Resizing an image to small size while retaining quality

[Sydnie5CD9]

I have an image that is 11inx11in at 300 DPI. I need to resize the image to 1inx1in 300 DPI. When I resize (either with image>image size or the transform tool) the quality gets blurry. It needs to be at 300 DPI for the printer - I can't go higher. The size also needs to be the 1in, can't go bigger. Any tips? 

[Simmer1]

Hi,

If you right click on the Layer palette then select Convert to smart object.

[Simmer1]

A smart Object retains it's quality no matter how much you resize it. Be sure to convert it to a Smart object before you resize it though.

[Sydnie5CD9]

Hmm. I could see how this would work. Not sure why it didn't help that much though. Attached screenshot of after resize quality as a smart object. It was very crisp before. 

[Sydnie5CD9]

 this is the quality of the original big one  

[Stephen_A_Marsh · Accepted solution]

Those screenshots are not 100% or 1:1 sized.

You are asking for a thimble (1") to hold the same volume of liquid as a bucket (11")... Detail is dependent on resolution. 

3,300px vs. 300px on an edge.

10.9 MP (10,876,800 pixels) vs. 0.1 MP (90,000 pixels), that's 9.1% of the original!

Here is a 1" or 300px version, to view at same size/1:1/100% view onscreen:

[Rob_Cullen · Accepted solution]

Simple maths tell me that 11inx11in at 300 DPI. is a file of 3300x3300 PIXELS.

The image at 1inx1in 300 DPI will be 300x300 PIXELS

Do you see the difference in 'Quality'?

[D Fosse]

What Rob says. This has nothing to do with Photoshop. It's just the reduction in pixel size.

If this is a one time reduction from 3000 pixels across to 300 pixels across, smart objects won't help. It still has to go from 3000 pixels to 300! Smart objects allow repeated scaling while working, but at some point you have to push the button for the final resampling to final size. You still have to resample once, smart object or not.

In short - the thread title is a contradiction in terms. Not possible.

[Sydnie5CD9]

I see. That's what I was figuring.

Any advice on making it look the best as possible? I am putting our illustrated artwork into a printed catalog which is why it needs to be so small but in the best quality possible.

[D Fosse · Accepted solution]

A lot can be salvaged by optimal sharpening after resampling.

I'd recommend the Bicubic Smoother algorithm. Nevermind that it says (enlargement). The point is that it has no sharpening built in. You'll do that yourself later:

The problem with the other algorithms is that they all tend to oversharpen and introduce ugly artifacts in the process. A small image like this will be particularly affected by that.

For the sharpening, I'd recommend the Camera Raw Filter. Pay particular attention to the "detail" and "radius" sliders. Again, for a small image you'll probably want to keep both at low values.

Other than that, it's impossible to give you any fixed numbers. It will vary with the type of image. Push the sliders around a bit and see how it looks. When it looks right, it is right.

When you do this, it's very important to view at 100%! Yes, it will be small, it's a small file. But 100% means you see each image pixel mapped to exactly one physical screen pixel. It's the only way to see the true pixel structure of the file directly on screen, without any screen scaling.

[Sydnie5CD9]

Great advice!!! I'll try that thank you so much.