Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

I've been corresponding with Mike but I thought I'd also discuss this here to see if anyone else is having similar problems.

We are a print service provider doing maybe 50 to 100 prints a day from client prepared files, so our needs are different to many of you. Now, Mike has said PSD is proprietary and the size tags are an issue (although I do find myself wondering as I know of no other image program that can't read these tags pretty easily, and we use a LOT of them here - there are a number of PSD codecs that could be used I believe which might be a way forward for Qimage?).  Anyway, we don't get many PSDs so we can live with this by converting them to TIF, but we're having issues with JPG sizes as well.

We're finding that when QImage is set to Custom->'Orginal size', the overrride switch is NOT set, the crop thing (scissors) is turned OFF, that when we place JPGs some of them come in at the wrong size even so.  We notice it with 360PPI JPGS - it's as if QImage is behaving as if the override is set to 300, as Qimage renders the size to the 300PPI size (that is, bigger than they should be).

Has anyone else run into this, or do you ahve any ideas why this might be occuring?  It's 100% reproduceable.

Here's two JPGs which should print at the same size but don't - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/108804/JPG%20Size%20Problems.zip

The images you sent are different sizes -  Irfan view, for example  gives the image properties as 2100 x 2672 and 2520 x 3206 pixels. The X/Yresolution is part of the exif tag, and I guess Qimage (and other software) ignores that. That makes sense to me, since the dpi will be meaningless if you print in different sizes, and it sets the print dpi to match the printer _but_ Qimage does show 300dpi for both images on the bottom line (what it would show if you could set the x resolution to be different than the y in the exif, I've no idea). Qimage has the max. printer resolution set to 360dpi for me.

I guess you'll have to do some sums to get the size you want, if you only have the dpi and pixels to work on.

Best wishes,

Ray

You're misunderstanding - in 'Original Size' mode, the tagged PPI is supposed to be respected - that's the point of that mode.

Both images are tagged with the same physical size, but they have a different PPI (300 vs 360). 

The fact QImage is not reading those PPI tags is precisely the problem - they are NOT both 300 PPI and are correctly tagged as far as I can see...so when using Original Size printing (which we need to do as clients supply us sized files) - these will print incorrectly.

(I fully understand the whole let Qimage do the interp. thing etc, but this is a different point - when in original size mode, it should read the tags and print at that size!)

open the images in Irfan view or similar - the image size tags are blank (but the exif ones are set.)

ah ok, that's really interesting - Photoshop shows a size for the images (one 300, one 360).  So maybe Photoshop isn't setting these tags right when it saves the jpg.

Grrr - hmm, EVERYONE uses PS to save the JPGs - well, for us, literally thousands of clients.  That's a bugger. 

Ok - I guess some sort of script to convert the files and set the EXIF tag to the normal tag (JPG header tag I guess?).  Hmm, might be easiest just to write an acton/droplet that converts everything to TIFF.

Hi
I tried out your files and as you say the problem is re-producible.
Ray has got it right, the exif data has been stripped after the files have been saved in Photoshop.
Opening and closing the files in PS results in QI reading the size correctly, But I ran the saved files through an exif stripping program ( http://www.download3k.com/Install-Exif-Tag-Remover.html (http://www.download3k.com/Install-Exif-Tag-Remover.html) ) and the original problem returned. Some photographers strip exif from all their shots for various reasons although I've never understood it myself, or they may be using some program other than PS.
This definitely seems to be a weakness in QI which Mike may not have come across before, but he is very good at sorting these things out quickly.
In the meantime you may be able to narrow it down to certain clients and run just their files through PS in a droplet.

Brian

Yep we've already made a droplet and it's just converting all PSDs, JPGs etc to TIFFs - we've not see the problem with TIFFs so presumably it's something to do with CS5 not writing the size tag (Well, PPI) to the JPG Header.  And PSDs being proprietary.

That 'solves' it for now, but it's definitely cumbersome.  It would be great if QImage could check the EXIF is the JPG header ones aren't set. 

Hi

Opening in Photoshop and saving as Jpeg solves the problem in the same way as saving as Tif - could save you disc space  :)

Brian

Hmm, I tried that in PS CS5 Extended and it just re-saved the file without tags again.  I wonder if there is a setting hidden somewhere to do with this???

I must be missing something!!
I got the two images. They have different resolutions. Original size places them both in the queue at the same print size (7.00 x 8.91) with one at 300 ppi (the lower resolution) and one at 360 ppi (the higher resolution)

are you saying that you get them both at 300 ppi?

Fred

Also wanted to mention that PSD files do not carry the embedded ppi when you save them.

Fred

Ok that's VERY interesting - I am indeed saying they go into the queue as different physical print sizes (both go in as 300DPI).  Why would it be different for you than us - with those two exact files??

What version are you using, and can you confirm original size, no override PPI, no cropping etc?

