PDA

View Full Version : How to...resize images?


Ween
01-09-2007, 12:54 AM
Seems simple, but there are many options to choose from. What are your techniques? What should you avoid? When you go Image->Image size, what does Scale Styles mean? How about all the options under Resample Image (nearest neighbor, bilinear, bicubic, bicubic smoother, bicubic sharper)? Tell us how you do it!

Save The Wave
01-09-2007, 02:02 AM
Irfanview has done a consistently terrific job of resizing photos, so I use it exclusively.
Here's a cap of the settings used.

John Fladung
01-09-2007, 03:18 PM
Is that an add-on for PhotoShop?

Bill
01-09-2007, 04:30 PM
Irfanview is a stand-alone program. ...and a very handy free program, I might add. I love the bulk re-size feature...I use it often when I have multiple images to re-size.

As for Photoshop, I use the 'Save for Web' option & generally set the wide-side at 800 or 900 pixels.

Good luck,
Bill

PLEzero
01-09-2007, 05:05 PM
Seems simple, but there are many options to choose from. What are your techniques? What should you avoid? When you go Image->Image size, what does Scale Styles mean? How about all the options under Resample Image (nearest neighbor, bilinear, bicubic, bicubic smoother, bicubic sharper)? Tell us how you do it!

Bicubic Sharper - When resizing an image smaller so the image doesn't blur.
Bicubic Smoother - Used when enlarging photos.

You seem to have a lot of questions about all the thousands of things photoshop can do. You will never learn everything there is to do in photoshop on this forum. If you have questions on specific features, look it up on google. There are many web sites out there that explain the different features very well.

You also might want to look into purchasing 'Photoshop CS2: A to Z' Andrews, Phillip, Focal Press. Its a great resource for looking up different tools and how to use them.

Ween
01-09-2007, 05:24 PM
You seem to have a lot of questions about all the thousands of things photoshop can do. You will never learn everything there is to do in photoshop on this forum.

I'm well aware of Google searches and all the books that out there, but how many relate specifically to railroad photography? I don't want to know everything PS can do; I just want to maximize its use for processing my railroad photos. The reason I ask here in the forums is two-fold:

1) I already have techniques for much of what I ask about. I'm interested in how others in this specific hobby go about doing it and how maybe myself or others could improve on our current workflow.

2) Getting information out there for others is hugely important. What's the point of having information or knowledge and not sharing it, especially when someone asks? If you have a technique, see a thread like this, share with us or provide a link on the web that you found useful.

There are many on the forums here who are PS savvy...why not use that resource as it's right here and it directly relates to the hobby? I don't care about matching skin tones or giving a bald guy hair or other techniques that I could find in a book; I'm looking for the meat and potatos and 99% of the time it can be found right in these forums from the folks themselves...

John Fladung
01-09-2007, 07:10 PM
Irfanview is a stand-alone program. ...and a very handy free program, I might add. I love the bulk re-size feature...I use it often when I have multiple images to re-size.

As for Photoshop, I use the 'Save for Web' option & generally set the wide-side at 800 or 900 pixels.

Good luck,
Bill

Is this program available for OSX or a program similar to this?

JRMDC
01-09-2007, 08:27 PM
Well, I am feeling a combo of helpful and irritable... :)

I'm well aware of Google searches and all the books that out there, but how many relate specifically to railroad photography? I don't want to know everything PS can do; I just want to maximize its use for processing my railroad photos.

Mistake - there is nothing special about RR photography. As far as PS, yup, complex, but that doesn't meen you can't make an effort to learn the small portion of it that you use. "The Lord helps those who help themselves" (I'm not especially religious myself, it's just a good line.)


The reason I ask here in the forums is two-fold:

1) I already have techniques for much of what I ask about. I'm interested in how others in this specific hobby go about doing it and how maybe myself or others could improve on our current workflow.

Sure. But some of your questions (Scale Styles?) are pretty nuts and bolts, not general process.

2) Getting information out there for others is hugely important. What's the point of having information or knowledge and not sharing it, especially when someone asks? If you have a technique, see a thread like this, share with us or provide a link on the web that you found useful.


There are many on the forums here who are PS savvy...why not use that resource as it's right here and it directly relates to the hobby?

This has a tone of you telling us what we should do. Not a great approach, IMO.

I don't care about matching skin tones or giving a bald guy hair or other techniques that I could find in a book; I'm looking for the meat and potatos and 99% of the time it can be found right in these forums from the folks themselves...

I might add, that if you want to be a better photographer (I do, sadly am not yet), you may want to consider reading/learning from a more broad set of sources than just RR photographers.

