Why oh why :) appears to do auto feather

C
Posted By
CD
Feb 6, 2005
Views
503
Replies
4
Status
Closed
PS7.0
I can get a simple one layer background and fill it with a solid color. Then I do a image resize and I be darn if it does not do about a 1or 2px feather on the edges automatically. I can not find where in the heck it is getting this setting from?

Maybe related or not but if I use the marque to make a selection and the feather is set to 0 on the tool bar prior to doing the selection it does the same thing.

Novice training needed 🙂
Related Tags
appearance auto feather

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

E
edjh
Feb 6, 2005
CD wrote:
PS7.0
I can get a simple one layer background and fill it with a solid color. Then I do a image resize and I be darn if it does not do about a 1or 2px feather on the edges automatically. I can not find where in the heck it is getting this setting from?

Maybe related or not but if I use the marque to make a selection and the feather is set to 0 on the tool bar prior to doing the selection it does the same thing.

Novice training needed 🙂
Check it under Select also. If not set to zero set it (it will not let you do zero but will set to 0.2)

When you resize you resample, thus introducing antialiasing–so that may be part of the problem. Not exactly sure what you’re doing.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html
T
tacitr
Feb 7, 2005
I can get a simple one layer background and fill it with a solid color. Then I do a image resize and I be darn if it does not do about a 1or 2px feather on the edges automatically. I can not find where in the heck it is getting this setting from?

Yes, that is correct. it is not a "feather." This is what happens when you take an image made of pixels and resize it.

When you resize a bunch of pixels, Photoshop has to create all new pixels, which it does by looking at the original pixels and "guessing," via a mathematical process called "interpolation," what the new pixels should be.

Sometimes, this process creates pixels that are intermediate in value between the original pixels. For example, say you have a red background with a hard, sharp-edged green box in the middle. You resize it to two-thirds of the original size. Now the green box no longer has sharp edges–because mathematically, the new image should have pixels that are one-third green and two-thirds red, so Photoshop fills the pixels along the edge of the box with pixels that a re a mix of green and red.

This is part of the reason that you should not resize pixel-based images. Doing so will always reduce the quality of the image.

You have options for the type of mathematical process Photoshop uses to resize images; you may find that an option other than the default "bicubic interpolation" will help.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
C
CD
Feb 8, 2005
Thanks for the info.

This is part of the reason that you should not resize pixel-based images.
Doing
so will always reduce the quality of the image.

How would you recommend changing sizes?

I have receieved images that I have to resize to fit the space. They are not a vector. The problem was main the background of a when I resized you would see a line around the image in the web page. I dont have the option to use trans gif in all cases. I thougth for now on, I would resize and the add the bkgd color. I did expermeint and yes changin from bicubic did resolve BUT what is the best option to use to keep the image as sharp as possible?

Thanks again,
PS newbie

"Tacit" wrote in message
I can get a simple one layer background and fill it with a solid color. Then I do a image resize and I be darn if it does not do about a 1or 2px feather on the edges automatically. I can not find where in the heck it
is
getting this setting from?

Yes, that is correct. it is not a "feather." This is what happens when you
take
an image made of pixels and resize it.

When you resize a bunch of pixels, Photoshop has to create all new pixels, which it does by looking at the original pixels and "guessing," via a mathematical process called "interpolation," what the new pixels should
be.
Sometimes, this process creates pixels that are intermediate in value
between
the original pixels. For example, say you have a red background with a
hard,
sharp-edged green box in the middle. You resize it to two-thirds of the original size. Now the green box no longer has sharp edges–because mathematically, the new image should have pixels that are one-third green
and
two-thirds red, so Photoshop fills the pixels along the edge of the box
with
pixels that a re a mix of green and red.

This is part of the reason that you should not resize pixel-based images.
Doing
so will always reduce the quality of the image.

You have options for the type of mathematical process Photoshop uses to
resize
images; you may find that an option other than the default "bicubic interpolation" will help.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacit
Feb 9, 2005
In article <4208be7e$>,
"CD" wrote:

I did expermeint and yes changin from bicubic did
resolve BUT what is the best option to use to keep the image as sharp as possible?

This will vary from image to image; there is no one "best" setting.

If the background ended up with a fringe on the edge after you resized the images (I assume you were resizing down rather than up), the background likely wasn’t filled 100% to the edge with solid color, however.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more!
www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections