Minor cosmetic UI question

When an image is loaded it’s zoomed to fully fill the preview area (not unreasonable). For me personally I visually like it zoomed out just a tiny bit, e.g., one click of the mouse wheel. For example:


Is there any way to make this permanent, or to auto-apply?

I’ve looked through the options file and didn’t see anything likely. The default processing profile is about editing, not the UI. I can’t think of anywhere else to look.

Anyway, nothing serious and I can certainly continue to zoom out ‘by hand’. Functionally it’s irrelevant most of the time, although when adding a polygon mask it can be handy to have a little room around the edge. But mostly it’s just cosmetic.

Just curious, thanks.

Indeed, this is not possible at the moment, sorry


Same here. Normally it’s enough to resize the sidepanel by a few pixels to prevent zooming exactly to the border. This setting should then be saved untill you explicitly change it manually.

What’s interesting is it apparently varies by image. Both of these are CR3s from the same camera, same lens (same pixel size). But one has a “buffer” and the other doesn’t, even when repeatedly zooming in / out and then pressing “f” to zoom-to-fit.

…yes, before you ask – I do shoot other subjects than lakes. :smiley: And these aren’t edits, they’re just unprocessed sample files.

No buffer

Has buffer

Raws / arps, if anyone is interested.

IMG_4442.CR3 (25.5 MB)
IMG_4442.CR3.arp (16.2 KB)

IMG_2543.CR3 (27.5 MB)
IMG_2543.CR3.arp (16.1 KB)

This is on Windows 11 BTW.

I think this is simply due to the size of the side panel, as you can see in my video, where the same photo is displayed once with and once without buffer. Try to find the size that gives you the buffer and leave it by that. Of course, if you need to “work” with the sidepanel and have to resize it occasionally, you’re out of luck with getting a constant result.

But the thing is, both of those images are the exact same pixel size, to the last digit. That’s why I find it curious. I wouldn’t think the actual content of the image – nor any other characteristic other than pixel dimensions – would make any difference. But something is apparently different.

Once again, just a curiosity.