I am in the habit of processing large numbers of jpeg images for use in slide shows. When I come to signing the images I almost always use size 14, sometimes size 12, for my name print. But the size that sets seems to vary, usually coming up as size 18 and forcing me to change down to 14 eah time before signing the image. How do I go about locking in size 14 as the automatic default?
View 3 Replies
I'm using CS6 and can't figure out how to make the transform size lock be turned on by default. See below:Â
Every time I hit CTRL+T to transform something I have to go up there and click on the lock so it locks the dimensions as I transform. It's unlocked by default as seen in the photo above.
An opened image is always locked. And if you want to do something you need to get rid of the lock. And yes, there are workarounds to do that. Can you add a preference option to turn off the backround lock default.
Â
Rather than having to add a mask, why not also have a any new layer to automatically have a mask. Its a small step, but its something we do alot.  All layers should have blank masks associated to them.
I would like to ensure that all my SVG files are UTF-8 when saved, but they sometimes come out as ISO 5589-1 (the defualt encoding)Â Is there a way to set & lock this somewhere, somehow?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI'm used to a PC, but am having to use a mac once a week for a new job.
When I hit "Cmd -0" to view my image in its entirety, my background screen shrinks with it. Then, when I zoom in again, I have to expand the screen again.
I'd like to have my background to stay locked in the same position where I have placed it, with only my image file expanding or shrinking, as I work.
When I try to switch to the Print module in LR 4, the program locks up. I am using Windows 7.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI would like to lock the size of an object regardless of the zoom percentage. When I am zooming in on a vector map (main layer) the objects (on different layers) becomes very big. So I should be able to zoom in/out on the vector map, but the objects shall keep the same size. How can I do this?
View 5 Replies View Relatedhow do i match on screen document size to view print size? when i create a new document and put in its dimensions when i press view print size it appears alot smaller on screen
View 4 Replies View RelatedI'm using Photoshop 7. I create a new document 8.5 x 11 inches at 150 pixels per inch.
I draw a circle 1" from the top of the image. The circle is 3" in radius.
When I print the circle is nearly .25" smaller in radius and slightly less than 1" from the top.
Why is the output not in the same placement and proportions as the image on the screen?
I have created an item made up of lines, circles and arcs. One side line distance will control all other sides, circles and arcs. I applied geometric constraints and then Dimensional constraints. D1 is the distance that will control all other objects. I have it working so that when I change D1, the sides adjust accordingly and the arcs and circles keep their geometry.
I was wondering if there is a way to add a range of distances for D1 so that if someone goes below the minimum value, nothing happens and if you go above the maximum value, nothing happens? I know if you make a block, you can make a list of distances for D1 to move. Is there a way to do this in the design drawing? Although, I don't just want a set range, I would like any distance between, say, 8 - 12 inches.
I tried to set some parameters in the Parameters Manager with no luck. Maybe there is an expression to use? Where would you find this expression if there is one?
I have CS5.1 on a Macbook Pro.I have an incredibly frustrating problem.   I've seen similar questions, but not an answer that has resolved this for me. I have an image I have sized to fit an 8.5 x 11 inch paper. Canvas and image size all indicate my image is sized at 7.33 x 11 inches. It is at 300 dpi. Print size view indicates full space is utilized on either side….BUT…
Â
When I go to print, I click "scale to fit media" (which is an 8.5 x 11 paper sitting in printer) image prints smaller with a bar on one side. .
When I uncheck STFM,
I get:
scale - 92.67%,
[code]...
The rule of thumb for traditional illustration work is to do the original about 1/3 larger than it will be printed to allow for some tightening up. My question is, when working in photoshop at 300 dpi, is there any reason to work larger than the print size?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have just bought and installed Lightroom 5 and need to set my print size to A3 and in the future even bigger. I do not have the facility at home and need to have them sized correctly for the print shop so they do not have to waste time resizing them. I am at a loss how to do this. I cant find any settings for this size print. A3 is roughly 42 x 29.7 cm.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a template with layouts of different sizes that had been working fine with a previous Xerox 6204. My D size and E size automatically oriented with the 36" side parallel to the roll feed. I have since moved to a job that got a Designjet T2300. On this machine the D size orients the 24" side parallel. This wastes 1' of paper on the left and uses 1' extra as it runs the 36" side perpendicular. I have been unable to rectify the problem. I have tried printing in portrait, that actually cut off some of the image. I have tried all types of rotation within the driver and layouts. Tech support had me going into the machine settings and set rotation to 90. Nothing. There is a warning that "HP utilities" is not installed. Could this be a remedy? When the tech came to set up the printer he installed the necessary drivers but mad no mention of this utility.
AC2012, HP desighjet T2300
Our supplier sent us some wierd size pdfs that are not full size or half size. I am trying to resize them to full size pdfs (Arch D) but am unable to figure this out in Acrobat.
My work-around is to insert them in AutoCAD and scale them based on known dimensions, then print to pdf. Unfortunately the resulting file is collosal and the quality degraded.
