Wrong image size when placing

[chrgue]

When I try to place a picture in photoshop CS6 either from drag&drop in the application window or from the place command, my image gets automatically resized based on the resolution (pixels per inch) of my document.

Example:

I create a new blank document, 1000*1000px @ 300ppi.

I have another image that I want to place in the document and this image measures 500*500px @ 100ppi.

I then go to File->Place  and the image that appears is way too big.  In the Info panel, it says that the image is 1500x1500 and the transform settings at the top indicate that the image hasen't been scaled because both width and height are at 100%

If I cahnge my document resolution (no resample) to 100ppi, the image has the right size when I place it.

So my question is:  Is this normal?  Because it has never done that with past versions of Photoshop.  If it is normal, is there a way I can change this because placing an image based on it's physical (printed) size makes absolutely no sense.  1 pixel = 1 pixel.

Thank you for your help

[ThioJoe]

@D Fosse I think we must be talking about different things. 

I've recorded a video demonstrating and detailing the problem. I used very large and small DPIs to better illustrate the point. It does happen regardless of whether adding the images as smart objects or not.

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14M5pv5XTuU

[D Fosse]

@ThioJoe 

You say you are dragging from Windows Explorer into a Photoshop image. That is creating a smart object.

Now, you can uncheck "always create smart object" in Preferences - but that just bypasses the smart object and rasterizes directly (at the scaled size). I'd recommend leaving this checked so you know what you're getting.

Again, this whole thing is very easy to avoid when you just understand how smart objects work. Copy/paste, or drag from another open file within the Photoshop interface. The latter is usually the simplest way.

[ThioJoe]

@D Fosse Did you get a chance to watch the linked video? Towards the end I enable that setting and it's the same exact behavior, it makes no difference.

And I know I can drag from another open file, but like I said, we shouldn't have to. And again, even doing that, if you want to bring in several files it just multiplies how much extra time it takes.

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

...if you want to bring in several files it just multiplies how much extra time it takes.

By @ThioJoe

As this is a discussion, we are all free to express our opinions on how we believe things should work.

I can't change how native Photoshop features work, but I can use a script to bypass native features to work differently.

I have created two scripts for place embedded and one for place linked, which honour the pixel size rather than the resolution PPI of the respective files. I have also tested the Load Files into Stack script and it too honours pixel size over resolution if you need to bring in multiple files (but this creates a new document).

There are only 3 votes here:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-ideas/option-to-place-smart-objects-by-resolution...

Vote up!

[missveryvery]

When you're making an app there's a thing called "expected behavior" and another thing called "friction".

It doesn't matter if "This is how the program works" because it's not expected behavior by most users. I've never met a person who thought this wasn't a bug.
Friction is the little finicky stuff that keeps a user from getting to do what they want to do. You see this especially in shopping apps where they try to make it as easy as possible to purchase something. Or rather you don't see this. Because the best apps with the most work behind them have very little friction and very little unexpected behavior. It's "how many clicks does it take to do this?" "how intuitive is this?". It doesn't matter what the devs think is correct. If the user base says "no, this sucks, actually" you have to address it. Because guess what, devs are not always thinking about the user. Sometimes they're thinking about how they'd like to get out of a meeting so they can pick up their kids. Or they're thinking about what makes sense to a programmer and what's easier to implement.
Adobe has been notoriously bad with caring about how actual users use their products. How many years did it take for them to add more painter-friendly brushes? And they didn't even CREATE those brushes, they got another, prolific brush maker's brushes. That's absurd.

The idea that someone would have to use a script to do something so basic is unacceptable. Not even mentioning that most people do not know how to use a script in Photoshop. It's generous of you to make those, but those are not solutions. Adobe needs to address this.

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

The idea that someone would have to use a script to do something so basic is unacceptable. Not even mentioning that most people do not know how to use a script in Photoshop. It's generous of you to make those, but those are not solutions. Adobe needs to address this.

By @missveryvery

That is exactly my point. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting, or gnash my teeth or otherwise lament this... I'm pragmatic, if I need different behaviour then I'll find a manual or automated process that delivers the results that I want, now, rather than waiting for Adobe to possibly change something.

[D Fosse]

@Stephen_A_Marsh 

Funny that we should both use the term "pragmatic". I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine.

But that word sums it up very well. If something doesn't work, don't do it. If something else works, do that instead.

[D Fosse]

@ThioJoe Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I keep repeating myself here, but this is not a problem when you understand what a smart object is and how it works.

Look, I would never, ever, accept any pixel scaling myself.  I'm all with you in that regard. I have no use for this resizing under any circumstances. Just so my position is clear.

So I don't do it. I don't place smart objects. I drag from another open file, or I copy/paste. It's very simple. If I want the layer to be a smart object, I convert after the image is in the target document.

(I do use smart objects a lot for raw files, but that's a completely different workflow. It's also very useful for Illustrator > Photoshop - but again, a very different workflow).

[ThioJoe]

@D Fosse  Fair enough. I acknowledge that technically speaking there is a reason behind why it's like that, so it's not really a "bug".

I guess I should have said before that my main point is there should at least be some kind of setting to toggle the behavior, because at the end of the day the software's behvaior is clearly confusing and frustrating to a large amount of users. I wouldn't care what the default is if there was just an option, and I am certain most people feel the same way.

I think all the frustration is simply from the fact that there's not even an option.

[D Fosse]

I don't disagree in principle. But I'm a pragmatist. I think it's a bit dangerous to blur the distinction. If you're working with smart objects, I think it should be very clear that's what it is, and it needs to follow strict rules. Rules I can deal with.

That's also why I think the preference setting ("always create smart object") should be removed. It does indeed blur the lines, and as a result causes a lot of confusion.

The other setting, "resize during place", is just badly named and also causes confusion. It should be called "fit oversized during place" instead. All it does is to constrain otherwise oversized smart objects to the document boundaries. As it's named, you might think it actually disabled smart object scaling, which it doesn't.

[Lumigraphics]

I have both settings disabled, but then I usually copy/paste or (ALL THE TIME) drag from document to document. I've never seen much use for Place in Photoshop anyway. Smart Objects don't really apply to the kind of work I do. :shrug:

The other thing to remember, 100-level basic principle, is "Undo is your friend." If a command goes astray, back it up and do it again differently.