Views
1419
Replies
25
Status
Closed
MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥
– in 4 materials (clay versions included)
– 12 scenes
– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups
– 6000 x 4500 px
What is the best way to scale down in order to maintain quality in CS3?
OOops. That was my topic. My question should be a simple one. I have used Photoshop for about 5 years now, and I still don’t know if we have a high quality scaling down process available. (I am not talking about going to the Image menu and selecting "image size" and scaling my image down in small steps (using bicubic sharper) along the way. )
For example, I recently painted a small portrait in photoshop CS3. I did a quick scale (scale tool, resized to 1/2" square) and printed out. (Original is maybe 4" square) The result was a beautiful, high-seeming resolution image. (it’s 300dpi, btw) Later, I redo the very same portrait several different ways, colorwise. Save each separately as psd files like the original, and open one, scale it down in small increments, using bicubic sharper with each step. I did not sharpen at all. (Had not on the scale-tooled one, so didn’t feel it necessary.) Did the same for each colorway and printed them all out on one sheet of photo paper. YUCK. THey looked like horrid grainy low-grade jpgs. What the??? It has always bothered me; I own Genuine Fractals so I can scale larger with little/no degradation, but smaller….why oh why is this so hard for me. I love to do tiny artwork versions of larger things! I want high quality.
I never work in less than 300 dpi and use an Epson Pro 2200 Color Photo printer. Any advice?
For example, I recently painted a small portrait in photoshop CS3. I did a quick scale (scale tool, resized to 1/2" square) and printed out. (Original is maybe 4" square) The result was a beautiful, high-seeming resolution image. (it’s 300dpi, btw) Later, I redo the very same portrait several different ways, colorwise. Save each separately as psd files like the original, and open one, scale it down in small increments, using bicubic sharper with each step. I did not sharpen at all. (Had not on the scale-tooled one, so didn’t feel it necessary.) Did the same for each colorway and printed them all out on one sheet of photo paper. YUCK. THey looked like horrid grainy low-grade jpgs. What the??? It has always bothered me; I own Genuine Fractals so I can scale larger with little/no degradation, but smaller….why oh why is this so hard for me. I love to do tiny artwork versions of larger things! I want high quality.
I never work in less than 300 dpi and use an Epson Pro 2200 Color Photo printer. Any advice?
susa,
You can also scale down in Genuine Fractals. Of course, you can scale down in Photoshop as well. I am a bit skeptical about the multiple stage scaling methods. I think Adobe recommends Bicubic Sharper for scaling down, although I think you should experiment with that.
It’s interesting that you raise this question, because most people take scaling down for granted, but in my opinion a GOOD scale down is just as difficult, if not more so, than a GOOD scale up.
— Burton —
You can also scale down in Genuine Fractals. Of course, you can scale down in Photoshop as well. I am a bit skeptical about the multiple stage scaling methods. I think Adobe recommends Bicubic Sharper for scaling down, although I think you should experiment with that.
It’s interesting that you raise this question, because most people take scaling down for granted, but in my opinion a GOOD scale down is just as difficult, if not more so, than a GOOD scale up.
— Burton —
susa,
"I never work in less than 300 dpi and use an Epson Pro 2200 Color Photo printer. Any advice?"
For printing, I prefer to use Qimage to do at least some of my scaling. Qimage has a relatively large variety of scaling options.
<http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/>
— Burton —
"I never work in less than 300 dpi and use an Epson Pro 2200 Color Photo printer. Any advice?"
For printing, I prefer to use Qimage to do at least some of my scaling. Qimage has a relatively large variety of scaling options.
<http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/>
— Burton —
You know, I feel I detect a loss of quality when scaling down in Genuine Fractals and can in fact not find documentation that this software is *For* scaling down. (not to say you can’t use it to do so). But thank you for replying; it is so nice to hear another person who realizes the value and difficulty of a good scale down. This has always been my biggest frustration. Seems it is something PS should do well! :))
I will check out this software you mention. I’ve never heard of it. susa
I will check out this software you mention. I’ve never heard of it. susa
I don’t really follow what you did. Can you list the w x h in pixels of the original and then the w x h of the re-sampled versions.
Then the physical size you printed these at for comparison purposes.
Did you also compare them on screen at 100% zoom ratio for a 1:1 pixel display on the screen. Normally I compare on screen not in print.
Why do you down sample in small increments? Can you reference any articles which may say this is better than on down sample.
Then the physical size you printed these at for comparison purposes.
Did you also compare them on screen at 100% zoom ratio for a 1:1 pixel display on the screen. Normally I compare on screen not in print.
Why do you down sample in small increments? Can you reference any articles which may say this is better than on down sample.
Ed,
Some people recommend scaling up in small steps, so that may have been why the same thing was tried on a downsize.
— Burton —
Some people recommend scaling up in small steps, so that may have been why the same thing was tried on a downsize.
— Burton —
I think that advice went by the wayside with the introduction of the bicubic resampling methods burton.
