Can anyone write me a plug-in?

"beav" wrote in message

I am looking for what I believe would be a very simple plug-in to write. In PS7 and CS Photoshop renders an image based on the EXIF data that may or may not be in the image. Could a plug-in be written to ignore this EXIF data and open my images like normal (ignoring all EXIF data)? (note: Adobe is aware of this issue and also has a plug-in and setting in CS to ignore color space data in EXIF tags but not resolution data!) Example: Most any image off a newer digital camera has EXIF data embedded. When Photoshop 7 or CS opens one of these images it renders the images to the resolution tag in this data. So any other program that does not recognize this data (InDesign for example) see the image @ 28" X 21" @ 72dpi but Photoshop 7 or CS opens the same image at 3" X 2" @ 300dpi if 300dpi is in the EXIF info.

This is just nutz. You mean it is impossible to pass the images through a CS action to resave with your desired adjustments? I find it very hard to believe you can’t fix it all easily in CS. Can you post an example image for FTP access?

jjs wrote the following on 10/27/2004 11:26 AM:

"beav" wrote in message

I am looking for what I believe would be a very simple plug-in to write. In PS7 and CS Photoshop renders an image based on the EXIF data that may or may not be in the image. Could a plug-in be written to ignore this EXIF data and open my images like normal (ignoring all EXIF data)? (note: Adobe is aware of this issue and also has a plug-in and setting in CS to ignore color space data in EXIF tags but not resolution data!) Example: Most any image off a newer digital camera has EXIF data embedded. When Photoshop 7 or CS opens one of these images it renders the images to the resolution tag in this data. So any other program that does not recognize this data (InDesign for example) see the image @ 28" X 21" @ 72dpi but Photoshop 7 or CS opens the same image at 3" X 2" @ 300dpi if 300dpi is in the EXIF info.

This is just nutz. You mean it is impossible to pass the images through a CS action to resave with your desired adjustments? I find it very hard to believe you can’t fix it all easily in CS. Can you post an example image for FTP access?

The first thing you should note here is that in my prepress environment we move on average 5000 images of this type a day. We do not have time to stop and check to see if an image has EXIF data and if it may or may not have been rendered at a different resolution and then have to choose the ‘is it EXIF action’ or ‘no it’s not’ action. I simply want like I stated in my request someone to write me a plug-in that will make Photoshop ignore this data entirely! I can write actions I can’t write plug-ins. Adobe has acknowledge this bug but has done little to help me fix it.
Here is a sample image (sorry no ftp just http) http://tinyurl.com/4phdf
1) Place the image in Indesign *Indesign is the only program that is
causing this problem/bug.
2) Size and or crop the image on an 8.5 X 11 document.
3) Save and close the document
4) Open the image in PS7 or CS and simply make a levels adjustment
5) Save and close the image
6) Open your Indesign document and relink to the image
The image will change size and snap the top left of the frame. This is the issue. I have 200+ Indesign customers and no time to dick with actions and workarounds I need to fix or eliminate the problem.

Beav

"beav" wrote in message

The first thing you should note here is that in my prepress environment we move on average 5000 images of this type a day. We do not have time to stop and check to see if an image has EXIF data and if it may or may not have been rendered at a different resolution and then have to choose the ‘is it EXIF action’ or ‘no it’s not’ action.

Okay, cool. You are indeed ripe for a contracted solution. Me, I only move about 18,000 images a day for a nonprofit effort. Most of the work is done by noon, automagic, PS and scripting.

So have at it. Hire out.

"jjs" …

"beav" wrote in message

The first thing you should note here is that in my prepress environment we move on average 5000 images of this type a day. We do not have time to stop and check to see if an image has EXIF data and if it may or may not have been rendered at a different resolution and then have to choose the ‘is it EXIF action’ or ‘no it’s not’ action.

Okay, cool. You are indeed ripe for a contracted solution. Me, I only move about 18,000 images a day for a nonprofit effort. Most of the work is done by noon, automagic, PS and scripting.

So have at it. Hire out.

Thanks so much for your constructive input. Hey maybe with my help you could have all your work done by 11am!! You hiring??

"beav" wrote in message

Here is a sample image (sorry no ftp just http) http://tinyurl.com/4phdf

That’s a BMP file. No help. No EXIF data, so the issue is total pixels.

The image will change size and snap the top left of the frame. This is the issue. I have 200+ Indesign customers and no time to dick with actions and workarounds I need to fix or eliminate the problem.

Yeah, Indesign only cares about pixels. I can’t imagine why it should behave any other way.

Can you run the images through a droplet to size them? If not, why not?

(BTW, my Olympus 8080 places no such "DPI" data in EXIF properties.

