Banner

D
Posted By
DeclanWorld
Jun 19, 2010
Views
1625
Replies
39
Status
Closed
I’ve been asked to design a sports club banner (for free). The dimensions are 120" X 48". I’ve been working on a PSD with those dimensions at 300dpi but the file is massive and the machine struggles with it ( I have a Hewlett-Packard HP xw8400 Workstation with two 3.00 gigahertz Intel Xeon processors and 3MB RAM).

Any suggestions to make the job run quicker?

Declan

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

V
Voivod
Jun 19, 2010
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:07:09 +0100, "DeclanWorld" scribbled:

3MB RAM

Three megs of RAM? There’s your problem right there…
J
Joel
Jun 19, 2010
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

I’ve been asked to design a sports club banner (for free). The dimensions are 120" X 48". I’ve been working on a PSD with those dimensions at 300dpi but the file is massive and the machine struggles with it ( I have a Hewlett-Packard HP xw8400 Workstation with two 3.00 gigahertz Intel Xeon processors and 3MB RAM).

Any suggestions to make the job run quicker?

So you are working on 24:2 ratio, and most print job should be fine at 150-PPI, and should be fine with JPG format. Or if you save as TIFF then the size could be pretty large.

The largest size I printed is around 36×24" and the size is around 12MB. So yours should be larger than 50-60MB the most (?). And I don’t know if banner needs to be finer than portrait (?)

Quicker? Photoshop loves memory and depending on the OS, if you run Win7 64-bit then it can benefit from lets say 8MB (6MB would do).

Declan
J
jjs
Jun 19, 2010
In article <MSTSn.8253$>,
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

I’ve been asked to design a sports club banner (for free). The dimensions are 120" X 48". I’ve been working on a PSD with those dimensions at 300dpi but the file is massive and the machine struggles with it ( I have a Hewlett-Packard HP xw8400 Workstation with two 3.00 gigahertz Intel Xeon processors and 3MB RAM).

Any suggestions to make the job run quicker?

That’s a job for vector imaging. The file will be tiny, but the image will scale to anything you can print.
J
Joel
Jun 19, 2010
John Stafford wrote:

In article <MSTSn.8253$>,
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

I’ve been asked to design a sports club banner (for free). The dimensions are 120" X 48". I’ve been working on a PSD with those dimensions at 300dpi but the file is massive and the machine struggles with it ( I have a Hewlett-Packard HP xw8400 Workstation with two 3.00 gigahertz Intel Xeon processors and 3MB RAM).

Any suggestions to make the job run quicker?

That’s a job for vector imaging. The file will be tiny, but the image will scale to anything you can print.

I agree with you that vector would be better tool for banner. Of course I don’t have any experience with vector program, but have played with few vector files in the past.
D
DeclanWorld
Jun 19, 2010
"Joel" wrote in message
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

I’ve been asked to design a sports club banner (for free). The dimensions are 120" X 48". I’ve been working on a PSD with those dimensions at 300dpi but the file is massive and the machine struggles with it ( I have a Hewlett-Packard HP xw8400 Workstation with two 3.00 gigahertz Intel Xeon processors and 3MB RAM).

Any suggestions to make the job run quicker?

So you are working on 24:2 ratio, and most print job should be fine at 150-PPI, and should be fine with JPG format. Or if you save as TIFF then the size could be pretty large.

The largest size I printed is around 36×24" and the size is around 12MB. So yours should be larger than 50-60MB the most (?). And I don’t know if banner needs to be finer than portrait (?)

Quicker? Photoshop loves memory and depending on the OS, if you run Win7 64-bit then it can benefit from lets say 8MB (6MB would do).

Thanks everyone for the advice. Joel, I’ve managed to save a maximum quality JPG at 200 PPI at 12′ x 4′ – the file came to 15MB, so I’m happy with that.

I had installed XP 64 bit some time ago to take advantage of the actual 10MB of RAM in the machine but, after some of my other software refusing to run on it, I reverted back to 32 bit.

The PC’s very fast with my normal editing but I ran into a brick wall with the scale of this job. The banner’s needed for the start of July, so I have no time to start learning the likes of Illustrator and get the job done by then.

Thanks again.

