How to use the crop tool without losing pixels?

[Guest]

5616x3774   /   72 res is what CS5 says my Canon 5d2 large jpeg is out of camera.

Can I use the crop too to make a 20"x24" image and keep all those or most of those pixels?

Do I leave the resolution box blank?

The lab I send the file to for the print, says they want 300 res files (just to complicate thing a bit more)

Thanks!

[conroy]

If you go back to reply #4 and do what it says then you'll get a 24" x 20" @ 300 ppi result, as you said is required for the printing lab. As far as I see, you never even tried that and a further 22 posts have got you no closer to a result.

[Noel Carboni]

Kevin, I agree with Conroy - go back and do exactly what he says in post 4.  You will get a cropping and resampling that will leave you with a 24 x 20 inch print at 300ppi no matter what size it starts out.  Done.  Problem solved.  Life will be good.

-Noel

[Guest]

thanks, guys!

[JJMack]

Before you set 300 dpi in the resolution field check your userid Photoshop Preferences default interpolation preference setting.  Its best to set this to Bicubic.  Bicubic IMO is the best general purpose interpolation method.  If you update to CS6 this is very important for Adobe added a new interpolation method to CS6 and made it its Default setting. The new Bicubic Automatic I feel use Bicubic Smoother if your up sizing and Bicubic Sharper if your down sizing.   If your image has been sharpened and its resize using Bicubic Sharper the results may well not be acceptable.  Also if Bicubic Automatic is the default setting some Photoshop Scripts will fail. For Adobe did not update Photoshop Scripting and script that retrieve the interpolation setting will fail with an internal Photoshop error.

[conroy]

Good points, JJ.

[Noel Carboni]

Yes, I think most folks finally figure out that the default "Automatic" resampling method produces ugly results a lot of the time, and that good old Bicubic is better.

-Noel

[Guest]

Don't get why they don't have preference for both upsizing and downsizing. Right? if you have it set for smoother, and you use the crop tool to downsize its the wrong one! and vice versa.

[JJMack]

That is what Automatic does. However how well an interpolation method works depends on the image contents.  The method Bicubic Sharper was designed to sharpen images as it being reduced in pixel size.  And it work well on image file strait from most cameras for they have AA filters and produce relatively soft images.  If these image are sharpened well by the user using ACR or USM and then the Sharpened image is down sized using Bicubic Sharper the results often have the jaggies.

[Guest]

JJ / Noel. thanks final question. Before I use the crop tool (24 x 20 inch print at 300ppi)    do I set to smoother or sharpner. Am I upresing or downresing? confusing.

[conroy]

The short side of the original is 3774. If that were spread over 20 inches then the res would be 188.7 ppi. If spread over 24" then 157.25 ppi. You'll be "upresing" to get to 300 ppi for the lab, which requires Photoshop to increase the pixel count in this case.

I recommend you set the resampling to plain vanilla Bicubic. Not Automatic, Sharper or Smoother. (Automatic uses Smoother when increasing the pixel count and Sharper when decreasing the pixel count.) Then you can experiment with sharpening filters under your control.

The key to learning and understanding Photoshop is experimentation and observation.

[Guest]

Conry, wouldn't I want to set to smoother, since that the best upres one?

And if auto does Smoother when increasing the pixel count and Sharper when decreasing the pixel count, then whats wrong with that. Isn't that the proper best/ setting for upresing and downresing?

[JJMack]

read append 30 again

I do not normally crop.  You can use a clipping mask instead.  What a clipping mask.  An easy one to understand is canvas size.  Do this open a new document 20" x 24" at 300DPI.  Next use menu Image Place and select your image file. Use the Place Transform to position and resize your image over the canvas. Hold the Shift key down when transforming the size and use a corner handle while resizing so the Image Aspect Ratio is maintained and does not distort.  This way you have your images full pixels in a smart object layer.  you can Transform you image over and over again. Every composition over the canvas is a virtual 20" x 24" 300DPI crop. Yet no cropping is done and you can tweak the virtual crop's composition.

[Guest]

thanks JJ, that makes my head spin, do you have a video on that?

not sure on post 30, you are saying auto is good if you don't have script and the image is not sharpened?

[JJMack]

I know I don't write well.  But It should be clear that many feel Bicubic Sharper does not always work well. Try It yourself on a sharpen image trust you eyes. Apend 30 states BICUBIC is a good choice Auto is bad for two reaseons it does not work well and it breaks some scripts for Adobe forgot to update their script support for it.

Tutorial start

Menu File>New. New Dialog  width 20" height 24" 300DPI White Background 8Bit or 16Bit your default Color space. Click OK

Menu File>Place. Place Dialog Select your Image File. Click Place.  Transform Image to fill Canvas.

Tutorial End

Some advice treat Photoshop as if its a toy PLAY with it. Before long you will see it is a toy an if you observe what happens when you do something soon you will be enjoying your TOY...

[Guest]

JJ, thank you mean well, but way too convoluted for me.

but sounds like auto is no good even though its to do exactly the correct settings. That's about as much as I can absorb

[Noel Carboni]

Just set your preference for resampling to Bicubic.  It's the way all prior versions of Photoshop worked by default.

-Noel

[Guest]

Noel, you mean the generic one?  There are three: sharpner, smoother, and generic bicubic. Wasn't the default for years sharpner? Then they came out with smoother which claimed to be better for upresing and was accliamed as good as 3rd party plug ins for that. 

Conroy says it's an upres, so wouldn't smoother be the logical choice?

If auto does smoother for upresez and shrapner for down res, that would sound ideal, except JJ does not recommend it becuase script issues and some other reaons I did not understnad.

[Noel Carboni]

Just set it to just plain Bicubic.  When people try to explain why, you say you don't understand, and you don't seem to want to experiment yourself to make your own judgments.

Trying things to see what we like better is how all of us figured out how to set things.

-Noel

[JJMack]

Kevin BICUBIC BICUBIC BICUBIC BICUBIC  

Please  make some test  use you own eyes you don't seem to be able to rerad what we write.

[JJMack]

Play with Photoshop  see what it does jugde for yourself it will do you good PLAY

[Guest]

Honestly guys, even though I'm a photograhper with a good eye, but I don't know if I can see the subtelties between those bicubics!

Noel. Please don't generalize. I don't understand many of JJ postings! Your posting are clear most of the times — with some exceptions.

[conroy]

kevin4545 wrote:

I don't know if I can see the subtelties between those bicubics!

Trust your gut then.

[JJMack]

When you use your eyes to judge things view your image at 100% zoom Actual Pixel Size or higher so you can see the images actual pixel. When your view a scaled down image your seeing a quickly scaled down rendered rendition not done using good interpolation. 

I would say the only thing one may want to judge using a scaled down image is view Print size so you one can see an image sized like the image print will be. So you get an idea of its composition and some idea of over all sharpening and color..

You learn by reading, doing and making mistakes.  Try thing people write for you they took the time to write them for you.  I can not type or spell everything I enter is peck peck one of the reasons my writing is not up to par with others.

[Guest]

I understand trial and error, but man, you think if PS says sharperner is better for reduction and smoother is better for enlarging, you would that is the end of the story. no?

[JJMack]

Sharpening depends on content there is no one and only best method. Bicubic is a good general purpose method