File > New.The first preset option is: "Default Photoshop Size".. I get a really odd size of 454 x 340 pixels.
View 10 Replies View RelatedI want to create a template whereby I can make a series of images that I can save as jpgs, upload to my blog, and people can print them. When they print, I want them to be one quarter of a sheet of paper (fit four to a page).
I tried creating a new image using the "inches" specification and those inches seem to have no bearing on inches in real life once printed.
So then I figured that a sheet of paper is 8.5 by 11 and I want a resolution of 300 dpi.
So 8.5 times 300: 2,550 pixels. Times that by 0.25 to get a quarter of it: 637.5 (which gets rounded to 638 pixels).
11 times 300: 3,300 pixels. Times that by 0.25= 825 pixels.
So I put in for 638 pixels by 825 pixels and 300 dpi. I created my image. I saved it as a jpg at full resolution. I uploaded it to my site and tested out the printing.
It took up most of a sheet of paper. Not even close to being a quarter of a sheet.
I've been using 2.6 and created a template for multiple business cards on a standard 8.5 by 11 sheet. [URL]
However the later versions ... 2.8 cause distortions when I try to print. ( Canon MG 2120) The standard 8.5 by 11 mysteriously converts to 7.997 by 10.349 inches .... and a weird 318.870 ppi appears. This obviously distorts my template and the 2 by 3.5 inch cards become odd sizes. When I open the template in 2.6, it works perfectly.
What has happened to the later version? i can't reset to inches and even using the 2559 by 3300 pixils with the 1050x600 card sizecan't be printed accurately So I'm now creating in 2.8 and opening in 2.6 to get my sizes correctly.
I love the expanded tools for drawing in the 2.8 ... but this feature is a nuisance ... along of course with the terrible sizing scale for the brushes. SO hard to calibrate the smaller and moe common sizes. Another bad feature.
Have I missed some adjustment somewhere. Using the same printer, same download gives two different prints sizes in 2.6 and 2.8.
I know Photoshop can do this but is there anyway to make the pixel size not change if im messing with the print size of a photo?
View 6 Replies View Relatedlately I've been started working on Illustrator, since I've always loved the vector pen tool in Photoshop, but I've notice something...
let's say I want to work on an A4 page. I start a new PRINT document, and set the A4 size at 300 DPI. If I do that on Photoshop, I'll get a huge white page that at 100% goes way out my screen, but if I start a document with the same size in Illustrator, I get a page that's smaller than my screen (at 100%).
I guess it's normal because those programs might work in different ways, but I'm concerned about it because this way, in Illustrator a 1pt size brush will always be bigger than in Photoshop.
Is there a way to setup Photoshop CS6 print settings so that "Scale To Fit Media" is the default. I tried to create an action and then through Bridge select a folder and Batch send the files to Open-Print-Close. Since images are never received 8.5"x11" it would be convenient to have this as a default. Since the print settings revert, or aren't defaulting to "settings last used", my batch attempt was unsuccessful. I know I could edit my action to adjust image size to page dimensions, but thought a way to edit the Print settings default must be out there somewhere. (Using MacBook Pro OSX 10.8.4)
View 1 Replies View Related99% of my images end up at 6" X 4". now, for every image, i goto image-->image size and then insert the 6 X 4 numbers. is there a way to make 6 X 4 the default so that i don't have to do this each time i process an image?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI go through a lot of sketch stages to get to a final picture, and I sometimes print on legal paper. My Brother printer does fine at that with Apple Pages, MSWord, Acrobat, and Illustrator, but with Photoshop there's a problem. I set up a legal-size image in PS, go through all the settings I can find for printing to a non-letter-format sheet, hit print, and what I get is a letter-size patch of image on a legal-size sheet. Clearly, either I am missing something or PS is missing something.
View 3 Replies View RelatedCurrently I import raw images to my desktop, view in Bridge, make adjustments in Raw then batch process within photoshop, into JPG's.
The jpg resolution is always 240 pixels/inch How can I manually change the default image size??
Where in my work flow should this be set? In Photoshop, Raw image converter or bridge? I am using CS 4.
How can I adjust size of default action frames they are very thin. I have tried double clicking on that part I think it is in the actions but can only adjust the drop shadows etc not the actual size of the frame ie like in the wooden frame.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI recently upgraded from CS6 to CC. When I open a psd file, it opens at 100%, but the window is small with scroll bars. I have plenty of screen real estate, so that's not the problem. I have looked everywhere and can't find how to make the default 100% showing the entire image.
View 7 Replies View RelatedI'm trying to see if there is a shortcut or way to save my images to the size I want on the SAVE FOR WEB feature
For faster downloads I like to shrink my images to to 800 X 600 - so once I'm done editing them I hit "Save for Web" and then input those figures manually.
Now is there a way to program my Save for Web command so the images are automatically resized to 800 X 600 ? This would save me one step and speed up my work.