DEclan
J
Joel
Jun 20, 2010
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

"Joel" wrote in message
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

I’ve been asked to design a sports club banner (for free). The dimensions are 120" X 48". I’ve been working on a PSD with those dimensions at 300dpi but the file is massive and the machine struggles with it ( I have a Hewlett-Packard HP xw8400 Workstation with two 3.00 gigahertz Intel Xeon processors and 3MB RAM).

Any suggestions to make the job run quicker?

So you are working on 24:2 ratio, and most print job should be fine at 150-PPI, and should be fine with JPG format. Or if you save as TIFF then the size could be pretty large.

The largest size I printed is around 36×24" and the size is around 12MB. So yours should be larger than 50-60MB the most (?). And I don’t know if banner needs to be finer than portrait (?)

Quicker? Photoshop loves memory and depending on the OS, if you run Win7 64-bit then it can benefit from lets say 8MB (6MB would do).

Thanks everyone for the advice. Joel, I’ve managed to save a maximum quality JPG at 200 PPI at 12′ x 4′ – the file came to 15MB, so I’m happy with that.

If you need good photo quality and won’t mind to increase the size a little more, you may try "RESIZE" the image by "PERCENTAGE" and it may help with the print. Lets say increasing it to 100% or 150%

I had installed XP 64 bit some time ago to take advantage of the actual 10MB of RAM in the machine but, after some of my other software refusing to run on it, I reverted back to 32 bit.

If I am not mistaken WinXP only recognized around 3MB (?), if more than that then you will have to add some parameter to some thing somewhere I have read several times but I have very short memory.

And if you are not afraid of Win7 then I would suggest to go for Win7 which is lot faster and more stable than WinXP. But as some of us are talking in other threat that Win7 requires graphic card with DirectX-9 minimum, and newer sound card for something I don’t remember. I never care about graphic and sound card, but I had to replace both of them for Win-7 64-bit to work correctly.

The PC’s very fast with my normal editing but I ran into a brick wall with the scale of this job. The banner’s needed for the start of July, so I have no time to start learning the likes of Illustrator and get the job done by then.

I read but never need the feature for my work, but it seems like with banner you may need to merge multiple photos, text etc. together. In this case, you may do some research on the "Smart Object" of newer Photoshop (it may be available since CS2 or something like that).

From what I read or saw on some video tutorial, the Smart Object is pretty similar to vector, or you can enlarge the size without losing the quality (sharpness) or very little comparing to regular photo.

Thanks again.

DEclan
V
Voivod
Jun 20, 2010
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:11:38 -0500, Joel scribbled:

I had installed XP 64 bit some time ago to take advantage of the actual 10MB of RAM in the machine but, after some of my other software refusing to run on it, I reverted back to 32 bit.

If I am not mistaken WinXP only recognized around 3MB (?), if more than that then you will have to add some parameter to some thing somewhere I have read several times but I have very short memory.

Could you guys try and get GIG and MEG straight in your heads. My Commadore Amiga had 3 MEGS of RAM….
N
N
Jun 20, 2010
"Voivod" wrote in message
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:11:38 -0500, Joel scribbled:

I had installed XP 64 bit some time ago to take advantage of the actual 10MB
of RAM in the machine but, after some of my other software refusing to run
on it, I reverted back to 32 bit.

If I am not mistaken WinXP only recognized around 3MB (?), if more than that then you will have to add some parameter to some thing somewhere I have
read several times but I have very short memory.

Could you guys try and get GIG and MEG straight in your heads. My Commadore Amiga had 3 MEGS of RAM….

But surely 3MB is all anyone would ever need 🙂


N
V
Voivod
Jun 20, 2010
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:26:44 +1000, "N" scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:11:38 -0500, Joel scribbled:

I had installed XP 64 bit some time ago to take advantage of the actual 10MB
of RAM in the machine but, after some of my other software refusing to run
on it, I reverted back to 32 bit.

If I am not mistaken WinXP only recognized around 3MB (?), if more than that then you will have to add some parameter to some thing somewhere I have
read several times but I have very short memory.

Could you guys try and get GIG and MEG straight in your heads. My Commadore Amiga had 3 MEGS of RAM….

But surely 3MB is all anyone would ever need 🙂

"I think there is a world market for about five computers."

