From: newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com>
Subject: Re: Weird Picasa bug (only affects Lexmark printers?)
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 15:26:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Weird Picasa bug (only affects Lexmark printers?)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <M4udnZOsIr6c127EnZ2dnUU78Q_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<271020171123595218%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<rvadnT-Hm61HD27EnZ2dnUU78bPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<271020171648544999%nospam@nospam.invalid>
From: newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:26:22 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <271020171648544999%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Uf6dnT1hnbfypGvEnZ2dnUU78LXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 63
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-v0CjCdtCG1oPgrifSpnT/aWbiwcf7MdVOdrvvYNPnhXu+6oKvPAS1IhuepSkTGu/yW9Skd5E0XsCNrX!qgXJajZhU+NDI/xC0LEFSRGxQ5lq65XEXlmlWGN6T/l/VmDZwMkYbRV6dUcRBWRMLdOm3y7kn7uX!J90TCWhqXjVcnklfF7lApTmfJ5w=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3687
Print Article
Forward Article
On 27/10/2017 21:48, nospam wrote:
> In article<rvadnT-Hm61HD27EnZ2dnUU78bPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> newshound<newshound@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> After much trial and error, I've found it is the Picasa Export which
>>>> causes the problem. If you open and then save the JPEG in Paint
>>>> (overwriting the original file) the problem goes away.
>>>
>>> that doesn't mean it's a bug in picasa.
>>>
>>> if the jpeg from picasa is valid, then it's word and/or lexmark.
>>
>> But they behave fine with picasa files that havn't been compressed by
>> Picasa export. So I think there is something wrong in the file header
>> which either the Word print engine or the Lexmark is getting confused about.
>>
>> And the fact that just importing the file into Paint and saving it again
>> clears the fault points to something in the JPEG.
> 
> different doesn't mean one is wrong.
> 
> can you post a sample jpeg exported from each app?

Well I could, but as far as I am concerned I have a fix. I can certainly 
do that if anyone confirms they would like to do some investigation. I 
was partly posting this in case anyone already knew about it, or so that 
someone Googling the same problem in the future would find it.

> 
> the content of the photos is completely irrelevant, as long as the
> sizing issue can be duplicated.
> 
> take a photo of something random, or even fill it with black. no need
> to share internal photos if you don't want to.

Happy to share something. With a solid black image I wouldn't be able to 
see that the process had failed.

> 
> without examining the files, it sounds like the resolution tag, which
> is sometimes used for initial image sizing/placement in some apps, is
> set differently.

Yes, that was one of my guesses but I am not all that familiar with this 
stuff.

> 
> if that's the case, there is probably a default setting which can be
> changed.

Yes but what setting? In Word, you check page layout via print preview. 
And you expect the printer to give you the same thing (although 
occasionally a line of text spills on to the next page).
> 
>>> how did you validate the jpeg? or did you?
>>
>> I don't know how to.
> 
> that would be a no. :)
> 
Indeed. Suggestions would be useful. The export files look fine in 
several different viewers.