Unhinged cropping...

JerryLevin · #1 01-06-2006, 05:48 AM

Yet another CS2 question...

We have a client that we are creating a series of photos for; these will be going into her portfolio for her clientele.

The request is that all the photos each be a max of 14" on the long side, regardless of the other side's length. These are all different sizes (not constrained to fit in photo frames).

Is there a way in CS2 to crop with a "loose" aspect ratio, so that I can use ruler guides (already in place) to crop against, and ensure the long side will be 14 inches, and the other side will simply be what the guides dictate?

In other words, we don't know what the other side's length will be (only the edges defined by the guides), and I'm trying to avoid having to measure and scale and define the crop dimensions for each image.

Alternatively, if I simply draw a marquis and crop "free form" via the Image menu, I don't get to define the print size as I do when using the crop tool, and don't want to fall into scaling/resize issues per se.

It's late so I'm hoping the question makes some sense.

As always, many thanks!

Chuck_Kimmerle · #2 01-06-2006, 10:28 AM

Jerry,

One way might be to crop the images as you see fit using the crop tool without any width or height parameters (so they'll all be slightly different) then run the images through Fit Image using the Batch command.

It's two steps rather than the one step you were hoping for, but it'll work.

Chuck

Ian_Wood · #3 01-06-2006, 10:29 AM

Crop them as normal without dimensions, and then run a batch action on them that uses File>Automate>Fit Image... and then a resize with resample unchecked to get the right ppi.
Fit Image allows you to enter pixel dimensions for height and width, e.g 4200x4200 (for 14" at 300ppi), and will reduce images to fit within that rectangle.

Ian

NorbertBissinger · #4 01-06-2006, 12:15 PM

NO! Not croppng

With the guides in place go to View-Snapto-Guides. Use the Rectangular Marquee Tool feather set to 0 and drag a selection. It will snap to the guides.

Now go to Edit-Copy followed by Ctrl+N (File New) must be same Resolution color does not matter.

Now do a Edit-Past (Ctr+V) and you are done.

You can flatten or go to Image-Canvas Size and expand the canvas in all or the direction you want and fill with color to have a border around. Like the bottom only and fill with white (Edit-fill) for the description of the art.

Good luck.

JerryLevin · #5 01-06-2006, 06:58 PM

Hi Ian - thanks, with questions to follow:

If I
A) Crop with no dimensions specified, then
B) File/Fit Image with desired pixel count for the long side (e.g. 4200 px), but don't specify the other side (which is the reason I'm going through this in the first place),

I end up with an image that's not the right dimension (i.e. in my test case, it's about 10.5 inches on the long side). Fit Image doesn't appear to care what value I enter, as it can be anything but the resulting image size is always the same. In other words, Fit Image doesn't auto-calcuate the other dimension, keeping it constrained.

If I then resize w/o resampling, my final resolution has now gone from 300 dpi to 234 dpi. This seems to be the case whether I go through Fit Image or not.

Questions:
1. What does Fit Image do for me, since the resulting dimensions are the same?

2. If I resize w/o sampling, I appear to be losing resolution (or more accurately, probably keeping the original resolution which is now "diluted" for lack of a better term). If I do enable resampling, then the resolution stays at 300 dpi. Does this mean that whenever I crop to dimensions that are larger than what the original dpi was at, that PS is automatically up-rezing the image? In other words, is resize with sampling really what cropping does, when the original dpi wasn't really there? We've always had fantastic results with cropping, but I've wondered if resizing was going on behind the scenes.

So - partially confused but I think I know what's going on...
Thanks!

Johan_Elzenga · #6 01-06-2006, 08:08 PM

You don't seem to understand the difference between 'Fit Image' and 'Image Size'. You HAVE TO fill in both fields in 'Fit Image', because that way you tell Photoshop to resize to either 4200 pixels high, or 4200 wide, depending on whether your photo is a portrait or landscape photo. That is the whole purpose of Fit Image. If you fill in only one field, you may as well use 'Image Size'.

JerryLevin · #7 01-06-2006, 08:41 PM

Totally true - the difference in the end result eludes me, along with how to know what the px count of all the images' short sides are.

The comment from Ian stated:
Crop them as normal without dimensions, and then run a batch action on them that uses File>Automate>Fit Image... and then a resize with resample unchecked to get the right ppi..

That sounds to me like I was being advised to go through Fit Image and then follow that with an Image Size, which didn't seem to make sense (still doesn't). And - since I didn't know the px count needed for the short side of the image w/o very accurate measuring via another PS tool, using Fit Image isn't helpful. Seems like you said - going from crop to Image Size is what I need to do.

To restate - I have a lot of images to work through on this, each sized differently from each other. So I can't simply find out the px count for just one photo, and then do a batch for all the others since there's no hard-coded value to use for the short side.

Or - am I missing something else here?

Thanks, Johan