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
D
Dave
Jun 20, 2010
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:49:30 -0400, Voivod wrote:
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

Correct me if I’m wrong, I recall this as Bill Gates words
D
DeclanWorld
Jun 20, 2010
"Voivod" wrote in message

Could you guys try and get GIG and MEG straight in your heads. My Commadore Amiga had 3 MEGS of RAM….

Oops, sorry

Declan
V
Voivod
Jun 20, 2010
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:16:09 +0200, Dave scribbled:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:49:30 -0400, Voivod wrote:
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

Correct me if I’m wrong, I recall this as Bill Gates words

Actually it’s not. Or rather, he claims he never said it. The first quote is also misattributed to the President of IBM back in the ’50’s but I like it a lot so I ignore not knowing who really said it.
D
DeclanWorld
Jun 20, 2010
"Joel" wrote in message

And if you are not afraid of Win7 then I would suggest to go for Win7 which is lot faster and more stable than WinXP. But as some of us are talking in other threat that Win7 requires graphic card with DirectX-9 minimum, and newer sound card for something I don’t remember. I never care
about graphic and sound card, but I had to replace both of them for Win-7 64-bit to work correctly.

I have XP 64-bit on a disk – it too will run all 10GB of my RAM I think I’ll give that a go on a spare drive.

In the meantime, I’m going to send the 200PPI JPG to the printer to see what he says.

Declan
J
Joel
Jun 21, 2010
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

"Joel" wrote in message

And if you are not afraid of Win7 then I would suggest to go for Win7 which is lot faster and more stable than WinXP. But as some of us are talking in other threat that Win7 requires graphic card with DirectX-9 minimum, and newer sound card for something I don’t remember. I never care
about graphic and sound card, but I had to replace both of them for Win-7 64-bit to work correctly.

I have XP 64-bit on a disk – it too will run all 10GB of my RAM I think I’ll give that a go on a spare drive.

I never tried WinXP 64-bit to know much about it.

In the meantime, I’m going to send the 200PPI JPG to the printer to see what he says.

For banner which mean it will be seeing from distance so it should be fine. I printed quite afew 24×36" portraits at around 150-PPI and they looked great from 1′ away (they looked fine at around 130-PPI too).

So, your should be fine.

Declan
J
jjs
Jun 21, 2010
In article ,
Joel wrote:

For banner which mean it will be seeing from distance so it should be fine. I printed quite afew 24×36" portraits at around 150-PPI and they looked great from 1′ away (they looked fine at around 130-PPI too).

How do you know that the printer’s engine doesn’t interpolate to ~360ppi?
D
DeclanWorld
Jun 21, 2010
"Joel" wrote in message
For banner which mean it will be seeing from distance so it should be fine. I printed quite afew 24×36" portraits at around 150-PPI and they looked great from 1′ away (they looked fine at around 130-PPI too).
So, your should be fine.

Thanks for that, Joel – I’m feeling a little more confident.

I’ll let you know the outcome.

Declan
J
Joel
Jun 21, 2010
John Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

For banner which mean it will be seeing from distance so it should be fine. I printed quite afew 24×36" portraits at around 150-PPI and they looked great from 1′ away (they looked fine at around 130-PPI too).

How do you know that the printer’s engine doesn’t interpolate to ~360ppi?

I ask you, not?

The lab recommends uploading 150-300 PPI then they take care the rest, and some lab may give/ask few other option like paper type, auto-correct or not etc.. And I just did what I can or care to do at my end, and this is the REASON why I have the result to share with you and other.
J
Joel
Jun 21, 2010
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

"Joel" wrote in message
For banner which mean it will be seeing from distance so it should be fine. I printed quite afew 24×36" portraits at around 150-PPI and they looked great from 1′ away (they looked fine at around 130-PPI too).
So, your should be fine.

Thanks for that, Joel – I’m feeling a little more confident.
I’ll let you know the outcome.

And don’t forget that I have mentioned in earlier message that I increased the "Image Size" using "Percentage" option.

Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so) by adapting the technique of 3rd party program, and it works quite well.

I haven’t tried large print without it to see the difference, but I sometime using low-rez photo download from internet to make DVD Label. And sometime I can only find very small size like 30-50K, so I have to use this feature, and sometime I have to increase to 500+% and print with inkjet printer.