When I drag a photo file to Photoshop, it opens in a size significantly smaller than the workspace. (This is especially true with vertical [portrait] photos.) Therefore, every time I open a photo (and I do this typically hundreds of times a day...), I have to drag the lower right corner way out to enlarge the frame, and then I have to scroll the mouse wheel to make the picture expand to (approximately) fill the frame. Only then can I see it well enough to make the required ajustments to the file. Isn't there a way to tell Photoshop how large I want the photos to appear in the workspace, so it opens every new photo file to the same size? I am using Photoshop CS (not CS2 or CS3).
View 9 Replies View RelatedI'm always changing this to percentage. any way to default to it?
View 1 Replies View RelatedIn another thread it is mentinoed pre-sizing image data to prepare it for best printing.For a long time it's been "standard advice" to resize images so that the ppi is an even division of the printer's dpi, because some years ago occasionally one would run across printers that would produce poor results if you didn't - you might see jaggies in straight edges for example.
Â
Thing is, computers have (not so) quietly been getting more powerful over time, and printer makers have been competing with one another to try to make their printers produce better results than the other guys. One way they've done this is by improving the quality of the algorithms in the printer drivers. Use of mega storage and high accuracy math, which was once taxing on older computer systems, is now standard practice.
Â
Making a few assumptions about the many variables (what printer, what OS, what version of drivers, what application being used to print) , there seem to be several questions here:
Â
1. Can the image resolution be too high, causing the printer driver to make bad decisions about what ink dots to lay down where on the paper?
2. Does it matter if the image PPI is an even division of the printer's DPI?
Â
As I have done in the past, I set out to do some actual testing, to see if I can actually SEE anything to answer these questions.I created a sharp image to be printed at 3 x 2 inches:Â [URL]...
Then I printed it at 6 different resolutions (1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, and 100 ppi) by resampling the image, labeling it, printing from Photoshop CS5, and feeding the same sheet of HP Premium Plus photo paper through my older HP 932c inkjet printer 6 times. The printer was set to its highest quality settings, including 2400 x 1200 dpi mode. This was the result:
Â
I then looked critically and as objectively as I could at the different images. Here are my observations:Naked eye:
Â
The four highest resolution images (1000, 720, 567, and 300 ppi) all seemed to have an equivalent high level of crisp detail.I could not detect the inkjet dots. Smooth objects look smooth.Â
I could see significant reduction in the finest details in the 300 ppi print vs. the three higher resolution prints, and a slight reduction in the 567 ppi vs. 720.At no resolution were any jaggies or evidence of aliasing visible.The inkjet dot pattern was plainly visible, and it does differ between the different prints. But it was not possible to say whether one was "better".Things seem to have a little more texture in the 1000 ppi print vs. the 720 and 567 ppi prints.Â
Lacking a high resolution scanner, I took photographs of the 6 different prints. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to set up with my best lighting and lens combination, so I got some reflections off the glossy paper, and and at this resolution I can't really see the inkject dots in the photos. I want to repeat this when I can find more time to do it better. As I did these photos hand-held, I believe the variances between them could be slightly influencing the results. But I'm going to post them anyway, for you to see.
Â
I could see ever so slightly more detail in the 720 ppi print vs. the 1000 ppi print, though from the size of the tiny dust/light reflections I think it may have just been the better focused. Note that this observation is not supported by direct observation through the jeweler's loupe, above.The 1000 ppi and 567 ppi prints seems to have slightly more noise or texture than the 720 ppi print.Â
Again, this might be issues introduced by the photography process, though I did note a possible increase in texture in the 1000 ppi print with the jeweler's loupe as well.Beyond just the blurring, I could see some evidence that straight lines are not quite as straight in the lower resolutions (300 ppi and lower). This seemed more apparent than with the jeweler's loupe examination, and I wonder whether the Photoshop downsampling process could have introduced it.Â
Â
Left to right, top to bottom:Â 1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, 100:
Conclusions:
Â
Printing to my HP 932c inkject printer on Windows 7 x64
Â
300 ppi is not sufficient to coax the best possible detail out of an inkjet printer. It appears a number in the vicinity of 720 or more is better, and this number could be much higher with modern very high resolution printers (mine's old). Speed was no different in printing any of these - a modern computer can process a huge amount of data in the blink of an eye.When a sufficiently high resolution image is printed (in this case 567 ppi or higher)
I saw virtually no evidence that a particular ppi value is superior, for example an even division of the printer's dpi, though in hindsight I realize I should have prepared a 600 ppi image (duh). I will add a 600 ppi image before I re-photograph the results.It's possible ever so slightly more texture becomes visible at 1000 ppi than 720 ppi, but it might be just noise.Practically speaking, from looking critically at the results I could not see a reason to pre-size the image for a specific ppi value.Â
I've done a photo merge and am working on it at a size of 12cm (h) x 57cm because my poor old mac is able to save changes faster at this size.
The real size I want to print it at is much, much bigger - a banner. When i choose print size, it looks pretty good (about 30%), but if I zoom it to 100% its really jagged. Which do I believe in terms of print quality? Will it print how it looks at 100%?
