How to quickly select rectangle

RM
Posted By
Robert Montgomery
May 20, 2010
Views
4737
Replies
87
Status
Closed
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

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ

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

R
Ragnar
May 20, 2010
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.
DJ
david johnson
May 21, 2010
On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:52:50 +0100, "Ragnar"
wrote:

"Robert Montgomery" wrote in message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

is it always the same size reactangle? as you can make a fized size marquee

you say it not right when you use snap are you sure feather isnt selected?
V
Voivod
May 21, 2010
On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:56:35 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

You want to select the whole image? Has CTRL-A stopped working in CS3? Or selecting the marquee tool, right clicking on the image and clicking SELECT ALL from the pop-up? Have these basic functions been removed from Photoshop?
RL
Rainer Latka
May 23, 2010
On 21.May.10 14:24h, Voivod wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:56:35 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

You want to select the whole image? Has CTRL-A stopped working in CS3?

no, it didnt stop – you skipped reading the the OP’s second sentence:

"The canvas size exceeds the image size"

Or selecting the marquee tool, right clicking on the image and clicking SELECT ALL from the pop-up? Have these basic functions been removed from Photoshop?
J
Joel
May 24, 2010
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 21.May.10 14:24h, Voivod wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:56:35 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

You want to select the whole image? Has CTRL-A stopped working in CS3?

no, it didnt stop – you skipped reading the the OP’s second sentence:
"The canvas size exceeds the image size"

That second sentence was left for you to answer <bg>

Or selecting the marquee tool, right clicking on the image and clicking SELECT ALL from the pop-up? Have these basic functions been removed from Photoshop?
F
Fred
May 24, 2010
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

If the rectangle is on a transparent layer, ctrl-click the icon in the layer palette to select it.
J
jjs
May 24, 2010
How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

Increase the canvas size or select the option to fit a paste into existing image.
J
Joel
May 25, 2010
John Stafford wrote:

How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

Increase the canvas size or select the option to fit a paste into existing image.

I still can’t picture what increasing the canvas size has anything to to with selecting the whole image.

BTW, the OP is DEAD so I think we would move to the next question instead?
RL
Rainer Latka
May 25, 2010
On 25.May.10 15:19h, Joel wrote:
John Stafford wrote:

How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

Increase the canvas size or select the option to fit a paste into existing image.

I still can’t picture what increasing the canvas size has anything to to with selecting the whole image.

BTW, the OP is DEAD so I think we would move to the next question instead?

IMHO Ragnar has both understood the question and answered it correctly.

And the OP didnt want to waste peoples’ precious time reading his thank you posting ๐Ÿ˜‰
J
Joel
May 26, 2010
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 25.May.10 15:19h, Joel wrote:
John Stafford wrote:

How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

Increase the canvas size or select the option to fit a paste into existing image.

I still can’t picture what increasing the canvas size has anything to to with selecting the whole image.

BTW, the OP is DEAD so I think we would move to the next question instead?

IMHO Ragnar has both understood the question and answered it correctly.

Who is Ragma and what was the correct answer that both understood?

And the OP didnt want to waste peoples’ precious time reading his thank you posting ๐Ÿ˜‰

And you and I wasting people time fighting something for nothing?
J
Joel
May 26, 2010
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 25.May.10 15:19h, Joel wrote:
John Stafford wrote:

How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

Increase the canvas size or select the option to fit a paste into existing image.

I still can’t picture what increasing the canvas size has anything to to with selecting the whole image.

BTW, the OP is DEAD so I think we would move to the next question instead?

IMHO Ragnar has both understood the question and answered it correctly.
And the OP didnt want to waste peoples’ precious time reading his thank you posting ๐Ÿ˜‰

Oops! I forgot to mention that we don’t need any stinky thank you message (I often against it), but a message from the OP saying that Ragnar is correct and s/he understood as well as having the problem solved would be helpful.
RM
Robert Montgomery
May 27, 2010
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

Robert
RM
Robert Montgomery
May 27, 2010
david johnson wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:52:50 +0100, "Ragnar"
wrote:

"Robert Montgomery" wrote in message
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
If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

is it always the same size reactangle? as you can make a fized size marquee

Thanks, David. No, most of my rectangles and square are different size.
you say it not right when you use snap are you sure feather isnt selected?

