Forums

The issue has to do with one of the programs not reading the exif data on import. As long as the width and height in pixels does not change then nothing happened to your file. It should be fairly easy to see if CS5 is saving the jpg with the correct exif data, as you can look at the data in bridge or reload the image into photoshop. If you can see the correct exif data, then Corel has a bug.

I have the same problem. I always create images in photoshop to place into powerpoint. This works fine with CS2, CS3, CS4 but with CS5 it seems to not know the image size when it is a jpg. I still have jpg saved from CS4 that work fine. Very annoying. Also when I try to extract images from powerpoint into photoshop this has also stopped working well.

It's a problem with CorelDraw - they're reading just the JFIF resolution and ignoring the EXIF and XMP resolutions.

But the JFIF resolution tag is obsoleted by the EXIF specification, and not written by Photoshop CS5 to make Photoshop JPEG files compliant with EXIF specifications.

Sorry, just read your post. I'm sure you know what your saying. If that's true what's the work around?

Does that mean that Photoshop CS5 is saving jpegs differently to earlier versions then (I have no experience with CS4)?

Yes. Photoshop dropped one piece of data from the old JFIF standard to be compliant with the newer EXIF standard.

Older versions of Photoshop saved EXIF, XMP and JFIF.  But some software may not have been up on their standards and been reading only the JFIF data.

Yes, this sounds like CorelDraw is not reading the JPEG metadata correctly.

I'm using a program that creates virtual reality and it's fairly current and I'm having same problems as described: CS5 is definitely leaving something off of the JPG files when they are being saved. JPG files saved in CS4 and CS3 work fine with the app otherwise. Tested and retested -- took me a while and drove me nuts, but now I'm sure.

Wonder how many other programs are going to wind up in the heading of "Photoshop CS5 is not saving JPG files the way it used to." I'm guessing it's more than just 2 programs.

What was the net gain and benefit for leaving this additional amount of coding out of the program?

If the answer is "It's an old standard," then my next question is "So what?"

If you wound up on this thread and are having the same problem as generally described, please take a moment to report the name of the program that's having an issue with Photoshop CS5's "saving to jpg" problem.

Other than this issue, and so far (knock on wood), this new version of CS5 64 bit is very definitely an excellent upgrade. Highly recommended. Hat's off to Adobe. Thanks.

P.S. Please fix the bug.

I'll presume a "non-compliance" selection is out of the question at that rate

Nuts.

Glad they could get it fixed quickly.

You're saving to JPEG as an intermediate step for your workflow?  You realize that incurs some visual defects, as JPEG compression is lossy, right?

Isn't there another format you could choose that would do the job and both avoid the JPEG compression and give you the proper sizing?  And is there no dialog in FlexiSign or the other software to allow you to control the import size?  If not, it sounds like pretty brain-damaged software, frankly...

Adherence to standards is important, or we end up with a hodgepodge of stuff that just doesn't work in any fashion.  Far too many developers create software that just barely works, basing its decisions on some info that they just found laying around.  With the Internet available today there's simply no excuse for that.  Blame Photoshop if you want, but no one but you chose to buy new professional software that's keeping up with standards while trying to continue to use other software that's based on smoke and mirrors.

-Noel

Edit:  Wow, I looked up FlexiSign.  You're saying you paid thousands of dollars for this software, and you aren't willing to even ask them whether they have a patch to fix their software to be compliant?

Unfortunately, the bug is in your FlexiSign and Shiraz software, not in Photoshop.

Yes, you need to contact FlexiSign and Shiraz and see if they have an update, or if they still need to fix their JPEG import code.  (maybe nobody has told them about the problem yet)

So, why did you add your problem to this unrelated topic?  The only thing in common is "JPEG"...

WHAT other programs can open them?

Did you check the image size and mode?

How are you sending the files to the other users, could the files be corrupted by an email program?

You haven't told us what troubleshooting you have done, or enough details for anyone to guess what might be wrong.

Bogodar, you might want to read the thread above more carefully...  Adobe has said they have purposefully dropped creation of some obsolete JFIF information.  The Density Units field is JFIF data.

See post #9 above, specifically.

-Noel

Thank you for your prompt answers.

The EXIF is not supported by any standards organization while the JFIF is.

That is incorrect, most organizations have moved to the EXIF standard.

And most applications have moved to the EXIF standard.

JFIF standards JPEG files were rapidly becoming a problem to many workflows (cameras, printers, other software, etc.) - far more so than using EXIF standard files are currently a problem for out of date software (such as you are seeing).

EXIF is not supported by any standards organization” and I believe that is true.

Nope, that is quite incorrect.  If anything, it is supported by more standards bodies than JFIF was.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format

And JEITA/JEIDA does actually maintain the DCF/EXIF standard (I know, because they keep trying to add things they shouldn't, and I get calls from people asking questions). I'm not sure why someone claims that it is not maintained on the wikipedia page.

Many other standards reference the EXIF and DCF standards.

And JFIF has been abandoned for a long time.

Sorry, JFIF is gone, and software makers have had many years to add EXIF support.

We resisted the move for a while because other software wasn't ready, but we had to make the change at some point.

And so far fewer than 20 software packages have had problems reading EXIF standard JPEG files (which is dwarfed by the number that can't read JFIF).

I understand the reasoning why Adobe has changed the jpeg standard to be compliant but to assume that it is the fault of other programs for the image not working is wrong.  there should be an option to save out as a legacy jpg in CS5.  To expect the thousands of programs out there to meet the new standard when many of them may have not even know of the standard is poor judgement on adobes part.  Plus to expect users of their software to go to the developers of the software they use and tell them that they need to develop a patch in order for them to continue to use that software is unacceptable.

It is much easier to go back to an older version of adobe and have things work correctly now then to beg, plead and if necessary fight the develpers of their program in order to get a product that will work with adobes output weeks from when it is necessary.

Two quick thoughts.

1)  Adobe prides itself on being THE image people.  And rightly so.  But on this issue --- and several others along the way --- they have fallen into the trap of believing they are the arbiters of what shall be.  Pope, Adobe isn't.

2)  Get a copy of IRFANVIEW for free on the internet.  Irfan has a simple mission and he has been brilliant in implementing a policy of taking whatever is there and allowing the user to see it and convert it into a range of outputs.  If you take a jpg, put a different extension on it, and feed it to any Adobe product, it will be rejected.  IRFANVIEW will come back and say this extension is squirrely but would you mind if it is renamed "jpg?"  For me using IRFANVIEW as the image prep for Adobe has become just a piece of the work flow. 

3) $600 or free?

A few years ago when Bridge was just under development I suggested that it would do the whole computer-based imagery community a great service by making Bridge the Swiss Army knife of the industry.  Feed it any vector or raster and it would display it or give the user some tools to help it display it.  Maybe someday, Chris.  But, really, wouldn't that be a fun project to work on?

Now, I think Adobe could still fill that niche.  Hire Irfan.