(using his Mac)... It ended up our logo and I need have to make some changes desperately (to adjust it for printing on shirts/ change the image for embroidery logo, etc.). Despite all my efforts to find out how it was created.
I'm capturing television frames using a TV capture card, but the resulting images do not have the correct brightness/contrast and color values.
Instead of manually altering every image using trial and error, I'd like to take a "correct" source frame that I know is correctly balanced (such as a test pattern), and use it to correct my other captured images.
I've tried saving the source frame's levels and curves and then loading them into the captured frames, but this doesn't produce quite the effect I'm looking for.
I'm using Adobe Photoshop 9.0 cs2 and I need help with a large color replacement project. I'm an amature video game designer making a level for the classic P.C. game Doom 2 and I'm creating a new weapon and monster for the level I'm creating. For the monster I plan to alter the colors of the frames of the original monster and change the dimensions of key features.
use an indexed color mode that were extracted into individual .png files.
Today I made the big mistake of changing the frames over to RGB mode so I can use the color replacement tools available in that mode. I should have done one frame first then convert it back to indexed color mode because the frames look terrible when converted back from RGB mode. What it is doing is using all the colors of the RGB color spectrum to replace various colors. Unfortunately what this means is that its using colors that are not in the color palette I loaded in the original pic and when I convert it back it looks terrible. There are enough colors in the doom color palette to produce the look I'm after but the automated conversion process from RGB to indexed colors does not pic the best matches in most cases. By doing this I am taking an image consisting of about 150 different shades of color down to about 75 different shades of color. I cant find any color replacement tools for indexed colored images and its going to take me forever to do all frames pixel by pixel so I need one of two things to be able to accomplish what I need. Either a better way of converting these images back, or some tool I can actually use in indexed color mode. If there is a way to select a pixel and change all other pixels of that exact color to a new color then I can just do it pixel by pixel that way. I need something here or I'm going to lose hours of work. If there is a way to load my color table into RGB mode to limit what colors it uses that might work too.
I would just leave the pics in RGB mode if the game im editing for could use that format but unfortunatly anything I convert to RGB will have to be converted back to 256 colors for it to work in the game.
I have a picture of a cabin on a lake, I want to use this as the flash intro for a website. I would like a mist to cover the picture and then float away, and the water in the lake to "shimmer" or make it look as if it is "moving"...kind of like you were looking at a video clip, not a static picture.
Is this something I would do in any of the creative suite programs? or studio 8 programs? or is it something completely different.
I got an image wrapping around a vase, wonder if it possible to "unwrap" it. Get it back to a "flat" image so to say, with the most i can actually get back, suspect there would be some unrecoverable things.
i used photoshop everything was fine. and then all of a sudden none of my custom actions work with a batch process. a message keeps coming up saying
"the command "image size" is not currently available"
If i click continue it pops right back up saying the same but for the next process and again and again with every process in my action.
It does this on any photo and with any custom action i have saved
Interestingly if i just open the photo and click play on the action without going through the batch process... it works fine.. so its nothing wrong with my actual action.
Has there been a bug introduced with a live update along the way?
as i regularly batch process 100s of photos for the web and now im having to do them 1 by 1!
I need to "improve" an image, its a logo and its a very simple design, the problem is that the original file was lost and now i only have a smaller version, but it only looks good if i use it on small size, but now i want it bigger,so i want to remove those jagged edges, i want a smooth and pixel-free curved lines.
The tool i want to use is Adobe Photoshop CS2 (9.0)
It seems whenever the display zoom is less than 100%, CS3 uses some kind of "Pixel Resize" for display which makes for low quality output to look at.
Is there any way to tell CS3 to a simple bilinear filter when displaying less than 100%? This would make for much less artifacts/jaggedness and I'm sure the speed impact would not even be noticeable.
I've noticed when working in Photoshop CS, that everytime I save an image as a JPG for the web (by choosing "save for web"), that it REALLY desaturates the image WAY too much.
I don't know how to go about solving this -- I never encountered it in any of the other versions I've used.