Declan
AM
Andrew Morton
Jun 22, 2010
Joel wrote:
Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so)

Err… no, it’s been there a long time. I’ve just looked in PS6 and it was there. Maybe you’re thinking of increasing size a relative amount, which was added at some time after PS6.


Andrew
J
Joel
Jun 22, 2010
"Andrew Morton" wrote:

Joel wrote:
Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so)

Err… no, it’s been there a long time. I’ve just looked in PS6 and it was there. Maybe you’re thinking of increasing size a relative amount, which was added at some time after PS6.

Could be, cuz I usually upgrade every other version, and don’t often learn all newer features so I do miss quite a bit until really need it. Example, I have read and saw several videos about the newer Magic Wand and similar, but I have no need for it so I haven’t the Magic Wand for years.
J
jaSPAMc
Jun 22, 2010
"Andrew Morton" found these unused words:

Joel wrote:
Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so)

Err… no, it’s been there a long time. I’ve just looked in PS6 and it was there. Maybe you’re thinking of increasing size a relative amount, which was added at some time after PS6.

What is the difference between ‘relative’ and percentage? Both seem the same, based on current sizings.
J
jjs
Jun 22, 2010
In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

"Andrew Morton" found these unused words:

Joel wrote:
Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so)

Err… no, it’s been there a long time. I’ve just looked in PS6 and it was there. Maybe you’re thinking of increasing size a relative amount, which was added at some time after PS6.

What is the difference between ‘relative’ and percentage? Both seem the same, based on current sizings.

Indeed: how else can percentage be interpreted?
J
Joel
Jun 23, 2010
John Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

"Andrew Morton" found these unused words:

Joel wrote:
Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so)

Err… no, it’s been there a long time. I’ve just looked in PS6 and it was there. Maybe you’re thinking of increasing size a relative amount, which was added at some time after PS6.

What is the difference between ‘relative’ and percentage? Both seem the same, based on current sizings.

Indeed: how else can percentage be interpreted?

Can you explain to me what does "relative" do? I read and saw some users as well as authors comparing between Photoshop’s built-in Percentage feature with several 3rd party products, and that’s how I know the existing.

This is the first time I read someone comparing/mentioning "relative" vs "percentage", especially you agree etc. Or I rarely do "resize image" to pay much attention to any sub-option.
AM
Andrew Morton
Jun 23, 2010
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
"Andrew Morton" wrote:

Joel wrote:
Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so)

Err… no, it’s been there a long time. I’ve just looked in PS6 and it was there. Maybe you’re thinking of increasing size a relative amount, which was added at some time after PS6.

What is the difference between ‘relative’ and percentage? Both seem the same, based on current sizings.

Relative is the one where you tell it how much to change it, e.g. add four pixels on each side, as opposed to telling it what to change it to, e.g. 2136 pixels. Oops! I just realised that’s an option in canvas size, not image size.


Andrew
I
Infinitech
Jun 23, 2010
I usually re-use the old "10 percent action" each time I upgrade. situated in F7 for me, that decrease 10 percent the size of the image – bicubic sharper – each time I press the key, and another one for increasing the size by 10 percent – Bicubic smoother. Very handy, because I noticed it achieve better results than a big fat decrease/increase in one shot.

———–
www.imaginerie.org

"Joel" wrote in message
"Andrew Morton" wrote:

Joel wrote:
Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so)

Err… no, it’s been there a long time. I’ve just looked in PS6 and it was
there. Maybe you’re thinking of increasing size a relative amount, which was
added at some time after PS6.

Could be, cuz I usually upgrade every other version, and don’t often learn all newer features so I do miss quite a bit until really need it. Example,
I have read and saw several videos about the newer Magic Wand and similar, but I have no need for it so I haven’t the Magic Wand for years.
J
jaSPAMc
Jun 23, 2010
"Andrew Morton" found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
"Andrew Morton" wrote:

Joel wrote:
Increasing by Percentage is a newer feature of newer Photoshop (they added it somewhere around CS2 or so)

Err… no, it’s been there a long time. I’ve just looked in PS6 and it was there. Maybe you’re thinking of increasing size a relative amount, which was added at some time after PS6.

What is the difference between ‘relative’ and percentage? Both seem the same, based on current sizings.

