GIMP :: Can Scale Images Down In Size Whilst Keeping Quality Of Image
Jan 12, 2014
Is there any way I can scale images down in size, whilst keeping the quality of the image? I am a Media teacher having to use this software with the class and they must have high production values for their controlled assessment. However, I do not know how to get around the problem that all the work is predominantly blurred because students have scaled down the pictures resulting in horrendous blurring.
My image is in grayscale though it's recognised as RGB. It contains structures in white which I would like to fill with a colour. So basically, I'd like for all the white in the image to show up as e.g. red.
How do I do that? I'm guessing it must be possible to have a red layer and somehow this will then fill the white, but I'm getting confused with background and foreground filling options and I don't know which transparency options I have to choose.
I'm working on my design for a project (book) and I want to export a typography into Photoshop to give it more effects, work with a textured background, etc. I was wondering if I export it as a PSD file I'll be able to keep the printing quality, since printing text from Photoshop comes out pixelated. Also, would I have to re-open it in Illustrator again after I'm done with Photoshop?
I drag the graphed box to scale an image down (or up) and after clicking "scale" the image size decreases but the original box is there (original size). Why?
My problem is related with the quality of a image.
My question is how to maintain high quality (original quality) of a image after resizing it?
If i resize it with same ratio like:
2816x2112px to 1600x1200px (4:3) 2816x1584px to 1920x1080px (16:9)
Mainly i use scale image option in Gimp. But now i need to resize many images for my work so i tried David's Batch Processor to resize my images. After using it, i found there is some quality promble with the resized image.
Then i tried, the scale option with, use quality setting from original image and JPEG quality parameter is 95, in gimp but the problem is same. I did it with also with David's batch processor- JPEG quality parameter is 95.
Other thing is that, the original image 2816x2112px (4:3), size- 3.6 MB is displaying in image viewer with 47% and the resized image 1600x1200px (4:3). size- 1.2 MB is displaying in image viewer with 83%, So my questions are: How can i check the quality of a image after resizing it, means the image is exactly same as the original? Or Is David's Batch Processor maintain the original quality of the images after resizing?. I realy need to resize many images for my work.
I'm having difficulty organizing photos into templates for a CD cover. The pic that I want to have on the front cover is too large and need to reduce the size, but at the same time keep sharpness and quality.
i have a client who needs a big image (2000x2830) resizing to 595x842 and saving to a .pdf file and still keeping its high quality resolution even when its zoomed in on. So far i have resized the image (just using IMAGE-IMAGE SIZE and put in the numbers 595x842) but it has lost its quality when zoomed in although it does look good at 100% but i need it to look good even at 500-600%.
I have an image that is quite small, cropped from a larger image. I want to enlarge it to 317 mm wide keeping it in proportion.
Using the scaling tool I changed to mm and increased width to 317mm this leaves me with a 'window' into the top corner of the image.
I then used 'fit canvas to layers' and the canvas increases in size ok but it is empty (little grey squares) except for the top corner showing the small window into the image!
If I click on it with the resize tool I can see the whole image enlarged but as soon as i click on the 'scale' button it vanishes again and leaves the small window again?
Toady I've noticed that Gimp opens high quality jpg images in lower quality than their original ones.I made sure by opening the image using another software, and it gave me apparent good jpg quality that i expect.Please check attachments (see the red button).Noting that when i saved the opened image form Gimp using the maximum quality (100%), it saved in a lower quality that was on-screen visible when it was opened. it is a bug?
When i open file with paint.net and click save sometimes it make it larger and sometimes it make it smaller. When the bith depth is selected as auto are there any chance that paint.net will loose quality ? I check that generally bith depth is not changing it is 32 bit but it is able to reduce size of image which have been yahoo smushed or pgnoutwin processed. How is this possible ?
Are there any plugin which will batch read images and save them if the new size is smaller without quality loss ?
I have a large number of sporting photos (both RAW and JPG versions) that need to be cropped to zoom in on player and eventually saved as JPEGs on CD, that can later be printed as 8 X10's by player parents.
When I crop the jpeg (setting 8 X 10 and resolution not filled in) I get a resolution around 150 , too low for printing. I know if I fill in resolution too , PS will use Resample Image and but I will get a somewhat degraded picture at 8 X 10. Is there a way to use the RAW version of the photos, (since they are not compressed), be able to crop and still save at a printable resolution, without using Resample.