With nothing selected, Select > Modify > Feather cannot be selected because both Modify and Feather are grayed.

Robert
RL
Rainer Latka
May 28, 2010
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

image > trim

Rainer
RL
Rainer Latka
May 28, 2010
On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

image > trim

Rainer
J
Joel
May 28, 2010
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?

image > trim

Rainer
RL
Rainer Latka
May 29, 2010
On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?

ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.

Ragnar has assumed that the area around the subarea is monochromatic and has proposed to use the magic wand to select the outer area and then to invert the selection which would leave just the subarea selected. The OP’s answer was, that the subarea has (some) pixels of the same color as the outer area, so the magic wand selects some pixels in the subarea, thus invalidating the solution. Other than that, the OP has still not given any further clues as to the situation.

Following that, I have guessed
a) that the OP wants to select the subarea in order to be able to manipulate just it,
b) that the subarea’s borders are parallel to the image’s outer borders,
c) that the outer area is monochromatic.
In this situation the trim command will eliminate the outer area, leaving the subarea for further use.

If this is not acceptable and the outer area must be retained, I would set guides around the subarea (OP: zoom to see the positioning at pixel level, then zoom out again to see the complete subarea), then switch on the snap function, make sure all feathering is set to zero and finally set the selection letting it snap to the guides.

Rainer

image> trim

Rainer
J
Joel
May 29, 2010
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?

ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.

That is/was what I read and I understood that s/he wants to select all ( as I read the OP saying some part of the selection is larger than the canvas).

At this point it seems like the OP is using Crop Tool else I don’t know why s/he can’t control his or her hand. IOW, Cropping will go by the RATIO when selecting tool will do whatever the operator wants. And Ctrl-A will select from edge-to-edge

Ragnar has assumed that the area around the subarea is monochromatic and has proposed to use the magic wand to select the outer area and then to invert the selection which would leave just the subarea selected. The OP’s answer was, that the subarea has (some) pixels of the same color as the outer area, so the magic wand selects some pixels in the subarea, thus invalidating the solution. Other than that, the OP has still not given any further clues as to the situation.

That’s the problem, and that’s the reason I won’t go any further.

Following that, I have guessed
a) that the OP wants to select the subarea in order to be able to manipulate just it,
b) that the subarea’s borders are parallel to the image’s outer borders,
c) that the outer area is monochromatic.
In this situation the trim command will eliminate the outer area, leaving the subarea for further use.

The problem that we don’t have any clue what the original photo is and exactly what s/he wants to do. Base on the original message

====================
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
=============================================

Q. How can I quickly select a rectangular image in CS3?

A. Ctrl-A is one of the quickest

Q. The canvas size exceeds the image size.

A. Ctrl-A also stand for ARM-Movement so it won’t allow going beyond the max size.

Q. 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.

A. I never used the Snap-To-Guides to know what it’s and how it works (I have read something about Snap and Guide but only tried part of the whole thing to know much about it). And I have no clue of the "too much" and "too little"

Q. 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.

A. I have no clue what the OP is trying to do (to the photo ore photos)

If this is not acceptable and the outer area must be retained, I would set guides around the subarea (OP: zoom to see the positioning at pixel level, then zoom out again to see the complete subarea), then switch on the snap function, make sure all feathering is set to zero and finally set the selection letting it snap to the guides.

As my understanding Photoshop has instroduced the option to snap one image to other to perfect match (edge-to-edge) which I have read and probably tried once or twice just to have the general idea. But I don’t have no use of it (or I can get around with my old technique to learn more about it) so I can’t be able to see what may go wrong besides snapping the right command but wrong photo (ratio or size)?

And I still have no clue what the OP wants.

Rainer

image> trim

Rainer
RL
Rainer Latka
May 29, 2010
On 29.May.10 14:37h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?

ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.

