# when will ACR be 300 dpi



## lowolf (Dec 12, 2007)

Biggest issue with lr is dpi is only 24' dpi not 3'' dpi my camera shoots at 3'' dpi plus and when exporting I have to make sure to change this to 3'' dpi, ACR should read the data on my raw images which my camera software does read correctly.
This and ACR should be a plug-in not embedded in the program the way it is.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Dec 12, 2007)

Why does it matter what the camera set the PPI (not DPI) to?  Or are you saying you can configure this right on the camera, and you want that value to propagate through?


----------



## rcannonp (Dec 12, 2007)

If the LR export presets don't have the settings that you want, you can set them the way that you want and save your own presets.


----------



## RipIt (Dec 12, 2007)

Lowolf

what camera are you using that shoots at 3''dpi?


----------



## Mark Sirota (Dec 12, 2007)

The Nikon D2'' sets the resolution to 3'' PPI.  I still have no idea why anyone would care what the camera sets it to, though.


----------



## RipIt (Dec 12, 2007)

Interesting factoid about the Nikon. I have never questioned whether my Canon can "set" a ppi resolution because it is somewhat, to very, irrelevant at the capture stage.

rcannonp has the answer but I understand lowolfs frustration. If I had set data in one place I would expect it to be honored elsewhere. But really Lo- your biggest issue?


----------



## Steve Crane (Dec 12, 2007)

lowolf said:


> This and ACR should be a plug-in not embedded in the program the way it is.


Why do you think it should be a plug-in?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Dec 12, 2007)

RipIt said:


> If I had set data in one place I would expect it to be honored elsewhere.



Where exactly are we saying it's not being honored?  In both LR and ACR it's simply a choice you're given when outputting...?


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Dec 12, 2007)

LOWOLF, The dpi has no relevance to the image resolution of the raw file. LR processes at the maximum of the raw data captured by your camera. By default however when you choose the edit in PS function LR creats a tiff/jpg/psd file accordingly to your choice and sends the image to photoshop at 24' dpi. So when you view the image in PS and go to image>size the dialog will pop up and show the following  (my camera an 8mp olympus) 
Pixel Dimensions: width 3264 pixels height 2448 pixels
Document size: width 13.6" height 1'.2"
Resolution: 24' Pixels/inch.

Next make sure the resample image box is unchecked so you do not alter the image pixels.

Change the resolution to 3'' pixels/inch and you will see  the "document size" change to 1'.88" X 8.16" which give you the size print you will get if you send to print at 3'' dpi.

Then in LR do the following with the same image, use the export function and choose 3'' dpi without changing the Pixel dimentions in the dialog and you will get the following if you open the exported image in PS.
Image size.
Pixel Dimentions: width 3264 height 2448 pixels
Document size: width 1'.88" height 8.16"
Resolution: 3'' 
Hope this helps.
If you need to have a larger sized print say 14" by 11" at 3'' dpi, then you will have to resample the image in PS.


----------



## RipIt (Dec 13, 2007)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Where exactly are we saying it's not being honored?  In both LR and ACR it's simply a choice you're given when outputting...?



The OP states that upon exporting he has to make sure that he changes the resolution form 24' to 3''. I think what he would prefer is not to have to do that since he has already specified a ppi resolution of 3'' in his camera, and therefore Lr should read that and act accordingly.

While that can be addressed with a simple preset the edit in photoshop function cannot. As Denis points out and most of us know the ppi output is 24' with no option to change prior to PS receiving the file.

Again not a major issue as this can be addressed with a simple script that will run an action of reformatting each time an image is opened. Virtually invisible.

But really the point seems to be that a piece of metadata ha been given to the camera (3''ppi) and is not being passed to Lr in any useful way.


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Dec 13, 2007)

I have no setting in my camera to choose a dpi setting. AFAIK raw files have no dpi setting and that it is applied in the conversion software. There is no loss of image data its just a tag for the document size. Its been asked before LR 24' others 3'' why? Will it be ever changed to conform to the norm? Dont know. 
What matters is the full pixels are there, LR has not thrown away 2'% of the raw data as some seem to be implying.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Dec 13, 2007)

RipIt said:


> While that can be addressed with a simple preset the edit in photoshop function cannot. As Denis points out and most of us know the ppi output is 24' with no option to change prior to PS receiving the file.


Quite right, I hadn't thought about the Edit in Photoshop scenario.  Have you put in a feature request?  http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform  Personally I'd just stick to 24' as a nice tidy standard, or make sure any size specific actions always change the ppi to 3'' before proceeding if I preferred that standard, but each to their own.



> But really the point seems to be that a piece of metadata ha been given to the camera (3''ppi) and is not being passed to Lr in any useful way.



I see your point, although I guess the fact that most cameras don't even offer you the option to change it in camera, probably explains why it hasn't been given attention.  There's such a variety of ppi tags embedded in different camera's, I'd see it as a plus that LR sticks to a standard.  Also, when you think about it, you can also set black & white and other custom effects in camera, but those are ignored too.


----------



## lowolf (Dec 21, 2007)

No the fact is even though these are raw files and the ppi is 3'' LR should read this data funny apple aperture does read them at 3'' and as to the acr being a plug in major issue is to get latest ACR you need to download the program again this was a big mistake on there part.


----------



## Steve Crane (Dec 21, 2007)

lowolf said:


> as to the acr being a plug in major issue is to get latest ACR you need to download the program again this was a big mistake on there part.


I disagree.  Perhaps if the only reason for the download was to get the new ACR then you have a point.  However, doing it this way allows them to also roll out bug fixes and feature changes along with new RAW support.  Some will see this as good and some as bad but I don't think anyone can say it was a mistake on their part.  It was a choice they made and only they can say it was a mistake if it is not addressing the reasoning they had in making the choice.


----------