Relative is the one where you tell it how much to change it, e.g. add four pixels on each side, as opposed to telling it what to change it to, e.g. 2136 pixels. Oops! I just realised that’s an option in canvas size, not image size.

Adding an exact four pixels would be ‘absolute’, not relative. You can do that to a selection with modify as well.
N
nomail
Jun 23, 2010
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
"Andrew Morton" found these unused words:

Relative is the one where you tell it how much to change it, e.g. add four
pixels on each side, as opposed to telling it what to change it to,
e.g.
2136 pixels. Oops! I just realised that’s an option in canvas size, not
image size.

Adding an exact four pixels would be ‘absolute’, not relative. You can do
that to a selection with modify as well.

Adobe calls it ‘relative’ because the final size of the canvas will depend on the original size of the canvas. What they call ‘absolute’ is where you enter the final size of the canvas in pixels, no matter what the original size of the canvas was.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
J
Joel
Jun 23, 2010
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
"Andrew Morton" found these unused words:

Relative is the one where you tell it how much to change it, e.g. add four
pixels on each side, as opposed to telling it what to change it to,
e.g.
2136 pixels. Oops! I just realised that’s an option in canvas size, not
image size.

Adding an exact four pixels would be ‘absolute’, not relative. You can do
that to a selection with modify as well.

Adobe calls it ‘relative’ because the final size of the canvas will depend on the original size of the canvas. What they call ‘absolute’ is where you enter the final size of the canvas in pixels, no matter what the original size of the canvas was.

In this case I believe there is a huge difference between "Percentage" vs "Relative", and I think I get the idea from your explanation. And you are right that they are 2 different beats.

The "Percentage" has nothing to do with setting the W x Hx R values etc., but a feature enhancing the PIXEL or multiplying the pixel by ## percentage.

Yes, it does increase the size, but also increase the value/quality. I never read anyone comparing "Percentage" with "8-bit" to "16-bit" mode, but
to me it uses similar calculation. Or I use this caparison to make thing easier for me to understand, and don’t need to search for more detail exactly how it works. Or I only care about general not going to write a book about it to learn more.
J
jaSPAMc
Jun 23, 2010
Johan W. Elzenga found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
"Andrew Morton" found these unused words:

Relative is the one where you tell it how much to change it, e.g. add four
pixels on each side, as opposed to telling it what to change it to,
e.g.
2136 pixels. Oops! I just realised that’s an option in canvas size, not
image size.

Adding an exact four pixels would be ‘absolute’, not relative. You can do
that to a selection with modify as well.

Adobe calls it ‘relative’ because the final size of the canvas will depend on the original size of the canvas. What they call ‘absolute’ is where you enter the final size of the canvas in pixels, no matter what the original size of the canvas was.

Bad choice of terminology on Adobe’s part. Adding "4 pixels" is an absolute change, Adding a percentage is ‘relative’ and dependent upon the starting size. 10% is quite different when the canvas is 2300 wide from 600 wide.
J
Joel
Jun 23, 2010
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
"Andrew Morton" found these unused words:

Relative is the one where you tell it how much to change it, e.g. add four
pixels on each side, as opposed to telling it what to change it to,
e.g.
2136 pixels. Oops! I just realised that’s an option in canvas size, not
image size.

Adding an exact four pixels would be ‘absolute’, not relative. You can do
that to a selection with modify as well.

Adobe calls it ‘relative’ because the final size of the canvas will depend on the original size of the canvas. What they call ‘absolute’ is where you enter the final size of the canvas in pixels, no matter what the original size of the canvas was.

Bad choice of terminology on Adobe’s part. Adding "4 pixels" is an absolute change, Adding a percentage is ‘relative’ and dependent upon the starting size. 10% is quite different when the canvas is 2300 wide from 600 wide.

Can you give a good choice. I have been using the "bad choice" and happy with the result, but don’t know the "good choice" to be able to compare between them two.
N
nomail
Jun 24, 2010
Joel wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Adobe calls it ‘relative’ because the final size of the canvas will depend on the original size of the canvas. What they call ‘absolute’ is
where you enter the final size of the canvas in pixels, no matter what
the original size of the canvas was.

In this case I believe there is a huge difference between "Percentage" vs
"Relative", and I think I get the idea from your explanation. And you are
right that they are 2 different beats.