Why dodge about with an embedded bitmap in the first place?

This image ain’t prime no more – it is embedded in an Indie

If there are 2 options assuming embed an image into ID file dick the original image on its own then
a) every file the original image is embedded in changes automatically or
b) none of the files the original image is embedded in changes automatically

Well, option a) seems a mega whopper with option b) the only reasonable one

So, of course, reassociating the embedded image with a subsequently tweaked one gives rise to 2 options

c) do nuthin
or
d) force the dicker to do something about it

Option d) seems the reasonable one to me – or am I wrong or have I had too much whine?

Aerticus

"jjs" wrote in message

"beav" wrote in message

Here is a sample image (sorry no ftp just http) http://tinyurl.com/4phdf

That’s a BMP file. No help. No EXIF data, so the issue is total pixels.

The image will change size and snap the top left of the frame. This is the issue. I have 200+ Indesign customers and no time to dick with actions and workarounds I need to fix or eliminate the problem.

Yeah, Indesign only cares about pixels. I can’t imagine why it should behave any other way.

Can you run the images through a droplet to size them? If not, why not?
(BTW, my Olympus 8080 places no such "DPI" data in EXIF properties.

1) What you describe isn’t possible

2) What you describe shouldn’t be a problem

3) It sounds like you don’t fully understand what’s going on

Chris

In article , beav
wrote:

I am looking for what I believe would be a very simple plug-in to write. In PS7 and CS Photoshop renders an image based on the EXIF data that may or may not be in the image. Could a plug-in be written to ignore this EXIF data and open my images like normal (ignoring all EXIF data)? (note: Adobe is aware of this issue and also has a plug-in and setting in CS to ignore color space data in EXIF tags but not resolution data!) Example: Most any image off a newer digital camera has EXIF data embedded. When Photoshop 7 or CS opens one of these images it renders the images to the resolution tag in this data. So any other program that does not recognize this data (InDesign for example) see the image @ 28" X 21" @ 72dpi but Photoshop 7 or CS opens the same image at 3" X 2" @ 300dpi if 300dpi is in the EXIF info. This is causing us a lot of trouble when we receive InDesign pages from customers and image proof the images for these pages in PS 7 or CS and then try and relink to the proofed images in InDesign. Could anyone write a plug-in to make PS 7 and CS ignore EXIF data? Of course we will be willing to pay a reasonable fee for this service. Please respond to

thanks,
beav

Chris Cox so helpfully wrote the following on 10/31/2004 8:50 PM:

1) What you describe isn’t possible

2) What you describe shouldn’t be a problem

3) It sounds like you don’t fully understand what’s going on

Chris

In article , beav
wrote:

I am looking for what I believe would be a very simple plug-in to write. In PS7 and CS Photoshop renders an image based on the EXIF data that may or may not be in the image. Could a plug-in be written to ignore this EXIF data and open my images like normal (ignoring all EXIF data)? (note: Adobe is aware of this issue and also has a plug-in and setting in CS to ignore color space data in EXIF tags but not resolution data!) Example: Most any image off a newer digital camera has EXIF data embedded. When Photoshop 7 or CS opens one of these images it renders the images to the resolution tag in this data. So any other program that does not recognize this data (InDesign for example) see the image @ 28" X 21" @ 72dpi but Photoshop 7 or CS opens the same image at 3" X 2" @ 300dpi if 300dpi is in the EXIF info. This is causing us a lot of trouble when we receive InDesign pages from customers and image proof the images for these pages in PS 7 or CS and then try and relink to the proofed images in InDesign. Could anyone write a plug-in to make PS 7 and CS ignore EXIF data? Of course we will be willing to pay a reasonable fee for this service. Please respond to

thanks,
beav

Then why has Adobe acknowledged the the bug? Adobe called me Friday and said they will have an answer this week after they get an engineer to look over the claim and recommend the best course of action. It’s very simple to recreate. Did you try to or did you just spew out your words of wisdom without even making sure you fully understood or experienced the issue? Usenet used to be so helpful. Now it’s just full of pseudo-know-it-alls getting off on telling everyone they don’t know what they’re doing!! Time to find new friends….

I hardly think that Chris Cox fits in the "pseudo-know-it-all" category.

Next time you start PhotoShop … try actually reading the ‘Credits.’

In article <Aszhd.9868$>,
"RSD99" wrote:

I hardly think that Chris Cox fits in the "pseudo-know-it-all" category.
Next time you start PhotoShop … try actually reading the ‘Credits.’

Yeah, and maybe you and Chris should try "Placing" an image into InDesign before suggesting that the OP doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

An image shot on a Nikon D100 will open into PS at 25.47 x 16.93 cm – that’s 3008×2000 pixels at 300dpi.

