RESIZING

[crob2go]

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF USED MY CAMERA SET FOR 8 MEGA PIXELS AND I GET A 45 IN

BY 34 IN PICTURE CAN I REDUCE THIS IMAGE TO AN 8X10 WITHOUT LOOSING ANY OF THE

CONTENT IN THE PHOTO. WHEN I RESIZE IN PHOTOSHOP THE BEST I CAN DO IS 10 X 7.5

OR 8X 10.6. I NEED 8X10 WITH NO MAJOR DISTORTION. IS THIS POSSIBLE.

[KenPapai]

Quit shouting, me ears is ringin'!

[drew carson]

No those two size are not the same aspect ratio

[alan_olander1664878205]

You'll have to do a little cropping, that is crop 0.6" off the 10.6". Is there something extremely important about the full frame?

[frank_skomial]

"MY CAMERA SET FOR 8 MEGA PIXELS AND I GET A 45 IN BY 34 IN PICTURE " - if you mean "IN" = inches ? then, please teach us how you do this magic?

[Ed_Ingold]

YOU CAN CHANGE THE SIZE WHILE KEEPING THE SAME ASPECT RATIO AND NUMBER OF PIXELS BY CHANGING THE RESOLUTION OR SIZE, WITHOUT RESAMPLING.

 

(I used to get emails with aggressive use of capitals. I would reply in kind. It's amazing what you will do when you are fully vested and working for the pleasure of it.)

[dan_n1]

CRAIG....

 

if you don't know it yet... all cap typing...is SHOUTING....it's .... well... RUDE....

 

:-)

[hugh_croft]

Btw. I still don't understand the difference between 'resolution' and 'size' and on the other hand, 'resampling' and 'reducing in size.' I read that a foto has a resolution of 1200 by 800 or whatever and say to myself, 'Isn't that the size?' If I expand a foto, and the quality becomes lower by doing so, is that 'making it bigger but lowering the resolution' ie the quality - is all I can think? Apparently, in my case a mega-dummy explanation might be needed.

[bobmichaels]

Craig: go to www.scantips.com for a great section explaining size / resolution / dpi. I suggest you read it as this is what you need to understand to answer your question.

[alan_olander1664878205]

Hugh,

 

I think the term "resolution" has several meanings, some of which are not true definitions. According to Wikipedi:

 

"The term resolution is often used as a pixel count in digital imaging, even though American, Japanese, and international standards specify that it should not be so used, at least in the digital camera field. An image of N pixels high by M pixels wide can have any resolution less than N lines per picture height, or N TV lines. But when the pixel counts are referred to as resolution, the convention is to describe the pixel resolution with the set of two positive integer numbers, where the first number is the number of pixel columns (width) and the second is the number of pixel rows (height), for example as 640 by 480. Another popular convention is to cite resolution as the total number of pixels in the image, typically given as number of megapixels, which can be calculated by multiplying pixel columns by pixel rows and dividing by one million. Other conventions include describing pixels per length unit or pixels per area unit, such as pixels per inch or per square inch. None of these pixel resolutions are true resolutions, but they are widely referred to as such; they serve as upper bounds on image resolution."

[dave_powell2]

Hi Craig,

 

I think, when you say that you get a 45in by 34in picture, you mean that Photoshop's Image Size window says it would print this huge at the program's "default" Resolution setting of 72 dpi! A digital image file actually has no inherent print size. Its real-world "paper" size will depend on the dpi setting that the printer uses. Most commercial photo printers, for example, prefer to receive files that are pre-sized to output at some target height and width when output at 300 dpi.

 

So if you open your image again in Photoshop, go to the Image Size window, uncheck the Resample box, and then type 300 into the Resolution field, you'll see how big the photo would be on paper, if your local 1-hour PhotoQuick (or other photo processor) printed it.

 

An earlier respondent was correct to say that you might also need to combine rescaling and cropping to reach the 8x10 print size. If cropping is out of the question, though, Photoshop does offer a couple workarounds:

 

(1) If the aspect ratio is close to 8 x 10 (as it seems to be in your case), you could uncheck Constrain Proportions in the Image Size window, and stretch or shrink the image as needed in one or both dimensions. Try it, and see if the results are OK!

 

(2) Rescale the image (at 300 dpi, or whatever your printer will use) until it falls somewhere within the target 8 x 10 size. Then, use Photoshop's Canvas Size command to add an 8 x 10 black, white, or tinted frame around it...sorta like an integral "mat"! (This little trick has worked very well for me when framing images for exhibition. My single-matted images even ended up look double-matted!)

 

Some thoughts from a Newbie...hope they help!

 

Dave

 

P.S. You also asked whether rescaling will remove image detail. It definitely will during downsizing, because pixels are removed. And it also will NOT enhance image detail during upscaling. That's why it's best to do these operations on a copy of the original file.

 

Related to this, though, I must share a surprising result I recently noticed. I was looking at a condo listing on the Web, and the teensie-tiny leetle bitmap image of the facility's front sign was totally unreadable. So I grabbed the image off the web, and very carefully upscaled it in the best possible way (in 16-bit mode, using a series of gradual size increases). And though the sign in the bitmap was completely unreadable (even when magnified), I could easily read both the facility name and address in my upscaled version! So I'm beginning to wonder just how much information is truly lost when an image is downsized in Photoshop!

[dave_powell2]

Over this past rainy weekend, I had another thought about this question! RAW also may be a preferred capture format if you plan to dramatically enlarge your photos using Photoshop Elements 3.

 

I purchased Elements 3 when the photo mags claimed that it "supported 16-bit processing." This appealed because (when I had access to full Photoshop) I routinely did extensive digital enlargement for my exhibits. And the image quality remains better when an image is converted into 16-bit mode prior to upscaling.

 

I was a bit disappointed, though, to discover that Elements 3 would NOT convert the 8-bit JPEGs from my camera to 16-bit mode. It WOULD process photos that had ALREADY been converted to 16-bit mode. And that's where my Catch-22 remained until I bought a camera that output RAW files.

 

Elements 3 CAN open and process many cameras' RAW files (I have done so with Canon CRW and Minolta MRW). And the RAW processing window includes a check-box for converting the file to 16-bit mode!

 

So...with Elements 3 anyway...if I continue to shoot just JPEG, I lose the ability to upscale the images in 16-bit mode (unless I buy some sort of plug-in). But if I shoot RAW, I can convert to 16-bit mode for digital enlarging.

 

A subtle advantage (compared with RAW's other image-quality strengths). But meaningful to me!