That is/was what I read and I understood that s/he wants to select all ( as I read the OP saying some part of the selection is larger than the canvas).

no, he said he wanted to select the image and in the next sentence he said the canvas size is larger than the image size. This means the image is a subarea of the canvas, not the other way round. So I will not comment your reply any further since you’ve got the situation wrong.

Rereading the original posting, there is yet another simple solution: select the rectangular masking tool, set feathering to 0px, make an approximate selection, choose Select > Transform Selection, use the navigation panel to zoom the image and to move it so one corner plus the selection’s corner is visible, adjust the selection, navigate to the diagonally opposite corner and do the same, hit enter and voilร , a perfect selection.

Rainer
J
jjs
May 29, 2010
In article ,
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 29.May.10 14:37h, Joel wrote:

That is/was what I read and I understood that s/he wants to select all ( as I read the OP saying some part of the selection is larger than the canvas).

no, he said he wanted to select the image and in the next sentence he said the canvas size is larger than the image size.

I misread it too! Thanks for your help, Ranier.
V
Voivod
May 29, 2010
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:04:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work ย– even with a tolerance of 1 ย– because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?

ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.

As I read it the OP wants to select the ENTIRE image:

"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."
V
Voivod
May 29, 2010
On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:39:08 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

no, he said he wanted to select the image and in the next sentence he said the canvas size is larger than the image size. This means the image is a subarea of the canvas, not the other way round. So I will not comment your reply any further since you’ve got the situation wrong.

Or the OP lacks the ability to express himself just like you lack the flexibility to admit you could be utterly and completely wrong in your interpretation of his barely coherent question.
RL
Rainer Latka
May 29, 2010
On 29.May.10 17:46h, Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:04:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?

ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.

As I read it the OP wants to select the ENTIRE image:

"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."

So what about the OP’s statement:
The canvas size exceeds the image size.

To me this definitely sounds like the image fills just a subarea of the canvas

and:
… either too much or … of the
image is grabbed.

If we were talking about the whole canvas area as you claim, how could one select too much?

All these speculations dont leed anywhere. I’ll keep quiet until/unless the OP cares to enlighten us

Rainer
RL
Rainer Latka
May 29, 2010
On 29.May.10 17:48h, Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:39:08 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

no, he said he wanted to select the image and in the next sentence he said the canvas size is larger than the image size. This means the image is a subarea of the canvas, not the other way round. So I will not comment your reply any further since you’ve got the situation wrong.

Or the OP lacks the ability to express himself just like you lack the flexibility to admit you could be utterly and completely wrong in your interpretation of his barely coherent question.

well, I dont think I’m lacking flexibility. I’ve read his postings carefully, tried to interprete the little we know and proposed solutions that fit _my_ understanding. If you read the OP’s answer to Ragnar’s suggestion, I think it’s obvious that his image does not fill the canvas. Why would the OP ask at all, if the task were only to press ctrl-A?

Rainer
J
Joel
May 29, 2010
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 29.May.10 14:37h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?

ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.

That is/was what I read and I understood that s/he wants to select all ( as I read the OP saying some part of the selection is larger than the canvas).

no, he said he wanted to select the image and in the next sentence he said the canvas size is larger than the image size. This means the image is a subarea of the canvas, not the other way round. So I will not comment your reply any further since you’ve got the situation wrong.
Rereading the original posting, there is yet another simple solution: select the rectangular masking tool, set feathering to 0px, make an approximate selection, choose Select > Transform Selection, use the navigation panel to zoom the image and to move it so one corner plus the selection’s corner is visible, adjust the selection, navigate to the diagonally opposite corner and do the same, hit enter and voilร , a perfect selection.

Rainer

I reportsed his/her (I don’t remember the name) original message, and I gave Q & A to each separated confusions
V
Voivod
May 29, 2010
On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:45:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 29.May.10 17:46h, Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:04:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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

If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work ย– even with a tolerance of 1 ย– because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.

in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):

monochromatic, I should say

And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?

ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.

As I read it the OP wants to select the ENTIRE image:

"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."

So what about the OP’s statement:
The canvas size exceeds the image size.

To me this definitely sounds like the image fills just a subarea of the canvas

To me it says he’s fucked up his settings/preferences and has a serious problem articulating what he’s struggling with.

and:
… either too much or … of the
image is grabbed.