The "Percentage" has nothing to do with setting the W x H x R values etc.,
but a feature enhancing the PIXEL or multiplying the pixel by ## percentage.

Yes, it does increase the size, but also increase the value/quality. I
never read anyone comparing "Percentage" with "8-bit" to "16-bit" mode, but
to me it uses similar calculation. Or I use this caparison to make thing
easier for me to understand, and don’t need to search for more detail exactly how it works. Or I only care about general not going to write a
book about it to learn more.

It is also very important to understand the difference between ‘Image Size’ and ‘Canvas Size’. The first option changes the size of the image, so it resamples it. That will always have an effect on the image quality. The latter changes the size of the canvas. That means that you either add a border (if you increase the canvas size) or you crop the image (if you decrease the canvas size). The image itself is not resampled, so the image quality remains unchanged. The ‘relative’ option is only present in the ‘Canvas Size’ dialog.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
N
nomail
Jun 24, 2010
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga found these unused words:

Adobe calls it ‘relative’ because the final size of the canvas will depend on the original size of the canvas. What they call ‘absolute’ is
where you enter the final size of the canvas in pixels, no matter what
the original size of the canvas was.

Bad choice of terminology on Adobe’s part. Adding "4 pixels" is an absolute
change, Adding a percentage is ‘relative’ and dependent upon the starting
size. 10% is quite different when the canvas is 2300 wide from 600 wide.

I agree, but I think that Adobe tries to make things as clear as possible (not very successfully if you ask me), even if it means that the terminology is not always linguistically correct. The ‘Relative’ option is also available of you change the canvas by a percentage. If you check it and use 50%, you will ADD a border to the canvas. The size of that border is 50% of the size of the original canvas. If you uncheck the ‘relative’ option, you will CROP the canvas to 50% of its original size. Quite a difference…


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
J
Joel
Jun 25, 2010
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Joel wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Adobe calls it ‘relative’ because the final size of the canvas will depend on the original size of the canvas. What they call ‘absolute’ is
where you enter the final size of the canvas in pixels, no matter what
the original size of the canvas was.

In this case I believe there is a huge difference between "Percentage" vs
"Relative", and I think I get the idea from your explanation. And you are
right that they are 2 different beats.

The "Percentage" has nothing to do with setting the W x H x R values etc.,
but a feature enhancing the PIXEL or multiplying the pixel by ## percentage.

Yes, it does increase the size, but also increase the value/quality. I
never read anyone comparing "Percentage" with "8-bit" to "16-bit" mode, but
to me it uses similar calculation. Or I use this caparison to make thing
easier for me to understand, and don’t need to search for more detail exactly how it works. Or I only care about general not going to write a
book about it to learn more.

Thanks about mentioning book. But can you explain to me what you learned from the book you read. My eyes ain’t very good so I haven’t done much if not any reading for around 20 years or even more. Yes, I still can read some text on monitor but not book cuz the words starts dancing within few short seconds making me sleepy.

It is also very important to understand the difference between ‘Image Size’ and ‘Canvas Size’. The first option changes the size of the image, so it resamples it. That will always have an effect on the image quality. The latter changes the size of the canvas. That means that you either add a border (if you increase the canvas size) or you crop the image (if you decrease the canvas size). The image itself is not resampled, so the image quality remains unchanged. The ‘relative’ option is only present in the ‘Canvas Size’ dialog.

No, I do not say nor care to know about "Image Size" and "Canvas Size" (may be other wants to know?). I process or retouch for printing and I do with RATIO not file size nor canvas size (if anyone want to poke me about canvas size then I agree, as the 2:3 ratio will give me the canvas size from 2×3" up to 24×36" -> 48×72" etc..)

IOW, I want to know the difference between "relative" and "percentage".

Percentage = won’t change the canvas size but change the file size. Just like changing from 8-bit to 16-bit won’t change the canvas size but change the file-size.

