I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job? If not within Photoshop perhaps there is another product on the market.
Many thanks for any help.
PS I have V7 of PS.
I like polyview from www.polybytes.com Dunno if you can replicate this in PS – I just use it as I know it and it does all I need. — 79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick – looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job? If not within Photoshop perhaps there is another product on the market.
Many thanks for any help.
PS I have V7 of PS.
I like polyview from www.polybytes.com Dunno if you can replicate this in PS – I just use it as I know it and it does all I need. — 79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick – looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
wrote in news:3mn6gvsine8rkt7jq19r89vtfhmcaktki0@ 4ax.com:
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job?
Oh, yes. A very easy yet poweful feature. Look up "Automate" in your user’s manual.
wrote in news:3mn6gvsine8rkt7jq19r89vtfhmcaktki0@ 4ax.com:
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job?
Oh, yes. A very easy yet poweful feature. Look up "Automate" in your user’s manual.
I have done some work on Photoshop 7.0 Scripting for out camera club. You may like to look at www.pyle-porthcawl-ps.co.uk > Digital Section > Photoshop Tutorials > Scripting. The web page gives an explanation of what scripting is and what it’s used for. It give details of the Adobe Photoshop 7.0 downloads required for using scripting as well as a demonstration script for resizing images in a folder and a Visual Basic Program which can be used to write your own resizing scripts.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:44:18 GMT, wrote:
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job? If not within Photoshop perhaps there is another product on the market.
Many thanks for any help.
PS I have V7 of PS.
Regards Lawrence Elliott (Laurie) Bridgend South Wales UK
I have done some work on Photoshop 7.0 Scripting for out camera club. You may like to look at www.pyle-porthcawl-ps.co.uk > Digital Section > Photoshop Tutorials > Scripting. The web page gives an explanation of what scripting is and what it’s used for. It give details of the Adobe Photoshop 7.0 downloads required for using scripting as well as a demonstration script for resizing images in a folder and a Visual Basic Program which can be used to write your own resizing scripts.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:44:18 GMT, wrote:
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job? If not within Photoshop perhaps there is another product on the market.
Many thanks for any help.
PS I have V7 of PS.
Regards Lawrence Elliott (Laurie) Bridgend South Wales UK
Just use the Web-galery function to reduce the resolution to whatever you need.
skrev i meddelandet
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job? If not within Photoshop perhaps there is another product on the market.
Just use the Web-galery function to reduce the resolution to whatever you need.
skrev i meddelandet
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job? If not within Photoshop perhaps there is another product on the market.
I need to optimize several thousand images but after running the batch operation on 337 files Photoshop stops. I have tried both PS 6 & 7 with the same results. There is 20 GB available on the drive so that cannot be the problem. Can I get PS to process several thousand files? Why does it stop at 337?
I don’t have an answer since my batch sizes are around 200, but we run 1500-3000 images per day. But I do recall an issue with droplets here in the forum, that’s why I asked.
The only workaround I can figure is the obvious – breaking them into groups into separate folders, but that’s a PITA.
Well, by breaking them into separate folders, you overcome the apparent "no of files" limit by having directories with no more than say, 300 images.
As far as running them sequentially, I’ve never tried it but one thing I would investigate is whether or not you can create an action that calls the batch dialog, several times. It would go like this:
Single action that calls batch dialog – call it Sequential Batch Dialog. The settings for that action put all the specifics in such as Action to Run, Source, Destination, etc.; Then, included in the Sequential Batch Dialog Action, is the same thing, with different settings for Action to Run, Source, Destination, etc.
If you set up your folders the same way, it’s easy to make an action that calls the batch dialog to process "resize and save" from folder one, then the next run would be "resize and save" from folder two, etc.
As I say, I’ve never "chained" batch dialogs before, but that’s the only thing that I can think of unless someone can verify that there is no "no. of files" limit and that there’s something else going on.
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job?
There are two straightforward ways: 1. Use Web Photo Gallery and copy the resulting JPEG files, ignoring the html file.