I'm using Photoshop CS3 and I have a quick query regarding the difference in image quality between resizing an image using 'Image Size' compared to 'Free Transform'.
I'm laying out several individual photographs on to a page (with some precision) and therefore using the transform function to scale the image to the right size is certainly the quickest and easiest option.
However, I have always been keen to ensure maximum image quality and I don't know if this will degrade the image more than resizing the image using 'image size' before pasting it (obviously with a lot more effort involved).
When you reduce the image quality of a jpeg image , How exactly is it reducing the quality? is it applying file compression , reducing bit depth or is it reducing the sampling rate of the image? or anything close to the above....
i am finding that i sometimes have a need to crop a couple of images from something like an architectural line drawing. this means that i have lines in this drawing and i am oftentimes in need - for instance if i have copied two floor plan with one above the other - of having these images sit in a frame that is the SAME SIZE.
i am also in the need of cropping so that the resulting images are ALIGNED - with for instance one line in one image at the same spot at the bottom and to the left with the same amount of bleed area around the image both at this point and at all other points.
is there a way to crop an image in two different spots at the SAME SIZE?
is there a way to crop a "sloppy" copy of two sets of images so that the canvas is the same size but the resulting set of images are aligned in the manner described above?
ALSO, is there some way for me to SCALE a set of images in Photoshop?
I have a few images that are essentially line drawings (B&W) that I want to make larger for presentation (i.e., click for larger size) on our new Website. The current size is not large enough.
If I increase pixel sizes, the quality is terrible. For example, see:
[URL]....on our 'test Website'. [Please note Website is work-in-progress.]
I did a Photo shoot for some dancers who need some images for print. How do i save these images so that they are A, print ready pdf's. and B, Email able.
The goal is to get these images onto the page of a paper/magazine. Not full size but i guess they will be a put in a box.
I've created a resume in Photoshop CS5 for OS X - I know, I should've used InDesign but I'm more comfortable working in Photoshop.
The PSD is currently 2550x3300 px (8.5x11 in) at 300 dpi. I'd like to save the resume as a PDF flie so I can submit it online. I have no intentions of printing this particular document. Most websites will only accept a file size of under 1MB. What are the ideal settings for saving a PDF in the smallest file size without sacrificing on image quality? I should also note that I do not have Acrobat Pro.
I have many images of slides scanned at high res (4800 DPI, maximum pixels 5214x3592). Although I will be saving these as loss less TIFs, I also wish to make JPGs from them that I wish to be just less than 5 MB in file size. Aside from cropping, I know I can achieve such a reduction of JPG file size by a combination of saving to lower quality JPG compression or reducing image size. My question is, what is theoretically or practically better, achieving this mostly by reducing image total pixels or by reducing JPG compression quality.
I am experiencing some problems in getting a .dwg file I created in AutoCAD 2012 into Photoshop. Basically what I did was traced a jpg file (lots of detail) but now I want to bring that into Photoshop and put some color on it. I used the export option and saved as bmp but then the lines are all jagged (when I zoom in, the detailed features and various lines get blurry, I can see the pixels). Is there any other way to be able to use the work I already did in AutoCAD? I would not like to start my work from scratch in Photoshop.
I'm trying to scale a pattern to fit the entire canvas without tiling it over the whole layer. To try to do this, I made a rectangular selection box, then dragged and dropped a pattern into the box. This created a new layer called "clipboard". I right clicked the clipboard layer, then left clicked "Scale Layer". Then I entered a width and height in pixels that matched the size of the canvas. The selection does expand, but it doesn't fill the entire canvas.
is there a function in photoshop cs3 that will reduce the file size of a photo without affecting the physical size of it, i know macromedia fireworks can but thats no help to me unfortunately...
How do you scale a layer proportional to the image size?
I want to scale a layer so that it's 10% of the width of the full image. It's going to be part of an action, so I can't just do the math, and do it manually.
What is the difference between the outcome of using the new content aware scale versus just going ahead and resizing the image? Or is this a matter of preference?
When i enlarge the size of an image (using free transform, or scale) in photoshop CS2, the resized image gets blurred (or smudged) as soon as i've accept the larger size. How can i prevent this from happening? I'm trying to work with few pixels, and when it smudges the edges i get tons of colors i don't want.
