Crop to Selection?

Sorry - me again. I know you can crop to a marquee selection, and also to a lasso selection. But when I do this, I still end up with the bits in the resultant (rectangular) image that I'd been trying to crop out.

If you can't get rid of unwanted pixels with the crop to selection method, what is the point of having it? You may as well just use the crop tool, right?

Can anyone tell me otherwise?

Thanks in advance,
Jo

From: Mrs Beeble Brock

Sorry - me again. I know you can crop to a marquee selection, and also to a lasso selection. But when I do this, I still end up with the bits in the resultant (rectangular) image that I'd been trying to crop out.
If you can't get rid of unwanted pixels with the crop to selection method, what is the point of having it? You may as well just use the crop tool, right?

Can anyone tell me otherwise?

If I understand your question then you should try Select > Inverse and do the crop to fix your problem.

Thanks for your reply Bill. Maybe I didn't explain my problem as well as I could have.

I have lots and lots of scans and on each page are many images that I need save as individual jpgs. They are odd shapes and some of them protrude into the others' space.

In a perfect world I could use the lasso to select the exact shape I need, then when I select Image > crop it would delete everything outside my selection.

Your suggestion leaves me with the main page separated from the selection, but then I still have to delete the unwanted bits and then crop anyway.

I read the book Photoshop for Dummies and it told me there was a way to crop odd shapes but I can't remember for the life of me exactly what the method was and that book has now been returned to the library in another city.

Jo

Bill Hilton wrote:

From: Mrs Beeble Brock

Sorry - me again. I know you can crop to a marquee selection, and also to a lasso selection. But when I do this, I still end up with the bits in the resultant (rectangular) image that I'd been trying to crop out.
If you can't get rid of unwanted pixels with the crop to selection method, what is the point of having it? You may as well just use the crop tool, right?

Can anyone tell me otherwise?

If I understand your question then you should try Select > Inverse and do the crop to fix your problem.

"Mrs Beeble Brock" wrote in message

In a perfect world I could use the lasso to select the exact shape I need, then when I select Image > crop it would delete everything outside my selection.

"Crop" means to cut to a square or rectangle. That's what it means, and that is what it does. Now what you can do in this world that is imperfect because it doesn't care that you don't understand what Crop means is this: Select, New Layer by Cut, and repeat until all the images are on a separate layer, then save layers as images.

Thank you for your helpful reply. You may like to read this definition of crop which gives no reference to rectangles:
v. cropped, crop·ping, crops
v. tr.

1.
1. To cut or bite off the tops or ends of: crop a hedge; sheep cropping grass.
2. To cut (hair, for example) very short.
3. To clip (an animal's ears, for example).
4. To trim (a photograph or picture, for example).
2.
1. To harvest: crop salmon.
2. To cause to grow or yield a crop.

I don't think there is anything wrong with my understanding of the word and I will therefore assume you simply forgot to place the ;) emoticon in your message.

jjs wrote:

"Mrs Beeble Brock" wrote in message

In a perfect world I could use the lasso to select the exact shape I need, then when I select Image > crop it would delete everything outside my selection.

"Crop" means to cut to a square or rectangle. That's what it means, and that is what it does. Now what you can do in this world that is imperfect because it doesn't care that you don't understand what Crop means is this: Select, New Layer by Cut, and repeat until all the images are on a separate layer, then save layers as images.

I don't think there is anything wrong with my understanding of the word and I will therefore assume you simply forgot to place the ;) emoticon in your message.

In the context of digital imaging, "crop" means "crop to a rectangle." All pixel-based images are always square or rectangular, without exception.

When you crop a selection, it crops to the smallest rectangle that will contain the entire selection, because "cropping" a pixel-based image always means cropping to a rectangle, without regard to the *content* of the image.

It sounds like you want to remove some of the *content* of the image, which is something else entirely; cropping won't do what you want.

--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Mrs Beeble Brock wrote:

Thank you for your helpful reply. You may like to read this definition of crop which gives no reference to rectangles:
v. cropped, crop·ping, crops
v. tr.

<< Snipped bits out >>

4. To trim (a photograph or picture, for example).

However, you may like to learn that in Photoshop, cropping- or specifically, using the Crop Tool- does mean perforce: rectangles.

Morehowevereven, I think you can achieve what you want by making a selection, hitting Cmd-J (Alt -J on 'Doze?), creating a new layer with that selection. Repeat until all objects are in their own layer, and then creating separate files from there if you wish.

--
John McWilliams

In article <Hgl7d.8860$
nz says...

Thank you for your helpful reply. You may like to read this definition of crop which gives no reference to rectangles:
v. cropped, crop

In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

I don't think there is anything wrong with my understanding of the word and I will therefore assume you simply forgot to place the ;) emoticon in your message.

In the context of digital imaging, "crop" means "crop to a rectangle." All pixel-based images are always square or rectangular, without exception.
When you crop a selection, it crops to the smallest rectangle that will contain
the entire selection, because "cropping" a pixel-based image always means cropping to a rectangle, without regard to the *content* of the image.
It sounds like you want to remove some of the *content* of the image, which is
something else entirely; cropping won't do what you want.

