Comments on: Picasa rotate sucks http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=picasa-rotate-sucks whatever comes to my mind Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:03:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: dlamblin http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1054 dlamblin Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:51:06 +0000 http://gnapse.com/blog/?p=86#comment-1054 Rotating a file on disk degrades the quality. Picasa is trying to do the right thing. Of course, if Picasa implemented a lossless JPEG rotation method as an option, most everyone would be happy. I know you're on a Mac, but look at this software and try to find an equivalent: http://annystudio.com/software/jpeglosslessrotator/ Note: Even "lossless" JPEG rotation can degrade quality at the edges. See this explanation: http://www.betterjpeg.com/lossless-rotation.htm Rotating a file on disk degrades the quality. Picasa is trying to do the right thing. Of course, if Picasa implemented a lossless JPEG rotation method as an option, most everyone would be happy.

I know you’re on a Mac, but look at this software and try to find an equivalent:
http://annystudio.com/software/jpeglosslessrotator/

Note: Even “lossless” JPEG rotation can degrade quality at the edges. See this explanation:
http://www.betterjpeg.com/lossless-rotation.htm

]]> By: ernesto http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-578 ernesto Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:49:46 +0000 http://gnapse.com/blog/?p=86#comment-578 Well, my Canon PowerShot A480 does not add EXIF rotation tags to my pictures. Fortunately, I found out that I can rotate the pictures in the camera, manually, before I download them to Picasa, so I do not have to use the picasa rotate feature anymore. I would love to find a Picasa replacement, but except for these issues with rotating, Picasa is the best that I have found. So I live with the compromise of rotating before with another tool (either my camera or with Adobe Bridge) and then import to Picasa. Well, my Canon PowerShot A480 does not add EXIF rotation tags to my pictures. Fortunately, I found out that I can rotate the pictures in the camera, manually, before I download them to Picasa, so I do not have to use the picasa rotate feature anymore.

I would love to find a Picasa replacement, but except for these issues with rotating, Picasa is the best that I have found. So I live with the compromise of rotating before with another tool (either my camera or with Adobe Bridge) and then import to Picasa.

]]> By: Jörg Hartmann http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-556 Jörg Hartmann Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:24:08 +0000 http://gnapse.com/blog/?p=86#comment-556 Non-distructive editing is the way to go, but Picasa misses the two obviously appropriate ways to do non-distructive rotation: 1) adding EXIF rotation tags 2) lossless JPEG rotation (transformation) Every cam or mobile phone does 1), and all common free image organizars _exept_ Picasa do 2), some do both. Non-distructive editing is the way to go, but Picasa misses the two obviously appropriate ways to do non-distructive rotation:
1) adding EXIF rotation tags
2) lossless JPEG rotation (transformation)

Every cam or mobile phone does 1), and all common free image organizars _exept_ Picasa do 2), some do both.

]]> By: ernesto http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-127 ernesto Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:31:49 +0000 http://gnapse.com/blog/?p=86#comment-127 I do know about the auto-rotation feature, but my camera is brand new (although not a professional on) and it does not have the auto-rotation feature. Its a Canon Powershot A480, and I have inspected the picture's metadata (EXIF info) for the rotation info, but it is not there. Maybe you mean every professional camera since 5 years ago, but amateur cameras, at least mine, does not have this. I start to sense that this sacred preservation of the original is something for pro photographers, but for average amateur pictures like mine it's not that important. Picasa should at least have the option and warn you about it. BTW, I have read that there is a way to rotate a JPG picture without any lost of quality at all, but the picture's size must be a multiple of 16 o 8 or something like that. Most standard pictures resolutions today comply with this, so I don't see why not making these applications use that algorithm. I do know about the auto-rotation feature, but my camera is brand new (although not a professional on) and it does not have the auto-rotation feature. Its a Canon Powershot A480, and I have inspected the picture’s metadata (EXIF info) for the rotation info, but it is not there. Maybe you mean every professional camera since 5 years ago, but amateur cameras, at least mine, does not have this.

I start to sense that this sacred preservation of the original is something for pro photographers, but for average amateur pictures like mine it’s not that important. Picasa should at least have the option and warn you about it.

BTW, I have read that there is a way to rotate a JPG picture without any lost of quality at all, but the picture’s size must be a multiple of 16 o 8 or something like that. Most standard pictures resolutions today comply with this, so I don’t see why not making these applications use that algorithm.

