but placing Windows generated JPEGs is still wrong on Mac - so it looks like there is a problem with Photoshop on Windows?

And there is definitely a bug in the InDesign when placing 72ppi JPEGs.

Only one thing left - checking how JPEGs generated on Mac will place into InDesign on a PC?

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

JPEGs created on Mac - placed on a PC:

72, web, 96:

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

And that's current conlcusion:

a) Photoshop - Win - bad JPEG when doing Save As 72ppi

b) InDesign - Win - wrong import of a)

c) InDesign - Mac - wrong import of a)

d) Photoshop - Mac - correct JPEG from Save As 72ppi

e) InDesign - Win - wrong import of d)

f) InDesign - Mac - correct import of d)

And one more thing - InDesign CS6 places correctly ...

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Looks like f) should be:

f) InDesign - Mac - correct wrong import of d)

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

So beside the fact, that Mac is also affected - there is more:

Multiplies of 1024 - are always affected.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

And it doesn't have to be a square - 4096x2048 and 2048x4096 - still places scaled down.

[D Fosse]

Are you follwing this up in the InDesign forum? This still feels like an ID bug to me. Especially if these jpegs behave correctly elsewhere.

I don't know this, not being very proficient in programming, but it seems reasonable that size calculations happen on the receiving end. The ppi metadata in the jpeg is either there or not.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Are you follwing this up in the InDesign forum? This still feels like an ID bug to me. Especially if these jpegs behave correctly elsewhere.

I don't know this, not being very proficient in programming, but it seems reasonable that size calculations happen on the receiving end. The ppi metadata in the jpeg is either there or not.

Yeah, it's possible that only InDesign is buggy...

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Are you follwing this up in the InDesign forum? This still feels like an ID bug to me. Especially if these jpegs behave correctly elsewhere.

I don't know this, not being very proficient in programming, but it seems reasonable that size calculations happen on the receiving end. The ppi metadata in the jpeg is either there or not.

Yeah, it's possible that only InDesign is buggy...

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Worth reading:

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