How to quickly select rectangle
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
> Joel wrote:
> > Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
> >>
> >> I'll rephrase the problem.
> >>
> >> I made an image.
> >>
> >> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
> >>
> >> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
> >> wiped out.
> >>
> >> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
> >> then the canvas size.
> >
> > Your newer cleaner question/explanation is still as clear as mud.
> >
> > 1. "I made an image."
> >
> > Got it!
> >
> > 2. "Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image"
> >
> > Got the slideshow how you use the command to create another Layer/Canvas
> > which happen to be larger than the original photo. BUT it still give no
> > clue
> >
> > a. what you are trying to do
>
> I'm making images so that they have white borders when I print them on
> white paper or artist's canvas.
Yup! this is understandable and I bet most people can help you now.
Lets assume the photos are 2:3 RATIO and you want a little BLANK boarders
around them. There are MANY different ways but I will try to give one of
the simple way to make it easy for you to follow, to adapt the idea to
create your own style.
1. Create a BLANK canvas with H x W x R little larger than the photos you
gonna added to it.
2. Set the CROP tool to 2.# x 3.# and # is the size of the WHITE boaders you
want to add to the original photos. Example 2.1 x 3.1 and you only have to
create ONCE/ONE
3. Now, just drag and drop the original photos to it and you have it. Or
you drag & drop the larger canvas to the original photos (it's the same).
> I'm taking some of my files that already have white borders and I want
> to expand them so that they print at a bigger size.
Now you are falling down the dig again. It sounds like you don't
understand the meaning of "RATIO" and I think we may have to have more
questions to ask you later.
*Unless* you are trying to increasing the printing quality for the larger
print then it's another story. But I am pretty sure you are talking about
the RATIO
> To do that I need to isolate the image from the canvas.
>
> When I make a white border all around the image, the image size then
> includes the canvas size.
>
> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
ONCE you got the idea (technique) then different color is the least thing
you need to worry about. Or once you get the main thing (blank canvas made)
then you can be able to CHANGE to any of 256,000 colors with lighting speed.
> Therefore, in most cases I'm adjusting not only the image size, but also
> the size of the white border.
>
> The white borders are not the same on all sides. They need to be shorter
> on the top of the image, wider on the bottom, and usually wider oo the
> right than the left.
Are you talking about the boarder you WANT or the boarder you have problem
with?
Shorter TOP = Portrait
Wider BOTTOM = Landscape
Do you know how to use Rotate/Flip/Move etc. command?
> > b. why you want a larger canvas size
>
> So that the white borders on the printed images is different from size
> of the white borders that I had made and printed previously,
Explained about RATIO above
> > c. do you understand the difference between RATIO, Resolution (PDI),
> > Compression, and W x H etc..?
>
> Yes.
Then you should have no problem flowing the RATIO method
> >> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
> >> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
> >> but it didn't find anything.
> >
> > Ctrl-A is for "PC" and PS doesn't have "Command" key I think it's only
> > available in the MAC's world. I am not MAC user to know anything about MAC.
>
> What we Mac users call "Command" is the key two keys to the right of the
> Control key. Pressing that key along with the "A" key "selects all".
Yup! Ctrl-<A>all is standard command for PC (it's Windows command which
most if not all Windows aps adapt the command)
> > And I would say if you want some help solving your problem then spelling
> > out exactly what you want the final photo may look like instead of asking
> > how to use some command(s) that you don't know. Example (general)
> >
> > 1. If you want to print to a larger size.
> >
> > You DO NOT need to make a larger canvas size
>
> I know that. The reason I need to adjust the canvas size is because I'm
> more experienced now at using canvas pliers, so I've concluded that I
> need a border of 2.25 inches around my images. This includes 1.375
> inches to wrap around the sides of the wooden stretcher bars, and .875
> inches for the back of the stretcher bars, for the canvas pliers to
> grip, so I can pull the canvas tightly around the wooden bar, before
> stapling the canvas to the wooden stretcher bars.
I don't think you know that. And you need lot more answer than just
Photoshop command alone.
1. First, if you really want the help quicker without many back/forth
messages asking you what you really want, then you need to give more detail
or exactly what you really want or really need.
Example, 2.25" of blank boarder around the image is already exceeded the
4x6" print.
2. If you want a VERY LARGE print then at least give some hint. Example
4x6' (or 48x72") then someone here good with mathematic may give you the
calculation (of the exact RATIO).
3. And *IF* you need help with the photography, cropping, framing etc.
technique, tips etc. then it's another story. I am a professional
photographer and I do retouch and do poster size print quite often, and I
never go through the problem you try to do.
a. CROPPING - leave some background
b. FRAMING - put a sheet of WHITE (or whatever color) of paper (you know
the thick paper they use for framing) over the photo. I don't do
framing, but that I sometime suggest my clients to do (idea)
> Therefore, the previous canvas sizes that I've designated in P CS3 are
> now not the right sizes and need to be adjusted.
> >
> > 2. If you want the picture displays larger on monitor
> >
> > You DO NOT need to *move* to a larger canvas size
>
> I know that.
>
> I'm using CS3 on a Mac. (I found a Mac-specific Photoshop newsgroup
> a.p.macintosh but it has only 15 messages in it, so I'm less likely to
> get help there. This group now has 479 messages in it.)
It's so hard to get any clue from you, and I still have no clue what size
you want to print. So I may just give some general information hoping some
may answer your question.
1. *If* you need to do some heavy retouching for large print (lets say
24x36" or larger) then I would suggest to work on 16-bit (I never need
32-bit so never used it). For smaller print or light basic adjusting then
8-bit would be plenty good.
And I am talking about good IQ (Image Quality) taken by good lens and
professional DSLR camera. Around 10MP would be okay, 15-20+MP would be
better.
2. 150-300 PPI would be plenty good (more won't bite ya). And if you want
to push it over the edge (less than 150 PPI) or extra insurance (whatever
you call it, or taking advantage of newer techinology etc.) then you may
want to Increase the Size by **** PERCENTAGE****
Yes, *PERCENTAGE* like 100% 150% etc. *not* larger W x H x R
Other than that I can give you some secret that I NEVER use TIFF (I have
nothing to against it but just don't need it) but JPG all the way. Some
photolab may suggest to use .TIFF but they would accept JPG, and I don't
like the idea of uploading 200-300MB TIFF file (single file as I tested) so
I continue using JPG and still happy with the result.
> Robert
  |
  |
> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> > Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
> > words:
> >
> >> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
> >>
> >> I'll rephrase the problem.
> >>
> >> I made an image.
> >>
> >> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
> >>
> >> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
> >> wiped out.
> >>
> >> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
> >> then the canvas size.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
> >> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
> >> but it didn't find anything.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >
> > Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
> > wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
> > image.
>
> Thanks, Sir Rien.
>
> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
> images are also white or near white so even with feather radius set
> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
> magic wand tool.
>
> Robert
I don't think you get it (yet).
| |
|
Rainer Latka wrote:
> On 06.Jun.10 19:50h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
>> Rainer Latka wrote:
>>> On 06.Jun.10 7:16h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>>
>>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I made an image.
>>>>
>>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the
>>>> image.
>>>>
>>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>>> wiped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size
>>>> and
>>>> then the canvas size.
>>>
>>> so why dont you read the advice given in this thread? (yes, some of
>>> these advices have been wrong/misleading). I've proposed three
>>> solutions that will work:
>>> 28 may, 15:47h+15:51h
>>> 29 May, 14:04h and finally
>>> 29 May, 15:39h
>>> the latter one coming closest to your request
>>>
>>> Rainer
>>
>> I tried Image > Trim, as you suggested. It did trim some pixels, but not
>> the right ones.
>
> ok, lets try to do it together:
> first we'll perform the step by which you increased the canvas size:
> * you've got an image of, say, 300 px by 500 px
> * you're increasing the canvas size using "canvas size" in the image
> menu by, say, 100 px in each direction. So this results in a new total
> size of 500 px by 700 px.
> * now we are at the situation when you posted your question: an image
> surrounded by a border 100 px wide. This border is monochromatic, since
> the "canvas size" command does exactly this.
> * next you're asking "How can I quickly select a rectangular image in
> CS3?" and "The canvas size exceeds the image size.“
> * in this situation the trim command removes exactly the border that you
> have created using the canvas size command.
>
>>
>> I want the border to be removed, and that's not what the Trim command is
>> for.
>
> of course it does exactly this. Since you used the canvas size command
> to create the border which is therefore monochromatic, the trim command
> will remove all of it unless you deselected some of the tick marks in
> the trim options
>
>>
>> Adobe Help says this about Trim:
>>
>> Choose Image > Trim.
>> In the Trim dialog box, select an option:
>> Transparent Pixels to trim away transparency at the edges of the image,
>> leaving the smallest image containing nontransparent pixels.
>> Top Left Pixel Color to remove an area the color of the upper left pixel
>> from the image.
>> Bottom Right Pixel Color to remove an area the color of the lower right
>> pixel from the image.
>> Select one or more areas of the image to trim away: Top, Bottom, Left,
>> or Right."
>>
>> Despite that description, I don't understand what Trim is for, but it's
>> not for removing the canvas surrounding a square or rectangular image.
>
> yes, of course it is. This is exactly what it's meant for. Just try it,
> following my example.
Well, that's interesting. I did the experiment that you suggested, and
it worked!
But why on Earth are the results inconsistent? With some of my images,
Trim trims off the last amount of canvas that was added (which is half
an inch off the top of each image. But there's still a white canvas all
the way around those images.
With other files, there's no change to the image size or the canvas size
after doing Image > Trim. I think there might be something invisible on
my canvases, because when I select the white borders with the
Rectangular Marquee Tool (just a rough selection) and go Edit > Clear
(so that the checkered clear background shows in the canvas areas
instead of white) and then go Image > Trim, those clear borders ARE
trimmed off.
I'm so confused about this.
>> However, I think I just discovered the best solution.
>>
>> I just made my grid very fine – down to the pixel level. In P >
>> Preferences > Guides, Grids, Slices snd Count, I made Guidelines every 1
>> pixel, and Subdivisions every one pixel.
>>
>> With those preferences set, I can zoom to a corner of my images at about
>> 300 percent, instead of zooming in all the way to 3200 percent.
>>
>> At 300 percent zoom, I can click and drag the Rectangular Marquee Tool
>> diagonally from one corner to the opposite corner of the rectangular or
>> square image, and the marquee snaps precisely to the edge of the image.