The same image "placed" in an InDesign document will be 106.1156 x 70.5556 cm.

As Chris (nearly) stated:

1. What he described *is* reality

2. What he described *shouldn’t* happen.

3. It sounds like InDesign’s coding team don’t fully understand what’s going on

—
Martin

RSD99 wrote the following on 11/1/2004 6:15 PM:

I hardly think that Chris Cox fits in the "pseudo-know-it-all" category.
Next time you start PhotoShop … try actually reading the ‘Credits.’

Big deal, Chris is about as helpful as the rest of the Adobe team. Before trying to recreate a real bug he just simply states I have no clue what I’m doing (which is typical to most of the computer world). Everyday users usually understand the apps better than the programmers anyway. I may have no clue what I’m doing but this is a real bug that causes problems. Adobe has two programs in a suit of apps that are supposed to be seamless and each program looks at the same exif/jpeg file differently! What’s the deal here! I can’t believe more people are not having trouble with this. Indesign is everywhere (unfortunately) and to have a 10 page layout with all digital camera pics submitted from a customer and then proof the images in PhotoshopCS you fry the layout. All the images need replaced and you lose cropping and scale! That is shit! There are so many half-bread standards in these apps that the engineers can’t even keep them straight.

No. Anyone cannot write you a plug-in

Aerticeus

"beav" wrote in message

RSD99 wrote the following on 11/1/2004 6:15 PM:

I hardly think that Chris Cox fits in the "pseudo-know-it-all" category.
Next time you start PhotoShop … try actually reading the ‘Credits.’

Big deal, Chris is about as helpful as the rest of the Adobe team. Before trying to recreate a real bug he just simply states I have no clue what I’m doing (which is typical to most of the computer world). Everyday users usually understand the apps better than the programmers anyway. I may have no clue what I’m doing but this is a real bug that causes problems. Adobe has two programs in a suit of apps that are supposed to be seamless and each program looks at the same exif/jpeg file differently! What’s the deal here! I can’t believe more people are not having trouble with this. Indesign is everywhere (unfortunately) and to have a 10 page layout with all digital camera pics submitted from a customer and then proof the images in PhotoshopCS you fry the layout. All the images need replaced and you lose cropping and scale! That is shit! There are so many half-bread standards in these apps that the engineers can’t even keep them straight.

"RSD99" …

I hardly think that Chris Cox fits in the "pseudo-know-it-all" category.
Next time you start PhotoShop … try actually reading the ‘Credits.’

Having a name up in lights may breed arrogance, but it does not excuse it. Remember who pays his wages… yep – it’s the guy who was just told:
1) "I work for Adobe therefore you’re wrong"
2) we don’t know how to fix it anyway
3) by the way: you’re stupid.

I don’t recall saying any of that.
I do recall answering the question that was asked.

Chris

In article , Toby
Thain wrote:

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:<Aszhd.9868$>…

I hardly think that Chris Cox fits in the "pseudo-know-it-all" category.
Next time you start PhotoShop … try actually reading the ‘Credits.’

Having a name up in lights may breed arrogance, but it does not excuse it. Remember who pays his wages… yep – it’s the guy who was just told:
1) "I work for Adobe therefore you’re wrong"
2) we don’t know how to fix it anyway
3) by the way: you’re stupid.

RSD99 has some kind of agenda. Just killfilehim.

"Chris Cox" wrote in message

I don’t recall saying any of that.
I do recall answering the question that was asked.

Chris

In article , Toby
Thain wrote:

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:<Aszhd.9868$>…

I hardly think that Chris Cox fits in the "pseudo-know-it-all" category.

Next time you start PhotoShop … try actually reading the ‘Credits.’

Having a name up in lights may breed arrogance, but it does not excuse it. Remember who pays his wages… yep – it’s the guy who was just told:
1) "I work for Adobe therefore you’re wrong"
2) we don’t know how to fix it anyway
3) by the way: you’re stupid.

HOLD ON here. My steenkin tablet fired off before I checked the attributes. Apologies to RSD99 (who has a different agenda.)

"Chris Cox" wrote in message

I don’t recall saying any of that.
I do recall answering the question that was asked.

Chris

In article , Toby
Thain wrote:

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:<Aszhd.9868$>…

I hardly think that Chris Cox fits in the "pseudo-know-it-all" category.

Next time you start PhotoShop … try actually reading the ‘Credits.’

Having a name up in lights may breed arrogance, but it does not excuse it. Remember who pays his wages… yep – it’s the guy who was just told:
1) "I work for Adobe therefore you’re wrong"
2) we don’t know how to fix it anyway
3) by the way: you’re stupid.