That's an oops! on my part!  I apologize! The 300 reads, but the 360 reads as 305. I typed in the 360 and checked it.

Fred

For whatever reason, Adobe has decided to omit the JPEG (JFIF) file header in CS5 so there is no embedded resolution/size any more in the JPEG file.  As noted, there is a resolution embedded via the EXIF header inside the JPEG but IMO, that's not where it belongs since: (a) EXIF data is optional and (b) cameras are the only devices that add EXIF info and they have no business deciding resolution.  Logically, removing the resolution from the JPEG header doesn't make much sense but by the specs, there's not anything technically wrong with that so I can fix it in a future version by dropping back to the EXIF resolution tag when the JFIF header in the JPEG is missing.  For now, I'd just use TIFF if you can.  Leave it to Adobe to find non-standard ways of using a standard.  ;)

Mike

Mike,


Good to know that. Not at CS5 yet though.

How will CS5 recognise the size of a CS5 exported JPEG?


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Hi Mike,

If Qimage ignored the ppi settings, would that avoid the message wrt printing over multiple pages? In other words, it would just print to whatever size the user set? At the moment, it seems you set it to 300, if no value given. Also, what happens if x and y resolution are set to different values?

Personally, I see no need for ppi, other than to cause confusion ;D (at least if square pixels). I mean, we have the number of pixels, we have the final image size, what more is needed?

Best wishes,

Ray

v2010.209 can now read embedded size/resolution "hidden" in the EXIF header from CS5 saved JPEG's:

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage/v2010-209-issuescomments/

Mike

Brian, you said it:
All put right within 7 hours of your post, hows that for response time?  8)
Terry

Amazing customer service!

I check all of the new posts almost every day and I am continually impressed how well this knowledgable group serves those needing ANY type of photographic help.... and Mike's responsiveness to enhancing his software is also unequaled.

In addition to using many of his products I have learned so much from the input of many. Thank you!

Yes that is truly above and beyond.  I am very fond of single person software and this is exactly why - real attention and real support, and it is VERY gratefully received.

Mike is married with two wonderful children; not a single person.   ::)

 ;D I should have said 'single person, small team, family, etc'

I think I have some interesting information to add to this thread.

I recently purchased the Adobe CS5 Creative Suite and was (unpleasantly) surprised to find that the Photoshop no longer writes the JFIF resolution information to the header of the .jpg files it outputs.

Now although I agree with Mike that there is nothing in the "standards" that forbids dropping that little block of information in order to be more compatible with the EXIF standard, it is nevertheless a reality that there are hundreds or even thousands of old software programs and devices which rely upon that bit of information being in place in order to work properly.

For Adobe to simply have 'dropped' this bit of header information without even giving the user the option to write it or not is, to say the least, a little bit irresponsible.  But, OK, all is not lost.

So, what does that old header look like?  I refer you to my attachment (  Capture_00025.text  )  which is a text file of the header information of a .jpg file written from Adobe Photoshop version 7.

If you don't feel like looking at that file, I've extracted the important JFIF data, which precedes the EXIF data and which looks like this sample below:


---- JFIF ----
JFIF Version                    : 1.02
Resolution Unit                 : inches
X Resolution                    : 180
Y Resolution                    : 180


Now, if that little bit of information isn't in the header information of the .jpg file, and if the software or device in question isn't programmed to search further for appropriate resolution information, than in all likelihood the file will be relegated to the default printing resolution of the program or device (usually 72 dpi).

So what happens if you DO have an older bit of software (or device) which isn't able to properly read these newer files?

You have three options.

The first option is to get your old device or software updated.  This would be the best of all worlds, but is in many cases simply a pipe dream.  Many fine older programs and devices are essentially 'orphaned' by reason of age, companies which are no longer in business, or simply a lack of administrative or programmer interest (read: "not financially interesting").

The second option is to send the .jpg file through some other image retouch program which will write a correct and usable file header which will be compatible with the older programs.  For example, if you push the file through an older version of the Photoshop (or the freeware alternative The Gimp) you will end up with a correctly-written header.  Unfortunately, .jpg format files do not like to be recompressed, and one sometimes gains unwanted degradation of artifacts in so doing.

The third and most elegant solution is to rewrite the header portion of the .jpg file without altering the photo data.  I can suggest two solutions (there are doubtless others to be found) if you are up for this.

The first is a very fine program called Exiftool (currently at version 8.28) which allows all sorts of clever reading and manipulations of the .jpg file header information.  This program is the be-all, do-all where file header manipulations are concerned.  The downside to this program is that it does not have a graphical user interface.  This means using it on command lines.  I admit that this is something of a problem for the casual user.

The second option is our old friend, IrfanView.  There is good news, bad news, and then more good news in respect to this piece of software.  The good news is that IrfanView is able to rewrite that important file header information without messing with the image data.  The bad news is that IrfanView (version 4.27) is also one of the programs which cannot correctly read the resolution data of a .jpg if the JFIF header is missing.  And the further good news is that this will soon be corrected (more on that below).

