Skip navigation
MotorCity Kid
Currently Being Moderated

FIll Frame Proportionally does not work in CS6

Dec 4, 2012 10:05 PM

Tags: #frame #indesign #fill #proportionally

I have tried using this function several times,

 

Fit Content to Frame, then Fill Frame Proportionally, and it does nothing.  I have tried this using various TIFF files in D.  Has anyone determined a solution?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 5:31 AM   in reply to MotorCity Kid

    Looks like a bug to me. Report it at Adobe - Feature Request/Bug Report Form

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 5:49 AM   in reply to MotorCity Kid

    Hmmm...using those two commands in succession....not sure what should happen.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 6:05 AM   in reply to John Mensinger

    I think users have a reasonable expectation that the last fitting command you use should be honored, and that the fitting should change. That's the way it works in previous versions.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 7:22 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Thanks Peter. Now having read the other thread on this subject I undertsand the issue a bit better.

     

    Ostensibly, it enters into semantics, but once a graphic is scaled, (fit to a frame), non-proportionally, I'm not sure it actually is reasonable to expect that a subsequent command to fit proportionally will revert to the graphic's original proportions, rather than preserve the current, disparate ones. (Or perhaps I don't understand the issue as clearly as I thought.)

     

    I've never had occassion to execute the fitting commands quite this way, so I suppose I'll take your word with respect to how it worked in previous versions. In the absence of that preconception, the behavior I see in CS6 is what I'd expect. "Bug" is in the eye of the beholder.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 7:32 AM   in reply to John Mensinger

    Since ID is able to report the effective ppi as two numbers when you scale disproportionately there has to be a record stored inthe file of the actual pixel dimensions of the image (and I presume the actual dimesions of placed .ai or PDF, too, since you can see scale factors for them in the transform fields), so I don't know why you wouldn't expect ID to be able to revert to actual size.

     

    I, too, can't recall a case of changing my mind about fitting options other than having made a mistake (whcih is why ctrl z is nver more than a milisecong away), but I can appreciate how one might, for example come across an image that was incorrectly scaled in a file created by someone else (I'm sure I've seen this) and wanting to correct that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 8:40 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    ...so I don't know why you wouldn't expect ID to be able to revert to actual size.

     

    It's not that I wouldn't expect the capability; it's that I expect software to act in a literal sense. I'd expect the execution of a command to affect the target object in the context of the object's current state; not one that's supposed. Know what I mean?

     

    There's no aguement here. The issue doesn't affect me at all, since I've never had a content fitting command produce unexpected results. But if I had an object that had been scaled dispropotionally, and I subsequently executed a fit-proportionally command, I'd choose that command because I want the current disproportion preserved, and no assumptions made. There are other methods for reverting to original proportions.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 8:53 AM   in reply to John Mensinger

    I understand what you are saying. Let's look at a little different, but related, attribute. When you scale something you can look at the control panel and see a scale value. For those of us who apply scaling to content rather than adjusting percentages you always see 100% when an object is selected with the regular selection tool, and if you change the percentage there the change is relative to the current scaled dimensions, and the field will revert to 100% again after the transformation. This is essentially the behavior you are describing for your expectations in frame fitting, except that the scale is applied to the entire object, not just the content.

     

    When we select the content using the direct select tool, however, we see the scale relative to the "actual" dimensions and entering a new value scales only the content, not the frame, and is still relative to the actual dimension, not the last scaled size. That, it seems to me, is more analogous to frame fitting, and in CS6 it suddenly became inconsistent.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 9:58 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    ...and is still relative to the actual dimension, not the last scaled size. That, it seems to me, is more analogous to frame fitting...

     

    Point taken.

     

    Thanks for the stimulating discussion. My geek card is warm.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 5, 2012 10:24 AM   in reply to John Mensinger

    My pleasure. You really made me think about it.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points