2. Use the batch facility in Photoshop (File->Automate->Batch). To do this, * make a new blank document (size doesn’t matter, but smaller will make the next steps faster). * Record an action with the following steps: * Image Size (with parameters set to the size you want your images) * Save For Web (set appropriate parameters here). * close (if you get a "save changes" prompt, click no.
In the "save for web" step, specify the destination folder where you want the images to end up, but DON’T CHANGE THE FILE NAME. Just let it save as "untitled-1" or whatever it already is. Save For Web will create smaller files than using "save as" JPEG, because it omits some of the non-image data that Photoshop normally saves with file.
Now run the batch: Input=folder (containing your source images, of course) Check "suppress color mismatch dialogs" Output=none
You can even record this batch command as a separate action so you don’t have to remember the parameters next time, and you can assign an FKEY to that action so you can kick off the whole process with a single keystroke
Or you can use ImageReady.
Finally, you may wish to separate your images into vertical and horizontal compositions and have different actions for them, because you may want to specify different image sizes for portrait and landscape images.
I would like to upload some of my photos to my web site. Most of the images are huge, both in resolution and file size. Shrinking images down to a more web friendly 400×300 with a high ammount of compression is easy to do with photoshop but not in large quantities. Or is there? Is there some way to batch process this sort of job?
There are two straightforward ways: 1. Use Web Photo Gallery and copy the resulting JPEG files, ignoring the html file.
2. Use the batch facility in Photoshop (File->Automate->Batch). To do this, * make a new blank document (size doesn’t matter, but smaller will make the next steps faster). * Record an action with the following steps: * Image Size (with parameters set to the size you want your images) * Save For Web (set appropriate parameters here). * close (if you get a "save changes" prompt, click no.
In the "save for web" step, specify the destination folder where you want the images to end up, but DON’T CHANGE THE FILE NAME. Just let it save as "untitled-1" or whatever it already is. Save For Web will create smaller files than using "save as" JPEG, because it omits some of the non-image data that Photoshop normally saves with file.
Now run the batch: Input=folder (containing your source images, of course) Check "suppress color mismatch dialogs" Output=none
You can even record this batch command as a separate action so you don’t have to remember the parameters next time, and you can assign an FKEY to that action so you can kick off the whole process with a single keystroke
Or you can use ImageReady.
Finally, you may wish to separate your images into vertical and horizontal compositions and have different actions for them, because you may want to specify different image sizes for portrait and landscape images.
I’m trying to use PhotoShop’s batch processing feature to resize a bunch of images to thumbnails. The problem is that when I save the resized images, I need to add "_th" on to the file name to differentiate them from their full size counterpart.
I’m trying to use PhotoShop’s batch processing feature to resize a bunch
of
images to thumbnails. The problem is that when I save the resized images,
I
need to add "_th" on to the file name to differentiate them from their
full
size counterpart. Is there a way to do this?
Not that I’ve ever been able to find. You could do it with Irfanview (which is free). If you have to use Photoshop, you’ll need to download the scripting plug-in from the Adobe site and write a script to do it, which is also free but a lot more work.
I’m trying to use PhotoShop’s batch processing feature to resize a bunch of images to thumbnails. The problem is that when I save the resized images, I need to add "_th" on to the file name to differentiate them from their full size counterpart.
Is there a way to do this?
I’m puzzled. In my PS, it is very clear that this is a normal feature. In the Batch dialog is a file naming feature where you can do what you like, including adding "_th" (for example) before or after the file name or extension and much more. What version of PS are you using?
… I’m puzzled. In my PS, it is very clear that this is a normal feature. In the Batch dialog is a file naming feature where you can do what you like, including adding "_th" (for example) before or after the file name or extension and much more. What version of PS are you using?
Well that’s interesting. Using PS7, I get a long drop-down list of info to put in the file names, but it won’t let me simply type text in those fields.
Well that’s interesting. Using PS7, I get a long drop-down list of info to put in the file names, but it won’t let me simply type text in those fields.
