Auto Image sizing on opening a new digital photo in PS cs.

JS
Posted By
Jamie_Shafer
May 1, 2004
Views
616
Replies
15
Status
Closed
I have had 3 digital cameras that open in PS cs as follows:

* the first a Nikon CP950, a 2 megapixel camera opens an original jpeg of 1600×1200 pixels @ 72ppi as an image sized 5.333" x 4" @ 300ppi.

* the next a Nikon CP 5000, a 5 Megapixel camera opens an original jpeg of 2560 x 1920 pixels @ 72ppi as an image sized 8.533 x 1920 @ 300ppi.

* the new camera, an Olympus C8080, an 8 megapixel camera opens an original jpeg of 3264 pixels @ 72ppi as an image sized 45.33 x 34 @ 72ppi.

* Somehow the Nikon pics are automatically resized but the Olympus pics are not, and I have to resize each one by hand. Is there some obscure setting I need to make in order to achieve the sizing facility I had with the Nikon cameras? I believe there is something I can do that I haven’t done!

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

L
larry
May 1, 2004
Started with Photoshop 7 that Photoshop uses the EXIF data to determine opening image resolution. If the image resolution can’t be read it uses monitor resolution of 72. But if you check the image size, they are exactly the same as one can easily be transposed to the other by changing the resolution and not resampling.

Digital cameras don’t have resolution. They just generate files at pixel dimensions. It’s the EXIF data that the manufacturer has programmed into the camera that tells Photoshop to use 300. But it doesn’t exist until you save it as such.

Larry Berman
JS
Jamie_Shafer
May 1, 2004
Thank you Larry – I understand about the EXIF data and about transposing the image size which is what I meant by "doing it by hand" which is a nuisance. How do I generate that EXIF data for this new camera. Do I do it in the camera? Or do I do it in PS? I must say I thought this info was automatically
L
larry
May 1, 2004
It’s already there if you look at the image size properties. The physical dimensions of the image at 72 ppi (45 inches) is larger than the physical dimensions would be at 300 and they would match if you turned off resampling and changed resolution.

If you’re thinking that it would be 45 inches at 300 ppi if it opened properly in Photoshop, it wouldn’t. The 45 inches would come down to approximately 11×14 (?) at 300 ppi.

Just open the image, immediately Save As a PSD, and do your editing. Then prior to saving, resize to 300 ppi and save as your master for future resizing or printing, etc.

Larry Berman
JS
Jamie_Shafer
May 1, 2004
I’m thinking that at 300ppi the image will be 10.88" x 8.16" and I know this because I have been resizing the photos from my new camera this afternoon. But since I’m lazy I want to open the photo in 10.88×8.16 at 300 without any further effort on my part. I can find nothing about EXIF in the PS cs Help, so therefore I think I need to go to my camera manual to see if there is anything I can set in there. This is a brand-new camera – got it the day before yesterday so haven’t worked out all the fine details yet.
L
larry
May 1, 2004
That sounds about right. I’m supposed to be getting the new CoolPix for review. I’ve never used an 8 megapixel camera and am looking forward to testing it for noise.

You can’t change the EXIF as it’s generated by the firmware. You can check the manufacturers web site and see if there is an update, but there’s no guarentee that Photoshop will read the resolution. That’s really what the issue is.

Look at it this way. Since both are exactly the same size it doesn’t matter much. And if you’re opening the images in Photoshop, you could always save it any way you want to. Personally, I don’t use Photoshop as a viewer. I use ACDSee for that. Then I drag and drop the images I’m interested in from the thumbnail view of ACDSee into Photoshop and do a Save As PSD before editing.

Larry Berman
JS
Jamie_Shafer
May 1, 2004
I see – but I’m going to the manual as there was something about EXIF in set-up and I’m going to see what it was I saw. I will do some research as I’m spoiled about the resizing from my previous experience with Nikon.

