Prevent "scale image: fit within" from upscaling image on export?

Fit within does just what it says, no way to change its behviour that I know of.

If you have images of different dimensions you could create a smart album to collect all the images of one size (or exclude images of a particular size) .

I cannot offer a solution but a work aroud:

What I do in a situation like this, is to create two smart albums:

• one album of images not to be scaled, to be exported with export preset: original size
• one album of images to be scaled , to be exported with export preset: fit within

To sort the images I use a smart album with the rules

Album of Images to be scaled:

Add Rule : EXIF -> Pixel width is greater than ..... and EXIF -> Pixel height is greater than ...

Album of Images not to be scaled:

Add Rule : EXIF -> Pixel width is less or equal than ..... or EXIF -> Pixel height is less or equal than ...

Regards

Léonie

Leonie,

Doesn't the EXIF pixel width and height look at the original (masters) dimensions? So if you crop in Aperture will this still work?

I've always used the Aperture pixel size as it seems to take the dimensions from the version and not the master but if i'm wrong using the EXIF setting would better as there are more options for comparison.

Frank,

you are perfectly right, the EXIF will use the dimensions of the masters, so cropped images will be assigned to the wrong album. Thanks for pointing that out.

But with the Aperture pixel size you can only compare exact values in a rule, so you would need many rules to express "less than" or "greater than". we would need to write an Apple Script to parse the Aperture pixel size, and so far I did not need that.

Regards

Léonie

But my 720px image already fit within 960x960, so no scaling was required. At very least this option is mislabled.

I think the "scale to fit" option is meant to be read as "scale to a size that will fit best into ...", so it will scale the image to fill the space given, but the name is ambigious, to say the least.

Yeah it' a shame that the options in the Aperture section of the filter are so limited. It would be nice to be able to do comparisons as in the EXIF section.

Might be time for some Aperture feedback.

An AppleScript setup as a service could work and potentially give even greater control over the filtering but I keep holding out hope that the next version of Apertue will go over to a true database system and allow all the types of searches you can do in a database on the Aperture library.

regards

+1 all 'round.

I'm pretty sure the one time I needed to do something similar I was able to use the Rule "Aperture" with the settings "File size" as a proxy/binning-fork for images below a certain dimension.

It's quite silly (imho) to have numeric metadata without making operators available for that metadata.

It's seems silly to have filtering without full boolean operators, but it may be that with huge datasets the hardware simply can't handle the queries.

Sound to just flit in and opine -- on a deadline 😉 .

I keep holding out hope that the next version of Apertue will go over to a true database system and allow all the types of searches you can do in a database on the Aperture library.

A true database interface would make things much more elegant and easy, I would love to be able to use complex relational or logical expression to query Aperture. But I am afraid that Apple might be turning Aperture into a general multimedia information system, with data mining gimmicks, like "retrieve similar images by showing an example" . They started down this road with faces - I find "Places" much more useful.

My sense is that Apple has committed itself to making appliances, not sophisticated laboratory equipment. Saddens me -- they have the talent and the cash to set the standard for each.