Placing images at 100% pixel match

[jaydude-wb]

When placing a 200dpi image in a 100dpi document, the image comes in at 50% size, skipping the half of the pixels.

I would like to have the possibility to place images at 1:1 pixel size: every pixel in the place image becomes a pixel in the document. 

E.g. I am working on a 4096 x 4096 texture @ 72 dpi, composited of several Adobe Stock images @300 dpi.

These Stock images come in small, while their pixel size is bigger thatn 4096. In this way, I have no idea how much I can scale the place images without getting blurry or pixelated artefacts.

Please make a switch to match the pixel size, in stead of the real world print size (sort a like double clickint the magnifying glass, which matches the document pixels to the monitor pixels).

[D Fosse]

The Place command creates a smart object, and smart objects are designed to obey certain special rules for wide compatibility with vector applications.

The one you're encountering here is that smart objects honor physical sizes, not pixel dimensions.

A raster (pixel) image doesn't have a physical size. It's just pixels. To give it a size, you assign a pixels per inch value. This translates from pixels to sizes, and thus also allows translation from raster to vector.

If the ppi values are the same, the pixels will also align 1:1. All you need to do in Photoshop is to match the ppi values in Image Size. As long as you have "resample" unchecked, this does not change the file in any way. The ppi number is just metadata.

But the easiest way is to not make a smart object in the first place (unless you specifically need it). Just use copy/paste.

[Earth Oliver]

yes, this is an issue that i've been begging Adobe to change for over a decade now. There needs to be an option that allows for mis-matched resolution SO's to be placed based on pixel dimensions instead of physical dims. The worst part of this UX is that the SO's are placed at 100% even though they aren't 100%. It's incredibly frustrating and confusing and needs to be fixed. But sorry, i don't think they care since the issue only affects a small number of users.

[D Fosse]

This is by design and intended behavior. There's nothing to fix.

It has to work this way for compatibility with Illustrator, which doesn't know what a pixel is.

It's not a problem as long as you understand how smart objects work.

[Earth Oliver]

No, it's 100% an issue. Ps knows how much it's scaled the image when placed, but doesn't indicate that anywhere. If an image is placed at 50%, then Ps needs to show you that it's been placed at 50%. Like i said, it doesn't need to be totally changed, there just needs to be an option to have one behavior or the other. And the vast majority of people aren't using this workflow with Illustrator, so why is Adobe accommodating a small % rather than the larger %?

[jaydude-wb]

Did we talk about Illustrator? This is about Photoshop.

[jaydude-wb]

.

[D Fosse]

@jaydude-wb 

If you want pixel alignment, don't use Place. Just copy-paste! Is there any special reason you need these to come in as smart objects?

If you do need them as smart objects, convert to smart object once pasted. Make a custom shortcut for it if you do that often (I have).

Or you can make sure the ppi numbers are the same in advance.

[jaydude-wb]

Yes, we need it to come in as Smart Object, given all the benefits those provide, such as non destructive filters, easy versioning and updating etc. We need a solution, not a work around. There is no reason why the proposed functionality should not be integrated.

[D Fosse · Accepted solution]

You can make a feature request, but be aware that this will break Illustrator smart objects, which is an important part of SO functionality. Don't hold your breath.

It's a bit strange finding myself defending this. I too work and think and dream in pixels. Physical sizes are completely irrelevant to me as I work. So I get that.

It's just that there is a bigger picture here, and I can see that too. There are many legitimate workflows that rely on this behavior. So who would make the most noise?

Personally I don't see the problem. If the documents don't match up, it's because the ppi numbers don't match up. So I fix that, done.

I also have a custom shortcut to convert an existing layer to a smart object. So it's not really a lot of work.

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

Yes, we need it to come in as Smart Object, 

By @jaydude-wb

In the meantime, I invite you to try the scripts posted in my previous post.

[Lumigraphics]

There is no solution because its not broken. Your workflow doesn't match the way Photoshop operates. Adobe is unlikely to change this, so you will need to change your workflow. I realize that can be a PITA but its a reality with the world of consumer products.

[Conrad_C]

E.g. I am working on a 4096 x 4096 texture @ 72 dpi, composited of several Adobe Stock images @300 dpi. These Stock images come in small, while their pixel size is bigger thatn 4096.

By @jaydude-wb

The Photoshop behavior of basing placed size on ppi is one instance of Photoshop showing it was originally designed for print 35 years ago, and still not fully updated for the more common screen-oriented media today that do not use ppi.

Please make a switch to match the pixel size, in stead of the real world print size (sort a like double clickint the magnifying glass, which matches the document pixels to the monitor pixels).

By @jaydude-wb

For Adobe to start tracking that as a feature request, it should be posted in the Ideas section of this community. There, Adobe staff may respond to feature requests that get a lot of comments and votes, and if that starts to happen, some posted feature requests actually do end up as actual changes in the software. But no guarantees of course. Also, first look to see if someone else has already made that request and it just needs more votes or comments.

[D Fosse]

The Photoshop behavior of basing placed size on ppi is one instance of Photoshop showing it was originally designed for print 35 years ago, and still not fully updated for the more common screen-oriented media today that do not use ppi.

By @Conrad_C

Just a little reminder that a few things are still printed, and that's not likely to change soon... 😉

But print isn't really the issue. The purpose of this is to make a raster file behave like a vector file, screen or print. And BTW it's not just Illustrator - Acrobat behaves this way too, including with raster images.

Personally I have no stake in this. To be honest, I don't really care one way or the other. The point I'm trying to make is that this is a non-issue. It's so easy to avoid problems by just acknowledging how this actually works.

And not use Place if you don't really need it to come in as a smart object.

In short, I'm not "defending" this in any way. I just don't have any problems with it.

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

A couple of scripts to help automate this can be found here:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/scripts-to-place-embedded-amp-place-l...

[r-bin]

Instead of the Place command, open the required file as a smart object and duplicate it into the desired document. This guarantees no pixel distortion.

[GolferDJ]

In older versions of photoshop it matched pixel size rather than document size. Now, it makes dragging and dropping 72dpi images into 300dpi documents impossible. We DESPERATELY need photoshop to provide a setting for this as I use PS as a pixel editor, and illustrator for vectors and have no need for blurry pixels.

[D Fosse]

@GolferDJ  Then just copy-paste, or drag from within Photoshop. It's not difficult to avoid this when you're aware of how it works.

Older Photoshop versions (pre CS3 or so) didn't have smart objects.

[r-bin]

Older Photoshop versions (pre CS3 or so) didn't have smart objects.

By @D Fosse

Photoshop CS2 has smart objects. And there they work differently, not like in CS3 and higher. I liked how it worked then compared to how it works now.