And the "Percentage" changes or improve the printing quality. It’s compared to 3rd party util called "Genuine Fractals" and similar which enhance the pixel for better quality printing. Also, I don’t own Genuine Fractals to know much about it, but reading someone (here too) swearing by it for years, then later Photoshop inlcudes the similar so I gave it a try and continue using it. That’s my story.
N
nomail
Jun 25, 2010
Joel wrote:
No, I do not say nor care to know about "Image Size" and "Canvas Size"
(may be other wants to know?). I process or retouch for printing and I do
with RATIO not file size nor canvas size (if anyone want to poke me about
canvas size then I agree, as the 2:3 ratio will give me the canvas size from
2×3" up to 24×36" -> 48×72" etc..)

IOW, I want to know the difference between "relative" and "percentage".

Percentage = won’t change the canvas size but change the file size. Just
like changing from 8-bit to 16-bit won’t change the canvas size but change
the file-size.

And the "Percentage" changes or improve the printing quality. It’s compared to 3rd party util called "Genuine Fractals" and similar which enhance the pixel for better quality printing. Also, I don’t own Genuine
Fractals to know much about it, but reading someone (here too) swearing by
it for years, then later Photoshop inlcudes the similar so I gave it a try
and continue using it. That’s my story.

‘Relative’ is only available in the ‘canvas size’ dialog, and that dialog never changes the print quality. ‘Percentage’ is available in both the ‘canvas size’ as well as the ‘image size’ dialog. In the ‘canvas size’ dialog you can use ‘percentage’ with or without ‘relative’ checked, so these are completely different things. But if you don’t want to know the difference between ‘image size’ and ‘canvas size’, you also will never understand the rest of the story.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
J
Joel
Jun 26, 2010
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Joel wrote:
No, I do not say nor care to know about "Image Size" and "Canvas Size"
(may be other wants to know?). I process or retouch for printing and I do
with RATIO not file size nor canvas size (if anyone want to poke me about
canvas size then I agree, as the 2:3 ratio will give me the canvas size from
2×3" up to 24×36" -> 48×72" etc..)

IOW, I want to know the difference between "relative" and "percentage".

Percentage = won’t change the canvas size but change the file size. Just
like changing from 8-bit to 16-bit won’t change the canvas size but change
the file-size.

And the "Percentage" changes or improve the printing quality. It’s compared to 3rd party util called "Genuine Fractals" and similar which enhance the pixel for better quality printing. Also, I don’t own Genuine
Fractals to know much about it, but reading someone (here too) swearing by
it for years, then later Photoshop inlcudes the similar so I gave it a try
and continue using it. That’s my story.

‘Relative’ is only available in the ‘canvas size’ dialog, and that dialog never changes the print quality. ‘Percentage’ is available in both the ‘canvas size’ as well as the ‘image size’ dialog. In the ‘canvas size’ dialog you can use ‘percentage’ with or without ‘relative’ checked, so these are completely different things. But if you don’t want to know the difference between ‘image size’ and ‘canvas size’, you also will never understand the rest of the story.

I guess I will never understand, and that’s would be fine now now. Thanks anyway.
D
DeclanWorld
Jul 4, 2010
"Joel" wrote in message
For banner which mean it will be seeing from distance so it should be fine. I printed quite afew 24×36" portraits at around 150-PPI and they looked great from 1′ away (they looked fine at around 130-PPI too).

So, your should be fine.

The banner has printed, thankfully, as sharp and in the colour my monitor displayed (I’ve been been made aware of CMYK restrictions in the course of this too).

Thanks for your help in this.

Declan
V
Voivod
Jul 4, 2010
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 10:50:31 +0100, "DeclanWorld" scribbled:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17063" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>

This is usenet, not the web. Turn the freaking HTML OFF.
J
Joel
Jul 4, 2010
"DeclanWorld" wrote:

"Joel" wrote in message
For banner which mean it will be seeing from distance so it should be fine. I printed quite afew 24×36" portraits at around 150-PPI and they looked great from 1′ away (they looked fine at around 130-PPI too).

So, your should be fine.

The banner has printed, thankfully, as sharp and in the colour my monitor displayed (I’ve been been made aware of CMYK restrictions in the course of this too).

Thanks for your help in this.

You are quite welcome, and BIG THANKS for reporting the result which would help many other readers who may have the similar question.

Declan
D
DeclanWorld
Jul 4, 2010
"Voivod" wrote in message

This is usenet, not the web. Turn the freaking HTML OFF.

Oops, apologies – one more forgotten chore post-formatting.

Declan

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections