If you have resampling turned off, Elements just compresses all of the pixels in the picture. So what you end up with is a higher resolution, small picture. If your goal is to e-mail the picture, my suggestion would be to enable resampling and specify the PPI at 72. That should give you the small file you are looking for.
If you are already doing that, just double-click on the "hand" tool in the toolbox, and your picture will be resized to fill your editing area.
Rusty,
You might try the "save for web" dialogue, and play with the settings until you get the size you want.
🙂
Brent
I have had a similar problem, PSE tells me that many of my images are ALL the same size when I know they are not. So I go back to my old trusty Graphic Converter to see the size, compression, memory, so forth.
<
http://www.pbase.com/image/24149733>
Then I know what the picture is, sizewize and all the other parameters. Then I go back to PSE to resize image, and go back and forth between the 2 programs.
I would LOVE to see a tutorial on this that I could understand. This has always confused me, so thats why I go back to GC to see the info.
Jane
Jane,
Are you looking under Image>Image Size when you have the image open on the desktop in PSE?
Nancy
Hi Nancy, Yes, I do use this and seem to be able to size my pictures pretty well using it, but the size that is under each photo sort of in the frame seems to be the same for most of my pictures. "Doc 9m/Doc 9m" for example and I don’t see how this relates to the size. So I now ignore this as this is what confused me more.
I have to go back to GC or to PSE Image>Size to see what I have for each picture. Resample or not, pixels, inches, resolution, how they relate to eachother. Whew, it is all confusing. I have tried to understand some of the detailed instructions that have been linked from here on the instruction web sites, but still it is not easy.
My pbase.com album pictures are viewable from HUGE to OK, click on the size to view, so I sort of rely on it. But when I need to get a picture at high rez, but not too huge in pixels or inches, thats where I get confused.
When I get my own website, I realize that this becomes more important. Pbase deals with everything, and it makes me lazy.
Thank you for being so patient, as this always has been hard for me to understand. Jane
Jim,
Sorry for the late response. I read your post last night but I’ve been busy and I wanted to try your advice first…..It worked! I thought that I had already tried a resampling of the PPI, but it didn’t work that time for me ( I used 50 PPI). Maybe I left the image dimensions too large or something?
I still have one question…Can I enter any PPI I wish or is 72 the bottom end? I ask because even downsizing my 36Mb/400PPI image size to 8×10 my file is still 1+MB. Obviously I can go to 4×5 and cut it in half but that’s still pretty big for email.
Rusty K
Forget ppi and inches for your purpose.
Just resize to pixel dimensions.
800 pixels long side is generall the largest needed for screen viewing.
Mac
Thanks, Mac – don’t know how we’re ever going to break the ppi habit for screen images…
Mac,
I had already tried that with 480×640. At 400PPI it’s still a huge file. This is for sending not viewing.
Rusty K
Rusty, how huge is the file after being saved? A 480 pixel by 640 pixel file, saved as JPG with at maximum quality/minimum compression might take up 300 kb or more. However, if you ‘dial down’ the quality in the Save for Web dialog (upper right corner), you’ll see the size decline rapidly: at a quality setting of 90, it may be under 200 kb; at 70, under 100 kb; at 40, less than 50 kb. Your results may vary depending on the compressibility of the image (busy images compress less efficiently than those with large expanses of single colors), but these files are plenty small for sending (a 100 kb file will download in about 20 seconds on a 56 kb dialup modem).
Chuck
Rusty, I’d like to know what’s going to "happen" to this picture after it’s sent to somebody else, since you said it’s not for viewing. If it’s just for them to look at within an e-mail message, then "little" is fine. However, if you’re one of my relatives and are trying to send me a picture of great, great, great, great grama Smith that you just unearthed, please don’t take the quality down too much! I know there have been several times I’ve wanted to cry when I saw what happened to an image when people went for fast upload and download time at the expense of giving me something I could use for a decent print.
When sizing for e-mail, I always try to consider what the other person might be going to do with the file. Sometimes e-mail isn’t the most efficient/effective option.
640×480 is the same image file whether "saved as" 40, 400, or 4000 ppi and is the same file size given the same save options.
As others have mentioned, use JPEG. The size/quality of the file is proportional to the quality/compression level you choose for it. Generally, saved as medium quality (5) in Elements, or using SaveForWeb medium quality (50), looks great onscreen and will be 40-55K depending on the makeup of the picture. 40-55K is certainly not a big deal to attach to email, even over dialup.
You can experiment and use somewhat less quality JPEG save (smaller file size, higher compression) according to your taste. Eye of the beholder and all that.
As others have stressed though, don’t expect the receiver to be able to do much with it print-wise.
Mac
Ok…I know I’m sounding really dumb but this program has confused what I thought I understood.
As an example: I have a jpg. up right now that when checked in it’s folder says that it’s 283Kb. I open it and it displays at 33% 6.8×3.9 inches. I go Image/resize/image size and it says that it is 12.3M, W 2723x H 1578 at 400ppi, 6.8×3.9inches (this is how I scanned it).
Ok so I try changing the pixel dimensions as suggest to 640X480, the ppi stays the same 400ppi…the only thing that changes are the dimensions of the image, now a very large high quality 1.2 x1.6 inch image that no one could see.
The only suggestion that has worked is reducing the ppi.
Thanks
Rusty K
OK, let’s try another approach! What do you want to use this image for? Just so somebody can look at the picture within an e-mail message? So the person you’re e-mailing it to can have an image from which they could make a print? If so, how big do you want the print to be? It’s really hard to figure out how to be the most help to you when we’re not sure what "product" you’re looking for.
Beth,
I’m just trying to learn how to use this program and it seems to be throwing me some curves. Changing the ppi has worked for me. Just changing the pixel dimension does not.
I guess to more closely answer your question I want to convert any large file to a smaller "snapshot" for emailing. I’ve done it a million times with other lesser image editors. If they needed a quality print I would send a bigger file.
Either my program is not working correctly or some others who have responded are as confused as I am.
Rusty K
Rusty, your image is pixels, so many by so many.
If you keep the same number of pixels you start with, you haven’t changed the image size, regardless of the ppi, you’ve only re-arranged the pixels to fit in a smaller or larger print size area.
Monitors don’t care about ppi. They read pixel dimensions only. An 800×600 pixel image, for example, at full size, will display same size on the same monitor whether saved as 72ppi or 7200ppi. It will display in both cases as 800×600 pixels, simple as that. Hence the reason that web browsers and HTML code only refers to pixel dimensions, and not ppi or size in inches.
Since we can’t seem to ‘splain things to your satisfaction, a little time at Wayne Fulton’s fine:
scantips.com
would probably serve you well to get the pixel/ppi/inch thing down pat.
Mac
Makes sense to me but that doesn’t seem to be my results. Thanks I’ll check it out
Rusty K
Chuck,
In my opinion you cannot forget PPI altogether. If the user has resampling turned off, it’s going to compress the pixels and make the picture bigger then it needs to be for the web. You have to resample if you want to decrease the size of the image. Rusty did indicate that my solution worked.
Jim, I’ve had the same experience, but I don’t have time to run any samples. Last week I needed to get an image down to teensy for a fast-loading car ad. As long as my (roughly) 600 X 400 image remained at 300ppi, even taking it down to the JPEG setting with highest compression gave me a size of about 80kb. When I resized to 72ppi, I was able to reduce the compression and still get the image down to around 40kb. These are rough numbers, and I had hoped to have time to post the exact results. Maybe later today. Bottom line was, when I reduced the ppi I was able to reduce the file size, too.
I agree somewhat with Chuck that we sometimes get too carried away with worrying about PPI, but when you are concerned about reducing file size that is something that has to be considered.
To answer a previous question as to whether 72 PPI is the minimum that can be used, everything that I have read indicates that is the resolution that most closely matches what the monitor will display, at least on a Windows computer. I suppose you could reduce it some, but it could become detrimental to how your image displays when viewed on the web site. That is something you will just have to experiment with to see what works best for you.
All of a sudden I can not resize my photos. I’ve resized before (Image/Resize/etc..) with no problem. Even though the status bar indicates that the photo dimensions are correct, when I print the photo out, it is the wrong size. Any suggestions?
Try deleting the Elements Preference folder – if you’re sure you’re looking in the right place for the actual image size.
To delete: With Elements closed, click on the start up icon and make a quick grab for the (Win) Control, Alt, and Shift keys (Mac) Command, Option, and Shift. Hold all three down until you get a screen asking if you want to delete Settings. Say Yes. The folder will rebuild as Elements continues to launch.
If this doesn’t correct the problem, please repost with some specific examples. We’ll think of something else! 🙂
Beth, do you have a custom made brush with this text? 😉
Leen
No, but I should have! On my desktop computer I’ve got a tiny doc so I can copy and paste; maybe I should do the same for this one!
Rusty:
You ask, in your original message, "what am I missing?"
I’d say you’re missing the Save for Web facility, under the File menu.
Try this:
Open a picture that you want to resize down to something suitable for the Web. Click on Save for Web, under file.
You should then see a new screen with two copies of your file. Notice that at the right side of the screen there is a panel with two main areas. One is marked Image Size (it’s in the lower part of the right panel). The other, closer to the top, is Settings.
In the Image Size area, there will be a portion that shows the original size, in pixels, of your image. Below that, there’s an area marked new size. Make sure "constrain proportions" is checked. Type in the number of pixels you would like to have in your e-mail version. Let’s say 600 pixels. The other box should immediately show the other dimension, in proportion. Let’s say it shows 400 pixels. Now click the button that’s marked Apply.
So now you have a 600 x 400 pixel image and you want to save it. The top portion of the panel gives you the opportunity to choose the amount of .jpeg compression to apply. You can choose low, medium, high, maximum, or use the slider which appears when (if) you click on Quality. By varying the amount of compression and checking the file size shown under the right preview image, you can get it down to almost any diminutive size you want for e-mailing.
Don’t worry if you don’t see all of your picture in the preview window. Just click on the Zoom at the lower left corner and choose "fit to screen" or any other choice that appeals.
There you are: the whole enchilada and not one mention of "ppi"!
Hope this doesn’t further confuse.
— Ron
Hamilton, ON
Jim, if resampling is turned off, the pixels stay the same – a screen pixel doesn’t change in size – a 640×480 will always take up the same screen area. Now if you’re printing, that’s a different story…..
Chuck
Beth, what you’re describing is not possible unless you had resampling checked on. The ppi box has no effect on the pixel dimensions, which set the basic size of the file prior to adjusting the compression.
Chuck
Jim and Rusty,
You need to go back and read Mac’s postings very carefully. Especially his statement that PIXELS are the only thing the monitor cares about! For monitor viewing, you probably want an image that is about 800 x 600. Resolution is IRRELEVANT! It simply does not make any difference what you set the resolution to. That may sound crazy, but it is absolutely true. If you don’t believe it, take two identical 800×600 images, one at 72ppi and one at 300ppi and display them on a monitor. They will appear exactly the same.
Now, Rusty, the reason you are having so much trouble, I think is that you have Resampling checked and you are trying to resize the image by changing resolution. THat ain’t the way to do it! Change the PIXEL dimensions…to 800 wide with the Constrain Proportions block checked. Now you have the right size image for monitor display. Don’t even worry about the resolution. The monitor is going to ignore it anyway.
Bert
EDIT: After resampling, you might want to use the Unsharp Mask to sharpen it up a little.
Thanks, Bert – we need more converts to the "Forget PPI" club!!
🙂
Chuck,
This issue confuses more people than any other in this forum, I think. Reading Wayne Fulton’s book really cleared up the cobwebs for me. I think everyone in this forum should read it…at least the free excerpt on his website. I bought his book which has a lot more information in it.
Bert
To hammer the point home (once in a while I still do).
One will *never* get an accurate understanding of how to handle web and other screen use graphics thinking in terms of ppi/inch size.
Even if that left-handed approach happens to finally get the actual size image you need for onscreen use, the concept is still not understood and imaging for web design will always suffer, especially in estimating the acutal size a given image will appear on different size monitors running various pixel resolutions.
Mac
OK, sorry everyone. I know how to accomplish what I want to do, but I don’t know how to explain it properly. I apologize for bringing up the PPI issue again. I promise I will stay out of such discussions in the future. No, I’m not mad, just a little bit crazy. I’m out of here on this issue. 🙂 🙂
To hammer the point home (once in a while I still do).
Mac,
Tri-weekly, try weekly or try weakly?
🙂
Bert
Jim, I think it needs to keep coming up because it’s a terribly confusing issue for all of us. Lots of people have workflows that use the ppi to accomplish their goals, and that’s fine. But when it becomes a hindrance to understanding for a new user, we try to simplify it and put ppi into its rightful place: scanning and printing, but not screen images. Thanks for bringing it up – and you should continue to participate!
🙂
Tri-weekly, try weekly or try weakly?
🙂
All applicable 🙂
Mac
