Lightroom: Export Resizing Problem

  • 3
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 years ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
Bug in Photoshop Lightroom. When I go to export a number of files, I have the resize option selected to resize the long edge with the "do not enlarge" checked. This works on the vertical files but not the horizontal files. The files I'm exporting ar DNG files created by the same camera and resolution. I've tried resize by inches and by pixels but still only the verticals ar resized, the horizontals are native resolution. I am running Mac OS 10.6.5 with Lightroom 3.4. My only solution was to select the horizontals separately and then export resize hight and width with only the width value. I didn't have this problem with previous versions.
Photo of Joseph Woolf

Joseph Woolf

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 8 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4491 Posts
  • 1684 Reply Likes
I can't replicate this. Can you post a screenshot of the export dialog so I can try to reproduce your exact settings please?
Photo of rambalac

rambalac

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
LR4.2 Win7 64b
In Export with file size limit "don't enlarge" does not work.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Lightroom 4.2: Export with file size limit "don't enlarge" does not work.
Photo of Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață, Champion

  • 703 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Cannot reproduce.
Neighter wide, nor tall images ignore the "don't enlarge" box.
Photo of rambalac

rambalac

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Of course, because it's not this bug. It's has no relation with wide or tall images.
Take usual image say 4000x3000
Select Export to disk
Set File size limit to, for example, 10000Kb
Set Resize to 10000x10000
Check "don't enlarge"
Export
Result image is not 4000x3000 (as it should) but 10000x7500.

Do the same again, but dont limit file size, just set qulity percentage and you get the same size 4000x3000 as expected.
Photo of Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață, Champion

  • 703 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Ok, I can reproduce now.

It was not clear to me from your first post that one have to use "Limit File size" (using some punctuation would help).
Photo of Emilio J. D'Alise

Emilio J. D'Alise

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Let me be perfectly clear . . .

Since upgrading to LR5 latest release 5.3, specifying a short side limit to an export (in my case, 640) does nothing; the file is exported in the original size.

A workaround is to specify the desired long side so as to get a short side of 640 pixels.

EXCEPT . . . for some files, nothing works. I've not found anything special about those files, and I've tried both processed and as imported versions

In case it's not clear, it does not matter what numbers you enter in there. It fails consistently.

Just so there is no assumption regarding me being an idiot unable to work an export dialog (I might be for other stuff, but not this), I can go to LR4, LR 5, and 5.2, and the same files export without any problems with regard to resizing.

The files are all NEF files imported directly from camera, but I tested with other files (JPG, TIFF, PSD), and same problem occurs.

I can't help inability to duplicate at your end; I can only report what I'm running into.

But I find it difficult to believe the same code works differently at my house than at some other location.

As for settings, nothing seems to affect the behavior . . . if I choose short edge resize, regardless what other stuff I ask for, it does not work. However, for the record, I choose a location, I choose 72dpi, I choose do not enlarge (I tried without it), JPG at 80%, sRGB, normal sharpening for screen, and a watermark (I tried without the watermark).

It's not comforting to find no mention or admission of a bug.

I am a big fan of LR, but putting out releases to "fix" minor bugs and add compatibility, and screwing up a basic function that has worked for years is no way to inspire confidence on future updates.

ejd
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
Exportant fixes "do not enlarge" bugs introduced in Lr5.3.

http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAn...
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
Just uncheck the Do Not Enlarge box as a workaround.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
"I'm not sure why you are trying to minimize the impact of this bug" When you propose from an incorrect thesis, you will never understand.

I think this discussion is over. It is there. It is reported. It will be fixed WHEN Adobe gets it fixed.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
|> "When you propose from an incorrect thesis, you will never understand."

It seems to me that you don't really understand the purpose for the "do not enlarge" feature, and therefore why/how these bugs are impacting the people who do make use of (or depend on) the feature.

The fact that *you* have NEVER seen the need to use it, does not mean it isn't useful, and used...

Note: these bugs, like so many in Lightroom, may be more of a problem *before* you are aware of their existence, and have a work-around in place, than *after*...

PS - I agree: 'nuff said...
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
It seems to me Rob, that you do not really understand what I do or do not understand. My recommendation is to read what people write - more carefully-without agenda. Are we done here?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
It seems to me, regardless of what you do or do not understand, that you have an agenda to discredit people's legitimate complaints about bugs they've encountered, which genuinely and adversely affect their work and/or their experience of Lightroom. It's true - I have no idea why - my theory is that you are compelled for some reason to defend Adobe on principle, even when such defense seems unnecessary and counter-productive to me.

FWIW, I also get aggravated sometimes when it seems people are "over-complaining", given the nature of the problem...
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
We are done.
Photo of Emilio J. D'Alise

Emilio J. D'Alise

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hmmm . . .