The usual 'term of art' for cutting out an arbitrary shape is "close cropping". The OP's confusion is quite understandable IMHO.

A nice, non-destructive way to close-crop is via masking: once the desired area is marqueed, Add Layer Mask > Reveal Selection. Once you have a mask, you can paint on it in black or white to change what's hidden or revealed, at any time, because the entire image, visible or not, remains in the file. You can also apply filters to the mask; for example a Gaussian Blur will create a vignette effect.

--
Odysseus

"Odysseus" wrote in message

In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

I don't think there is anything wrong with my understanding of the word and I will therefore assume you simply forgot to place the ;) emoticon in your message.

In the context of digital imaging, "crop" means "crop to a rectangle." All
pixel-based images are always square or rectangular, without exception.
When you crop a selection, it crops to the smallest rectangle that will contain
the entire selection, because "cropping" a pixel-based image always means cropping to a rectangle, without regard to the *content* of the image.
It sounds like you want to remove some of the *content* of the image, which
is
something else entirely; cropping won't do what you want.

The usual 'term of art' for cutting out an arbitrary shape is "close cropping". The OP's confusion is quite understandable IMHO.

You can't redefine "crop" to please yourself but you are just plain wrong. PS was built around the photographic paradigm where CROP is well known, and it was derrived from earlier conventions that mean the same thing. Revise history at your own risk. Get it?

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article <Hgl7d.8860$>,

nz says...

Thank you for your helpful reply. You may like to read this definition of crop which gives no reference to rectangles:
v. cropped, crop

"jjs" wrote in message

"Hunt" wrote in message

In article <Hgl7d.8860$>,

nz says...

Thank you for your helpful reply. You may like to read this definition of crop which gives no reference to rectangles:
v. cropped, crop

Hi Odysseus, thanks for your reply. I guess I should have said "close cropping" and I appreciate your response.

Best wishes,
Jo

Odysseus wrote:

In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

I don't think there is anything wrong with my understanding of the word and I will therefore assume you simply forgot to place the ;) emoticon in your message.

In the context of digital imaging, "crop" means "crop to a rectangle." All pixel-based images are always square or rectangular, without exception.
When you crop a selection, it crops to the smallest rectangle that will contain
the entire selection, because "cropping" a pixel-based image always means cropping to a rectangle, without regard to the *content* of the image.
It sounds like you want to remove some of the *content* of the image, which is
something else entirely; cropping won't do what you want.

The usual 'term of art' for cutting out an arbitrary shape is "close cropping". The OP's confusion is quite understandable IMHO.
A nice, non-destructive way to close-crop is via masking: once the desired area is marqueed, Add Layer Mask > Reveal Selection. Once you have a mask, you can paint on it in black or white to change what's hidden or revealed, at any time, because the entire image, visible or not, remains in the file. You can also apply filters to the mask; for example a Gaussian Blur will create a vignette effect.

Thanks for replying John. Yes I've found the script for what you describe useful.
Cheers,
Jo

John McWilliams wrote:

Mrs Beeble Brock wrote:

Thank you for your helpful reply. You may like to read this definition of crop which gives no reference to rectangles:
v. cropped, crop·ping, crops
v. tr.

<< Snipped bits out >>

4. To trim (a photograph or picture, for example).

However, you may like to learn that in Photoshop, cropping- or specifically, using the Crop Tool- does mean perforce: rectangles.
Morehowevereven, I think you can achieve what you want by making a selection, hitting Cmd-J (Alt -J on 'Doze?), creating a new layer with that selection. Repeat until all objects are in their own layer, and then creating separate files from there if you wish.

Thanks for replying Hunt, yes the automated script does a nice job on this and the background is no problem - I'm just using the paper background that surrounds each image.

Cheers,
Jo

Hunt wrote:

Unfortunately, any dictionary is going to come up a bit short on the dennotations of the word "crop," in the context of image editing. As Tacit points out, within the Photoshop world, and all of imaging, you WILL get a square or rectangle. His, and John McWilliams' idea of making the Selection from your irregular image and placing it on a separate Layer and then creating a new image from those Layers should yield the result that you wish. The choices that you have from that point are basically two: Do you want a square, or rectangular print with the irregular image within it? If so, what background color will you choose? OR Do you want to cut the irregular image out of, say the 8.5 x 11 image onto which it is printed? Then the background color isn't at all important, except prehaps to tell you where to cut.
Hunt

In article
wrote:

"Odysseus" wrote in message

[snip]

The usual 'term of art' for cutting out an arbitrary shape is "close cropping". The OP's confusion is quite understandable IMHO.

You can't redefine "crop" to please yourself but you are just plain wrong. PS was built around the photographic paradigm where CROP is well known, and it was derrived from earlier conventions that mean the same thing. Revise history at your own risk. Get it?

Where did I imply I wanted to revise history? I was just pointing out that to someone unfamiliar with the terminology, the distinction between "cropping" (framing in a rectangle) and "close cropping" might not be very obvious.

--
Odysseus