BTW, my downsizing. I just use Bicubic, neither softer nor sharper. I never want to soften an image, and I prefer sharpening at the end of the process (that seems to be the conventional wisdom, although I do a bit of sharpening during raw conversion also). Although for web-sized output, I don't think it matters much. At the end of the workflow, do a final sharpen to taste.

Ween
01-09-2007, 08:52 PM
This has a tone of you telling us what we should do. Not a great approach, IMO.

Touché, especially when it comes to folks telling me to look it up myself...:wink:

And, since we're in the 'Digital Photo Processing Forum,' just to re-iterate, here's the description for this Forum:
Have a question about Photo Editing software (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc.), improving your photos, etc.? Our crew is here to answer your questions.

Anyway, I've written before in the forums that when I'm at the mall and the wife is shopping, I'll stop by the book store and read up on PS techniques and try and learn at least one new thing while I'm there (some recent highlights were selective sharpening, which got fine-tuned after bringing it up in the forums, and using the channel mixer to make better B&W images). Trust me, there's plenty of self-help going on from this end in addition to learning new techniques or ways of approaching things that are brought up here.

But why not add the forums as a source of info to add to your processing toolbox? Seems kinda weird to tell someone to pound sand and figure it out themselves, no?

BTW, I'll post how I resize my images a little later since that's the point of this thread, so stay tuned!

JRMDC
01-09-2007, 09:14 PM
Anyway, I've written before in the forums that when I'm at the mall and the wife is shopping, I'll stop by the book store and read up on PS techniques and try and learn at least one new thing while I'm there (some recent highlights were selective sharpening, which got fine-tuned after bringing it up in the forums, and using the channel mixer to make better B&W images). Trust me, there's plenty of self-help going on from this end in addition to learning new techniques or ways of approaching things that are brought up here.

How about giving a few of those hard-working authors some appreciation by buying a few of those books?

PS: Channel Mixer is so much fun! If you start with the right image. :) I rarely have the patience to do selective sharpening, it just doesn't seem like it adds much to my average shots. If I shot more shallow DoF stuff, it might get more use.

PLEzero
01-09-2007, 10:44 PM
Touché, especially when it comes to folks telling me to look it up myself...:wink:

Well, I tried to explain two of the terms you asked about in the simplest terms I could to help you try and understand what each of these tools do. Railroad photography is 100% subject composition, once you have a photo in which you would like to edit, Photoshop tools all work the same no matter what the subject is.

I simply tried to point you in a direction which would be able to explain how each tool works much better than I am able to do.

The book I suggested sells for about $25 and fully illustrates in color how photoshop works in a glossary type format. I purchased it after it came well recommended by a digital imaging professor here at school.

ccaranna
01-10-2007, 12:41 AM
OK, lets face it, it's a dog eat dog world out there, so why would high level, experienced, and published photographers want to give away any of their secrets or techniques? I think this thread was a great idea, but almost a bit naive.

Yeah, it's fine and dandy to help the completely lost and helpless, because they don't necessarily pose a threat and aren't any competition. But for the advanced intermediate photographer with a good eye for composition trying to make good photographs look great, good luck finding any help here or any other railroad photography forum for that matter. You're flyin' solo. You may be able to find some decent, honest, and readily available criticism online, but rarely will you get good, concrete solutions to technical problems. Most of the time you get a tome about equipment, followed up with the usual reply, "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer." Gee, thanks, that's great. :rolleyes:

Granted, there are a lot of variables in photography, and it's not and exact science, but I have found that most everything I learned thus far was from a photographer that has no interest in trains at all. And I'll admit, I've STILL got a lot to learn, and in no way do I consider my self "accomplished".

-----DISCLAIMER-----

Now, before I find myself having to strain getting my foot upwards toward my mouth, I will say that this forum has had quite a few great photographers frequent it as of late with good advice. Many thanks to those who contribute, and share their valued knowledge.

JRMDC
01-10-2007, 01:55 AM
But for the advanced intermediate photographer with a good eye for composition trying to make good photographs look great, good luck finding any help here or any other railroad photography forum for that matter. You're flyin' solo. You may be able to find some decent, honest, and readily available criticism online, but rarely will you get good, concrete solutions to technical problems.

While I may not be a good enough photographer to get you where you want to go, I would love to at least try. What sorts of technical problems do you run into?

ccaranna
01-10-2007, 02:26 AM
Thanks for replying. Maybe I'm overly critical, but I'll use the following photo as an example of one of my shots that was good enough to get into the database, but personally I think it could be better.

[photoid=168802]

I've been trying to get into broad landscape views on the last few times out and have shunned my better telephoto lens for the kit wide angle. In this shot, I was really trying to show the contrast of the amber color of the grass and the darker blues of the sky, but ultimately the train didn't come out as sharp as I would have liked. I thought the f-stop (6.3) would have been OK, but the rear end of the train isn't sharp as I would have liked. Closing it down to F-8 or 9 would have probably made me shoot ISO 800, which I really didn't want to do. The shutter speed is 1/400 which is about as slow as I think I could have gone here given the train was moving between 40 and 50 mph.

I can never tell if I need better wide angle "glass", better technique at shooting, or better post processing skills. It's hard to tell.

Thanks for the help,

Ween
01-10-2007, 02:38 AM
OK, lets face it, it's a dog eat dog world out there, so why would high level, experienced, and published photographers want to give away any of their secrets or techniques? I think this thread was a great idea, but almost a bit naive.

Yeah, it's fine and dandy to help the completely lost and helpless, because they don't necessarily pose a threat and aren't any competition. But for the advanced intermediate photographer with a good eye for composition trying to make good photographs look great, good luck finding any help here or any other railroad photography forum for that matter.

WHAT?!?!?!?!? Are you serious? So, there's some kind of competition going on that I don't know about? And people are unwilling to share their techniques? Wow. I had no idea. It's so competitive to get your shots on the web (that you get no direct comensation for) that you need to keep your workflow under lock and key next to the recipe for the Bush's Baked Beans and Coca-Cola? Do you really think people are that selfish?!? When it comes to a hobby? If so, that's sad.

I wanted this thread to kind of go in line with this one:
http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4522

A true gem, full of info and full of participation, one in which I frequently refer back to. I wish there were more threads like this. Many techniques thrown out there on how they do it. Why was this one, launched in the same vein, met with such disdain? It makes no sense. And it makes no sense to not share you knowledge with others...

JRMDC
01-10-2007, 02:47 AM
I have some thoughts on this. Please put this text/pic into a new thread so it's not buried, and let's get to it! (Tomorrow for me, unless insomnia stops by to say hello. :) )

Thanks for replying. Maybe I'm overly critical, but I'll use the following photo as an example of one of my shots that was good enough to get into the database, but personally I think it could be better.

[photoid=168802]

I've been trying to get into broad landscape views on the last few times out and have shunned my better telephoto lens for the kit wide angle. In this shot, I was really trying to show the contrast of the amber color of the grass and the darker blues of the sky, but ultimately the train didn't come out as sharp as I would have liked. I thought the f-stop (6.3) would have been OK, but the rear end of the train isn't sharp as I would have liked. Closing it down to F-8 or 9 would have probably made me shoot ISO 800, which I really didn't want to do. The shutter speed is 1/400 which is about as slow as I think I could have gone here given the train was moving between 40 and 50 mph.

I can never tell if I need better wide angle "glass", better technique at shooting, or better post processing skills. It's hard to tell.

Thanks for the help,

ccaranna
01-10-2007, 02:55 AM
WHAT?!?!?!?!? Are you serious? So, there's some kind of competition going on that I don't know about? And people are unwilling to share their techniques? Wow. I had no idea. It's so competitive to get your shots on the web (that you get no direct comensation for) that you need to keep your workflow under lock and key next to the recipe for the Bush's Baked Beans and Coca-Cola?

Well, yes perhaps. Doesn't the site say that publications actively peruse the database looking for publish-worthy images? Or is the RP.net screening process just a vehicle in which the "man" can keep us down? I have a hunch that what the site says is true. If a particular photographer catches an editor's eye, they'll make a note of it.

Do you really think people are that selfish?!? When it comes to a hobby? If so, that's sad.

I hope not! But this is coming from someone who is skeptical and selfish, but always appreciative!

I wanted this thread to kind of go in line with this one:
http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4522

A true gem, full of info and full of participation, one in which I frequently refer back to. I wish there were more threads like this. Many techniques thrown out there on how they do it. Why was this one, launched in the same vein, met with such disdain? It makes no sense. And it makes no sense to not share you knowledge with others...

I completely agree! Just leave it to my negative bastardyness to turn this one sour! :D

JRMDC
01-10-2007, 02:56 AM
WHAT?!?!?!?!?
A true gem, full of info and full of participation, one in which I frequently refer back to. I wish there were more threads like this. Many techniques thrown out there on how they do it. Why was this one, launched in the same vein, met with such disdain? It makes no sense. And it makes no sense to not share you knowledge with others...

One guess, there just isn't that much to say about downsizing. I haven't done a test, but my guess is that there is little difference in the end product if one does Bicubic or Bicubic Smooth or Bicubic Sharp and then sharppens to taste (more for the first option, less for the last). Especially for web-sized final product.

That, on top of my earlier comments.

Ween
01-10-2007, 03:59 AM
Okay, at the expense of giving away trade secrets, here's how I resize my photos. I use PS CS2.

For the web:
- I shoot the largest size I can, which gives me an image that is 3456 x 2304 pixels.
- I do all my work on the full-size image, then go Image->Image Size, make sure all three boxes are checked at the bottom of the dialog box (Scale Styles, Constrain Proportions, Resample Image: Bicubic), and then type in 1024 in the Width box which will make the Height read 683.
- Click OK and you're done after another round of sharpening.

Pretty straightforward, sure, and probably the technique used by many, but no sense in not sharing.

For print:
- Image->Image size, but uncheck the Resample Image box and make sure the Constrain Proportions is still checked
- Now make sure the units are in inches and you can type in what size print you want. Just ensure the Resolution doesn't drop below 210 pixel/in, otherwise you'll see a dip in quality.
- I got this technique here:
http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showpost.php?p=30471&postcount=9

Thanks, Alan!

Hope this helps. If I'm doing something wrong or could be doing something better, set me straight!

Fotaugrafee, Ink.
02-13-2007, 04:17 AM
I use Paint Shop Pro X for the time being, "the poor man's Adobe" I call it. The one disappointing feature it lacks is bulk resizing (for my own purposes, thumbnailing). Does anyone know if the latest edition of PSP has that feature? That would be a GREAT addition personally, but Corel doesn't seem too keen on it?

A "straight-from-the-box" Canon image should be resized to 900x600, that way it fits onto the RP screen without having to scroll. I don't quite understand the motive behind those who resize their 3:2 (ratio) images to 1024x683. That's just odd, especially considering the template / border adds to the total lateral space on the page (unless you have your settings higher than that).


Irfanview is a stand-alone program. ...and a very handy free program, I might add. I love the bulk re-size feature...I use it often when I have multiple images to re-size.

As for Photoshop, I use the 'Save for Web' option & generally set the wide-side at 800 or 900 pixels.

Good luck,
Bill

JRMDC
02-13-2007, 02:33 PM
From the RP guidelines:

5. Our system is optimized for photos to be uploaded at 1024 pixels wide (landscape format) and 800 to 1000 pixels high (portrait format) @ 72 DPI. Our minimum photo size is 800 pixels in width or 600 pixels in height, whichever is greater.


A "straight-from-the-box" Canon image should be resized to 900x600, that way it fits onto the RP screen without having to scroll. I don't quite understand the motive behind those who resize their 3:2 (ratio) images to 1024x683. That's just odd, especially considering the template / border adds to the total lateral space on the page (unless you have your settings higher than that).

Fotaugrafee, Ink.
02-13-2007, 08:32 PM
That's all fine & good, but 90% of the people that I know have their screen settings @ 1024x768 (4:3 ratio). That said, what are your screen settings?

These guidelines mean nothing, except to those who know nothing about how to manage pixel space on their screen. Why?...(1) the vertical scroll bar is considered part of the screen's pixelation, and (2) the border in which the RP image is located in indented about 25 pixels on each side of the frame.

1024 (image width)
+ 25 (left margin)
+ 25 (right margin)
+ 25 (scroll bar)
=1099 pixels, approx. minimum screen setting width required to view an entire 1024x683 image without scrolling. Mind you, for those of us "non-Elitists", that doesn't include the banner ads, either.

I resize my lateral images to 900(w)x600(h) for good reason. From a Canon DSLR, which all have natural 3:2 ratios (same as 35mm slides), it keeps the numbers whole. 683 for a height is just a rounded number, since 683 x 1.5 = 1024.5 (not 1024 whole). Viewers don't have to scroll to see ANY part of the image. That is, unless of course, they're near blind and have their settings at 800x600 pixels. Slight scrolling for vertical images may vary.

Point being, you'll have to scroll at 1024x683 resizing. Unless your settings are 1152x864 or greater. I'd prefer not to scroll, esp. since the quality difference between 900x600 or 1024x683 is too meager to worry about. Sure, I could bump my image size up to 960x640, but what would be the point? 60x40 pixels extra isn't going to make a damn bit of difference any more than 124x83 (extra) will.


From the RP guidelines:

5. Our system is optimized for photos to be uploaded at 1024 pixels wide (landscape format) and 800 to 1000 pixels high (portrait format) @ 72 DPI. Our minimum photo size is 800 pixels in width or 600 pixels in height, whichever is greater.

JRMDC
02-13-2007, 09:13 PM
a) I simply follow the guidelines!
b) you make some good points. But remember the database is going to be around for a long time. The first photo here is 902x750, from 2002. I'm pretty sure I had 800x600 as a screen back then (I've never had the latest and greatest. :) ). Right now I use several computers, at least one of which is 1280 on the long dimension, and it cost only $500.

I'm glad Chris Starnes didn't put a smaller one up way back then. I would prefer the largest possible image. Down the road, we will all appreciate having uploaded larger images today.

BTW, instead of scrolling, get a browser that zooms. I have a plug-in for Firefox.