Yes, I also thought it should be available in that section but it wouldn’t let me type in "_th". However in doing some research, I found I was able to do it with "Batch Renaming" in the file browser which makes me think I should be able to do it from the regular Batch Processing window.
Yes, I also thought it should be available in that section but it wouldn’t let me type in "_th". However in doing some research, I found I was able to do it with "Batch Renaming" in the file browser which makes me think I should
be able
to do it from the regular Batch Processing window.
Wow. Well, you can see in my example, I could type in _th. Leave out the quotes, of course.
Yes, I also thought it should be available in that section but it
wouldn’t let
me type in "_th". However in doing some research, I found I was able to
do it
with "Batch Renaming" in the file browser which makes me think I should
be able
to do it from the regular Batch Processing window.
Wow. Well, you can see in my example, I could type in _th. Leave out the quotes, of course.
I can type in stuff now that I’ve deleted preferences yet again. I suppose the sensible thing would be to have Windows replace the preferences file with a fresh copy every time I boot.
One more question. During the batch process, it stops and displays jpg
options
for every file, even though I specified all of that in my actions. Is there a way to not have to answer "OK" for every file that’s being processed?
Before recording the action, open some junk image, and do a "Save As", being careful to make all the settings *different* from the ones you really want to use. Then when you record the action, be careful to explicitly set *all* the options.
Before recording the action, open some junk image, and do a "Save As", being careful to make all the settings *different* from the ones you really want to use. Then when you record the action, be careful to explicitly set *all* the options.
Is there any way that I can apply auto-enhancing features such as color/saturation, lighting/contrast auto-fixes to all images in a folder at the same time? I was able to rename, resize, and reformat with batch processing, but I would like to do a color/lighting fix as well. Any ideas?
I am trying to process images for my web site. I have set up all the actions and added all the steps, but when I use the "save for web" export command, all my files are being named the same thing prod1_lg.jpg. What I want is to have _lg.jpg appended to the original file names, prod1.jpg, prod2. jpg, etc. If I use the override option, my images get lossy since it is just doing a save as, not a save for web.
my images get lossy since it is just doing a save as, not a save for web.
Save for Web does not prevent Lossy compression. If you save the files as JPG, no matter which method you use, there is lossy compression. One is not better than the other in that regard.
But to your problem…
Save for Web has an automatic limitation on the length of the file name. When you take a file name that is greater than this value (25 chars ??) SFW truncates the file name. I’d bet that’s why it’s trying to overwrite your files on batch save.
When your file names are smaller than that limit, you can easily use the SFW in an action. You record the params for SFW, make sure the dialog is toggled off. When you do File|automate|Batch, make sure to check the box that says "Override Save As Information" and add your "_LG" to the second box in the naming section.
To bypass this "limitation" in the file name, go to the SFW dialog. There’s a triangle on the right hand side near the Settings drop down box. Click that and choose Edit Output Settings. Then you click the Next button until you get to Saving Files. Uncheck the Unix compatabilty box.
Then the files won’t have a length limitation. BE WARNED however, that there ARE limitations on some servers in regards to the length of the file name so you or your visitors may not get the results you expect.
I got some questions about batch processing at Photoshop 7.01. I have several image files and want to edit them into 450 x 477 pixels. Is there anyway I can do it by using "batch processing," not just one by one? If yes, would the picture quality the same?
Another question is: if I download the image(s) from the web site, is there a way I can save not only picture, but also text, as well. The only way I know is to save as ms word file. I think I might do with Acrobat (since it is integrated in IE 6, but wonder if I can edit the font the way I wanted. Or, can I do it at photoshop? Even if I save the web page in word file first, is there any degradation of the picture quality?
I got some questions about batch processing at Photoshop 7.01. I have several image files and want to edit them into 450 x 477 pixels. Is there anyway I can do it by using "batch processing," not just one by one? If yes, would the picture quality the same?
Another question is: What would be the best way to save the web page (image + text) for future uploading into another web page? So far, I used MS word because I can easily edit the text. But, I am not sure about the image quality after I edited with Photoshop. I think I might do with Acrobat (since it is integrated in IE 6, but wonder if I can edit the font the way I wanted. Or, can I do it at photoshop? For both image editing and text editing imported from a web page, then go to photoshop before uploading, which way would be the best?
