I want to extract a smaller part from each of many 300 large photos.
I wish these extracts to be exactly the same size in pixels.
I thought that would be done in a breeze.
I was disappointed to observe that the size in pixels were not the same when pasting the corrections.
I found out that this occurs because my original photos do no have all exactly the same size.
This suggest the crop setting is probably in % of the original size.
How could I easily crop my 300 photos to exactly the same size in pixels whatever their exact initial size?
I think there is unfortunatly no way in photolab …
More than that, your crop zone orientation can be 90 degres rotated from one image to an other if they don’t have the same orientation.
Creating crop on multiple images with multiselection or with copy paste settings gives the same result.
Unless you don’t mind resizing your images and choose to resize them when exporting, you won’t get the same size.
But in any case, you get 90 degre rotation difference for the crop zone if your images are not in the same orientation (or need to make the work twice, one for each orientation).
Thanks Joanna!
Useful!
I did not think to this way of doing.
My “original photos” are actually “slightly rotated photos” (horizon) .
I did not care to export them all (300) in the same size.
I thought this would make no issue.
But now that I want to crop them all to the same size in pixels, the difficulty comes back!
I can’t crop them all at once to the same size in pixels!
I can only crop them each at a time to the same size in pixel!
And, moreover, this is not easy to do.
Conclusion, I started a re-export again.
Fortunately, it is possible to explicitely define de size in pixels when exporting!
In about 1 hours I hope I can go on for cropping …
You are right!
And moreover, if there is a wide discrepancy between original photos,
then the common-crop will strongly distord one of them.
Therefore no way out: need to export everything before the next step of processing.
My conclusion:
I should forget to base my workflow on “corrections”.
Need to save intermediate steps!
You can set your export size in megapixels if you have different aspect ratios. However, do some tests because I think it is not very exact in that. I export as 6 megapixels for publishing to Flickr, but I am fairly sure I have seen some significant variations from that. It’s not important enough to me (near enough is good enough) so I have not studied it, but if you need them exact, then I would say test.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
8
No problem at all since a long time ago.
Crop a master image as you want it then select Image - Correction Settings.
Select the master image and all images you want to apply the crop to.
Select Image-Paste Selections - Paste selected Corrections and check Geometry Crop.
Indeed, below is what happens when pasting crop setting on differents images with different size or orientation. Compare resulting crop zone sizes in pixel and orientations.
When croping simulteaneously those image with multiselection, the same happens.
What maadji asks is not possible in photolab. He has to resize its images if this doesn’t mind.
** note : crop zone of image 1 has been slightly moved before capturing screen, this is why it is not centered in the image as the two others are. But crop size and orientation are the original ones.
CROP 2
Resulting crop size : 1457x2196 pixels
orientation 90 degrees rotated (no more a lanscape but a portrait orientation crop - can be usefull or not).
Crop done on crop1 image, then pasted on crop2 and crop3 images. Those 3 images do not have same pixel size nor orientation.
Same result wheither setting crop zone on multiselected images at once or copy/pasting crop zone from 1 image to mutiple images.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
10
It´s not a good idea to paste Portrait on Landscape or vice versa. Try Landscape on Landscape and Portrait on Portrait. OfCourse it´s good to problematize sometimes but not when it is obviously that the chosen technique will result in unwanted problems.
I have just left a discussion in another place where someone wanted “always” to increase color saturation in just the high lights on say a set of 50 images, because it takes too much time doing it on every image manually with say a Luminous Mask and increase saturation in the highlights of every single image.
I must say, will anyone do that if they have the slightest interest in image quality? Almost every image is different. “One size” or “one single adjustment” might just not fit all unless you don´t care how it looks just it saves time.
I don´t know of any other tool than Smart Adjustments in Capture One that seems to be useful really but that tool is mainly targeted to wedding photographers that mainly shoot images with people and skin tones that has to be consistent through all images but I don´t think that tool will work on other images then images with faces and skin tones for the AI to work with. With Smart Adjustments there is just two parameters you can do a global update on and in that case, it is White Balance and Exposure.
this is what I told in my first post : to do it twice.
It depends on what this crop is intended for.
Imagine this is a collection of textures already set at right scale to be used together, scaling them at different scales would ruin their purpose.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
12
Is that a problem? To select all the ones in portrait and process them and then make another batch in landscape?
