I don’t know what happened before.
I’m just investigating the crop and horizon tool as was used by OP.
But my findings are
the crop is defined on the canvas.
2)when using the horizon the image is rotated, not the canvas. The image also changes in size.
3)after defining the crop but before entering one can move and rotate the crop window independent from the image as it is situated on the canvas. But one can use the horizon tool too. Is interesting to see what happens.
4)after entering the crop dimensions don’t alter nor the content.
when using the auto correction the crop size is altered and the content of the image.
There is more strange behaviour. I’m getting dizzy.
Well, I don’t know why PL didn’t maintain the selected aspect ratio (whether it was done in one pass or the crop was copied afterward). I only noticed it when I exported to 1920 pixels (longest side) …
But then, when I touched a corner of the active crop tool, it reset … yeah, it’s weird, but it works.
@all
As long as we’re working with a raw file, the file size doesn’t change. The displayed crop size (leave the horizon correction aside) corresponds to what we expect after export. So, when exporting without a target size, we get different output sizes – a ‘real’ drama (or storm in a teacup ?).
Using the same aspect ratio and exporting at a specific size for posting the sequence on social media solves this problem.
I wouldn’t even care about this when printing. Export at the (same) desired size, check the sharpness, and print. When comparing the prints side by side, the slight size differences are barely noticeable.
Perhaps we are not understanding each other. I am not “excited”. However, I do believe there is an important distinction when cropping for image content as compared to cropping for image size.
My cropping and rotation needs are for content (what is included in, or excluded from, the image), not for scale. Ideally the RAW image would be perfectly framed and there would be no need to crop for content. Alas, not the world I inhabit. Examples of cropping for content would be to exclude an undesirable object near the edges of an image, or cropping excess sky or foreground to position the horizon of a landscape image as desired. Auto cropping attempts to maximize the output size for a specified rotation or aspect ratio, but has no awareness of content or user intent. Hence, “Manual” cropping provides the desired control of content and positioning.
Cropping before rotating does not produce the same results as cropping after rotating. The former results in an output that does not match the user’s intent for content (size change) or aspect ratio, and the actual results are not properly displayed in the main viewer. The latter sequence (rotate then crop) conforms to the user’s intent.
Touching the crop handles after rotating does restore the intended aspect ratio but not image content since the crop frame is resized.
Scaling on export, does not fix these content-related changes. The only way to fix content is to re-position the crop.
I use export scaling to match the intended output purpose, as you reference, once cropping for content is complete. For me they serve two very different purposes.
I have not observed this sequence-based discrepancy when using other image editors, but this thread forced me to better understand what is happening for PL8, which allow me to better manage it. Other users can debate if this is a “feature” or a “bug”, but @all users should understand that the sequence of applying crop and rotation matters, and how this impacts the output.
The problem with the choosen sequence of first cropping and then leveling is that leveling is keeping the image complete on the canvas, thus it is resized during the partly rotation. I made it visible by NOT using the enter button when placing the crop. Everything stays visible.
Start position.
It’s a complex topic. While my colleagues in the photo club usually presented their images in pre-made, identically cut mounts, which they then used for competitions, I always tried to crop my images the way they looked best – and finally, after experimenting with custom mounts, used the surrounding image border, including the title and logo, for the presentation. … In short, I (almost) always cropped to match the content while ensuring a more or less consistent appearance for image series.
@Duncang was primarily concerned with continuous shooting and was annoyed by the varying image sizes when adjusting horizons. … Lastly, @George showed how the crop position is based on the background.
Depending on one’s approach, the size and position of the expected image section changes, which then needs to be corrected. – However, if this changes the already determined crop factor, that’s definitely a mistake …
Discussions about rounding errors (see parallel thread) and varying sizes of the expected image section help to deepen knowledge. But then as a user, I want to achieve my goal … and simply can determine the target size accordingly, both for individually cropped individual images and for sequential photography.
