You really do seem to have a problem understanding the Image Size command don’t you?! :~(
Try this again:
Image menu/Image Size:
Change the Document Size measurements in the palette to: Width = 8 inches. Leave Constrain Proportions checked unless you want to distort your image. Leave "Resample Image" unchecked unless you want to create artificially-created pixels between your real pixels which will detract from the quality of your image. (We have gone through the "Resolution business with you about half-a-dozen times now!)
Another way to do this is with the Cropping Tool set to a fixed size:
Choose the Crop Tool; set width = 8" and height = 10"; and leave the resolution field empty. Draw with the Crop tool to encompass as much of the image as you can; move it to the best position; and hit Enter.
Aspect ratio is determined by dividing one dimension into the other.
10 ÷ 8.0 = 1.250 10 ÷ 7.5 = 1.333
Simply enlarging the Image Size (Constrain Proportions = OFF) will distort the image by stretching that 7.5" worth of pixels into 8 inches. And you probably don’t want to do that.
You’ll need to either add length to the 7.5" dimension in the form of cloned pixels or as a plain matte, bringing it up to 8.0" or crop your image to 7.5" X 9.375 (9.375 ÷ 7.5 = 1.25…the aspect ratio you’re shooting for), then scale it up (Constrain Proportions = ON) to 8 X 10.
PLEASE read the thread link below in its entirety. Though it started out as a Photoshop Picture Package thread, it contains a detailed discussion of ASPECT RATIOS.
Ramón G Castañeda "Photoshop Picture Packages" 2/25/04 1:52pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/0>
Also, PLEASE read our previous replies addressed specifically to you in the many threads you have initiated on this very subject in the past. I can’t conceive of any way to explain this to you that was left unexplored.
o.k. so i have read through the threads which are mostly regarding "resolution"…i guess i am just really stupid and don’t get it. i have figured out the resolution portion…i just want to know if it is possible to resize w/o effecting the image. from what i gather from other post the image will just distort is that correct. is so that is all i need to know. sorry i have been a pain in the rear, but like i have posted before i am very unknowledgeable when it comes to anything to do with ps
I have found that this issue, aside from inability to comprehend the basics of subtractive color in CMYK printing is one of the highest hurdles some people have to deal with in this business.
Some people simply can NOT grasp the concept. I think the ability is either hard wired in our brains or it’s not.
No, it is NOT a Photoshop issue at all. I can remember standing with customers, at the light table, with a goldenrod sheet ready to expose a printing plate in the vacuum frame. Windows are cut in the goldenrod, ready for the halftones we have made in the process camera to be taped in place.
The customer is holding a particular B&W print she has submitted. The print is 4.5 x 6. She has specified that it go into a 5 x 7 window in the page layout. NOTHING may be cropped from the image. We have explained to her that it will not "fit." That SOMEthing has to give.
I explain that we can either fit all the 6 inch dimension into the 7 inch layout, in which case we will lose some of the 4.5 dimension. Or we can fit all the 4.5 dimension into the 5 inch window size, in which case the long direction of the image will only occupy 6 2/3 inches.
NO amount of explaining, including holding the original against the desired layout gets through. The customer is an intelligent business woman. But absolutely incapable of understanding the concept. She accuses me of being "uncooperative" and rigid. She insists that we could "make it work" if we wanted to and that we just don’t want to go to the effort.
Sometimes an account was lost over things like this. When we had the luxury of ordering scans, we sometimes could specify a non-linear reproduction of height vs width. Of course we can routinely do that at will now, if the over-all change is not large, if round objects need to stay round, etc., etc.
When I first started experiencing this, I thought for sure the "dummy" was either putting me on or just refusing to listen. The concept was just common sense to me. How could anyone not grasp it? I have dealt with photographers, customers, business office personal who just cannot think in these terms. It’s happened so many times that I have realized that these issues are something that some people cannot deal with.
After all, we accept that some people are "tone deaf." We know exactly what causes "color blindness." Why not an inherent spatial perception impairment?
I really feel sorry for my friends who are around when I try to sing a tune. It must sound AWFUL. The notes I sing sound right to me! Why do they keep asking, "Don’t you hear how far off key you are?! One even tried to teach me how to appreciate pitch. But he gave up in frustration when I couln’t tell whether a note he played was higher or lower than another. He refused to believe I was that dumb!
Well, if that person is going to buy a 5×7 frame for an 8×10 picture at a drugstore, there really is nothing, absolutely nothing we can write here that will help that person out. Nothing.
If JEJ should fall into that category, I would only advise him to drop photography and Photoshop alltogether and look for a different hobby (there’s no way he can be doing this for a living). Honestly.
Children learn simple division in grade school and get a rudimentary understanding of ratio. But I don’t think they really grasp proportions as we use the concept.
It’s second nature to us, but I think if you ask a number of people not in the graphic art field to deal with the concept, you will be surprised to find that very many have a real problem with it.
In resizing an image, most people will stay with you regarding the ratio of one dimension of the original to the corresponding dimension of the new size. But ask them to apply that ratio to the other dimension of the original to compute the corresponding measurement in the final, and you’ll get the deer-caught-in-the-headlights stare.
A lot of folks who are not in the graphics arts fields have to have a sound sense of proportions as well. Carpenters, masons, cooks, tailors, dress makers, chemists, …
Ramón’s right…it really is a basic building block of rational thought. It’s a significant part of the human ability to recognize patterns. And the basic math behind it is not Einsteinian in its complexity.
It’s not for nothing that "ratio" and "rational" share the same etymology.
It’s also the reason there are so many of those "Cat is to kitten as Dog is to puppy"-type questions on standardized tests. It’s a good way to measure how well-developed one’s sense of rationale is.
I remember having a long, and cantankerous, argument with an otherwise highly intelligent girl over a photograph of a pony: she simply could not understand why enlarging the photograph would not bring the missing nose of the animal into the picture.
Funny. But probably a different part of the brain was dysfunctioning there.
It must have been her sister who thought that if I removed an offending tree branch from the edge of a family photo that her partially-obscured cousin’s face would be revealed.
In all fairness, she was quite embarassed when she realized how silly her request was. But some day holograms will become perfected and this kind of thing will be possible.
Phosphor,
I admire your faith in human rational thinking. Your clientele must have higher IQs than mine.
Ratio and rational share the same etymology? They have bugs?
Bob can dig a ditch in 3 hours. Jim can dig the same ditch in 4 hours. Working together how long does . . .
A train leaves New York for Chicago traveling at 60 mph. Another simultaneously leaves Chicago for New York at 45 mph. On the west-bound train fillet-mignon is served in the dining car. The train out of chicago has no dining car. How long does it take for the passengers to complain when they learn they are in a math problem?
VL
ps. I understand message threads here routinely spin out of control.