I am off to France on May 10 and did not trust my Mikon 5000 for the interiors as it does not have good low light capability and apparently this is and has been a problem with Nikon. I started researching back in January, knowing that new 8MP cameras were coming out after the big show in Vegas. I looked at the Sony but the purple fringing was unacceptable to me. So then I waited around but suddenly after the 1st of April all hell broke loose, and 4 more cameras appeared. Last week, after my interior shots over Easter were so abysmally dark, I got really busy studying at dpreview and Steve’s digicams and one other site, and it became clear to me that while the Minolta was excellent in many ways, the Olympus was much the best if one could forgo the 7x zoom. After 2 days I can say that if anything it may overexpose a tad, but nothing that can’t be fixed easily, and the exposure settings are easily changed. The picture quality is top-notch – I can see details never seen before in a digital photo, and very importantly, the controls are much, much better than Nikon – much easier to use and much more intuitive. To me that means especially that on picking up the camera, I immediately remember how to effect the changes I need. I could NEVER remember all the details for the Nikons, and always needed to refer to the manual, but I think with this Olympus I will soon be in control of the settings, not the other way around.

Thanks for your help, and if you are looking for 8MP look around a bit more. Nikon 8700 did not do particularly well in the ratings at dpreview.
L
larry
May 1, 2004
Thanks for the tip. But I don’t have to purchase it. I reviewed the CoolPix 5000 for Shutterbug Magazine and happen to think it’s a great camera. But it’s in how you use it. I have numerous galleries of photographs taken with the different CoolPix cameras at <http://BermanGraphics.com/galleries.htm>

I’ve read about the 8700, but I’m only going to be concerned with documenting excess noise if it exists. Personally it’s not wide enough for me and the wide angle lens is as big as the camera.

Good luck on your trip.

Larry Berman

Thanks for your help, and if you are looking for 8MP look around a bit more. Nikon 8700 did not do particularly well in the ratings at dpreview.
MM
Mick_Murphy
May 1, 2004
Jamie

A simple way to do this would be to record an action to resize the images without resampling and then save as PSD (so you are not resaving the JPEG). You could even have the action open and close the images so you do nothing except start the batch action.
JS
Jamie_Shafer
May 2, 2004
Thanks – I have some food in the broiler but will take a look at this solution later – OK?
KL
Katherine_Lawson
May 2, 2004
Hi Jamie,

I notice the same thing with my c5050. In PSP, there is an option to always open things at 300, so I was also interested in finding a way to open them at 300 in PSCS.

I will have to try Mick’s idea and set it up as an action.

About the c series Olys, yeah, I love mine!

You may also be able to find answers to your camera questions on the Yahoo 405080 group. There are a lot of 8080 users there.

Kathi
JS
Jamie_Shafer
May 2, 2004
To Kathi – If she comes back to read this. I went back to one of Larry Berman’s emails and read it, and this nugget changed my day:

Started with Photoshop 7 that Photoshop uses the EXIF data to determine opening image resolution. If the image resolution can’t be read it uses monitor resolution of 72. But if you check the image size, they are exactly the same as one can easily be transposed to the other by changing the resolution and not resampling.

Apparently Nikon has EXIF data which Photoshop uses, but Olympus EXIF data is not recognized – alas. So – I opened Image Size and unchecked the box for resampling, and voila – changing the resolution from 72 to 300 immediately changes the photo size to 12.88 x 8.16. Not a good as automatic but one step versus the 2 I had been doing. Seems dumb I didn’t get this before, but c’est la vie!

