How to quickly select rectangle
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>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.
Bragging about what you've sold in no way demonstrates a mastery or even
understanding of Photoshop.
>>> condescending Joel would stop making the illogical and insulting
>>> assumption that I'm a neophyte.
>>
>> You are a neophyte.
>
>You are a fink.
I'm cut to the quick! Oh the horrors! I don't think I can recover from
that insult!
>>> 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.)
You used him. Ok, how's this. You're also not Ansel Adams. You're
actually no one. You're a nobody trying to get other people to fix your
fuckups for free while bragging about how special he is. You're a chew
toy.
>>> 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.
It wasn't straight forward. You couldn't even get it right the second
time. You failed to accept "Start the fuck over" as the logical
solution.
>>>>> 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.
That's YOUR fault for not being able to articulate yourself. Don't blame
others for your shortcomings.
>>>> 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).
Bragging AGAIN! Woo. Your self esteem must be in the gutter for you to
need to brag about yourself over and over in a newsgroup.
>>> 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.
Much more like that and you might hurt my feelings :(
>You're fired!
I wouldn't work for a fuckup like you for any amount of pay.
>>> 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!
For a college boy you're pretty fucking stupid.
  |
  |
>>
>> 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.
Okay, perhaps I was pumping up my chest a wee bit. So what?
I have right to do that.
I've spent countless hours of struggle learning this complex program,
and putting my knowledge to good use.
Therefore, I have a right to set the record straight when some
partonizing nitwits like Joel and you insist that I'm a beginner.
Perhaps you feel jealous because you don't have anything to brag about;
that might explain your rage at my self-defending mention of my
Photoshop-related status.
Robert
P.S.: You have been VOIDED.
| |
|
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 23:01:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>Okay, perhaps I was pumping up my chest a wee bit. So what?
Did you really think it impressed anyone?
>I have right to do that.
And I've the right to laugh at you and call you a fucking idiot.
>I've spent countless hours of struggle learning this complex program,
>and putting my knowledge to good use.
You want a medal now?
>Therefore, I have a right to set the record straight when some
>partonizing nitwits like Joel and you insist that I'm a beginner.
You're not even a beginner. You're a clueless n00b.
>Perhaps you feel jealous because you don't have anything to brag about;
>that might explain your rage at my self-defending mention of my
>Photoshop-related status.
Or maybe I don't feel the need to brag.
>P.S.: You have been VOIDED.
HAR, that's so... original's not the word... pathetic. Not only a name
lame but a pitiful misspelling joke on a name lame. Not that I'd expect
you to know the word voivod after all you're only a journalism dipwad.
<info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>Voivod wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>Okay, perhaps I was pumping up my chest a wee bit. So what?
Did you really think it impressed anyone?
>I have right to do that.
And I've the right to laugh at you and call you a fucking idiot.
>I've spent countless hours of struggle learning this complex program,
>and putting my knowledge to good use.
You want a medal now?
>Therefore, I have a right to set the record straight when some
>partonizing nitwits like Joel and you insist that I'm a beginner.
You're not even a beginner. You're a clueless n00b.
>Perhaps you feel jealous because you don't have anything to brag about;
>that might explain your rage at my self-defending mention of my
>Photoshop-related status.
Or maybe I don't feel the need to brag.
>P.S.: You have been VOIDED.
HAR, that's so... original's not the word... pathetic. Not only a name
lame but a pitiful misspelling joke on a name lame. Not that I'd expect
you to know the word voivod after all you're only a journalism dipwad.
| |
|
Voivod <Voi@vod.con> found these unused words:
>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:17:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery
><info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>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.
>
>Bragging about what you've sold in no way demonstrates a mastery or even
>understanding of Photoshop.
.... especially a simple script.
>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:17:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery
><info-block@northern-data-tech.net> scribbled:
>>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.
>
>Bragging about what you've sold in no way demonstrates a mastery or even
>understanding of Photoshop.
.... especially a simple script.
| |
|
"Robert Montgomery" <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote in message
news:7N%In.4626$z%6.986@edtnps83...
> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>
> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>
> I have Snap-To Guides selected, but if I use the Rectangular Marquee Tool
> while zoomed out, the image either too much or too little of the image is
> grabbed.
>
> So I have to zoom in to the pixel level at one corner, and then drag the
> opposite corner of the selection to the opposite corner of the image, and
> it can take minutes while scrolling at the pixel level to get to the far
> edge of the image.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Robert
Robert,
I use v5.5, so terminology may differ.
If the edges are clean, set the Selection Options to a Tolerance of 0, and
Magic-Wand select the canvas color, Click Select/Inverse. Image/Crop will
only work if the selection is exactly rectangular, but will make the canvas
size the same as the image size.
_Spacebar_ gives you some more flexibility when zoomed in. When your
Selecting Rectangle shoots by the corner you needed to stop at, press the
spacebar and relocate the screen.
Typically, individual pixels are easily visible at 200% or 300% zoom. At
this zoom there usually isn't too much real estate to cross. If the image
blended to the canvas, due to previous feathering or antialiasing, you may
need to trim off some pixels from the edge of the image. Whenever I use the
Rectangular Selection for cropping/trimming I always turn off antialiasing
to preserve the fine edge.
Scott in Dunedin, FL
news:7N%In.4626$z%6.986@edtnps83...
> How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
>
> The canvas size exceeds the image size.
>
> I have Snap-To Guides selected, but if I use the Rectangular Marquee Tool
> while zoomed out, the image either too much or too little of the image is
> grabbed.
>
> So I have to zoom in to the pixel level at one corner, and then drag the
> opposite corner of the selection to the opposite corner of the image, and
> it can take minutes while scrolling at the pixel level to get to the far
> edge of the image.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Robert
Robert,
I use v5.5, so terminology may differ.
If the edges are clean, set the Selection Options to a Tolerance of 0, and
Magic-Wand select the canvas color, Click Select/Inverse. Image/Crop will
only work if the selection is exactly rectangular, but will make the canvas
size the same as the image size.
_Spacebar_ gives you some more flexibility when zoomed in. When your
Selecting Rectangle shoots by the corner you needed to stop at, press the
spacebar and relocate the screen.
Typically, individual pixels are easily visible at 200% or 300% zoom. At
this zoom there usually isn't too much real estate to cross. If the image
blended to the canvas, due to previous feathering or antialiasing, you may
need to trim off some pixels from the edge of the image. Whenever I use the
Rectangular Selection for cropping/trimming I always turn off antialiasing
to preserve the fine edge.
Scott in Dunedin, FL
| |
|
"Anon" <nospam@tbrr.net> wrote:
> "Robert Montgomery" <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote in message
> news:7N%In.4626$z%6.986@edtnps83...
> > How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
> >
> > The canvas size exceeds the image size.
> >
> > I have Snap-To Guides selected, but if I use the Rectangular Marquee Tool
> > while zoomed out, the image either too much or too little of the image is
> > grabbed.
> >
> > So I have to zoom in to the pixel level at one corner, and then drag the
> > opposite corner of the selection to the opposite corner of the image, and
> > it can take minutes while scrolling at the pixel level to get to the far
> > edge of the image.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Robert
>
> Robert,
>
> I use v5.5, so terminology may differ.
>
> If the edges are clean, set the Selection Options to a Tolerance of 0, and
> Magic-Wand select the canvas color, Click Select/Inverse. Image/Crop will
> only work if the selection is exactly rectangular, but will make the canvas
> size the same as the image size.
>
> _Spacebar_ gives you some more flexibility when zoomed in. When your
> Selecting Rectangle shoots by the corner you needed to stop at, press the
> spacebar and relocate the screen.
>
> Typically, individual pixels are easily visible at 200% or 300% zoom. At
> this zoom there usually isn't too much real estate to cross. If the image
> blended to the canvas, due to previous feathering or antialiasing, you may
> need to trim off some pixels from the edge of the image. Whenever I use the
> Rectangular Selection for cropping/trimming I always turn off antialiasing
> to preserve the fine edge.