>>
>> If I zoom out any further and try this (i.e. 200 percent)then I'm less
>> likely to get the rectangular Marquee Tool to snap precisely to the edge
>> of the images; I'll more likely get a strip of white canvas included in
>> the selection, or to miss a little strip of the image at the edge.
>>
>> I have the View > Snap, and also the View > Snap To > Guides both
>> selected.
>>
>> At 300 percent magnification, I can scroll diagonally from one corner of
>> the images to the opposite corner of the images (to select the images)
>> much faster than if I'm zoomed all the way (3200 percent in the case of
>> the file I'm currently working on.)
>
> you might still want to learn / understand what the
> select > transform selection
> command is intended for. ;-)
What good does that do? Again, I'm back to the problem of Select >
Transform Selection > pulling the four selection handles to the edge of
the image/canvas intersection, and not being able to grab the image
precisely at the intersection of the image and the canvas.
I think the discrepancy is because you're working on timy ones (500 by
700 pixels) in which it's easy to get precision snap-tos, whereas I'm
working on big files (such as 2,800 pixels by 5,800 pixels) in which
precision snap-toing is difficult.
Robert
> On 06.Jun.10 19:50h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
>> Rainer Latka wrote:
>>> On 06.Jun.10 7:16h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>>
>>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I made an image.
>>>>
>>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the
>>>> image.
>>>>
>>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>>> wiped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size
>>>> and
>>>> then the canvas size.
>>>
>>> so why dont you read the advice given in this thread? (yes, some of
>>> these advices have been wrong/misleading). I've proposed three
>>> solutions that will work:
>>> 28 may, 15:47h+15:51h
>>> 29 May, 14:04h and finally
>>> 29 May, 15:39h
>>> the latter one coming closest to your request
>>>
>>> Rainer
>>
>> I tried Image > Trim, as you suggested. It did trim some pixels, but not
>> the right ones.
>
> ok, lets try to do it together:
> first we'll perform the step by which you increased the canvas size:
> * you've got an image of, say, 300 px by 500 px
> * you're increasing the canvas size using "canvas size" in the image
> menu by, say, 100 px in each direction. So this results in a new total
> size of 500 px by 700 px.
> * now we are at the situation when you posted your question: an image
> surrounded by a border 100 px wide. This border is monochromatic, since
> the "canvas size" command does exactly this.
> * next you're asking "How can I quickly select a rectangular image in
> CS3?" and "The canvas size exceeds the image size.“
> * in this situation the trim command removes exactly the border that you
> have created using the canvas size command.
>
>>
>> I want the border to be removed, and that's not what the Trim command is
>> for.
>
> of course it does exactly this. Since you used the canvas size command
> to create the border which is therefore monochromatic, the trim command
> will remove all of it unless you deselected some of the tick marks in
> the trim options
>
>>
>> Adobe Help says this about Trim:
>>
>> Choose Image > Trim.
>> In the Trim dialog box, select an option:
>> Transparent Pixels to trim away transparency at the edges of the image,
>> leaving the smallest image containing nontransparent pixels.
>> Top Left Pixel Color to remove an area the color of the upper left pixel
>> from the image.
>> Bottom Right Pixel Color to remove an area the color of the lower right
>> pixel from the image.
>> Select one or more areas of the image to trim away: Top, Bottom, Left,
>> or Right."
>>
>> Despite that description, I don't understand what Trim is for, but it's
>> not for removing the canvas surrounding a square or rectangular image.
>
> yes, of course it is. This is exactly what it's meant for. Just try it,
> following my example.
Well, that's interesting. I did the experiment that you suggested, and
it worked!
But why on Earth are the results inconsistent? With some of my images,
Trim trims off the last amount of canvas that was added (which is half
an inch off the top of each image. But there's still a white canvas all
the way around those images.
With other files, there's no change to the image size or the canvas size
after doing Image > Trim. I think there might be something invisible on
my canvases, because when I select the white borders with the
Rectangular Marquee Tool (just a rough selection) and go Edit > Clear
(so that the checkered clear background shows in the canvas areas
instead of white) and then go Image > Trim, those clear borders ARE
trimmed off.
I'm so confused about this.
>> However, I think I just discovered the best solution.
>>
>> I just made my grid very fine – down to the pixel level. In P >
>> Preferences > Guides, Grids, Slices snd Count, I made Guidelines every 1
>> pixel, and Subdivisions every one pixel.
>>
>> With those preferences set, I can zoom to a corner of my images at about
>> 300 percent, instead of zooming in all the way to 3200 percent.
>>
>> At 300 percent zoom, I can click and drag the Rectangular Marquee Tool
>> diagonally from one corner to the opposite corner of the rectangular or
>> square image, and the marquee snaps precisely to the edge of the image.
>>
>> If I zoom out any further and try this (i.e. 200 percent)then I'm less
>> likely to get the rectangular Marquee Tool to snap precisely to the edge
>> of the images; I'll more likely get a strip of white canvas included in
>> the selection, or to miss a little strip of the image at the edge.
>>
>> I have the View > Snap, and also the View > Snap To > Guides both
>> selected.
>>
>> At 300 percent magnification, I can scroll diagonally from one corner of
>> the images to the opposite corner of the images (to select the images)
>> much faster than if I'm zoomed all the way (3200 percent in the case of
>> the file I'm currently working on.)
>
> you might still want to learn / understand what the
> select > transform selection
> command is intended for. ;-)
What good does that do? Again, I'm back to the problem of Select >
Transform Selection > pulling the four selection handles to the edge of
the image/canvas intersection, and not being able to grab the image
precisely at the intersection of the image and the canvas.
I think the discrepancy is because you're working on timy ones (500 by
700 pixels) in which it's easy to get precision snap-tos, whereas I'm
working on big files (such as 2,800 pixels by 5,800 pixels) in which
precision snap-toing is difficult.
Robert
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:07:39 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>> images are also white – or near white – so even with feather radius set
>> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>> magic wand tool.
>
> Here's an idea. Discard this abortion of a screw up, reload the original
> image and start over. You of course were smart enough NOT to edit the
> only copy of your image, right?
Yes.
Robert
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:07:39 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>> images are also white – or near white – so even with feather radius set
>> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>> magic wand tool.
>
> Here's an idea. Discard this abortion of a screw up, reload the original
> image and start over. You of course were smart enough NOT to edit the
> only copy of your image, right?
Yes.
Robert
| |
|
Joel wrote:
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
>>> words:
>>>
>>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>>
>>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I made an image.
>>>>
>>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
>>>>
>>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>>> wiped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
>>>> then the canvas size.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
>>>> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
>>>> but it didn't find anything.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>> Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
>>> wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
>>> image.
>> Thanks, Sir Rien.
>>
>> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>> images are also white – or near white – so even with feather radius set
>> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>> magic wand tool.
>>
>> Robert
>
> I don't think you get it (yet).
YOU get it, Joel. You don't get any of what's been written in this
thread, I think.
I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
that has a white canvas around it.
But in your last letter you wrote again that you still don't understand
the problem, and went on various irrelevant tangents about picture
framing, how to get my images to appear bigger on my screen (I never
gave any hint that I have that problem), claimed irrationally that I
don't understand ratios because I wrote that I want to alter my canvas
sizes, and gave the absurd advice to use JPEGS instead of TIFFs for high
quality images.
Robert
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
>>> words:
>>>
>>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>>
>>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I made an image.
>>>>
>>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
>>>>
>>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>>> wiped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
>>>> then the canvas size.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
>>>> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
>>>> but it didn't find anything.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>> Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
>>> wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
>>> image.
>> Thanks, Sir Rien.
>>
>> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>> images are also white – or near white – so even with feather radius set
>> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>> magic wand tool.
>>
>> Robert
>
> I don't think you get it (yet).
YOU get it, Joel. You don't get any of what's been written in this
thread, I think.
I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
that has a white canvas around it.
But in your last letter you wrote again that you still don't understand
the problem, and went on various irrelevant tangents about picture
framing, how to get my images to appear bigger on my screen (I never
gave any hint that I have that problem), claimed irrationally that I
don't understand ratios because I wrote that I want to alter my canvas
sizes, and gave the absurd advice to use JPEGS instead of TIFFs for high
quality images.
Robert
| |
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:46:24 GMT, Robert Montgomery
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:07:39 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>>> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>>> images are also white or near white so even with feather radius set
>>> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>>> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>>> magic wand tool.
>>
>> Here's an idea. Discard this abortion of a screw up, reload the original
>> image and start over. You of course were smart enough NOT to edit the
>> only copy of your image, right?
>
>Yes.
Then start over and stop worrying about fixing the fuck up.
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:07:39 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>>> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>>> images are also white or near white so even with feather radius set
>>> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>>> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>>> magic wand tool.
>>
>> Here's an idea. Discard this abortion of a screw up, reload the original
>> image and start over. You of course were smart enough NOT to edit the
>> only copy of your image, right?
>
>Yes.
Then start over and stop worrying about fixing the fuck up.
| |
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>that has a white canvas around it.
No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>that has a white canvas around it.
No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
| |
|
Joel wrote:
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> Joel wrote:
>>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>>
>>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I made an image.
>>>>
>>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
>>>>
>>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>>> wiped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
>>>> then the canvas size.
>>> Your newer cleaner question/explanation is still as clear as mud.
>>>
>>> 1. "I made an image."
>>>
>>> Got it!
>>>
>>> 2. "Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image"
>>>
>>> Got the slideshow how you use the command to create another Layer/Canvas
>>> which happen to be larger than the original photo. BUT it still give no
>>> clue
>>>
>>> a. what you are trying to do
>> I'm making images so that they have white borders when I print them on
>> white paper or artist's canvas.
>
> Yup! this is understandable and I bet most people can help you now.
>
> Lets assume the photos are 2:3 RATIO and you want a little BLANK boarders
> around them. There are MANY different ways but I will try to give one of
> the simple way to make it easy for you to follow, to adapt the idea to
> create your own style.
>
> 1. Create a BLANK canvas with H x W x R little larger than the photos you
> gonna added to it.
>
> 2. Set the CROP tool to 2.# x 3.# and # is the size of the WHITE boaders you
> want to add to the original photos. Example 2.1 x 3.1 and you only have to
> create ONCE/ONE
>
> 3. Now, just drag and drop the original photos to it and you have it. Or
> you drag & drop the larger canvas to the original photos (it's the same).
>
>> I'm taking some of my files that already have white borders and I want
>> to expand them so that they print at a bigger size.
>
> Now you are falling down the dig again. It sounds like you don't
> understand the meaning of "RATIO" and I think we may have to have more
> questions to ask you later.
>
> *Unless* you are trying to increasing the printing quality for the larger
> print then it's another story. But I am pretty sure you are talking about
> the RATIO
>
>> To do that I need to isolate the image from the canvas.
>>
>> When I make a white border all around the image, the image size then
>> includes the canvas size.
>>
>> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
>> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
>> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
>
> ONCE you got the idea (technique) then different color is the least thing
> you need to worry about. Or once you get the main thing (blank canvas made)
> then you can be able to CHANGE to any of 256,000 colors with lighting speed.
I never asked about 'different color' or 256,000 colors.
>
>> Therefore, in most cases I'm adjusting not only the image size, but also
>> the size of the white border.
>>
>> The white borders are not the same on all sides. They need to be shorter
>> on the top of the image, wider on the bottom, and usually wider oo the
>> right than the left.
>
> Are you talking about the boarder you WANT or the boarder you have problem
> with?
>
> Shorter TOP = Portrait
> Wider BOTTOM = Landscape
>
> Do you know how to use Rotate/Flip/Move etc. command?
What does that have to do with my question? Nothing.
>
>>> b. why you want a larger canvas size
>> So that the white borders on the printed images is different from size
>> of the white borders that I had made and printed previously,
>
> Explained about RATIO above
>
>>> c. do you understand the difference between RATIO, Resolution (PDI),
>>> Compression, and W x H etc..?
>> Yes.
>
> Then you should have no problem flowing the RATIO method
>
>>>> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
>>>> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
>>>> but it didn't find anything.
>>> Ctrl-A is for "PC" and PS doesn't have "Command" key I think it's only
>>> available in the MAC's world. I am not MAC user to know anything about MAC.
>> What we Mac users call "Command" is the key two keys to the right of the
>> Control key. Pressing that key along with the "A" key "selects all".
>
> Yup! Ctrl-<A>all is standard command for PC (it's Windows command which
> most if not all Windows aps adapt the command)
>
>>> And I would say if you want some help solving your problem then spelling
>>> out exactly what you want the final photo may look like instead of asking
>>> how to use some command(s) that you don't know. Example (general)
Never mind, Joel.
>>>
>>> 1. If you want to print to a larger size.
>>>
>>> You DO NOT need to make a larger canvas size
>> I know that. The reason I need to adjust the canvas size is because I'm
>> more experienced now at using canvas pliers, so I've concluded that I
>> need a border of 2.25 inches around my images. This includes 1.375
>> inches to wrap around the sides of the wooden stretcher bars, and .875
>> inches for the back of the stretcher bars, for the canvas pliers to
>> grip, so I can pull the canvas tightly around the wooden bar, before
>> stapling the canvas to the wooden stretcher bars.
>
> I don't think you know that. And you need lot more answer than just
> Photoshop command alone.
What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
about it, from what I can tell.
> 1. First, if you really want the help quicker without many back/forth
> messages asking you what you really want, then you need to give more detail
> or exactly what you really want or really need.
A Photoshop expert who knows how to easily select a rectangular image to
isolate it from its canvas can say how to do that without know the
reason? Why does anyone want to make any kind of selection in P? To get
things done.
>
> Example, 2.25" of blank boarder around the image is already exceeded the
> 4x6" print.
>
> 2. If you want a VERY LARGE print then at least give some hint. Example
> 4x6' (or 48x72") then someone here good with mathematic may give you the
> calculation (of the exact RATIO).
>
> 3. And *IF* you need help with the photography, cropping, framing etc.
> technique, tips etc. then it's another story. I am a professional
> photographer and I do retouch and do poster size print quite often, and I
> never go through the problem you try to do.
>
> a. CROPPING - leave some background
>
> b. FRAMING - put a sheet of WHITE (or whatever color) of paper (you know
> the thick paper they use for framing) over the photo. I don't do
> framing, but that I sometime suggest my clients to do (idea)
>
>> Therefore, the previous canvas sizes that I've designated in P CS3 are
>> now not the right sizes and need to be adjusted.
>>> 2. If you want the picture displays larger on monitor
>>>
>>> You DO NOT need to *move* to a larger canvas size
How would you know what canvas size I need? You know nothing about what
my canvas size needs to be. You don't have a clue of what you're talking
about.
>> I know that.
>>
>> I'm using CS3 on a Mac. (I found a Mac-specific Photoshop newsgroup –
>> a.p.macintosh – but it has only 15 messages in it, so I'm less likely to
>> get help there. This group now has 479 messages in it.)
>
> It's so hard to get any clue from you, and I still have no clue what size
> you want to print.
That's because you're clueless.
So I may just give some general information hoping some
> may answer your question.
>
> 1. *If* you need to do some heavy retouching for large print (lets say
> 24x36" or larger) then I would suggest to work on 16-bit (I never need
> 32-bit so never used it).
For smaller print or light basic adjusting then
> 8-bit would be plenty good.
Malarkey. I've always used eight-bit even for five-foot-wide
high-quality art prints shown at high-end art galleries, and I never had
a problem with that. Again, you don't know what you're talking about,
and it has nothing to do with how to select an image to isolate it from
its canvas.
>
> And I am talking about good IQ (Image Quality) taken by good lens and
> professional DSLR camera. Around 10MP would be okay, 15-20+MP would be
> better.
Totally irrelevant.
>
> 2. 150-300 PPI would be plenty good (more won't bite ya). And if you want
> to push it over the edge (less than 150 PPI) or extra insurance (whatever
> you call it, or taking advantage of newer techinology etc.) then you may
> want to Increase the Size by **** PERCENTAGE****
>
> Yes, *PERCENTAGE* like 100% 150% etc. *not* larger W x H x R
>
> Other than that I can give you some secret that I NEVER use TIFF (I have
> nothing to against it but just don't need it)
I do need TIFFS and your 'secret' goes against all sound image quality
advice and is a giveaway that you're an amateur.
but JPG all the way. Some
> photolab may suggest to use .TIFF but they would accept JPG, and I don't
> like the idea of uploading 200-300MB TIFF file (single file as I tested) so
> I continue using JPG and still happy with the result.
>
Good
Good for you, but you're not a professional photographer making large
files, if you're using only JPEGs.
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> Joel wrote:
>>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>>
>>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I made an image.
>>>>
>>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
>>>>
>>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>>> wiped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
>>>> then the canvas size.
>>> Your newer cleaner question/explanation is still as clear as mud.
>>>
>>> 1. "I made an image."
>>>
>>> Got it!
>>>
>>> 2. "Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image"
>>>
>>> Got the slideshow how you use the command to create another Layer/Canvas
>>> which happen to be larger than the original photo. BUT it still give no
>>> clue
>>>
>>> a. what you are trying to do
>> I'm making images so that they have white borders when I print them on
>> white paper or artist's canvas.
>
> Yup! this is understandable and I bet most people can help you now.
>
> Lets assume the photos are 2:3 RATIO and you want a little BLANK boarders
> around them. There are MANY different ways but I will try to give one of
> the simple way to make it easy for you to follow, to adapt the idea to
> create your own style.
>
> 1. Create a BLANK canvas with H x W x R little larger than the photos you
> gonna added to it.
>
> 2. Set the CROP tool to 2.# x 3.# and # is the size of the WHITE boaders you
> want to add to the original photos. Example 2.1 x 3.1 and you only have to
> create ONCE/ONE
>
> 3. Now, just drag and drop the original photos to it and you have it. Or
> you drag & drop the larger canvas to the original photos (it's the same).
>
>> I'm taking some of my files that already have white borders and I want
>> to expand them so that they print at a bigger size.
>
> Now you are falling down the dig again. It sounds like you don't
> understand the meaning of "RATIO" and I think we may have to have more
> questions to ask you later.
>
> *Unless* you are trying to increasing the printing quality for the larger
> print then it's another story. But I am pretty sure you are talking about
> the RATIO
>
>> To do that I need to isolate the image from the canvas.
>>
>> When I make a white border all around the image, the image size then
>> includes the canvas size.
>>
>> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
>> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
>> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
>
> ONCE you got the idea (technique) then different color is the least thing
> you need to worry about. Or once you get the main thing (blank canvas made)
> then you can be able to CHANGE to any of 256,000 colors with lighting speed.
I never asked about 'different color' or 256,000 colors.
>
>> Therefore, in most cases I'm adjusting not only the image size, but also
>> the size of the white border.
>>
>> The white borders are not the same on all sides. They need to be shorter
>> on the top of the image, wider on the bottom, and usually wider oo the
>> right than the left.
>
> Are you talking about the boarder you WANT or the boarder you have problem
> with?
>
> Shorter TOP = Portrait
> Wider BOTTOM = Landscape
>
> Do you know how to use Rotate/Flip/Move etc. command?
What does that have to do with my question? Nothing.
>
>>> b. why you want a larger canvas size
>> So that the white borders on the printed images is different from size
>> of the white borders that I had made and printed previously,
>
> Explained about RATIO above
>
>>> c. do you understand the difference between RATIO, Resolution (PDI),
>>> Compression, and W x H etc..?
>> Yes.
>
> Then you should have no problem flowing the RATIO method
>
>>>> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
>>>> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
>>>> but it didn't find anything.
>>> Ctrl-A is for "PC" and PS doesn't have "Command" key I think it's only
>>> available in the MAC's world. I am not MAC user to know anything about MAC.
>> What we Mac users call "Command" is the key two keys to the right of the
>> Control key. Pressing that key along with the "A" key "selects all".
>
> Yup! Ctrl-<A>all is standard command for PC (it's Windows command which
> most if not all Windows aps adapt the command)
>
>>> And I would say if you want some help solving your problem then spelling
>>> out exactly what you want the final photo may look like instead of asking
>>> how to use some command(s) that you don't know. Example (general)
Never mind, Joel.
>>>
>>> 1. If you want to print to a larger size.
>>>
>>> You DO NOT need to make a larger canvas size
>> I know that. The reason I need to adjust the canvas size is because I'm
>> more experienced now at using canvas pliers, so I've concluded that I
>> need a border of 2.25 inches around my images. This includes 1.375
>> inches to wrap around the sides of the wooden stretcher bars, and .875
>> inches for the back of the stretcher bars, for the canvas pliers to
>> grip, so I can pull the canvas tightly around the wooden bar, before
>> stapling the canvas to the wooden stretcher bars.
>
> I don't think you know that. And you need lot more answer than just
> Photoshop command alone.
What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
about it, from what I can tell.
> 1. First, if you really want the help quicker without many back/forth
> messages asking you what you really want, then you need to give more detail
> or exactly what you really want or really need.
A Photoshop expert who knows how to easily select a rectangular image to
isolate it from its canvas can say how to do that without know the
reason? Why does anyone want to make any kind of selection in P? To get
things done.
>
> Example, 2.25" of blank boarder around the image is already exceeded the
> 4x6" print.
>
> 2. If you want a VERY LARGE print then at least give some hint. Example
> 4x6' (or 48x72") then someone here good with mathematic may give you the
> calculation (of the exact RATIO).
>
> 3. And *IF* you need help with the photography, cropping, framing etc.
> technique, tips etc. then it's another story. I am a professional
> photographer and I do retouch and do poster size print quite often, and I
> never go through the problem you try to do.
>
> a. CROPPING - leave some background
>
> b. FRAMING - put a sheet of WHITE (or whatever color) of paper (you know
> the thick paper they use for framing) over the photo. I don't do
> framing, but that I sometime suggest my clients to do (idea)
>
>> Therefore, the previous canvas sizes that I've designated in P CS3 are
>> now not the right sizes and need to be adjusted.
>>> 2. If you want the picture displays larger on monitor
>>>
>>> You DO NOT need to *move* to a larger canvas size
How would you know what canvas size I need? You know nothing about what
my canvas size needs to be. You don't have a clue of what you're talking
about.
>> I know that.
>>
>> I'm using CS3 on a Mac. (I found a Mac-specific Photoshop newsgroup –
>> a.p.macintosh – but it has only 15 messages in it, so I'm less likely to
>> get help there. This group now has 479 messages in it.)
>
> It's so hard to get any clue from you, and I still have no clue what size
> you want to print.
That's because you're clueless.
So I may just give some general information hoping some
> may answer your question.
>
> 1. *If* you need to do some heavy retouching for large print (lets say
> 24x36" or larger) then I would suggest to work on 16-bit (I never need
> 32-bit so never used it).
For smaller print or light basic adjusting then
> 8-bit would be plenty good.
Malarkey. I've always used eight-bit even for five-foot-wide
high-quality art prints shown at high-end art galleries, and I never had
a problem with that. Again, you don't know what you're talking about,
and it has nothing to do with how to select an image to isolate it from
its canvas.
>
> And I am talking about good IQ (Image Quality) taken by good lens and
> professional DSLR camera. Around 10MP would be okay, 15-20+MP would be
> better.
Totally irrelevant.
>
> 2. 150-300 PPI would be plenty good (more won't bite ya). And if you want
> to push it over the edge (less than 150 PPI) or extra insurance (whatever
> you call it, or taking advantage of newer techinology etc.) then you may
> want to Increase the Size by **** PERCENTAGE****
>
> Yes, *PERCENTAGE* like 100% 150% etc. *not* larger W x H x R
>
> Other than that I can give you some secret that I NEVER use TIFF (I have
> nothing to against it but just don't need it)
I do need TIFFS and your 'secret' goes against all sound image quality
advice and is a giveaway that you're an amateur.
but JPG all the way. Some
> photolab may suggest to use .TIFF but they would accept JPG, and I don't
> like the idea of uploading 200-300MB TIFF file (single file as I tested) so
> I continue using JPG and still happy with the result.
>
Good
Good for you, but you're not a professional photographer making large
files, if you're using only JPEGs.
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>> that has a white canvas around it.
>
> No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
> month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
Gibberish?
> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>
> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
so hard to understand about my explanation?
Robert
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>> that has a white canvas around it.
>
> No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
> month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
Gibberish?
> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>
> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
so hard to understand about my explanation?
Robert
| |
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>>> that has a white canvas around it.
>>
>> No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
>> month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
>
>Gibberish?
Look it up, it's "plain English".
>> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>>
>> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>
>That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
>so hard to understand about my explanation?
Judging by the number of people guessing at just what the I love you were
prattling on about I wasn't the only one who thought you were
inarticulate. Maybe you're just an idiot (there's no maybe about it, I
was pretending to be nice, I'm not, really).
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>>> that has a white canvas around it.
>>
>> No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
>> month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
>
>Gibberish?
Look it up, it's "plain English".
>> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>>
>> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>
>That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
>so hard to understand about my explanation?
Judging by the number of people guessing at just what the I love you were
prattling on about I wasn't the only one who thought you were
inarticulate. Maybe you're just an idiot (there's no maybe about it, I
was pretending to be nice, I'm not, really).
| |
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
Going just by your posts and your increasingly antagonistic attitude
it's easily clear you're a clueless newbie.
>dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
>by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
Seriously? Bragging? Is your ego (and penis) so small you need to
bolster them both by bragging (lying most likely) about such an
irrelevance?
>Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
>have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
>about it, from what I can tell.
And yet you couldn't articulate your problem. Couldn't solve your own
problem. Couldn't explain it any better then 2nd time around and are
acting like a complete fucktard because no one will leap forward and
make everything all super duper okay for you.
You've got a million bucks, go HIRE someone to fix your fuckups!
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
Going just by your posts and your increasingly antagonistic attitude
it's easily clear you're a clueless newbie.
>dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
>by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
Seriously? Bragging? Is your ego (and penis) so small you need to
bolster them both by bragging (lying most likely) about such an
irrelevance?
>Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
>have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
>about it, from what I can tell.
And yet you couldn't articulate your problem. Couldn't solve your own
problem. Couldn't explain it any better then 2nd time around and are
acting like a complete fucktard because no one will leap forward and
make everything all super duper okay for you.
You've got a million bucks, go HIRE someone to fix your fuckups!
| |
|
Just a closing thought.
First, if the task in question is vital, and you use it often, then
scripting might be in order. If scripting is not your thing, then
perhaps someone can write it for you.
Can you change your procedure to first work with the full canvas, and
then as a last step, expand the canvas size to exactly what you need?
For example, to expand it X-inches by Y-inches to fit the tool you use?
First, if the task in question is vital, and you use it often, then
scripting might be in order. If scripting is not your thing, then
perhaps someone can write it for you.
Can you change your procedure to first work with the full canvas, and
then as a last step, expand the canvas size to exactly what you need?
For example, to expand it X-inches by Y-inches to fit the tool you use?
| |
|
In article <nhoj-3F5504.06461607062010@news.supernews.com>,
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote:
> Just a closing thought.
Promises promises...
--
dorayme
John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote:
> Just a closing thought.
Promises promises...
--
dorayme
| |
|
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
words:
>Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
>> words:
>>
>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>
>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>
>>> I made an image.
>>>
>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
>>>
>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>> wiped out.
>>>
>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
>>> then the canvas size.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
>>> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
>>> but it didn't find anything.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>
>> Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
>> wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
>> image.
>
>Thanks, Sir Rien.
>
>That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>images are also white or near white so even with feather radius set
>to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>magic wand tool.
>
>Robert
Lower the tolerance setting for the magic wwand, and don't use feathering.
Trim off any remaining incursions with ALT and the rectangle or other
seleting tool.
words:
>Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
>> words:
>>
>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>
>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>
>>> I made an image.
>>>
>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
>>>
>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>> wiped out.
>>>
>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
>>> then the canvas size.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
>>> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
>>> but it didn't find anything.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>
>> Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
>> wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
>> image.
>
>Thanks, Sir Rien.
>
>That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>images are also white or near white so even with feather radius set
>to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>magic wand tool.
>
>Robert
Lower the tolerance setting for the magic wwand, and don't use feathering.
Trim off any remaining incursions with ALT and the rectangle or other
seleting tool.
| |
|
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> Lower the tolerance setting for the magic wwand, and don't use
> feathering.
>
> Trim off any remaining incursions with ALT and the rectangle or other
seleting tool.
Why not simply select the image using the rectangular selection tool?
How hard can that be?
--
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
> Lower the tolerance setting for the magic wwand, and don't use
> feathering.
>
> Trim off any remaining incursions with ALT and the rectangle or other
seleting tool.
Why not simply select the image using the rectangular selection tool?
How hard can that be?
--
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>>>> that has a white canvas around it.
>>> No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
>>> month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
>> Gibberish?
>
> Look it up, it's "plain English".
>
>>> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>>>
>>> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>> That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
>> so hard to understand about my explanation?
>
> Judging by the number of people guessing at just what the I love you were
> prattling on about I wasn't the only one who thought you were
> inarticulate. Maybe you're just an idiot (there's no maybe about it, I
> was pretending to be nice, I'm not, really).
What is it you didn't understand about my question?
And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
> "If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border
> (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection.
And this response was also misinterpreted because of fuzzy thinking and
an illogical assumption:
> The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image.
If I had wanted to select a section of an image, I would have written
that I wanted to select a section of an image. Instead, I wrote that I
wanted to select an image. Obviously, that means I wanted to select the
WHOLE image.
If I wrote, "I want to drive to work" would a logical person interpret
that to mean, "I want to drive halfway to work, park the car and ride my
bicycle the rest of the way?"
Robert
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>>>> that has a white canvas around it.
>>> No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
>>> month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
>> Gibberish?
>
> Look it up, it's "plain English".
>
>>> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>>>
>>> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>> That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
>> so hard to understand about my explanation?
>
> Judging by the number of people guessing at just what the I love you were
> prattling on about I wasn't the only one who thought you were
> inarticulate. Maybe you're just an idiot (there's no maybe about it, I
> was pretending to be nice, I'm not, really).
What is it you didn't understand about my question?
And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
> "If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border
> (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection.
And this response was also misinterpreted because of fuzzy thinking and
an illogical assumption:
> The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image.
If I had wanted to select a section of an image, I would have written
that I wanted to select a section of an image. Instead, I wrote that I
wanted to select an image. Obviously, that means I wanted to select the
WHOLE image.
If I wrote, "I want to drive to work" would a logical person interpret
that to mean, "I want to drive halfway to work, park the car and ride my
bicycle the rest of the way?"
Robert
| |
|
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
words:
>
>And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
>reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
>million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
>
And the same idiots will probably vote BamBam in for a 2nd ... hoping to
again DOUBLE the debt!
If you promise enough and give away enough -=anybody=-, birthright or not,
can become president.
words:
>
>And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
>reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
>million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
>
And the same idiots will probably vote BamBam in for a 2nd ... hoping to
again DOUBLE the debt!
If you promise enough and give away enough -=anybody=-, birthright or not,
can become president.
| |
|
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
> words:
>
>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
>>> words:
>>>
>>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>>
>>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I made an image.
>>>>
>>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
>>>>
>>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>>> wiped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
>>>> then the canvas size.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
>>>> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
>>>> but it didn't find anything.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>> Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
>>> wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
>>> image.
>> Thanks, Sir Rien.
>>
>> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>> images are also white – or near white – so even with feather radius set
>> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>> magic wand tool.
>>
>> Robert
>
> Lower the tolerance setting for the magic wwand, and don't use feathering.
>
> Trim off any remaining incursions with ALT and the rectangle or other
> seleting tool.
Thanks, Sir.
Even with tolerance set to "0", and feathering set to 0.2, it doesn't
always work.
If I have white – or light-colored – areas of my images that abut the
edge(s) of my images, Alt-clicking on the canvas will select some of
those light image areas along with the white canvas, so that when I go
Image > Crop, the cropping won't happen because my selection rectangle
has uneven edges.
Robert
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
> words:
>
>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
>>> words:
>>>
>>>> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
>>>>
>>>> I'll rephrase the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I made an image.
>>>>
>>>> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
>>>>
>>>> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
>>>> wiped out.
>>>>
>>>> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
>>>> then the canvas size.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
>>>> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
>>>> but it didn't find anything.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>> Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
>>> wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
>>> image.
>> Thanks, Sir Rien.
>>
>> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
>> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
>> images are also white – or near white – so even with feather radius set
>> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
>> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
>> magic wand tool.
>>
>> Robert
>
> Lower the tolerance setting for the magic wwand, and don't use feathering.
>
> Trim off any remaining incursions with ALT and the rectangle or other
> seleting tool.
Thanks, Sir.
Even with tolerance set to "0", and feathering set to 0.2, it doesn't
always work.
If I have white – or light-colored – areas of my images that abut the
edge(s) of my images, Alt-clicking on the canvas will select some of
those light image areas along with the white canvas, so that when I go
Image > Crop, the cropping won't happen because my selection rectangle
has uneven edges.
Robert
| |
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:23:52 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
<jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> scribbled:
>And the same idiots will probably vote BamBam in for a 2nd ... hoping to
>again DOUBLE the debt!
No, really, there's no reason to moronically devolve his stupidity into
even stupider political diatribe. If you feel the need to whine about
politics go find the right group and fucking do it there.
<jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> scribbled:
>And the same idiots will probably vote BamBam in for a 2nd ... hoping to
>again DOUBLE the debt!
No, really, there's no reason to moronically devolve his stupidity into
even stupider political diatribe. If you feel the need to whine about
politics go find the right group and fucking do it there.
| |
|
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> Lower the tolerance setting for the magic wwand, and don't use
>> feathering.
>>
>> Trim off any remaining incursions with ALT and the rectangle or other
> seleting tool.
>
> Why not simply select the image using the rectangular selection tool?
> How hard can that be?
As I wrote before, using the rectangular selection tool on a large image
means zooming in a lot to get the precise edges of the images, so that
all of the image and none of the canvas is selected.
There doesn't appear to be any way to do this without zooming in a lot.
At least now I've discovered that I can zoom to 300 percent and
click-drag with the rectangular selection tool from one corner of the
image to the opposite corner.
Before I learned to set the grid to one-pixel increments and then
activate the grid and then click-dragging with the rectangular selection
tool, I had to zoom to the max – 3200 percent, which meant that
scrolling from one corner to the opposite corner of the image with the
pixels whizzing by at seemingly warp speed, took a minute or two for
each image.
Robert
> Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>
>> Lower the tolerance setting for the magic wwand, and don't use
>> feathering.
>>
>> Trim off any remaining incursions with ALT and the rectangle or other
> seleting tool.
>
> Why not simply select the image using the rectangular selection tool?
> How hard can that be?
As I wrote before, using the rectangular selection tool on a large image
means zooming in a lot to get the precise edges of the images, so that
all of the image and none of the canvas is selected.
There doesn't appear to be any way to do this without zooming in a lot.
At least now I've discovered that I can zoom to 300 percent and
click-drag with the rectangular selection tool from one corner of the
image to the opposite corner.
Before I learned to set the grid to one-pixel increments and then
activate the grid and then click-dragging with the rectangular selection
tool, I had to zoom to the max – 3200 percent, which meant that
scrolling from one corner to the opposite corner of the image with the
pixels whizzing by at seemingly warp speed, took a minute or two for
each image.
Robert
| |
|
In article <KD9Pn.6043$Z6.2214@edtnps82>,
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> [...]
> Before I learned to set the grid to one-pixel increments and then
> activate the grid and then click-dragging with the rectangular selection
> tool, I had to zoom to the max – 3200 percent, which meant that
> scrolling from one corner to the opposite corner of the image with the
> pixels whizzing by at seemingly warp speed, took a minute or two for
> each image.
It might be easier to Show Ruler (to set your desired border space),
then create four Guides that align with the original image. With Snap
on, you can use the Crop Marquee tool snapped to the guides.
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> [...]
> Before I learned to set the grid to one-pixel increments and then
> activate the grid and then click-dragging with the rectangular selection
> tool, I had to zoom to the max – 3200 percent, which meant that
> scrolling from one corner to the opposite corner of the image with the
> pixels whizzing by at seemingly warp speed, took a minute or two for
> each image.
It might be easier to Show Ruler (to set your desired border space),
then create four Guides that align with the original image. With Snap
on, you can use the Crop Marquee tool snapped to the guides.
| |
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:04:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> Voivod wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>>>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>>>
>>>>> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>>>>> that has a white canvas around it.
>>>> No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
>>>> month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
>>> Gibberish?
>>
>> Look it up, it's "plain English".
>>
>>>> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>>>>
>>>> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>>> That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
>>> so hard to understand about my explanation?
>>
>> Judging by the number of people guessing at just what the I love you were
>> prattling on about I wasn't the only one who thought you were
>> inarticulate. Maybe you're just an idiot (there's no maybe about it, I
>> was pretending to be nice, I'm not, really).
>
>What is it you didn't understand about my question?
What is it that you didn't understand the first twenty times people
explained and commented why your question made little to no sense?
>And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
>reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
Why yes, it is. Don't blame others for your inability to articulate your
fuckups.
>million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
Quick, when you're making an ass out of yourself obfuscate with
completely irrelevant commentary!
>Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
I'm so sorry that your request for FREE help with a program you're now
bragging at knowing SO well didn't meet with your expectations. DEMAND a
refund, fucker.
>> "If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border
>> (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection.
>
>And this response was also misinterpreted because of fuzzy thinking and
>an illogical assumption:
No it was because you couldn't express yourself.
>> The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image.
>
>If I had wanted to select a section of an image, I would have written
>that I wanted to select a section of an image. Instead, I wrote that I
>wanted to select an image. Obviously, that means I wanted to select the
>WHOLE image.
It was explained, several times, how to select ALL of the image but then
you prattled on about a border that you DON'T want to select so either
you couldn't articulate yourself, again, or you, again, don't have a
fucking clue what you're talking about.
>If I wrote, "I want to drive to work" would a logical person interpret
>that to mean, "I want to drive halfway to work, park the car and ride my
>bicycle the rest of the way?"
You're very defensive for a millionaire, why is it you haven't just
fucked off and left?
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> Voivod wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>>>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>>>
>>>>> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
>>>>> that has a white canvas around it.
>>>> No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
>>>> month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
>>> Gibberish?
>>
>> Look it up, it's "plain English".
>>
>>>> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>>>>
>>>> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>>> That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
>>> so hard to understand about my explanation?
>>
>> Judging by the number of people guessing at just what the I love you were
>> prattling on about I wasn't the only one who thought you were
>> inarticulate. Maybe you're just an idiot (there's no maybe about it, I
>> was pretending to be nice, I'm not, really).
>
>What is it you didn't understand about my question?
What is it that you didn't understand the first twenty times people
explained and commented why your question made little to no sense?
>And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
>reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
Why yes, it is. Don't blame others for your inability to articulate your
fuckups.
>million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
Quick, when you're making an ass out of yourself obfuscate with
completely irrelevant commentary!
>Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
I'm so sorry that your request for FREE help with a program you're now
bragging at knowing SO well didn't meet with your expectations. DEMAND a
refund, fucker.
>> "If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border
>> (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection.
>
>And this response was also misinterpreted because of fuzzy thinking and
>an illogical assumption:
No it was because you couldn't express yourself.
>> The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image.
>
>If I had wanted to select a section of an image, I would have written
>that I wanted to select a section of an image. Instead, I wrote that I
>wanted to select an image. Obviously, that means I wanted to select the
>WHOLE image.
It was explained, several times, how to select ALL of the image but then
you prattled on about a border that you DON'T want to select so either
you couldn't articulate yourself, again, or you, again, don't have a
fucking clue what you're talking about.
>If I wrote, "I want to drive to work" would a logical person interpret
>that to mean, "I want to drive halfway to work, park the car and ride my
>bicycle the rest of the way?"
You're very defensive for a millionaire, why is it you haven't just
fucked off and left?
| |
|
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> >> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
> >> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
> >> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
> >
> > ONCE you got the idea (technique) then different color is the least thing
> > you need to worry about. Or once you get the main thing (blank canvas made)
> > then you can be able to CHANGE to any of 256,000 colors with lighting speed.
>
> I never asked about 'different color' or 256,000 colors.
I know you never asked but you told (mentioned) us. Here is your original
================================
To do that I need to isolate the image from the canvas.
When I make a white border all around the image, the image size then
includes the canvas size.
I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
==================================
> >> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
> >> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
> >> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
> >
> > ONCE you got the idea (technique) then different color is the least thing
> > you need to worry about. Or once you get the main thing (blank canvas made)
> > then you can be able to CHANGE to any of 256,000 colors with lighting speed.
>
> I never asked about 'different color' or 256,000 colors.
I know you never asked but you told (mentioned) us. Here is your original
================================
To do that I need to isolate the image from the canvas.
When I make a white border all around the image, the image size then
includes the canvas size.
I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
==================================
| |
|
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> > Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
> > words:
> >
> >> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
> >>
> >> I'll rephrase the problem.
> >>
> >> I made an image.
> >>
> >> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
> >>
> >> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
> >> wiped out.
> >>
> >> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
> >> then the canvas size.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
> >> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
> >> but it didn't find anything.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >
> > Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
> > wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
> > image.
>
> Thanks, Sir Rien.
>
> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
> images are also white or near white so even with feather radius set
> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
> magic wand tool.
Do you understand the difference between Ctrl-A (Command-A) vs Magic Wand?
To confess my sin, I haven't used the Magic Wand for many years.
> Robert
> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
> > Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
> > words:
> >
> >> I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
> >>
> >> I'll rephrase the problem.
> >>
> >> I made an image.
> >>
> >> Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.
> >>
> >> I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been
> >> wiped out.
> >>
> >> Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and
> >> then the canvas size.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> One of suggested Ctrl-A? What's that supposed to do? Do you mean
> >> Command-A? I looked up "Ctrl'A" and "Control-A" in Adobe Help Viewer,
> >> but it didn't find anything.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >
> > Hold CONTROL, hit "A". That selects entire workspace. Then switch to magic
> > wand, hold ALT and click on the 'empty' canvas. You now should have just the
> > image.
>
> Thanks, Sir Rien.
>
> That solution has already been proposed by someone and rejected (by me)
> in this thread, because the canvas is white, and some parts of the
> images are also white or near white so even with feather radius set
> to the minimum (0.2 pixels) some areas of the image get selected along
> with the entire border when I do Alt > click on the canvas, with the
> magic wand tool.
Do you understand the difference between Ctrl-A (Command-A) vs Magic Wand?
To confess my sin, I haven't used the Magic Wand for many years.
> Robert
| |
|
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> > I don't think you get it (yet).
>
> YOU get it, Joel. You don't get any of what's been written in this
> thread, I think.
>
> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
> that has a white canvas around it.
>
> But in your last letter you wrote again that you still don't understand
> the problem, and went on various irrelevant tangents about picture
> framing, how to get my images to appear bigger on my screen (I never
> gave any hint that I have that problem), claimed irrationally that I
> don't understand ratios because I wrote that I want to alter my canvas
> sizes, and gave the absurd advice to use JPEGS instead of TIFFs for high
> quality images.
>
> Robert
That's the problem because you never give any hint about your problem.
> > I don't think you get it (yet).
>
> YOU get it, Joel. You don't get any of what's been written in this
> thread, I think.
>
> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
> that has a white canvas around it.
>
> But in your last letter you wrote again that you still don't understand
> the problem, and went on various irrelevant tangents about picture
> framing, how to get my images to appear bigger on my screen (I never
> gave any hint that I have that problem), claimed irrationally that I
> don't understand ratios because I wrote that I want to alter my canvas
> sizes, and gave the absurd advice to use JPEGS instead of TIFFs for high
> quality images.
>
> Robert
That's the problem because you never give any hint about your problem.
| |
|
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> Voivod wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> > <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
> >
> >> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
> >> that has a white canvas around it.
> >
> > No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
> > month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
>
> Gibberish?
>
> > How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
> >
> > The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>
> That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
> so hard to understand about my explanation?
I have no clue what your explanation is about when you are the one with
problem. IOW, you should be the one who provide the detail information for
other to explain the solution to you.
> Robert
> Voivod wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> > <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
> >
> >> I asked a simple question: how to precisely select a rectangular image
> >> that has a white canvas around it.
> >
> > No, you didn't. You asked a nearly gibberish question and took almost a
> > month to barely articulate what you were actually trying to accomplish.
>
> Gibberish?
>
> > How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
> >
> > The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>
> That's plain English. Maybe you don't understand plain English. What's
> so hard to understand about my explanation?
I have no clue what your explanation is about when you are the one with
problem. IOW, you should be the one who provide the detail information for
other to explain the solution to you.
> Robert
| |
|
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> What is it you didn't understand about my question?
>
> And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
> reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
> million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
>
> Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
I think you get the wrong stupid idea too. If you are not smart enough to
get other to understand your problem, then it's a problem.
> What is it you didn't understand about my question?
>
> And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
> reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
> million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
>
> Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
I think you get the wrong stupid idea too. If you are not smart enough to
get other to understand your problem, then it's a problem.
| |
|
Voivod <Voi@vod.con> found these unused words:
>On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:23:52 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
><jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> scribbled:
>
>>And the same idiots will probably vote BamBam in for a 2nd ... hoping to
>>again DOUBLE the debt!
>
>No, really, there's no reason to moronically devolve his stupidity into
>even stupider political diatribe. If you feel the need to whine about
>politics go find the right group and fucking do it there.
.... as you have shown us your 'perfect examples' in the past?
ROTFLAMO ... Pot --- Kettle!
>On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:23:52 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
><jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> scribbled:
>
>>And the same idiots will probably vote BamBam in for a 2nd ... hoping to
>>again DOUBLE the debt!
>
>No, really, there's no reason to moronically devolve his stupidity into
>even stupider political diatribe. If you feel the need to whine about
>politics go find the right group and fucking do it there.
.... as you have shown us your 'perfect examples' in the past?
ROTFLAMO ... Pot --- Kettle!
| |
|
John Stafford wrote:
> Just a closing thought.
>
> First, if the task in question is vital, and you use it often, then
> scripting might be in order. If scripting is not your thing, then
> perhaps someone can write it for you.
>
> Can you change your procedure to first work with the full canvas, and
> then as a last step, expand the canvas size to exactly what you need?
> For example, to expand it X-inches by Y-inches to fit the tool you use?
Thanks, John, for the suggestion.
Scripting is not one of my fortes because of the complexity, so I want
to steer clear of it.
Robert
> Just a closing thought.
>
> First, if the task in question is vital, and you use it often, then
> scripting might be in order. If scripting is not your thing, then
> perhaps someone can write it for you.
>
> Can you change your procedure to first work with the full canvas, and
> then as a last step, expand the canvas size to exactly what you need?
> For example, to expand it X-inches by Y-inches to fit the tool you use?
Thanks, John, for the suggestion.
Scripting is not one of my fortes because of the complexity, so I want
to steer clear of it.
Robert
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
>
> Going just by your posts and your increasingly antagonistic attitude
> it's easily clear you're a clueless newbie.
>
>> dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
>> by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
>
> Seriously? Bragging? Is your ego (and penis) so small you need to
> bolster them both by bragging (lying most likely) about such an
> irrelevance?
I wasn't bragging. A million dollars worth of sales is not exceptional.
It's good, but not exceptional. Millions of Photoshop users have
achieved the same level of sales.
I wasn't bragging; just setting the record straight so that foolish,
condescending Joel would stop making the illogical and insulting
assumption that I'm a neophyte.
I wasn't bragging. Would Arnold Schwartznegger be bragging to tell
someone that doesn't know about his that he's a former Mr. Universe, a
famous Hollywoood actor and the governor of the most populous state in
the U.S.? Not if he were being treated like an ignorant neophyte
bodybuilder, actor and politician. He would simply be telling the facts
of the situation to set the record straight.
>> Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
>> have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
>> about it, from what I can tell.
>
> And yet you couldn't articulate your problem. Couldn't solve your own
> problem. Couldn't explain it any better then 2nd time around and are
> acting like a complete fucktard because no one will leap forward and
> make everything all super duper okay for you.
That's false. I just don't like being insulted repeatedly (being treated
like a beginner when there's no evidence that I'm a beginner.)
>
> You've got a million bucks, go HIRE someone to fix your fuckups!
I never wrote – or even vaguely implied – that I have a million bucks.
Your misinterpretation emphasizes how easy it is for people to make
false assumptions about what is written.
Also, I wasn't asking that my 'fuckups' be fixed. I was seeking a more
efficient procedure for my workflow.
Please take a deep breath and cool your anger, and approach the
situation with equilibrium and civility.
Robert
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
>
> Going just by your posts and your increasingly antagonistic attitude
> it's easily clear you're a clueless newbie.
>
>> dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
>> by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
>
> Seriously? Bragging? Is your ego (and penis) so small you need to
> bolster them both by bragging (lying most likely) about such an
> irrelevance?
I wasn't bragging. A million dollars worth of sales is not exceptional.
It's good, but not exceptional. Millions of Photoshop users have
achieved the same level of sales.
I wasn't bragging; just setting the record straight so that foolish,
condescending Joel would stop making the illogical and insulting
assumption that I'm a neophyte.
I wasn't bragging. Would Arnold Schwartznegger be bragging to tell
someone that doesn't know about his that he's a former Mr. Universe, a
famous Hollywoood actor and the governor of the most populous state in
the U.S.? Not if he were being treated like an ignorant neophyte
bodybuilder, actor and politician. He would simply be telling the facts
of the situation to set the record straight.
>> Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
>> have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
>> about it, from what I can tell.
>
> And yet you couldn't articulate your problem. Couldn't solve your own
> problem. Couldn't explain it any better then 2nd time around and are
> acting like a complete fucktard because no one will leap forward and
> make everything all super duper okay for you.
That's false. I just don't like being insulted repeatedly (being treated
like a beginner when there's no evidence that I'm a beginner.)
>
> You've got a million bucks, go HIRE someone to fix your fuckups!
I never wrote – or even vaguely implied – that I have a million bucks.
Your misinterpretation emphasizes how easy it is for people to make
false assumptions about what is written.
Also, I wasn't asking that my 'fuckups' be fixed. I was seeking a more
efficient procedure for my workflow.
Please take a deep breath and cool your anger, and approach the
situation with equilibrium and civility.
Robert
| |
|
Joel wrote:
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
>>>> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
>>>> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
>>> ONCE you got the idea (technique) then different color is the least thing
>>> you need to worry about. Or once you get the main thing (blank canvas made)
>>> then you can be able to CHANGE to any of 256,000 colors with lighting speed.
>> I never asked about 'different color' or 256,000 colors.
>
> I know you never asked but you told (mentioned) us. Here is your original
>
> ================================
> To do that I need to isolate the image from the canvas.
>
> When I make a white border all around the image, the image size then
> includes the canvas size.
>
> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
> ==================================
All the borders I'm using are white, so there is no issue of using a
'different' border color, and I never mentioned changing the color of
the border.
Robert
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
>>>> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
>>>> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
>>> ONCE you got the idea (technique) then different color is the least thing
>>> you need to worry about. Or once you get the main thing (blank canvas made)
>>> then you can be able to CHANGE to any of 256,000 colors with lighting speed.
>> I never asked about 'different color' or 256,000 colors.
>
> I know you never asked but you told (mentioned) us. Here is your original
>
> ================================
> To do that I need to isolate the image from the canvas.
>
> When I make a white border all around the image, the image size then
> includes the canvas size.
