Placing linked PSHOP file, scale is completely wrong?

[John V Knowles]

Created a new document at 1920x1080 @Deleted User dpi.

File>Place Linked... and selected another Photoshop document (made in CC17 or 18, can't recall) that is 2550 x 1650 @ 300 dpi.

The Placed file at 100% scale is really small. Like less than 50% of the document. It should be BIG, it should fill the frame and then some. Instead, I have to scale over 300%.

The image quality is not affected (it looks fine compared to what normally scaling to 300% does to an image), but why is there such a size mismatch when placing a larger file into a smaller one? The dpi shouldn't be a factor, it's just pixels and they should be 1:1 but they're not.

?

TIA,

JVK

[Stephen Marsh]

I have just tested in CC2018 using your values and can replicate your findings. I also changed the value of the larger placed file to use 72ppi rather than 300ppi (resampling off) and the size of the placed image is larger. So the PPI value is indeed the contributing factor.

[John V Knowles]

Stephen, thanks for checking! I could've sworn the behavior was different in earlier versions of PSHOP but I guess not?

Does that behavior seem right to you? Even if Photoshop was reading the 300 dpi image as larger and therefore shrinking it to fit during placement (like with a 72 dpi image), shouldn't the scale attributes in the Transform menu reflect that?

[Chuck Uebele]

Do you have scale to fit checked in the preferences, when placing smart objects?

Edit: well that didn't work. Very odd.

[John V Knowles]

I did try unchecking "resize image when placing" but that didn't do anything.

Here is what I see when I place the larger Photoshop image inside the smaller one. It's odd that it comes in so small, but the really weird thing is that it's shown at 100% scale.

[Bojan Živković]

It is not enough to uncheck Resize image in Preferences, resolution of the document and placed image must be exactly the same. Below is my video which is explaining those requirements. Hopefully video will explain to you what you need to know. Otherwise do not hesitate to ask more to understand what is really going on so you can have full control without frustrations.

[D Fosse · Accepted solution]

This is expected behavior, there's nothing wrong.

A defining characteristic of placing a Smart Object is that relative sizes are determined by physical print dimensions. In other words, pixels per inch.

This underlines the "derivative" nature of smart objects. For "native" behavior, pixel to pixel, use copy and paste to get a normal pixel layer.

The Resize when Placing option in prefs just ensure it's not oversized and extending beyond the document edges.

[John V Knowles]

Ah, that explains a lot. Thank you!

I wonder why the preference towards physical print dimensions when looking at relative size? Obviously a lot of print work is still being done with Photoshop, but there's just as much digital work being done for web and video. Wouldn't it be more useful to base this on actual pixel dimensions? When you're working on digital images the ppi amount is irrelevant in terms of how it affects the non-physical dimensions.

[D Fosse]

Yes, I basically agree with you, but I suppose this is based on typical use cases.

As long as you're aware of it, it's not a big problem IMO.

[D Fosse]

...and of course, consistency between applications. Illustrator, for instance, doesn't know what a pixel is, so it has to work by dimensions.

[rob day]

Obviously a lot of print work is still being done with Photoshop, but there's just as much digital work being done for web and video. Wouldn't it be more useful to base this on actual pixel dimensions?

But we still want Photoshop to also function as a print application, so concrete output properties—resolution, width, and height—are needed.

You can match the resolutions of the two documents without affecting their pixel dimensions, and then the scaling would work as you are expecting (see Stephen's #3). Without Resampling you can set the 2500x1650px file's resolution to 72ppi, which sets its inch dimensions to 35.417 x 22.917.  Now when you place the file in the 1920x1080 @72 dpi destination it will be larger than its 26.6"x15" canvas

[gnarly-crumb]

I have read the replies but I'm still not convinced. My camera shoots RAW images at 6000 x 4000 @ 240 dpi. I created a new document preset with exactly these same settings. Now, when I place the linked RAW image, it places the image at 4800 x 3200 and the scale attributes show it at 100%. This is WRONG.

I've been doing this for a while and it used to work properly. Now I have to reset each image to 6000 x 4000 px. It seemed to change 2-3 updates ago. Running 20.0.1 now.

[Bojan Živković]

Are you placing images through ACR? I mean when placing images you see Camera Raw filter dialog before importing images in Photoshop? If that's the case then you are probably changing resolution or dimensions in ACR without even to know that.

Easy way to figure out what is going on: after placing image in Photoshop double click on Smart Object thumbnail to open image in separate window. Check resolution and dimensions and if everything is as you expect then we can inspect further but generally everything works fine as far as I know.

[gnarly-crumb]

Thanks for the reply Bojan. I first make adjustments in Lightroom to the original RAW image. In the new PS document, I use File->Place Linked... and locate the RAW file. When it first loads, yes, it opens CRF and shows the adjustments I made in LR. Oddly enough, CR was showing 300 ppi and I had not noticed having already made the adjustments. Changing it back to 240 ppi does correct this.

[rob day]

Also, before you place check the Camera Raw Workflow Options' Image Sizing settings. Here I've overridden my camera's full 5472x3648 240ppi res, so this file is going to place scaled down