I found an odd workaround though -- I do a screen capture of the image (automatically saved as a PDF of the image on my Mac), then I open the PDF of the screen capture up in Photoshop CS, then I SAVE TO WEB. ONLY THEN, does it reproduce accurately with NO desaturation.
I took a "panoramic" photo while camping using my Canon with the panoramic mode. I have the following image as a PSD where each frame is a separate layer. I have lined them all up and such and performed an Auto-Levels filter on each layer. There are still seams, especially in the sky portion of the image.
I used Paint Shop and it had a "view image" button which just displayed the image against a solid black background, making it easy to get a good view of composition, colours, etc without distractin program UIs in the way.
I work at a business that had something stolen from us. Via the security cameras we have the license plate, however it was zoomed pretty far and is therefore pretty pixelated. I'm wondering if anyone can help me sharpen it up. I know this isn't the movies and it doesn't just work like that, but I figure something should be able to be done.
I have tried unsharp mask, I have tried edge detect. I don't know a whole lot about photoshop though.
I know what state the license plate is which would pretty much be impossible to tell from the camera, I am just trying to figure out the actual plate.
If it's not against the rules of the forum, I can post a picture here. I saw the "request for work" thread but it said that I would have to pay and considering how the economy is on businesses right now that's just not possible. I'm really just looking for how to do it if no one can look at it for me.
I have a flat map of the U.S. I want to "wrap it" on the face of a sphere to give it a hint of distortion as if it were part of a globe. How can I do this?
At work, whenever I "save as" a jpg or tif or whatever, it just renames the extension. eg. 'Work.psd' -> 'Work.jpg'. But when I work from home, whenever I "save as" it appends "copy" to the end, which I really hate. eg. 'Work.psd' -> 'Work copy.jpg'. I know this is a trivial matter, but it puts an annoying kink in my workflow having to remove "copy" from the file name during my extremly frequent saves. I've tried to google this, but I'm at wit's end trying to find where the preference is hidden.
when I try to open an existing file or create a new one -- the application will shut down unexpectedly and without warning.But I also experience application errors: 'Instruction at "0x1a3c4b6b" referenced at memory "0x00000028" Memory could not be read.
I'm created a photo of an alien boy being beamed down to someone's house in a cone of bright white light from a flying saucer, and I tried to use the "layer style" to create the glowing light effect in this cone of bright light - but somehow I'm not getting the "glow" effect that I got before. I'm stumped as to what I'm doing wrong/not doing right to produce the glow effect. In other words, the outer/inner glow effect no longer works. Can anyone please help me?
I've got a couple of actions that do various things and then as a last step do a "save as" (without a dialog). They work just fine on MOST images but on just a couple of images when they get to the "save as" step I get a dialog and the "as a copy" box is checked. It happens on the same images every time so it must be something about those particular images but I can't figure out what it is.
All my images are 3008x2000, and I want to resize them down to a smaller scale for a web site. I know there must be a simple math equation to use to figure out what size would be safe where the images keep their proportion correct. In other words, at 3008x2000, if I reduce to 600x400, it looks out of proportion.
I want to take a screenshot and print it under 300 resolution, but everytime I paste it into Photoshop (after I take the screenshot via CONTROL+PRINTSCREEN button), it comes out as 3x2 inches, which is too small. I would like it to be 6x7 inches, but the only way I can think to do that, is if I resize the 3x2 inch image, to 6x7 inches. This makes the image a little blurry, so I sharpen it up a little bit.
I have just opened up an image from a file in order to resize it for placing into an InDesign document.
The image is 16cm (1986p) x 15cm (1812) at 300dpi.
I resized it to 3cm wide at 300 dpi with the following boxes checked: scale styles/constrainproportions/resample image/bicubic.
But the image is very pixellated when reduced and taken into ID, even tho reduced in size from the original. I've done this dozens of times in Ps 7 abd never had this happen.
I want to take a screenshot and print it under 300 resolution, but everytime I paste it into Photoshop (after I take the screenshot via CONTROL+PRINTSCREEN button), it comes out as 3x2 inches, which is too small. I would like it to be 6x7 inches, but the only way I can think to do that, is if I resize the 3x2 inches image, to 6x7 inches. This makes the image a little blurry, so I sharpen it up a little bit.