Excusing them away with costly tools is stupid. Good for plugin developers and all.but really I don't get why this can't be simply another metadata used to sort like all the rest. I want to sort them in descending order and compare within grid view and then act upon them.Īll these tools mentioned as work arounds just muck up what should be very easy. I want to find all image with keyword ocean, sorted by file size because I know that my library has a combination of print prepped work, raw files, virtual copies, websized, and intermediate sized files and I want to filter on JPG >2mb but <5mb, regardless of dimensions. I want to sort, filter on this information and then ACT upon it within the interface. I do not want to have plugins to do a basic simple function. I do not want to go outside of LR to work on images I want to do this in one place. While it is nice that everyone comes up with complex ways to do a simple task like sorting by file size criteria, I think that it is worthy of considering to actually put this in the product that we are using daily to manage our digital media.
There's more information at the above link.
The file used for comparison is from a 5D MKII, but the compression 'Size' and 'Step' data applies to most any "typical" image type. In case you weren't aware there are really only 13 different compression levels in both LR and PS and one of them is virtually useless (54-61%). This table may give you a better idea of JPEG file sizes based on LR's compression settings 0-100.
Why the heck would you want to "limit" your selection of images by "size?" It simply makes no sense, especially when hard drive storage is dirt cheap today–Just my 2 cents worth! If they aren't the right size then simply Export them and create the size you want. If you want to select specific image types for website use I'd suggest first searching by keyword criteria such as 'ocean.' Then select the ones you think are best regardless of size. ACR and Bridge use 8-pixel-tall type, which is simply blown up (not redrawn with sharper edges) if you use less than the native 2560 x 1600 screen setting.Personally, I think your looking at this bass-ackwards. Put another way - PS6 uses, say, 8-point type, drawn with whatever pixels your screen setting makes available. ACR and Bridge use 8-pixel-tall type, which is simply blown up (not redrawn with sharper edges) if you use less than the native 2560 x 1600 screen setting. If you use a lower screen res like 1440 x 800, Photoshop will (or should) adapt the user-interface text size cleanly - Bridge and ACR will simply "blow up" the pixels by close to 200%, resulting in the jaggies.Īlthough you can look through these Apple and Adobe information pages to see if I missed something. You can likely get clean, unpixellated (but half the size) text in your version of Bridge by changing your resolution setting to the maximum (and native) setting for the 13" Retina Screen - 2560 x 1600. Bridge only supports it in the CC version (the permanent-license "DVD" CS6 version of Bridge does not and never will). 8.7 but only IF you are using the CC version of Photoshop. Photoshop CS6 itself supports the new screen behavior.
ADOBE BRIDGE CS6 SORT BY DIMENSION MAC
The native resolution of the 13" Retina Display is 2560 x 1600 (or even higher in newer Mac Book Pros.) Much sharper, but smaller, pixels than previous displays (essentially, it is the resolution of my 20" Cinema display, shrunk to fit within a 13" screen).Īdobe has been playing catch-up with the new "invisibly-small pixels" (HiDPI) of the Retina screens over time - but not equally across the independent parts of CS6 (Photoshop, Adobe Camera Raw, Bridge), which are, after all, really separate programs. I think I know what is going on here - now.