]]> By: Anonymous http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-126 Anonymous Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:25:12 +0000 http://gnapse.com/blog/?p=86#comment-126 Yea, believe it or not, Picasa is doing it correctly. Image cataloging programs ought to treat your images as negatives--that is to say: inviolate. Lightroom already does this, and Photoshop & Bridge participate in a complex post-processing workflow to provide the same non-destructive capability. This is true of JPEGs, and obviously true of RAW files; RAW is considered to be a read-only format from which some other format must be rendered (JPEG, GIF, etc)--if you've ever wondered why you can't edit and save back to RAW format in any image editing program, that's why. The problem here is not with Picasa, actually--it's with your camera. Just about every digital camera since 5 years ago has included an auto-rotation feature that uses sensors in the camera at the time the shutter is released to determine orientation--that should be stored in the RAW file and correctly reflected automatically. On occasion if you're moving the camera during the exposure or shooting straight up or down it might get it wrong, in which case you need to deal with it manually...but unless you specialize in those kind of shooting techniques, shouldn't be a problem 99% of the time. Yea, believe it or not, Picasa is doing it correctly. Image cataloging programs ought to treat your images as negatives–that is to say: inviolate. Lightroom already does this, and Photoshop & Bridge participate in a complex post-processing workflow to provide the same non-destructive capability. This is true of JPEGs, and obviously true of RAW files; RAW is considered to be a read-only format from which some other format must be rendered (JPEG, GIF, etc)–if you’ve ever wondered why you can’t edit and save back to RAW format in any image editing program, that’s why.

The problem here is not with Picasa, actually–it’s with your camera. Just about every digital camera since 5 years ago has included an auto-rotation feature that uses sensors in the camera at the time the shutter is released to determine orientation–that should be stored in the RAW file and correctly reflected automatically. On occasion if you’re moving the camera during the exposure or shooting straight up or down it might get it wrong, in which case you need to deal with it manually…but unless you specialize in those kind of shooting techniques, shouldn’t be a problem 99% of the time.

]]> By: ernesto http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-92 ernesto Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:54:25 +0000 http://gnapse.com/blog/?p=86#comment-92 I am not a professional photographer, and I do not have disk space to spare. Imagine if every picture I rotate gets duplicated on disk! I already have a little under 20Gb of pictures and growing. BTW, I do have lightroom, but I haven't had the time to figure it out. Maybe I'll give it a try soon. Thanks for your comment. I am not a professional photographer, and I do not have disk space to spare. Imagine if every picture I rotate gets duplicated on disk! I already have a little under 20Gb of pictures and growing.

BTW, I do have lightroom, but I haven’t had the time to figure it out. Maybe I’ll give it a try soon. Thanks for your comment.

]]> By: Alden Torres http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-91 Alden Torres Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:56:10 +0000 http://gnapse.com/blog/?p=86#comment-91 I faced this problem like a year ago, when I bought my DSLR. My images are 10MB in RAW format and about 5MB in low compressed JPEG. My typical session photo is no less than 120 shots. Looking for a good program to manage my photos, I realize that the best way is to use a non destructive image editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_editing) software like Lightroom (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/). You can't overwrite the original images. Professionals love this editing workflow (not me). The reality is that it is pretty damn faster than anything you can do with Photoshop, both from the user experience and from the program execution point of view. Of course, if you only want to rotate, I agree with you, this kind of thinking sucks. Good luck! I faced this problem like a year ago, when I bought my DSLR. My images are 10MB in RAW format and about 5MB in low compressed JPEG. My typical session photo is no less than 120 shots. Looking for a good program to manage my photos, I realize that the best way is to use a non destructive image editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_editing) software like Lightroom (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/). You can’t overwrite the original images. Professionals love this editing workflow (not me). The reality is that it is pretty damn faster than anything you can do with Photoshop, both from the user experience and from the program execution point of view.

Of course, if you only want to rotate, I agree with you, this kind of thinking sucks.

Good luck!

]]> By: Anonymous http://gnapse.com/blog/2009/10/22/picasa-rotate-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-90 Anonymous Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:44:58 +0000 http://gnapse.com/blog/?p=86#comment-90 Just stumbled across your blog through Google, nice photos by the way :). <a href="http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/digitalimaging/f/rotatequality.htm" rel="nofollow">About.com</a> answers your question. It has to do with JPEG compressing using a lossy algorithm, that is to say, what it saves to disc isn't exactly what was originally opened; so even when Photoshop rotates there are some artefacts, or blemishes, that result -- you just can't see 'em. Does that help? Just stumbled across your blog through Google, nice photos by the way :) . About.com answers your question. It has to do with JPEG compressing using a lossy algorithm, that is to say, what it saves to disc isn’t exactly what was originally opened; so even when Photoshop rotates there are some artefacts, or blemishes, that result — you just can’t see ‘em. Does that help?

]]>