From: newshound <>
Subject: Re: Weird Picasa bug (only affects Lexmark printers?)
Full headers:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 16:58:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Weird Picasa bug (only affects Lexmark printers?)
References: <>
From: newshound <>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:58:32 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <291020171637100327%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <>
Lines: 92
X-Trace: sv3-vCM30t9t4rz++80BW00XCzU1v3ih8IVXlglLF/E3ukEo4xFZJY3b/1vOJeAq2UkOof0Falkv/bGnNSK!aP1LqZ6IkaqNWgr3JjbqnQgubGN6X9Ajvo0fgnXNyo3rRGV4zw4exSVG3dIIohNaiSz4jlpZQ5Zd!qBn/wv0Lz38Hvmg1MxpxQQaVWV8=
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: 4590
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/2017 20:37, nospam wrote:
> In article<>,
> newshound<> wrote:

> you don't have a fix. you have a workaround that avoids the issue.

OK but it is a fix as far as I am concerned.
>>> 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.
> then post real images. the point is they the images do not need to be
> anything internal to your company or you personally.
> all that matters is that the issue you describe can be duplicated.
> two solid black images would still be sized differently.
>>> 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.
> then post samples so that those who are can investigate.

Might have a go tomorrow, I deleted all the stuff that was giving me 

>>> if that's the case, there is probably a default setting which can be
>>> changed.
>> Yes but what setting?
> default resolution, which is usually ignored, except by some apps.

OK. Sounds plausible.

>> In Word, you check page layout via print preview.
> word is probably working as designed. however, that you get different
> results with lexmark suggests an issue with lexmark.
>> And you expect the printer to give you the same thing (although
>> occasionally a line of text spills on to the next page).
> that's not good either.

Agreed, but it's not difficult to tweak the word file to fix that. I'd 
always thought it might be something subtle to do with the printable 
area. I've seen this with several different applications.

>>>>> 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.
> that means nothing.

It means that *if* the problem is in the EXIF data, it is a subtle one.

> what does exiftool show for tags, notably resolution?

Had a look at that, but ATM it's not unzipping to an .EXE for me. I will 
have another go. I think I used to use it in XP or W7 days, but W10 
brings a whole load of new problems with all sorts of stuff.

Don't disagree with your implied point that if application B gets 
confused by code produced by application A, then is not immediately 
obvious which application is at fault, or even if it is meaningful to 
assign "fault". In this case, I can't change the way the Lexmark 
interprets the Word file, but I have an easy fix by modifying the Picasa 
file that I inserted into Word. So it feels *to me* like the Picasa file 
is "wrong".