Yes, you can batch process a series of images into the size you specified, by creating an action that performs the resizing and then calling out that action in the batch dialog. Generally speaking, the picture quality will be the same if you are downsizing the images, but it may worsen if you are enlarging the images. Also, if the source images are JPEGs that you resave again as JPEGs, then you may worsen the picture quality through the 2nd compression. If you need to resave as JPEGs, just make sure the compression is low (JPEG quality is high) to help minimize compression artifacts. Having said that, I’m guessing your needs are oriented toward images for the web, so you may not really notice any significant change in quality. That is, a printed image will show more degration in quality than viewing them on a monitor would.
The images used in a web page are not part of the web page itself, but rather are just linked objects. However, the text is part of the web page. So, the best way to save a simple, single web page is probably to keep all files defining that page in a single directory (HTML files, JPEGs, GIFs, etc.). If you were building a more structured website, you might instead have one folder for HTML files, another for images, etc.
If you edit an image in Photoshop, and use that image in a web page that you created using Word, then nothing you do in Word should affect the quality of the actual image file. However, it is possible that you might specify a different formatting of the image within Word that may cause the image to look worse. For example, if you scaled the displayed image at 200% of its original size, then it may well look worse in Word than the actual image does at true 100% scale in Photoshop.
Photoshop has text entry capabilities, but none of a sort that lend themselves well to creating web pages. Ultimately, any text added in Photoshop to an image will be considered part of the image itself when that image is saved for use elsewhere.
If I understand you correctly, what you may be doing is saving a web page inclusive of all graphics, then editing the page for uploading to replace the original? If so, then you can continue to use Word as you are for editing the textual content of the web page and likewise you can use Photoshop to edit your images. One thing to be aware of if you are in fact uploading the files back to a website to replace the original files, is that the files as saved locally to your system are probably organized differently.
If you save a web page from IE6, it typically saves the web page itself as the file <web page name>.htm with all graphics for that page then saved in a related folder "<web page name>_files". While you can edit the HTML file in Word, the links to the graphics will point to the folder that was created. On the actual website, the graphics are most likely is some other folder or perhaps even at the same level as the HTML file itself. So, if you upload your HTML file to replace the original, you’ll find that the links to all your graphics are quite likely incorrect. Ultimately what all this means is that it is best to establish a local directory structure where you save web page files and graphics that duplicates the same structure used by the website.
Note, Acrobat is not integrated with IE6. At best, you are probably referring to Acrobat Reader (Adobe Reader) which can be used as an embedded viewer of PDF files in IE6. But, the Reader application cannot be used for editing files.
I hope that all makes sense and at least covers most of your questions.
I have moved your duplicate topic to join this one. Please only post one topic for one problem. Not only will that make it far easier for you to locate the relevant replies, but also has the added advantage of avoiding upsetting the natives…
In Photoshop 6 one could perform a batch process of an action to the contents of a folder containing jpeg’s and walk away and let it go using the save and close feature of the batch. When you try to do this in Photoshop 7 it stops at every picture and asks what kind of quality you want to save in. This is a pain. Is there any way to get 7 to behave like 6 in this reguard. I don’t want to babysit the process.
it stops at every picture and asks what kind of quality you want to save in.
You set up your action to include a Save As. Then you toggle the dialog for that step to OFF. In the batch dialog, you make sure and check the Override Save As information box. Then you don’t have to babysit anything.
Wanting to change the resolution of some photos— copies of course— for email I used "batch’ command.Opened the files>convert image size,(left blank Width-Height)>resolution=72,(did not Rename files),destination="my pictures",>OK. When I re-opened the files I found that the resolution(s) had not changed from thier original values.I repeated the excercise 3 or 4 time with the same results.I’m certain I’m missing something here.SOS!
Have you been able to do this before? Judging from your post, I can’t see what you did wrong.
