Rusty,
When you drag an image onto another canvas, the resolution of both should be the same. From what you have written, I suspect the canvas you are dragging it onto is NOT 400 ppi. So, PSE corrects the resolution of the dragged image to the value of the canvas, and if the canvas is less than 400 ppi, then the image gets a lot bigger.
You should always try to keep the image you are dragging and its destination canvas at the same resolution to avoid surprises.
Bert
EDIT: The 66% magnification has nothing to do with how big the image will be when you drag it. That’s just PSE’s resampled size for display.
Rusty,
The 1.5 inches at 400ppi means that this image will PRINT out at 1.5 inches IF the resolution of the image is kept at 400ppi. This same square will print out at over 8 inches if the image has a resolution of 72 ppi. Dropping the 400 res image into the one on your workarea, which probably had a resolution around 72, forces the pasted one to assume the resolution of the one you are pasting to. As Bert says, it is best to have resolutions equal when transferring from one image to another to avoid size surprises.
You could dupe your image, change the resolution to match your "base" image and select the area to paste. or…
You could resample the current ‘1.5 inch square’ (which might be more helpful to instead think of in terms of x number of pixels by x number of pixels) to change the resolution. or…you could use Ctrl/- a couple of times to shrink the dispayed size of the image, select the layer in the Layers Palette of the pasted item, ctrl/click on that layer to select the data and use "Scale" to reduce the size of the pasted in stuff (dragging inwards from a corner while holding the shift key down to maintain proportions.
Best to check the resolution of your CD insert if you were planning on printing it out. It sounds like it is of low resolution. One needs a resolution of between 150-300 ppi for decent printing.
Rusty, here’s an alternative approach to the problem you describe.
Instead of looking at the ppi resolution of the two images you’re trying to combine, look at their pixel dimensions; if both images have the same pixel dimensions (for instance, 2000 by 1500), when you drop one on the other, the top one will exactly cover the bottom one. If one of them has smaller pixel dimensions (for instance, 800 by 600), dragging the smaller one on top of the larger one will result in a small image appearing as an overlay on the large one. Therefore, to fit several images on top of another as layers, the smaller ones must have smaller pixel dimensions than the base that’s going to be used to hold them.
With respect to printing, I would keep the base image at its full pixel dimension size and downsize the pixel dimensions of each of the images being dragged to it by resampling. If the base is a blank canvas, then I’d start with and 8 by 10 by 300 ppi; that would give you a good basis for printing.
Also, forget about the percentage shown in the window; that’s merely an indicator of the display size and has virtually nothing to do with your final image print size.
Thank you all very much!
I’ll work with your suggestions and report.
Thanks again,
Rusty K
Good job, Nancy…and Chuck.
Rusty, don’t get too frustrated; it’s one of the most perplexing topics in the Elements world, second only to color management/monitor profiles – which I don’t understand at all in spite of the best efforts of the forum’s best!
I’m with you, Chuck. Even though I’ve been beaten with sticks by the pros, I leave Color Management turned off.
🙂
bert
Thanks again everyone!
You were exactly right. My original image was at 72ppi and I was dragging a 400ppi image into it. I think I’m beginning to get a clue.
But not without more questions ha! My print scanner’s max ppi it 400 if I’m not mistaken. I want the best quality images at all times if possible. Can I just do all my work at 400ppi or is this too simplitic and approach.
I’ll save the color management stuff for another day.
My only gripe about this wonderful software is that the help file and manual seem to be so very basic. They leave a lot of questions unanswered.
Merry Christmas,
Rusty K
Re: Color management..I leave it OFF. My prints are beautiful…i don’t need to know anything more about it…..well, someday 🙂
Any improvement past 300ppi for your image is generally negligible in ink jet printing. Do your own experiment to prove that to yourself.
Many inkets print at 720 and 1440 dpi equivalent (claimed, anyway). The 300ppi image "rule" applies to them also; few users put up with the increased file sizes and slower printing associated with higher ppi images for the very slight improvment which might be gained.
Again, this is due to image PPI and printer DPI not being equivalent measurements of "resolution".
Mac
Let me elbow in, Rusty. IGNORE that "400ppi" from your printer. This is a subject that can be quite controversial and confusing. What you do need to know is that the resolution of your printer is measuring something different than the resolution of your image file. Elements gives you a resolution measured in pixels, but those settings on your printer are measuring the manner in which ink is put on paper. Make life simple for yourself. Choose a resolution for your print (400 might be a little more than you need, but experiments can wait until another day), and then choose what you determine to be the best setting for your printer, without paying attention to the numbers. In the olden days, printer resolution did measure something that was comparable from printer to printer. Nowadays, there are a number of different technologies, and what might in the past have been a "dot" could now be a splatter, a sprinkle, or a spray.
And you’re right about Help and the manual. Both are OK if you know what you’re looking for. If you don’t, they’re close to useless. There are a couple of books out for Elements that can be very useful, though. You might want to do a forum search, because that subject has come up a number of times rather recently, and some good posts have been done.
I’ll do the forum search.
Thanks Beth and all.
Rusty,
Unless your scanner is many years old, I think the resolution is probably higher. What make and model is it?
Scanning at 300 ppi is probably sufficient if you want a print out the same size as the original. However, if you plan on cropping away part of the image, but don’t want to loose too much in the way of printed size, in order to end up with a cropped image close to 300 ppi for printing, scan at a higher res. than 300. Then go to Image>Resize>Image Size, and with "Resample" UNCHECKED change only one variable…change the res. to 300ppi.
If you desire a printout which is larger than the original, scan at a higher res. and then in PSE do the above Image Size change.
Nancy,
My scanner/printer is the Lexmark X83. I believe 400ppi is the max for this scanner?
Ummm….now I’m wondering when to resample and when not to. I’ve been doing just what you suggested but I forgot to uncheck resample.
I figured out that it’s my digital camera that has been the root of my confusion. I always set it for best quality/large pixel dimensions. I didn’t realize that it was saving all the files at 72ppi. This explains why It’s always been easy to resize my camera shots for email etc. and so it’s when I scanned a photo at 400ppi that I started having problems….a newbie mistake.
Now I just change the ppi as per your suggestion….but the resample thing I’m still a little shakey on.
Thanks,
Rusty K
Rusty,
I have the Resample UNchecked if I want to keep all the original pixels. This means I don’t want the program to either add ficticious, guessed at pixels in between authenticate ones as seen by the camera NOR just throw away pixels irretreivably to lessen the image in terms of pixel dimensions. With it Unchecked, I can manipulate the printed size through resolution, though it would also be fair to say I can manipulate the resolution through the printed size.
There are occasions for using "Resamle" though. For example, constructing an image from a digital camera that would just fill up someone’s monitor and they wouldn’t have to scroll. The image from camera probably had around 2K pixels in the direction and you need something around 800 pixels, so they get tossed out the window.
Remember—-always work on a copy of your image. Save your originals, untouched, in a separate location (like burned to CD).
Nancy
Well now, if you scanned for example a 4×6 at 400 ppi with the intention of producing an image for email, this isn’t the goods. You would have an image that is 1600 x 2400 pixels. To fit on a monitor for emailing, we need about 500-600 pixels in height and around 750-800 in width (more easily refered to as 600×800). So, the 1600 needs to drop down to 600 and the 2400 down to 800 pixels. Pixels must be discarded, therefore we need to have Resample checked.
Images from your camera at 72ppi….duplicate image–double click "background" layer–File>Save As, to name it and change it’s format to ,psd—open back up, edit as desired> save > if printing, go to Image>Resize>Image Size, with Resample UNchecked, change the resolution to one suitable for printing (150-300 ppi)> if it will print out smaller than desired, your best quality will be to stick within the suitable resolutions even if it is smaller than you wanted. BUT, you could fudge a little and use a modest amount of Upsampling (having the Resample checked)to slightly increase the number of pixels in the image (though they were interoplated by PSE, not original from camera). Having a slight addition to number of pixels might be wants needed to keep a decent printing resolution for a desired size. Resample does degrade an image.
I’d add just one embellishment to what Nancy described:
The 4×6 you scanned to 1600×2400 will scale down to 533×800 if you follow her excellent instructions; the 600×800 dimensions are generally found with digital point-and shoot camera images that have a long-to-short side ratio of 4:3 instead of 3:2 like your scan. Make sure Constrain proportions is always checked on.
Chuck
I’ve printed all this out to digest further later.
I’m a little dissappointed that I’ve already handled many photos incorrectly. I do keep a folder "unprocessed" where I keep the originals to sort through. Photoshop is my default so they are saved there already but not as layered images.
When do you use TIFF format?
Thanks so much for your help. I’m a musician but the digital photography bug has bitten me also. It’s another wonderful form of expression for me.
Rusty K
Rusty , That’s it !!! You’ve hit the key words ; ‘ form of expression’ ….yes, that’s a paragraph that doesn’t need explanation. Thank you !
Rusty: TIFF is a very useful format, in that it’s lossless (none of the compression bugaboos associated with JPEG) and it’s universal enough that most image reading software can handle it (unlike PSD, which baffles some image readers). I save most of my originals in TIFF and use it most of the time for edited images, too (it supports layers, just like PSD). Downside is that its files are very large and consume lots of hard drive and/or CD/DVD storage space. But it really can’t be beat for all-around preservation of your images.
Chuck
Thanks Chuck,
I thought that was the story on TIFF but just needed to hear your confirmation. So in short if it’s an important picture TIFF would be the way to go.
Honestly I can’t see any difference, visually, but I can certainly understand about the importance of uncompressed data. It’s the same in digital audio. I guess what’s the "same" is….digital information.
Rusty K
Rusty, you won’t see the difference on the screen unless you look at a JPEG that’s been severely damaged through multiple edits and compressions. It might become more obvious if you make prints, but it has to be pretty severe to be that noticeable.
Thanks for sticking with us – you ask some great questions!
Happy Holidays to you!
Chuck