Hmm…it may have gone by the wayside, but bicubic sampling does not prevent degradation. I am just wondering the best way to downsize with least amount of degradation. I love to do my fine art photography and digital artwork of combined scanned illustrations and painting in PS in smaller versions as well as the large ones I work in. Does anyone out there do much downsizing WITH the need for high quality? I’m not talking about Save for Web, but for printing out. I sell my artwork, so the answer is pertinent and important to me. I’ve never been able to find documentation on this, and that sort of bothers me.
Ed, One I recently did which came out so badly was originally a small portion of a larger artwork. Of the larger artwork, I cropped it down to a tiny 475px square at 300dpi. I scaled it down to 225px square at 300dpi and printed it out. Result was low-grade yuckorama. I have yet to do the one-pass downsizing for regular work. I just never do it (unless I don’t care about the finished work). Maybe all this time I have not needed to do that?? Maybe I will do a series of methods and document them on a contact sheet.
If i recall correctly, you should be using bicubic sharpen to scale down and bicubic smooth to scale up. that might be backwards. try both ways.
thanks dave…yes, as I said in the orig. post I did use bicubic sharper (and always do when sizing down, as I use bicubic smoother for sizing up) but again, this is not a cure-all. Was just wondering if anyone knew more on the subject than I do. It’s always sorta bugged me.
susaMac
I tried what you did (475 resample to 225 pixels) in PSCS3 and my results were very good .
Took an original photo and cropped out 475 x 475 pixels at 100% crop (no change to pixels) (image 1).
Then I re-sampled the 475 to 225 using BiCubic Sharper (2), and also BiCubic Smoother (3). I put these together in the same image file without altering any pixels so you can see them together. Just view it at 100% zoom for a valid comparison. (Other zoom levels will result in further re-sampling by the computer for viewing purposes, you dont want this!!)
See this link for the image file.
< http://picasaweb.google.com/edgrenzig/Ornament/photo?authkey =_9j2rNTLyYU#5178363371036342034>
As you can see, 2 is actually sharper than 1. Image 3 looks very good also.
I then printed this image file at 50 ppi (14 x 9.5), 100 ppi (7 x 4.75) and 300 ppi (2.3 x 1.58). All three looked the same in each printing ppi. Yes the 100 and 300 ppi looked better than the 50 ppi but this is what is expected.
Maybe you did something to your image when you cropped out the 475 pixel crop. But again, these look great.
Ed
I tried what you did (475 resample to 225 pixels) in PSCS3 and my results were very good .
Took an original photo and cropped out 475 x 475 pixels at 100% crop (no change to pixels) (image 1).
Then I re-sampled the 475 to 225 using BiCubic Sharper (2), and also BiCubic Smoother (3). I put these together in the same image file without altering any pixels so you can see them together. Just view it at 100% zoom for a valid comparison. (Other zoom levels will result in further re-sampling by the computer for viewing purposes, you dont want this!!)
See this link for the image file.
< http://picasaweb.google.com/edgrenzig/Ornament/photo?authkey =_9j2rNTLyYU#5178363371036342034>
As you can see, 2 is actually sharper than 1. Image 3 looks very good also.
I then printed this image file at 50 ppi (14 x 9.5), 100 ppi (7 x 4.75) and 300 ppi (2.3 x 1.58). All three looked the same in each printing ppi. Yes the 100 and 300 ppi looked better than the 50 ppi but this is what is expected.
Maybe you did something to your image when you cropped out the 475 pixel crop. But again, these look great.
Ed
yes, as I said in the orig. post I did use bicubic sharper
ah yes. as an old forum saying goes, nobody reads post #1!!! 🙂
so i see from post 1 you stepped down resampling each time. i wonder if that might be a problem. have you tried going in 1 shot, susa? ed’s results are closer to what i’d expect.
might be worth backing up your preferences folder and seeing if there’s a preference corruption somewhere. if you just back them out to a temp folder, you can just copy them back to restore them.
ah yes. as an old forum saying goes, nobody reads post #1!!! 🙂
so i see from post 1 you stepped down resampling each time. i wonder if that might be a problem. have you tried going in 1 shot, susa? ed’s results are closer to what i’d expect.
might be worth backing up your preferences folder and seeing if there’s a preference corruption somewhere. if you just back them out to a temp folder, you can just copy them back to restore them.
Stop stair stepping down sample in one step.
Thank you Ed for taking the time out. Truly. Ok guys, I am gonna try that (one step downsizing) and see the difference over a variety of works, both artwork and photographic. I will also scan my preferences. I appreciate all the help. 🙂
(hahaha, dave!)
(hahaha, dave!)
Does anyone out there do much downsizing WITH the need for high quality? I’m not talking about Save for Web, but for printing out. I sell my artwork, so the answer is pertinent and important to me.
If this is for print, why down-sample at all? Cant you just resize the image to a smaller print size with Resample unchecked?
If this is for print, why down-sample at all? Cant you just resize the image to a smaller print size with Resample unchecked?