>
> I want to isolate the image from the surrounding, white border, so I can
> trim the border, blow up the image and then add back a border size which
> in most cases is different from the previous canvas size.
> ==================================
All the borders I'm using are white, so there is no issue of using a
'different' border color, and I never mentioned changing the color of
the border.
Robert
| |
|
John Stafford wrote:
> In article <KD9Pn.6043$Z6.2214@edtnps82>,
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Before I learned to set the grid to one-pixel increments and then
>> activate the grid and then click-dragging with the rectangular selection
>> tool, I had to zoom to the max – 3200 percent, which meant that
>> scrolling from one corner to the opposite corner of the image with the
>> pixels whizzing by at seemingly warp speed, took a minute or two for
>> each image.
>
> It might be easier to Show Ruler (to set your desired border space),
> then create four Guides that align with the original image. With Snap
> on, you can use the Crop Marquee tool snapped to the guides.
Thanks, John.
That seems to be the best solution.
I didn't realize until now that if I have a guide aligned with the edges
of the images, those guides remain at the edges of the images even after
changing the image size, so they can be reused at different image sizes
without having to be moved.
Your method seems to be faster and more efficient than the option of not
using Guides, and instead activating the Grid and zooming to 300 or 600
percent to one corner of the image and click-dragging the Rectangular
Marquee Tool to the opposite corner of the image.
The fact that the four guides can be reused at different images sizes
without having to be re-moved compensates for the fact that I have to
initially zoom to 3200 percent to one corner – and then the opposite
corner – to get the four guides to snap exactly against the four edges
of the rectangular or square images. (I have to zoom closely even though
Snap To Guides is selected.)
Robert
> In article <KD9Pn.6043$Z6.2214@edtnps82>,
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Before I learned to set the grid to one-pixel increments and then
>> activate the grid and then click-dragging with the rectangular selection
>> tool, I had to zoom to the max – 3200 percent, which meant that
>> scrolling from one corner to the opposite corner of the image with the
>> pixels whizzing by at seemingly warp speed, took a minute or two for
>> each image.
>
> It might be easier to Show Ruler (to set your desired border space),
> then create four Guides that align with the original image. With Snap
> on, you can use the Crop Marquee tool snapped to the guides.
Thanks, John.
That seems to be the best solution.
I didn't realize until now that if I have a guide aligned with the edges
of the images, those guides remain at the edges of the images even after
changing the image size, so they can be reused at different image sizes
without having to be moved.
Your method seems to be faster and more efficient than the option of not
using Guides, and instead activating the Grid and zooming to 300 or 600
percent to one corner of the image and click-dragging the Rectangular
Marquee Tool to the opposite corner of the image.
The fact that the four guides can be reused at different images sizes
without having to be re-moved compensates for the fact that I have to
initially zoom to 3200 percent to one corner – and then the opposite
corner – to get the four guides to snap exactly against the four edges
of the rectangular or square images. (I have to zoom closely even though
Snap To Guides is selected.)
Robert
| |
|
In article <OUuPn.6119$Z6.306@edtnps82>,
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> I didn't realize until now that if I have a guide aligned with the edges
> of the images, those guides remain at the edges of the images even after
> changing the image size, so they can be reused at different image sizes
> without having to be moved.
Aside: guides are saved with the photoshop image so that you can close,
and later open the image and they will still be there for your use. They
do not print, so there is no worry.
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> I didn't realize until now that if I have a guide aligned with the edges
> of the images, those guides remain at the edges of the images even after
> changing the image size, so they can be reused at different image sizes
> without having to be moved.
Aside: guides are saved with the photoshop image so that you can close,
and later open the image and they will still be there for your use. They
do not print, so there is no worry.
| |
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:45 GMT, Robert Montgomery
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
>>
>> Going just by your posts and your increasingly antagonistic attitude
>> it's easily clear you're a clueless newbie.
>>
>>> dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
>>> by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
>>
>> Seriously? Bragging? Is your ego (and penis) so small you need to
>> bolster them both by bragging (lying most likely) about such an
>> irrelevance?
>
>I wasn't bragging. A million dollars worth of sales is not exceptional.
>It's good, but not exceptional. Millions of Photoshop users have
>achieved the same level of sales.
>
>I wasn't bragging; just setting the record straight so that foolish,
You were bragging. It was completely irrelevant information and totally
unnecessary to the discussion but you needed to bring it to the public
attention.
>condescending Joel would stop making the illogical and insulting
>assumption that I'm a neophyte.
You are a neophyte.
>I wasn't bragging. Would Arnold Schwartznegger be bragging to tell
>someone that doesn't know about his that he's a former Mr. Universe, a
You're not Arnold.
>famous Hollywoood actor and the governor of the most populous state in
>the U.S.? Not if he were being treated like an ignorant neophyte
>bodybuilder, actor and politician. He would simply be telling the facts
>of the situation to set the record straight.
But you're acting just like a clueless newbie and expecting to be
treated like a Photoshop Guru based on...well, nothing.
>>> Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
>>> have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
>>> about it, from what I can tell.
>>
>> And yet you couldn't articulate your problem. Couldn't solve your own
>> problem. Couldn't explain it any better then 2nd time around and are
>> acting like a complete fucktard because no one will leap forward and
>> make everything all super duper okay for you.
>
>That's false. I just don't like being insulted repeatedly (being treated
>like a beginner when there's no evidence that I'm a beginner.)
Not being able to solve a simple problem. Not being able to describe the
problem to a group of people conversant in the application you're
fucking up with. Not being able to handle the criticism. You've given
plenty of evidence that you're a n00b.
>> You've got a million bucks, go HIRE someone to fix your fuckups!
>
>I never wrote or even vaguely implied that I have a million bucks.
>Your misinterpretation emphasizes how easy it is for people to make
>false assumptions about what is written.
Go back to school and learn to write properly.
>Also, I wasn't asking that my 'fuckups' be fixed. I was seeking a more
>efficient procedure for my workflow.
Hire someone to help you make money, Piker.
>Please take a deep breath and cool your anger, and approach the
>situation with equilibrium and civility.
I'm not angry. I'm amused. Now, fuck off, money bags, you can afford to
hire a tutor.
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
>>
>> Going just by your posts and your increasingly antagonistic attitude
>> it's easily clear you're a clueless newbie.
>>
>>> dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
>>> by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
>>
>> Seriously? Bragging? Is your ego (and penis) so small you need to
>> bolster them both by bragging (lying most likely) about such an
>> irrelevance?
>
>I wasn't bragging. A million dollars worth of sales is not exceptional.
>It's good, but not exceptional. Millions of Photoshop users have
>achieved the same level of sales.
>
>I wasn't bragging; just setting the record straight so that foolish,
You were bragging. It was completely irrelevant information and totally
unnecessary to the discussion but you needed to bring it to the public
attention.
>condescending Joel would stop making the illogical and insulting
>assumption that I'm a neophyte.
You are a neophyte.
>I wasn't bragging. Would Arnold Schwartznegger be bragging to tell
>someone that doesn't know about his that he's a former Mr. Universe, a
You're not Arnold.
>famous Hollywoood actor and the governor of the most populous state in
>the U.S.? Not if he were being treated like an ignorant neophyte
>bodybuilder, actor and politician. He would simply be telling the facts
>of the situation to set the record straight.
But you're acting just like a clueless newbie and expecting to be
treated like a Photoshop Guru based on...well, nothing.
>>> Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
>>> have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
>>> about it, from what I can tell.
>>
>> And yet you couldn't articulate your problem. Couldn't solve your own
>> problem. Couldn't explain it any better then 2nd time around and are
>> acting like a complete fucktard because no one will leap forward and
>> make everything all super duper okay for you.
>
>That's false. I just don't like being insulted repeatedly (being treated
>like a beginner when there's no evidence that I'm a beginner.)
Not being able to solve a simple problem. Not being able to describe the
problem to a group of people conversant in the application you're
fucking up with. Not being able to handle the criticism. You've given
plenty of evidence that you're a n00b.
>> You've got a million bucks, go HIRE someone to fix your fuckups!
>
>I never wrote or even vaguely implied that I have a million bucks.
>Your misinterpretation emphasizes how easy it is for people to make
>false assumptions about what is written.
Go back to school and learn to write properly.
>Also, I wasn't asking that my 'fuckups' be fixed. I was seeking a more
>efficient procedure for my workflow.
Hire someone to help you make money, Piker.
>Please take a deep breath and cool your anger, and approach the
>situation with equilibrium and civility.
I'm not angry. I'm amused. Now, fuck off, money bags, you can afford to
hire a tutor.
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
>
>> And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
>> reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
>
> Why yes, it is. Don't blame others for your inability to articulate your
> fuckups.
>
>> million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
>
> Quick, when you're making an ass out of yourself obfuscate with
> completely irrelevant commentary!
I didn't make an ass out of myself. I made a clever comparison, by
demonstrating that people are generally stupid, which explains their
general inability to comprehend written material.
>> Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
>
> I'm so sorry that your request for FREE help with a program you're now
> bragging at knowing SO well didn't meet with your expectations. DEMAND a
> refund, fucker.
Okay. I want compensation from you for defamation, stress and lost wages.
Robert
>
>> And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
>> reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
>
> Why yes, it is. Don't blame others for your inability to articulate your
> fuckups.
>
>> million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
>
> Quick, when you're making an ass out of yourself obfuscate with
> completely irrelevant commentary!
I didn't make an ass out of myself. I made a clever comparison, by
demonstrating that people are generally stupid, which explains their
general inability to comprehend written material.
>> Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
>
> I'm so sorry that your request for FREE help with a program you're now
> bragging at knowing SO well didn't meet with your expectations. DEMAND a
> refund, fucker.
Okay. I want compensation from you for defamation, stress and lost wages.
Robert
| |
|
In article <40vPn.6120$Z6.950@edtnps82>,
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> Voivod wrote:
> [...]
Put Voivod in your killfile and be happy. He's a sicko.
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> Voivod wrote:
> [...]
Put Voivod in your killfile and be happy. He's a sicko.
| |
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:23:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>>
>>> And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
>>> reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
>>
>> Why yes, it is. Don't blame others for your inability to articulate your
>> fuckups.
>>
>>> million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
>>
>> Quick, when you're making an ass out of yourself obfuscate with
>> completely irrelevant commentary!
>
>I didn't make an ass out of myself. I made a clever comparison, by
>demonstrating that people are generally stupid, which explains their
>general inability to comprehend written material.
You overrate your cleverness. Like your questions it was badly written
and poorly expressed. Try to draw relevant conclusions instead of inane
fallacies.
>>> Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
>>
>> I'm so sorry that your request for FREE help with a program you're now
>> bragging at knowing SO well didn't meet with your expectations. DEMAND a
>> refund, fucker.
>
>Okay. I want compensation from you for defamation, stress and lost wages.
Post your address and I'll send you a nickel. That'll cover you for
about a week's worth of your Photoshop skills.
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>>
>>> And the fact that most people didn't understand my question is not a
>>> reflection on me; most people are stupid. (An example of that is the 57
>>
>> Why yes, it is. Don't blame others for your inability to articulate your
>> fuckups.
>>
>>> million Americans voted for George Bush for a SECOND four-year term.
>>
>> Quick, when you're making an ass out of yourself obfuscate with
>> completely irrelevant commentary!
>
>I didn't make an ass out of myself. I made a clever comparison, by
>demonstrating that people are generally stupid, which explains their
>general inability to comprehend written material.
You overrate your cleverness. Like your questions it was badly written
and poorly expressed. Try to draw relevant conclusions instead of inane
fallacies.
>>> Already the first response to my question was not well thought out;
>>
>> I'm so sorry that your request for FREE help with a program you're now
>> bragging at knowing SO well didn't meet with your expectations. DEMAND a
>> refund, fucker.
>
>Okay. I want compensation from you for defamation, stress and lost wages.
Post your address and I'll send you a nickel. That'll cover you for
about a week's worth of your Photoshop skills.
| |
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:47:33 -0500, John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten>
scribbled:
>In article <40vPn.6120$Z6.950@edtnps82>,
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>> [...]
>
>Put Voivod in your killfile and be happy. He's a sicko.
Run like a coward while throwing out insults as you flee. Isn't that a
WONDERFUL role model?
scribbled:
>In article <40vPn.6120$Z6.950@edtnps82>,
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>> [...]
>
>Put Voivod in your killfile and be happy. He's a sicko.
Run like a coward while throwing out insults as you flee. Isn't that a
WONDERFUL role model?
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:45 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
>>> Going just by your posts and your increasingly antagonistic attitude
>>> it's easily clear you're a clueless newbie.
>>>
>>>> dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
>>>> by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
>>> Seriously? Bragging? Is your ego (and penis) so small you need to
>>> bolster them both by bragging (lying most likely) about such an
>>> irrelevance?
>> I wasn't bragging. A million dollars worth of sales is not exceptional.
>> It's good, but not exceptional. Millions of Photoshop users have
>> achieved the same level of sales.
>>
>> I wasn't bragging; just setting the record straight so that foolish,
>
> You were bragging. It was completely irrelevant information and totally
> unnecessary to the discussion but you needed to bring it to the public
> attention.
It was neither irrelevant nor unncessary. I had already written that I
understood ratios, but Joel countered that I didn't understand them, and
wrote that he would explain them to me later. So just stating that I am
proficient in Photoshop was insufficient to persuade him; I had to
demonstate it.
>
>> condescending Joel would stop making the illogical and insulting
>> assumption that I'm a neophyte.
>
> You are a neophyte.
You are a fink.
>> I wasn't bragging. Would Arnold Schwartznegger be bragging to tell
>> someone that doesn't know about his that he's a former Mr. Universe, a
>
> You're not Arnold.
I didn't write that I'm Arnold. (I already predicted before I read this
that soome idiot would make this illogical assumption. I'm not surprised
it was you, given the idiocy of some of your other writings.)
>> famous Hollywoood actor and the governor of the most populous state in
>> the U.S.? Not if he were being treated like an ignorant neophyte
>> bodybuilder, actor and politician. He would simply be telling the facts
>> of the situation to set the record straight.
>
> But you're acting just like a clueless newbie and expecting to be
> treated like a Photoshop Guru based on...well, nothing.
You're the one who's clueless about Photoshop; you couldn't even
understand me straightforward question.
>
>>>> Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
>>>> have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
>>>> about it, from what I can tell.
>>> And yet you couldn't articulate your problem. Couldn't solve your own
>>> problem. Couldn't explain it any better then 2nd time around and are
>>> acting like a complete fucktard because no one will leap forward and
>>> make everything all super duper okay for you.
>> That's false. I just don't like being insulted repeatedly (being treated
>> like a beginner when there's no evidence that I'm a beginner.)
>
> Not being able to solve a simple problem. Not being able to describe the
> problem to a group of people conversant in the application you're
> fucking up with. Not being able to handle the criticism. You've given
> plenty of evidence that you're a n00b.
It's not a simple problem. Several people suggested solutions that don't
work. That proves my point.
>
>>> You've got a million bucks, go HIRE someone to fix your fuckups!
>> I never wrote – or even vaguely implied – that I have a million bucks.
>> Your misinterpretation emphasizes how easy it is for people to make
>> false assumptions about what is written.
>
> Go back to school and learn to write properly.
Goober: I'm a journalism grad from the top journalism university in the
nation. (The more you write, the more you show your stupidity, blockhead).
>
>> Also, I wasn't asking that my 'fuckups' be fixed. I was seeking a more
>> efficient procedure for my workflow.
>
> Hire someone to help you make money, Piker.
I don't take orders from imbeciles.
You're fired!
>> Please take a deep breath and cool your anger, and approach the
>> situation with equilibrium and civility.
>
> I'm not angry. I'm amused. Now, fuck off, money bags, you can afford to
> hire a tutor.
Someone who's not angry, but who repeatedly writes, "fuck off"? Numbskull!
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:45 GMT, Robert Montgomery
> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
>>> <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> What the hell do you know about what I know about Photoshop? A million
>>> Going just by your posts and your increasingly antagonistic attitude
>>> it's easily clear you're a clueless newbie.
>>>
>>>> dollars worth of my art (and associated framing that's been added to it
>>>> by picture framers) have been sold, and I depended on my knowledge of
>>> Seriously? Bragging? Is your ego (and penis) so small you need to
>>> bolster them both by bragging (lying most likely) about such an
>>> irrelevance?
>> I wasn't bragging. A million dollars worth of sales is not exceptional.
>> It's good, but not exceptional. Millions of Photoshop users have
>> achieved the same level of sales.
>>
>> I wasn't bragging; just setting the record straight so that foolish,
>
> You were bragging. It was completely irrelevant information and totally
> unnecessary to the discussion but you needed to bring it to the public
> attention.
It was neither irrelevant nor unncessary. I had already written that I
understood ratios, but Joel countered that I didn't understand them, and
wrote that he would explain them to me later. So just stating that I am
proficient in Photoshop was insufficient to persuade him; I had to
demonstate it.
>
>> condescending Joel would stop making the illogical and insulting
>> assumption that I'm a neophyte.
>
> You are a neophyte.
You are a fink.
>> I wasn't bragging. Would Arnold Schwartznegger be bragging to tell
>> someone that doesn't know about his that he's a former Mr. Universe, a
>
> You're not Arnold.
I didn't write that I'm Arnold. (I already predicted before I read this
that soome idiot would make this illogical assumption. I'm not surprised
it was you, given the idiocy of some of your other writings.)
>> famous Hollywoood actor and the governor of the most populous state in
>> the U.S.? Not if he were being treated like an ignorant neophyte
>> bodybuilder, actor and politician. He would simply be telling the facts
>> of the situation to set the record straight.
>
> But you're acting just like a clueless newbie and expecting to be
> treated like a Photoshop Guru based on...well, nothing.
You're the one who's clueless about Photoshop; you couldn't even
understand me straightforward question.
>
>>>> Photoshop to achieve that. I'm quite knowledgeable about Photoshop to
>>>> have achieved that level of sales, and probably know more than you do
>>>> about it, from what I can tell.
>>> And yet you couldn't articulate your problem. Couldn't solve your own
>>> problem. Couldn't explain it any better then 2nd time around and are
>>> acting like a complete fucktard because no one will leap forward and
>>> make everything all super duper okay for you.
>> That's false. I just don't like being insulted repeatedly (being treated
>> like a beginner when there's no evidence that I'm a beginner.)
>
> Not being able to solve a simple problem. Not being able to describe the
> problem to a group of people conversant in the application you're
> fucking up with. Not being able to handle the criticism. You've given
> plenty of evidence that you're a n00b.
It's not a simple problem. Several people suggested solutions that don't
work. That proves my point.
>
>>> You've got a million bucks, go HIRE someone to fix your fuckups!
>> I never wrote – or even vaguely implied – that I have a million bucks.
>> Your misinterpretation emphasizes how easy it is for people to make
>> false assumptions about what is written.
>
> Go back to school and learn to write properly.
Goober: I'm a journalism grad from the top journalism university in the
nation. (The more you write, the more you show your stupidity, blockhead).
>
>> Also, I wasn't asking that my 'fuckups' be fixed. I was seeking a more
>> efficient procedure for my workflow.
>
> Hire someone to help you make money, Piker.
I don't take orders from imbeciles.
You're fired!
>> Please take a deep breath and cool your anger, and approach the
>> situation with equilibrium and civility.
>
> I'm not angry. I'm amused. Now, fuck off, money bags, you can afford to
> hire a tutor.
Someone who's not angry, but who repeatedly writes, "fuck off"? Numbskull!
| |
|
John Stafford wrote:
> In article <OUuPn.6119$Z6.306@edtnps82>,
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> I didn't realize until now that if I have a guide aligned with the edges
>> of the images, those guides remain at the edges of the images even after
>> changing the image size, so they can be reused at different image sizes
>> without having to be moved.
>
> Aside: guides are saved with the photoshop image so that you can close,
> and later open the image and they will still be there for your use. They
> do not print, so there is no worry.
Thanks, John, for your kind and sage help.
Robert
> In article <OUuPn.6119$Z6.306@edtnps82>,
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
>> I didn't realize until now that if I have a guide aligned with the edges
>> of the images, those guides remain at the edges of the images even after
>> changing the image size, so they can be reused at different image sizes
>> without having to be moved.
>
> Aside: guides are saved with the photoshop image so that you can close,
> and later open the image and they will still be there for your use. They
> do not print, so there is no worry.
Thanks, John, for your kind and sage help.
Robert
| Pages (3): [ « ‹ 1 2 3 › »] | |
| Previous Topic: | Q on resizing/resampling an image |
| Next Topic: | Photoshop Elements to SC5 upgrade |
Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, tools, tutorials and user discussions