Little disconcerted by the new setup of 'Image/size' menu? Its lost one whole parameter that used to be there by default... Now you have to go find it by click on the drop down and selecting inches.... If I recall it used to show:
height Pixels
width pixels
Height inches
width inches
Overall there appears to be MORE information available and more functions one can exercise than the old format. I guess I'll grow to like it better than the old layout.... but first time out... I missed the old setup.
In my work I am using Displace (Filter>distort>displace) filter to create fake parallax shift, to create stereograms. I make two copies of image- one using positive-value horizontal displace filter, the other negative. When viewing those images as stereoscopy pair, you perceive them as projected on 3D surface defined by grayscale displacement map (a.k.a. depth-map).
My problem is highly specific: I need to be able to precisely control which pixels are displaced and by what ammount (ammount defined by greyscale value of map pixels). Current implementation of displace filter makes if very difficult.
My goal is this: every pixel of image will be shifted left or right by distance defined by greyscale value of directly underlying depth-map pixel.
The way actual displacement filter works can be described as such: If depth-map pixel is <50%grey, it 'fetches' and becomes bitmap pixel from left. If depth-map pixel is >50%grey, it 'fetches' and becomes bitmap pixel from right.As a result-I cannot, by comparing image pixels with underlying depth-map pixels predict what distance will given image pixel travel. Shift distance is not defined by directly underlying dept-map pixel. Instead, image pixel is 'fetched' by undefined depth-map pixel.
I realise it is highly specific requirement without an easy answer. I am willing to spend long time working on software side if need be and learn in process. I am becoming quite proficient in scripting (JavaScript). I need to know where to start and if there is a solution simpler than coding new filter from scratch.I am using Photoshop CS6 and work cross-platform (primarily windows).
I'm having a bit of problem with my CS6 Illustrator and it started in illustrator CS5, I can create an eps file within Illustrator save it as CS6, but when i go to open it again i get an error " Can't open the illustration. The illustration exceeds an implementation limit. I get an option to click ok and when i do i get a blank artboard with nothing on it.
I can see the artwork preview in the finder window when i select the eps file, I can open it in photoshop, convert it in preivew and if i place the file back into illustrator i can see the artwork and click embed to edit it.
Is it better to implement the title block of an electrical drawing in the model space or paper space? I have a co worker who implements it in the model space as shown below. On the other hand, I was taught to implement it in the paper space and then bring in the drawing via viewport.
I am in the process of completing my Photographic website and need to make thumbnail and larger sizes for the the site. The site will have approximately 100 images on it. Clicking the thumbnails will connect to the larger images. How do I make both sizes in PS CS? Perhaps their is a generator that you would recommend for Mac 10.2?
I am making a list of thumbs in Photoshop that I want to all be the same width and height. What is the fastest and best way to accomplish this when the images are all slightly different sizes?
I've already chosen one of the images that has the perfect dimensions for the page. I'm confused though about how to crop the other images to match those dimensions. I am using CS2.
I work with images of jewelry. I need to be able to make them actual size with out distorting the image. I have tried creating a canvas that is the size of the image I need, but cannot get the picture to fit perfectly in it with out distortion. Resizing the original does not work, because of course I have to constrain proportions.
I originally put this with a post on saving for web but I think this is a bit different.
If I shoot a big painting, the resolution of detail - brushstrokes, canvas, imperfections adds to the overall feel of the image. If I shoot a tiny/small image with the same lens/camera and it fills the screen those details look like a relief map of the Himalayas! Can I get around that? I notice that sharpening can make a difference but what are the principles here?
I have bunch of images that are all the same size. I was wondering if I wanted to shrink the image by 50%, do I have to do them one by one or is there some function or method so that i can do a whole batch since it's all the same commands.
Using Photoshop CS6, I am trying to insert two same size images into a predesigned template. I can insert the first image just fine. However,when I try to add the second image below the first one, the template rejects the second image and just leaves a blank space.
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 do know how to batch resize photos using adobe bridge and then tools>photoshop>image processor.... and resize but what i want to know is how to batch resize images to a specific size width and height without having to keep proportion.