Charles, its going to get downsampled somewhere along the line. If its going to print and the rez is too high the RIP will downsample the file. I’d rather do this myself and see the results of downsampling before it goes to a printer.
Buko,
Yeah, that makes sense, but if there is little/no difference, seems like she is fretting over something she could just skip.
Do you know what ppi is "too high" or what is optimal for the 2200 Epson? I usually don’t resample… maybe I should.
I don’t use a RIP for my 2200 or 2400. I might poke around Epson Print Academy, see what they say.
Yeah, that makes sense, but if there is little/no difference, seems like she is fretting over something she could just skip.
Do you know what ppi is "too high" or what is optimal for the 2200 Epson? I usually don’t resample… maybe I should.
I don’t use a RIP for my 2200 or 2400. I might poke around Epson Print Academy, see what they say.
I was thinking high quality Litho and screening.
For the 2200 I wouldn’t resize either. nor would I use a RIP.
For the 2200 I wouldn’t resize either. nor would I use a RIP.
susa,
"Ok guys, I am gonna try that (one step downsizing) and see the difference over a variety of works…"
I think it will make a big difference, for the better. The multi-step technique always was rather suspect, and probably was the primary cause of your low quality results.
I still think Qimage is still a good idea when printing is involved, unless you can afford a high-priced RIP.
— Burton —
"Ok guys, I am gonna try that (one step downsizing) and see the difference over a variety of works…"
I think it will make a big difference, for the better. The multi-step technique always was rather suspect, and probably was the primary cause of your low quality results.
I still think Qimage is still a good idea when printing is involved, unless you can afford a high-priced RIP.
— Burton —
I have bookmarked the site, Burton, for future reference. Please forgive me…what is RIP??
OH and Charles, I have always read the Epson 2200 prints images best if they are 360 dpi up until this year, suddenly I am reading 300. Go figure. I don’t know about ppi, tho.
I looked up my notes from Jeff Schewe at a "mini" Epson Print Academy workshop. For small prints (under 8 X 10) at high printer dpi (2880) he recommends between 360 and 480 ppi for the file resolution. I don’t think the exact ppi matters as as much as it can for halftone (press) reproduction. If you resize your image without down-sampling and the ppi falls in that range… I wouldn’t bother to resample at all.
My preferred method is to use normal bicubic and then apply whatever sharpening is appropriate after the downsample. I’ve never liked the fact that you have no control over the amount and type of sharpening in Bicubic Sharper and prefer the two step manual approach. The stairstepped method never really worked better than the one fell swoop. Even in the examples Fred Miranda posted on his website to entice you to buy his actions (as if you couldn’t easily write your own) the stepped samples were inferior to a one-step standard bicublc.
susa,
<i>"…what is RIP??</i>
See this Wikipedia article and its link to About.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_image_processor>
I was referring mainly to a software RIP, since nothing you have said indicates that your printer has a firmware Postscript RIP. Qimage is sometimes referred to as "a poor man’s RIP".
— Burton —
<i>"…what is RIP??</i>
See this Wikipedia article and its link to About.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_image_processor>
I was referring mainly to a software RIP, since nothing you have said indicates that your printer has a firmware Postscript RIP. Qimage is sometimes referred to as "a poor man’s RIP".
— Burton —
Master Retouching Hair
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
-
Loss of quality when scaling image down.
By Jason Snape on Mar 15, 2006Views553Replies21 -
Loss of quality when scaling image down.
By Jason Snape on Mar 15, 2006Views1112Replies16 -
Problem with scaling down pictures.
By Hans Reichert on Sep 15, 2006Views823Replies0 -
You just put together a page using a bunch of layers: what is the best way to break it down now in
By Eliot_Wasmund on Jul 14, 2004Views166Replies7 -
<b>How can I scale down a ROLLOVER state? </b>
By adrianaSerrano on Jul 24, 2004Views296Replies4 -
BEst way to see graphic images in B&W, while maintaining color relationships
By Sethelic on Jan 26, 2007Views477Replies22 -
Best Image Resampling Scaling plugin ??
By Synapse Syndrome on Jul 28, 2005Views397Replies4 -
Scale large image down and keep quality??
By lister110 on Feb 27, 2009Views559Replies3 -
Maintaining file order for CDs and contact sheets
By Carol_Barrington on Jul 15, 2007Views315Replies1 -
ORDER to apply FILTERS for best results?
By mack on Jun 19, 2004Views640Replies21 -
Photoshop CS font order in the font drop down list
By Shandy_Elliott on May 22, 2005Views583Replies3 -
scaling down
By chris22 on Aug 11, 2004Views233Replies2 -
Best Image Resampling Scaling plugin ??
By Synapse Syndrome on Jul 28, 2005Views1571Replies4 -
scaling to fit media – printing
By RBB on Oct 4, 2005Views252Replies4 -
Creating a rollover, need to figure out the best way to do it.
By dave milbut on Jul 13, 2003Views270Replies1