If you type in EXIF on Google, you can find a couple of good sites for downloading an EXIF reader for info plus thumbnails. Just some more toys to play with.
MM
Mick_Murphy
May 2, 2004
Changing the resolution like this without resampling is actually unnecessary as it has no effect on the image except for printing. However, if you are going to do anything else to the file, which presumably you are, it is a good idea to save the file as a PSD (or a TIFF) in any case and work on that. Therefore, if you want to change the resolution, you should save as PSD or TIFF as part of the process, as resaving as a JPEG will cause some degradation of the image. Using a batch action for this whole process could be a great timesaver.
JS
Jamie_Shafer
May 2, 2004
Sorry Mick – I have been saving jpegs as tiffs for years, knowing all about lossy jpegs. I lecture on the subject to neophytes for fear they will ruin their original photos. Larry Berman said not to use PS as a viewer and I don’t But I may open a photo that I end up not saving, in order to see if I can fix it to keep. I also change the size as all those huge numbers and 72 ppi just don’t fir my mindset. I scan a huge number of old slides and 35mm negatives at very high resolution, and end up with photos sizes of almost 13" by 8.5", which I have no idea of ever printing, so I reduce the size to 10" lengthwise. I prefer my improved photos to reflect my reality when they are opened. Also have scanned hundreds of antique b&w photos of all sizes, and many are too small to enjoy, so I resize to a usable size and save under a different photo name (ie Grandfather original or Grandfather improved). Basically what this has to do with is the inability of Photoshop cs to "read" the EXIF files of Olympus cameras, and now I know how to make a one-step change in photo size. And actually PS does a bang-up job of upsizing by interpolation if the difference is not great. I will try anything as long as I keep originals – either jpegs or tiffs.

Thanks for your comments, Jamie
KL
Katherine_Lawson
May 3, 2004
Hi Jamie,

Yeah, I understood what Larry said, it’s just that that 72 ppi thing really bugs me for some reason!

Another tip for you about the Oly cameras. I assume that the 8080 takes two cards at once like the 5050 does. This has saved me twice. (It just saved me again a few minutes ago, that’s why I thought of it).

If you do something dumb like I did, and forget to turn the camera off before changing a memory card, and you can’t see your pictures on the cards with the computer when you go to view them, (sometimes this also happens without warning when your card suddenly needs in-camera formatting), before you panic, try viewing them in the camera. If the camera can read them, then copy them in-camera to a card in your other slot, and viola, your pictures will probably be downloadable to your computer! I sure got an awful sick feeling when my computer didn’t recognize my card on two different occasions, but the camera did, and when I copied them to the other card, it worked, and I downloaded them with no problem.

About organizing and browsing, I use ACDSee for browsing my cards and organizing my photos into folders, and I really like it. I’ve been using it since version 3, and I’ve never found anything else that I like as well, although version 5 seems to be more stable than 6.
JS
Jamie_Shafer
May 3, 2004
Hi Kathi- yes the 8080 takes two cards, and since I had two Nikons that use/used CF cards, I welcomed having another camera that uses the same. In addition, since I am going to be in France for 10 days and needed either to buy more CF cards or some other storage means, after reading on a Nikon site that the IOMagic external hdd was available, I bought it, thus solving my problem. IOMagic at Radio Shack was $130 with a $30 rebate, although on the website it is more dear. Here is the breakdown: the IOMAgic is a 20GB external with an internal rechargable battery, and a usb connection to the computer. It operates as a card reader – stick the card in the slot and push the button and the files on the card load into a separate file folder on the IOMagic. You then connect the IOMAgic to the computer with the supplied cable and down (up?) load to the computer. No need even for a special program to do the job – just copy and paste. As for ACDC – why bother. I had it and got rid of it. Just another thing to use hdd space. Windows XP has fine thumbnails and a browser and so does Photoshop CS. In addition there is a splendid little program called Vuepro, that acts as a viewer and slideshow maker, and does some simple functions with your photos. It was designed by Ed Hamrick out in Seattle; he used to work for Boeing, but the success of Vuepro was such that he quit his day job. It is shareware but then you send him some money (credit card). In addition he had an allied scanner driver called Vuescan that is well liked by the pros. I am all for simplifying, and I don’t need a lot of programs to organize my image files. I have a good system in my head and it works for me, but probably no one else would begin to understand how my system works. I have antique photo files for two families, old slides and 35mm negatives, and my digital photos plus all my own family pictures. No program can equal the human mind!!! Think about it!

As for the little card in the Olympus8080, I discovered that the IOMagic could not read it as it’s too wide for the tiny slot, and I took it out of the camera. Sad to say every time I turned on the camera the little XD card took precedence and I couldn’t risk having pics on a card my travelling hdd couldn’t read. I may be sorry about this but really I like to keep things simple and this does not add to that goal.
Can’t help but woder if anyone else gets this involved other than you and me – Jamie

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections