You are not stuck with 180 pp1. Just change the resolution to 300 with resampling OFF in Image>Image Size, and proceed from there. You’ll see that your images suddenly gets "smaller", so resizing may not be necessary. Of course they didn’t really get smaller in terms of pixels, but until you are ready to print it’s pixels you are dealing with.
You can make such a border in several ways. Here’s one: Set the Background color to the border color you want. Increase the canvas size in Image>Canvas Size with Background color selected as the extension color.
thanks Ed. As always, you are ready to help and I (we) appriciate you and all the others that constantly provide assistance.
Bob
"Just change the resolution to 300 with resampling OFF in Image>Image Size"
What exactly does Image Sampling do? Is it good or bad to resample?
if you left resampling on, it would change the pixel dimentions to keep the same printing size of the image as it was before resampling.
resampling with it off just changes the ppi tag in the metadata. so when printing, it will physically pack the dots tighter together and a 300ppi 640x480px image will print much smaller than a 72ppi 640x480px image.
THANKS!!!!! I needed this a few days ago, but now I know for future!!! 🙂
In a related question, under General Preferances, under Image Interpolation there are the folowing options:
Nearest Neighbor
Bilinear
Bicubic
Bicubic Smoother
Bicubic Sharper
I ‘kinda’ know what they mean, but which is best?
iirc, chris cox (engineer for adobe) said that Bicubic Sharper is best for sizing down and Bicubic Smoother is best for sizing up.
erm, or is that reverse?!! 🙂
nearest neighbor is good for things like screen caps.
Bicubic Smoother for enlarging
Bicubic Sharper for reducing
Now What would be best if I resize up & down? 🙂
Not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about resampling up and then down? Avoid that if at all possible.
Both are destructive, but resamplng UP is usually frowned on more, because you are adding pixels out of thin air. It never looks good because Photoshop has to guess at what pixels to add.
When resampling DOWN, you are throwing away pixels, but at least you are not asking the software to make something up.
Best to determine what size /number of pixels you need and go from there. Some people will resample in steps, and there are various methods for this. Maybe someone can expand; I don’t have the info handy.
I mean that I have a project and the stuff I import varies in size…
Sometimes I need to make small adjustments to a picture and those may be either up or down. You don’t normally workl in one direction in a project.
You should try to plan ahead and determine as best you can what the final sizes will be. Every time you resize up or down you are degrading the image. Sometimes you can work on copies and figure it out that way.
There is a ton of stuff on the web about resampling. It can get confusing quite quickly.
I think my point is not coming across fully.
Im talking small adjustments here not full image scales. Sometimes I’ll create a blue box and need to change its shape & sized by only a small bit.
Also a picture, sometimes it may be a small bit to big like a few mm, so I transform it down a bit, you know?
Surely you make changes to most of your objects after you first place them on your canvas??
Im talking small adjustments here not full image scales
Those can really damage an image if you keep doing them over and over again. Once is OK, multiple times is not.
So you are telling me you NEVER EVER EVER adjust an image or object in a design layout?
Let’s say Coca Cola commissioned you to design a poster for their new ad campaign, you must now do the layout for the entire poster, right. It includes text, their logo, a picture of a guy smiling holding a coke, and some fancy background with lots of swirls…:-)
Would you not need to constantly tweak your image until you are happy?? You dont place every single object perfectly, in terms of size and placement on the canvas, first time and export straight away…? You need to adjust things here and there and some more until the design works…
I make as few changes as possible, and like I said, sometimes work on a duplicate, make adjustments to figure out what size I want an image or object to be and do a one shot resize on the original.
Of course an image is more prone to damage than say, a box. And if it’s a Shape, no damage occurs at all.
It all depends. I used to have to do extremely complicated composites. Lots of adjustments were unavoidable, but I would do what I could to minimize the degradation.
Then of course we now have smart objects.
Which don’t lose quality and rasterize right at the end…?
Ummm?
lol. i thought you were kidding thundercross (hence my pogo stick comment!) sorry! 🙂
like everyone says. don’t resize more than necessary. use free transform or something like that to resize and don’t commit until you’ve got it perfect. don’t go back to it and resize again unless you HAVE to! planning is often the key.
Then of course we now have smart objects.
Well, some do. Unfortunately I do not (and did not)
But, to answer Thundercross, as I understand it they rasterize, but only lose quality once, as though only one resize was done. Am I right?
Sorry Im trying to sum up all the facts on this issue here! 🙂
My concern is maintaining as much of the original quality as possible. Vector based objects are the way to go, as I understand it. Of course not everything is vector based.
Smart Objects seems the answer to all my questions, the only problem is when I convert a picture to a smart object and apply a filter it wants to rasterize it, which defeats the point of it being a smart object right?