Now, if you want to 'fix' your .jpg file information header with IrfanView, do the following:


Open your .jpg file[/li][/list]

Then go to 'Options / JPG Lossless Rotation' (you did remember to install those plugins, yes?)[/li][/list]

Obviously, you will not rotate the file, but also to be found in the JPG Lossless Rotation plugin is an option to change the resolution of the file.[/li][/list]

Just enter in the proper X and Y resolutions in the boxes and (re)write your file.  Eazy-Peazy!  ;D[/li][/list]


Now I did mention that IrfanView (version 4.27) does not correctly read the file header of .jpg files which do not currently have the JFIF resolution information in the file header.  This means that the above method works a treat if you already know the resolution you want to plug into the file, but what if the .jpg comes from somewhere else and you have no idea of the correct resolution?  Currently this means that you will have to find another program which allows you to 'read' the correct resolution.  In practice, if you open the file with the Photoshop (or similar) you will be able to see the correct X and Y resolution).

The good news for the future is that I have already informed Mr. Irfan Skiljan of the problem with jpg format files written by the new version in Photoshop CS5 and he is rewriting portions of his fine program, IrfanView, to not only be correctly resolution aware when reading .jpg files without the JFIF header, but to also more easily 'repair' .jpg files which have to go to older devices.  I cannot tell you exactly when the updated version will appear, but I feel it will be soon, as I am already engaged in assisting him by testing updated code.

I do hope that this is of some use to all of you.  ;)

Cheers,

- Ignatz

Best customer service on the planet.  Ever land on any of the HP support forums?  Discussions of printer problems can go on for days without anyone from HP ever chiming in.  Here, we get support and a software fix in hours.


Same here.  Can you believe these forums are free?

For me, the Christmas-card thread from a year ago (see below) opened the door to the "other half" of Qimage, so to speak.  Now I'm printing my own greeting cards and photo note cards, motivational posters for gag gifts, return-address labels incorporating a photo, you name it...all thanks to a guy who already had it worked out and shared his knowledge.  And of course, the photo is optimized in everything I print.  I'm too embarrassed to admit how I once printed some photo greeting cards using a M-------- program starting with W.

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage/qimage-challenges/msg1648/#msg1648

Just a little update on my previous post.

I have finished testing the a new version of the JPG Lossless Rotation plug-in for IrfanView and it is working properly.

Mr. Irfan Skiljan informs me that he will post this updated version of the plug-in to the IrfanView plug-ins page within the next day or so.


- Ignatz

Thanks for posting, Ignatz. I use and recommend Irfan view - have done so for years.

Best wishes,

Ray

I use CS4 and save as Tif usually. I have never been able to make the Qimage recognise the size that I saved at and always have to choose it again and have found this annoying but never thought to complain about it, i just got used to doing it. but it sure would be nice if Original Size actually worked.
Jules

Hi Jules,
Operator error I suspect  ::)
Select the Custom size option and Original Size in the list there. make sure Override Embedded size is not ticked. That is the usual problem.
Why mess about with embedded image sizes whan Qimage is designed primarily to work with linear dimensions (ins or mm) for print sizes? Leave the original image alone, certainly do not re-size (interpolate) in any other program and set the print size & crop in Qimage.
Qimage remembers the crop for that image & size, you can save the job, etc, etc ... it is so much easier and a more efficient work flow.  ;)
Terry

Jules,
Original size works perfectly in my computer.
I have some tifs saved in CS5, and and some from CS4.
There are some items that need to be set correctly in Qimage Custom, Original size.
Make sure the checkmark is NOT in Override.
Say yes, if Qimage advises that your image is larger than the page, do you want to use multiple pages.

Works perfectly.
Both of the attached images were 240 ppi from Photo Shop.

Fred

ExifToolGUI (http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/exif/exiftoolgui.htm) isn't a perfect solution, but so far, it's been sufficient for my needs.

Owen,
I have this utility too; it does use ExifTool as its "engine".

Not only jpegs, tif's & raw files too. Fortunately, ExifToolGUI creates a backup as default.
Terry

Thanks Terry and Fred and sorry for not backing to you ages ago for this help!
Jules

Yep, ExifToolGUI is handy.  You can't edit ALL fields, as I assume you can with ExifTool itself, but it's all I need at present.  The default backup is indeed a convenient feature.

Ditto for the "All Metadata" option under "Remove."  Have you seen the recent news stories about people who have unwittingly revealed their exact location by innocently posting photos from their brand-new GPS-enabled camera?  A great way to reveal to the world exactly where you're getting all of those great shots of unspoiled nature, wildlife, etc.  And as a matter of safety, I guess it would be okay to post a picture of your new and expensive flat-screen TV to your Facebook page, but stripping the GPS metadata before you post might be a good idea.  Modern life.