>
> Scott in Dunedin, FL
Using Magic Want for selection is usually not a good tool for hmmm I would
say somewhere around 95-99%. I read and even saw some video demos swearing
that the Magic Wand of newer Photoshop is much better than older, and even
that I have newer CS4 I still don't care to check it out.
Because for my work, the better Magic Wand is no Magic Wand. Yup! when I
first learning Photoshop (almost 2 decades ago) Magic Wand was one of the
slicky commands I used all the time.
> "Robert Montgomery" <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote in message
> news:7N%In.4626$z%6.986@edtnps83...
> > How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?
> >
> > The canvas size exceeds the image size.
> >
> > I have Snap-To Guides selected, but if I use the Rectangular Marquee Tool
> > while zoomed out, the image either too much or too little of the image is
> > grabbed.
> >
> > So I have to zoom in to the pixel level at one corner, and then drag the
> > opposite corner of the selection to the opposite corner of the image, and
> > it can take minutes while scrolling at the pixel level to get to the far
> > edge of the image.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Robert
>
> Robert,
>
> I use v5.5, so terminology may differ.
>
> If the edges are clean, set the Selection Options to a Tolerance of 0, and
> Magic-Wand select the canvas color, Click Select/Inverse. Image/Crop will
> only work if the selection is exactly rectangular, but will make the canvas
> size the same as the image size.
>
> _Spacebar_ gives you some more flexibility when zoomed in. When your
> Selecting Rectangle shoots by the corner you needed to stop at, press the
> spacebar and relocate the screen.
>
> Typically, individual pixels are easily visible at 200% or 300% zoom. At
> this zoom there usually isn't too much real estate to cross. If the image
> blended to the canvas, due to previous feathering or antialiasing, you may
> need to trim off some pixels from the edge of the image. Whenever I use the
> Rectangular Selection for cropping/trimming I always turn off antialiasing
> to preserve the fine edge.
>
> Scott in Dunedin, FL
Using Magic Want for selection is usually not a good tool for hmmm I would
say somewhere around 95-99%. I read and even saw some video demos swearing
that the Magic Wand of newer Photoshop is much better than older, and even
that I have newer CS4 I still don't care to check it out.
Because for my work, the better Magic Wand is no Magic Wand. Yup! when I
first learning Photoshop (almost 2 decades ago) Magic Wand was one of the
slicky commands I used all the time.
| |
|
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:17:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery wrote:
....
> 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.
There is no "had to" with these guys. They are addicted to pushing
people's buttons to try and get a reaction.
When you respond directly, it makes their day, and they come back for more.
Blocking them, as you have done, is probably the best choice.
All the best,
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
....
> 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.
There is no "had to" with these guys. They are addicted to pushing
people's buttons to try and get a reaction.
When you respond directly, it makes their day, and they come back for more.
Blocking them, as you have done, is probably the best choice.
All the best,
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
| |
|
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:59:32 -0700, Mike Russell
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> scribbled:
>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:17:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery wrote:
>...
>> 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.
>
>There is no "had to" with these guys. They are addicted to pushing
>people's buttons to try and get a reaction.
I'm not addicted, I can quit anytime.
>When you respond directly, it makes their day, and they come back for more.
When you respond indirectly, as if hiding like a Nancy-Boy behind
filters, it just makes you look like a coward yelling insults from
behind the safety mommy's skirt.
>Blocking them, as you have done, is probably the best choice.
He can't. He's got to PROVE himself to people he doesn't know and will
in all likelihood never meet. His ego is at stake. He's special, his
mommy told him so.
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> scribbled:
>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:17:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery wrote:
>...
>> 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.
>
>There is no "had to" with these guys. They are addicted to pushing
>people's buttons to try and get a reaction.
I'm not addicted, I can quit anytime.
>When you respond directly, it makes their day, and they come back for more.
When you respond indirectly, as if hiding like a Nancy-Boy behind
filters, it just makes you look like a coward yelling insults from
behind the safety mommy's skirt.
>Blocking them, as you have done, is probably the best choice.
He can't. He's got to PROVE himself to people he doesn't know and will
in all likelihood never meet. His ego is at stake. He's special, his
mommy told him so.
| |
|
| 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