Because right now i have a bunch of photos that are 2896 x 1944 pixels but i need it to resize to 1920 x 1080 for a stop motion clip. However photoshop wants to keep it in proportion and resizes it to 1608 x 1080 which is not what i want but i dont want to have to do them one at a time.
I have a very uncommon problem that , when i update my banner of website which has photo of handmade leather messenger bag and leather backpack and wit size of 1343px x 460 px and i make exact same size image in Photoshop using 72 dpi and after uploading and updating my website banner get cropped automatically.
I tried everything in code of my website but every time i change it crops the image. what resolution i must take to make my image say similar as source. My website is
I'm relatively new to photoshop and I have been searching for a simple answer to this question.
I'm working with images scanned from 35mm transparency film and black and white negatives. The average size when opened in photoshop is .88inches width x 1.297inches height at 2000 pixels/inch. I'll be putting these images on the web as well as printing some.
My question is:
Can I work with them as-is in photoshop and change the size later (for web, printing etc) or is there some general size I should change them too prior to working on them in photoshop CS5 extended?
I am a molecular biologist trying to use either photoshop or illustrator to label data (I have both programs, 1 may be better than the other for what I need, but I am not sure). The data I want to label are essentially pictures, of varying size, with a resolution of 50pixel/cm (around 127ppi).
The best analogy of the transformations of my data would be a picture of some random object taken next to a ruler. I need to label the ruler, then remove the actual ruler and just leave the labels. I have several of these pictures, and I label them like this individually.
why the size on disk of uncompressed indexed color images is always slightly larger than you expect it to be? For example, a 100x100 pixel image, 4 bit indexed image with a 2 color palette: the file size should be 5,000 bytes (4 bits for each of 10,000 pixels) plus 6 extra for the two colors in the CLUT - i.e. 5006 bytes. Yet the actual size is 5,268 - not a figure that squares with any size of palette! Ditto a 200x200 image, 8 bit colour: 40,000 bytes. Plus a full 256 colour CLUT at 3 bytes each, an extra 768. total size 40,768. on disk it is 41,080 bytes - an extra 112 bytes.
This is on a PC - not a Mac 'resource fork' issue. Is there some additional header info that Photoshop attaches to indexed color images -
I tried to make an image that, when printed, would take up the entire sheet of paper (having removed the margins in the printing properties), but I seem to have failed.
I made the image 8.5 x 11 inches, but when I printed a test at that size it came out too small... is there a % bigger that I need to make the image to fit, or did I go wrong somewhere else?
I have to process a couple of thousand photos. What I need to do is get PS to resize the canvas so that Height=Width, no matter which is the larger. In the area where it increases the canvas size, it should then have white space.
So that for a 10x5 landscape picture, it resizes to be 10x10 canvas, for a 5x10 portrait picture, it resizes to be 10x10 canvas, etc.
I have a batch of 500 jpg images all in different sizes 732 KB, 634 KB, 664 KB etc.
I need to compress / save for web down to 130 KB the entire batch. I've managed to create an action which compresses them lower than 130 KB at different sizes depending on how light or dark the images are, but still not to an exact number. Is there a way to create such an action or script? I'm working off of Photoshop CS5, iMac 10.5.8.
I have a problem on resize images. How to resize the images from 72dpi to 300dpi without changing the image size in Photoshop CC? It enlarges the images or pixels, but i just want the pixel to stay the same.
I have hundreds of scans all from one book and I am trying to straighten and crop them all out to the same pixel amounts. For example, I have a bunch of scans that are 1000x1000 pixels with overscan on all sides, they are also all at an angle. In the end I want a folder with all the pages at 800x800 nice and straight.
So, when I open the first one, I crop and straighten it to 800x800 and then I make a custom specification at 800x800. The problem is, when I go to the next one and hit crop and pic my specification, I find out that that specification is actually for an aspect ration, not a particular dimension. I want it to automatically put the crop window to 800x800, not just restrict the crop to that aspect ratio. If this could be done it would significantly quicken my work flow.
I am trying to optimize some images for web to have a smaller file size. I am using "Save for Web" feature, and every time I try to save a file, the actual file output size is a lot bigger than the size it shows on the "Save for Web" dialog.
For example, I have a 607 bytes .gif, when I open "Save for Web" it shows 207 bytes for 16-colors but when I save it the output file is 1.22 kb.