You might try deleting the Preference folder to see if that clears it up. With Elements closed, click on the start up icon and make a quick grab for the (Win) Control, Alt, and Shift keys (Mac) Command, Option, and Shift. Hold all three down until you get a screen asking if you want to delete the Settings. Say Yes.
Now at the risk of creating another storm, I’d like to suggest that instead of changing the resolution you change the image size instead. If you want to e-mail pictures and have them be easily viewable, the size in pixels is more important than the resolution. A width of 600 is usually a safe one, and then let the height default to whatever it comes up as with Constrain Proportions checked.
If you want to e-mail these pictures to someone who might want to print them, you should send them at a higher resolution anyway. I’m sure other people will weigh in. ๐
Post back and let us know if deleting the Preferences worked. If it didn’t we’ll have to come up with a better idea.
Beth H. Oh Boy! Tried the "Quick Grab",and got this—"Scratch Disk Preferences?"I perused the references and I now have an understanding of "scratch-disk";which is to say ,I have no idea . I just got back from a very intense 6 hour class re Elements,and I posed the same ? to the instructor(this guy got his first computer in 1970).He told me this–Size does matter,but–so does rez–so we smallered an image and sent it.Everything OK,but the same ? came up; Why can’t I do this using the "batch command?".We tried the command on the classroom computers,and it worked just fine. He reviewed my work flow and said it was appropriate. Sooo,the ? remains. OT–I Learned a technique referred to as "glamorizing",(OMG),which involves Gaussian Blurring in a layer ,and then using the eraser tool to do away with some of the blurring.Very sriking effect.I’m thinking of using this to make me look 60 again.
Did you ever delete the Preference folder like I suggested? What you want to do clearly works on another computer, which leaves open the chance there’s a corruption in the Preference folder on yours. This isn’t at all uncommon, although no one has come up with a good explanation about the cause.
Beth: I tried to delete The Pref folder as you suggested,with the "Quick Grab",and as I said,I got the "scratch disk preferences" thingie. OMG; "corruption";"not at at all uncommon"; "no good explanation",???. I think it is time for hot chocolate,a big brownie,and tuck into bed.Winter here in Wisconia is starting waaay to soon. AM this morn=16 Degrees F. PS–I am proposing a change in nomenclature for some of the "traditional" digital terminology,- for those of us (30%-40%) of households) who now own digital cameras;— let us try this."Resolution"should be replaced with this term,–"density". This suggestion is based on the fact that the term "resolution" has a multitude of meanings,few of which have(has) anything to do with an understanding of the digital processing of images.It is the density of pixels which matters. Also,the so-called "image size",is a great mystery to most novices–me included.It should be rightly called"Content"–that is ,how many pixels are we dealing with?
Beth: Never had it happened before,but I got dumped off of the forum. Maybe my treatise is too radical.I attended an 8 hour class on PE2 today,and, newbie as I am,I was still able to help a few folks thru some of the basics of PE2 . The thing that most folks said was this—"Image Size","Dimensions","Resolution"?? What is this all about? And it hit me–These terms are not reality for the 35-40% of the households whom now have digital cameras! So I tried to say;Image Size is nothing more than the Content in terms of pixels;Resolution is the Density of those pixels; and the Dimension(s),is simply how the pixels are arrayed,(WxH).Why can’t we dump those out -of-date terms? and just say that an image has a content of X number of pixels,with a density of X pixels per,arrayed in particular format . I have a feeling that this is far too simplistic and that I have over stepped my brain -freeze again.
Due to amount of pics mounting up I’m trying to catalogue all into different categories on different cd’s. I’ve "batched" re-named/numbered one disc but would now like to add some more photos to same disc and have all the numbers running consecutively – is this possible?
regards fran
apologies, submitted this in error on the tail end of a previous query of mine, so will appear twice – a touch of keyboard madness ๐
I know this is a rather easy answer for someone, because I actually used to know how to do this myself, and I remember that it was easy, but I forget how to do it.