So, since some of the comments obliquely refer to me and what I do, here's my take on all this.

I normally do two exports when posting my blog. One is for my SmugMug account, and one is for my blog.

Absolutely no problem with unchecking the box for the SmugMug export.

Now . . . when I post photos to my blog, I sometimes crop to show the photo at full resolution (1:1, actual pixels). I do so because most readers don't click on links, and therefore do not go to see the full size, original photos on SmugMug.

By cropping to 1:1, I can show them details they might otherwise miss about a photo. Those crops can be, and sometimes are, smaller than my normal 640 pixels width maximum (the maximum that I can show on the blog without WordPress messing with the photo).

Having the box checked allows me to not worry about it, knowing the program will take care of it.

It took me a while to figure out the problem because it was not listed anywhere I could find (could be I'm just not that smart). Then I had to still go through the photos I post (I do long posts), and manually request the correct size if smaller than the 640 pixels (having the crop enlarged defeats the purpose of showing the original size).

So, no . . . not dead in the water. I am a tad annoyed, and even more so when I'm told to suck it up.

Last I heard, Lightroom purports itself to streamline and speed up the workflow, something this last edition did not do for me. I thought I should mention it, but did not know I should abase myself when doing so.

I'll suck it up, of course (and revert back to an earlier version), but now I'm also a little less happy that a "champ" finds my issue (which when I first reported it last week and went unanswered) somehow my fault.

After all, he never had to check that box, and he's been using Lightroom seven whole years (coincidentally about how long I've been using it).

Perhaps then, the suggestion to Adobe should be, given that Champs have no need for it, for them to remove that superfluous box. Stupid box! Begone!

Perhaps the Champs collective should get together and come up with a list of features users should have no use for (since the Champs themselves don't use them), and lobby for Adobe to remove them too.

No, I'm not pissed off; just having fun . . . and perhaps learning that the place to go and get helpful answers without condescension is not on this forum.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
Emilio,

What more can we tell you at this point than: it doesn't work correctly and there is a workaround, albeit annoying? Acknowledgement, immediate mitigation and hopefully a dialog that can get it fixed.

I also apologize that you were pulled into a regrettable two-way discussion that was better taken offline. If it offended you, realize that no comment was directed toward you specifically.

It is great that you explained your workflow and need (thought the need was never doubted - I simply said, I had never used it - ergo, would not have ever stumbled upon it) Please don't read more into that than was there.

What else can we do to help you? This a good forum and today you saw it at its less than stellar light. Don't give up on it!
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
|> "It took me a while to figure out the problem..."

Indeed, much of the aggravation of such bugs is that which leads up to the discovery, after which work-arounds can be sought and remedial action can be taken, but before which one often ends up scratching one's head for hours or days wondering what the !@#$%^&* is going on...

|> "So ... I am a tad annoyed, and even more so when I'm told to suck it up."

Understandable and understood...

~R.
Photo of Emilio J. D'Alise

Emilio J. D'Alise

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
No help needed right now.

And I'll reiterated, not pissed off (just in case someone might think so).

BUT . . . perhaps someone can direct me to a site consolidating reported bugs. There might be one, but I could not find it.

That way, you know, I don't have to vent - I would not have posted anything if I could have found the bug already reported.

Yes, I had done a search on the forum, hence why I posted on this thread . . . it was the only one that came up when searching for "resize" and "export". Others had other issues relating to exporting which did not affect me.

Regardless, I too am done with this. Thanks for the responses.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
No such site exists to my knowledge.

This is the best place to report a bug. It is always better to search for an existing report and add your 'me too' to it. But, searching can be difficult and some bugs are reported but never visibly here. So, if you can't find it, report it here. If it exists already, we 'champs' normally consolidate the posts... when we find them.

The beauty of this site is that engineers and customer support people are occasionally present and monitoring.

Those of us with the "Champ" designation are volunteer non-employees who man the forum for fun. Wasn't this fun? Seriously, we are here to help. I got you weren't pissed but that doesn't mean you don't deserve a better answer (even if we don't have one right now).

come back again
Photo of Emilio J. D'Alise

Emilio J. D'Alise

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I know you guys don't get paid, and I respect that.

That said, yes, it was fun . . . I always enjoy being snarky.

By the way, perhaps that's a suggestion for Adobe . . . a site consolidating bugs and workarounds.

But I understand no company wants to showcase problems . . . at least not insecure companies. Yes, still snarky.

Seriously, it might be suggested to them that keeping customers informed is a benefit.

Anyway, happy holidays, and best for the new year.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
if they could just get around that supplying the competitors with ammunition thing...

Best to you as well.