I think there is more than one way to "skin this cat" so to speak, with and without using "actions"
whatever is easier…
OK… Lets say I have downloaded some 40 different samples of textures to be used in Lightwave, small swatches of .bmp’s that look like little pictures of marble, steel, wood, water, clouds, and so on. Just that the format was .bmp, and to use them in Lightwave they all have to be .tga (targa) files. So, instead of me opening every single .bmp, then going to "Save As" and then saving each one as a .tga, I’m pretty sure there is a way to change the whole file of 40 from .bmp to .tga without having to go through each one individually. I think it’s called "Batch Processing" …
The Batch function allows one to put several pictures through the same format changes. If I have several pictures which require, say, the same brightness and contrast adjustments, or the same cropping, is there an alternative to processing each image separately?
Yes, well sort of. If you make your adjustments with layers you can drag the adjustment layer from the first image to all other images that need the same adjustment. This won’t help with the crop though.
The Batch function allows one to put several pictures through the same
format changes. If I have several pictures which require, say, the same brightness and contrast adjustments, or the same cropping, is there an alternative to processing each image separately?
I have several hundred JPEG files which I want to convert to PDF. I can do it in PE2 or CS but basically I seem to have to do each file one at a time even in the batch processing under File, Is there an easier way to just ask that a whole folder be converted at one push of the mouse button. Maybe I am missing something in the Batch command. Also, what is the zip alternative in the Batch process ? Jim
Is there any way to create & save an "action" that will pause & allow me to insert the date of each image that is being processed when I run in Batch mode?
Can anybody help? I need to batch process files in multiple folders. Open files, process them and save into multiple folders again. The only way I can figure out to do it is to use the batch command settings Save and Close.
It works fine. The problem is, that the files are jpg and when running the batch the jpg settings window pops up on each file. Any way to get rid of that?
Also I need to save two versions of each file, image and a thumbnail. The batch command gives an option of adding a differentiating letter or number to a file name, but only when having the option Folder selected. That doesn’t seem to be able to save to multiple folders. Is it?
Assumption: You’re using PS CS. To suppress the .jpg options dialog try this: In the Batch dialog turn ON Destination option – "Override Action ‘Save as’ commands"
If you’re not using CS, e-mail me via my profile for a workaround.
re: Renaming files You are correct. It’s unfortunate that when "Save and close" is in effect, "File Naming" is not available. I know of no way using Photoshop actions to get around this.
A functional but ugly possibility is to: * Duplicate the file tree * Apply the action via batch * Use a 3rd party file renaming program that has the smarts to traverse a folder tree * Manually copy the renamed thumbnails back into their original folders
Plan B: Come to think of it, seems like there was a question about doing something similar to this in the Scripting forum of late. (See link near the top of this forum.) You might start a thread in that forum on this topic. One of the sharp script authors might have something already developed to do this.
Important: Specify which version of PS you have (must be 7 or CS).
I’m not logging in these days as often as I used to. Since most folks who post questions are looking for help ASAP, I make that offer as a way of reducing the turnaround time for issues where I’m able to help with the intent of following up latr with a summary of the outcome – favorable or not.
As it turned out the utility I suggested to her (see link below) solved the problem of having to respond to the .jpg options dialog for each file. (In PS7 "Override Actions ‘Save as’ commands" is not available if "Save and close" is in effect; it is available in CS.)
"Override Actions ‘Save as’ commands" is not available if "Save and close" is in effect; it is available in CS
Why would one choose that option anyway? Why not just eliminate any close step and instead of using Save And Close as an option from the CS Dialog, just create a Save As… (PSD) step. Then just toggle off the dialog, and you have Override Save As information.
So what am I missing about the utility of Save and Close?
She was using Save and Close in conjunction with the Source Option "include all subfolders" to a) automatically traverse various nested folder trees in as few passes as possible and b) save the modified files in their original folders — replacing the originals which turned out to be acceptable.
There were no Save as or Close steps in her action (not needed with Save and Close).
The source files had a color profile assigned (apparently from the camera) that was different than her PS workspace. In this case PS generates the .jpg options dialog before saving each file even though the source and destination files have the same file format. This happens even though there was no Save as (.jpg) step in the action, the normal cause for the .jpg options dialog. (This is one you helped me debug about six months ago.)
The inability to select "Override Actions ‘Save as’ commands" (to suppress the .jpg options dialog) because Save and Close was in effect left her to manually reply to the .jpg options dialogs. PTFB solved this problem for PS7. Adobe modified CS to make "Override Actions ‘Save as’ commands" available even when Save and Close is in effect.
Now, if Adobe would make File Naming available in the Batch dialog along with Save and Close in CS2, that would be awesome. This would allow one to use "Include all subfolders" to create multiple versions of an image file (each with a different name) in the same folder across a folder tree vs. one folder at a time.
replacing the originals which turned out to be acceptable
That’s what I thought. I wouldn’t do it, but <shrug> that’s why they make 33 flavors of ice cream, I guess.
There were no Save as or Close steps in her action (not needed with Save and Close)
I know.
This happens even though there was no Save as (.jpg) step in the action, the normal cause for the .jpg options dialog.
Exactly, as it should. Once the file is changed, if you don’t Save As… you are overwriting the file. With no other safeguard present, the results could be disasterous on a folder. In fact using Save As… you can easily eliminate the dialog altogether, thereby preserving the originals.
The most sound approach is to save as… use a different folder and delete originals (if desired) post processing. That way, the potential for disasterous errors (like accidentally overwriting an entire folder of originals) is eliminated.
Now, if Adobe would make File Naming available in the Batch dialog along with Save and Close in CS2, that would be awesome.
I don’t necessarily agree. Save and Close implies that it is simply going to save with the same filename – Save As provides the opportunity to rename it. I can’t see the utility in adding renaming to Save And Close. It’s kind of like using a pair of pliars to pull out a nail – it can be done, but the claw hammer was designed for it, and usually does a better job.
That would be like saying, when you are working on an existing file, and chose File|Save, a dialog should pop up allowing you to rename the file. But that’s what Save As is for.
"replacing the originals which turned out to be acceptable
That’s what I thought. I wouldn’t do it, but <shrug> that’s why they make 33 flavors of ice cream, I guess."
There are buzzilions of folders to be processed. The Save as option would need to be set up for each folder separately wouldn’t it? The dialog box would be eliminated, but then more work arises having to process every subfolder one at the time. Doesn’t it?
The way I have it done is this: Copy the entire tree folder (so the original files are untouched) and then process the copy of tree folder.
" Now, if Adobe would make File Naming available in the Batch dialog along with Save and Close in CS2, that would be awesome.
I don’t necessarily agree…"
I think what Danny means is for Adobe to combine the ability to process subfolders with the ability to change the file name and save automatically into original locations.
The problem is that one can have only one or the other.
PS: I am of course open to any good suggestions. If you have a good idea how to automate my tast I’ll be very happy to use it.
Here is what I need: I need to process a root folder with multiple subfolders in it. (jpg images to be saved as jpg again – processed) I need each file to have two versions. I need the output to be into the same folder structure as original. I need it all automatic.
The dialog box would be eliminated, but then more work arises having to process every subfolder one at the time. Doesn’t it?
It depends on what you mean by process. You’re probably right, but technically speaking, you can set the batch dialog to process a folder and all subfolders – you just can’t specify that the destination be different on a batch. They would all end up in the same folder – which is what you don’t want.
I think what Danny means is for Adobe to combine the ability to process subfolders with the ability to change the file name and save automatically into original locations.
Yes, I uderstand that. But think about it from a single file point of view. The functions Save and Save As… serve two different purposes. The former saves the file with the existing file name, in the existing folder. The latter gives the option for changing name and destination. With the latter if you chose to overwrite the original, you are prompted for confirmation.
In the batch dialog, giving the option to rename with Save and Close is inconsistent – the function of Save and Close is to perform the same function as the Save command, not Save As.
So it isn’t that I disagree with the desire to have the feature of "Original Location" in the Batch dialog, I disagree with the suggested mechanism. You (and Danny) are basically doing a workaround by trying to combine two distinct functions.
The need to want to rename so as not to overwrite the original is a Save As function; the need to place them in the source folder is a Save function. The exectution of those functions in the batch dialog are derived from the normal file handling of those functions.
So I have a better sense of the challenge (many folders), but I think that the suggested feature shouldn’t be tied to save and close, rather, the destination button should have a "Original Location" in the dropdown, and add the ability to override save as information.
I am of course open to any good suggestions. If you have a good idea how to automate my tast I’ll be very happy to use it.
The only thing I can think of is droplets. Dropping each folder onto the droplet. It’s more work than processing all folders in one fell swoop, but not as much work as specifying the destination folders a buzillion times.
I recorded a bunch of tasks and am applying the set to a folder. The tasks involve resizing, brighten, contrat, unsharp mask, adding a border and using the "Save for Web" command to save the thumbnail as a ..gif. When I run it against the folder of photos, it stops on the first task (resize) and wants me to click "OK". Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of batch processing? Anyone know what’s going on?
OK…Now it runs through what seems like all the pictures and throws an error message at the end. Here’s what the log file says:
File: "Macintosh HD:Voice:In_Style_Abroad:photos:Borgo Bernardini:Thumbs.db" Error: Could not complete your request because Photoshop cannot recognize the file extension. (-25600)
OK…Now it runs through what seems like all the pictures and throws an error message at the end. Here’s what the log file says: File: "Macintosh HD:Voice:In_Style_Abroad:photos:Borgo Bernardini:Thumbs.db" Error: Could not complete your request because Photoshop cannot recognize the file extension. (-25600)
It was stopping at first because you had "stop for errors" selected when you created the batch process.
It is stopping at this particular error because you have a "thumbnails.db" file in the folder with your pictures. Photoshop can’t recognize this extension. Delete the thumbs.db file and run the batch again.
OK…Now it runs through what seems like all the pictures and throws an error message at the end. Here’s what the log file says: File: "Macintosh HD:Voice:In_Style_Abroad:photos:Borgo Bernardini:Thumbs.db" Error: Could not complete your request because Photoshop cannot recognize the file extension. (-25600)
It was stopping at first because you had "stop for errors" selected when you created the batch process.
It is stopping at this particular error because you have a "thumbnails.db" file in the folder with your pictures. Photoshop can’t recognize this extension. Delete the thumbs.db file and run the batch again.
Just FYI thumbs.db is a file Windows creates, it is a database so that thumbnails are quickly retrieved from a cache instead of being re-created each time the folder is opened. This will also create errors in folders you try to upload to the web.
hi, Is it possible to create action for batch processing in Photoshop 7.0 for changing the resolution of a jpeg file. I have about 1000 files 333×500 at 300 pix/in resolution and would like to change resolution to 72 pix/in maintaining same pixel dim. of 333×500.
I’ve made a couple of actions, but I ran into a (little) problem I can’t solve. A watermark action works as I want it to be for a single image, but when I want to batch process it, it asks for every image the name under which it must be saved and the quality. How can I go around this?
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:06:48 +0200, Travellerยฎ wrote:
I’ve made a couple of actions, but I ran into a (little) problem I can’t solve. A watermark action works as I want it to be for a single image, but when I want to batch process it, it asks for every image the name under which it must be saved and the quality. How can I go around this?
I forgot the ‘save as’ option ๐ It’s working fine now. ๐
I receive folders of photos from a photographer for directories– as little as 20, as many as 600. They are jpg files, RGB, and consistently dark. What I’d like to know is if there is a way to batch process an entire folder of photos in a single pass. Here’s what I need to do:
1- Apply Adjustments>Auto Levels 2- Convert from RGB to CMYK 3- Set resolution to 300 ppi 4- Assign a specific color profile 5- Save As .psd back to the same folder
Any way to do all of this to all the photos in one pass? (I have PShop CS3)
Open the whole batch in Bridge-hosted ACR; Correct one of the files: Select the others (in addition to first one) and hit the "Synchronize" button. Click "Done".