If we were talking about the whole canvas area as you claim, how could one select too much?

All these speculations dont leed anywhere. I’ll keep quiet until/unless the OP cares to enlighten us

Rainer
V
Voivod
May 29, 2010
On Sat, 29 May 2010 20:00:32 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 29.May.10 17:48h, Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:39:08 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

no, he said he wanted to select the image and in the next sentence he said the canvas size is larger than the image size. This means the image is a subarea of the canvas, not the other way round. So I will not comment your reply any further since you’ve got the situation wrong.

Or the OP lacks the ability to express himself just like you lack the flexibility to admit you could be utterly and completely wrong in your interpretation of his barely coherent question.

well, I dont think I’m lacking flexibility. I’ve read his postings carefully, tried to interprete the little we know and proposed solutions that fit _my_ understanding. If you read the OP’s answer to Ragnar’s suggestion, I think it’s obvious that his image does not fill the canvas. Why would the OP ask at all, if the task were only to press ctrl-A?

Perhaps he’s unaware of the command?
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 6, 2010
Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:45:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 29.May.10 17:46h, Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:04:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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
If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.
in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):
monochromatic, I should say
And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?
ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.
As I read it the OP wants to select the ENTIRE image:

"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."
So what about the OP’s statement:
The canvas size exceeds the image size.
To me this definitely sounds like the image fills just a subarea of the canvas

To me it says he’s fucked up his settings/preferences and has a serious problem articulating what he’s struggling with.

and:
… either too much or … of the
image is grabbed.
If we were talking about the whole canvas area as you claim, how could one select too much?

All these speculations dont leed anywhere. I’ll keep quiet until/unless the OP cares to enlighten us

Rainer

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
DJ
david johnson
Jun 6, 2010
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:16:02 GMT, Robert Montgomery
wrote:

Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:45:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 29.May.10 17:46h, Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:04:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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
If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work ย– even with a tolerance of 1 ย– because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.
in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):
monochromatic, I should say
And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?
ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.
As I read it the OP wants to select the ENTIRE image:

"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."
So what about the OP’s statement:
The canvas size exceeds the image size.
To me this definitely sounds like the image fills just a subarea of the canvas

To me it says he’s fucked up his settings/preferences and has a serious problem articulating what he’s struggling with.

and:
… either too much or … of the
image is grabbed.
If we were talking about the whole canvas area as you claim, how could one select too much?

All these speculations dont leed anywhere. I’ll keep quiet until/unless the OP cares to enlighten us

Rainer

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

still isnt making much sense to me, unless you have multiple layers of course. as the canvas and image are the same size on a new file.

usually you start with a canvas size you need for the end result.tv screen, a4 etc.

ctrl a is PC shortcut for select all, command a is the mac equivalent
V
Voivod
Jun 6, 2010
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:16:02 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:45:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 29.May.10 17:46h, Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:04:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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
If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border (Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work ย– even with a tolerance of 1 ย– because some areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.
in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):
monochromatic, I should say
And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with the question?
ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.
As I read it the OP wants to select the ENTIRE image:

"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."
So what about the OP’s statement:
The canvas size exceeds the image size.
To me this definitely sounds like the image fills just a subarea of the canvas

To me it says he’s fucked up his settings/preferences and has a serious problem articulating what he’s struggling with.

and:
… either too much or … of the
image is grabbed.
If we were talking about the whole canvas area as you claim, how could one select too much?

All these speculations dont leed anywhere. I’ll keep quiet until/unless the OP cares to enlighten us

Rainer

I apologize, guys, for not being clear. Thanks for trying to help.
I’ll rephrase the problem.

Badly.

I made an image.

Then I expanded the canvas, so that the canvas is bigger than the image.

Why?

I saved the file, closed it and reopened it, so the History has been wiped out.

This isn’t relevant.

Now I want to easily select the image so I can change the image size and then the canvas size.

You’re still not making much sense. If you’re saying you’ve got a tiny image on a big old plain/transparent background zoom til you can see everything you want to keep then crop the extraneous. Fine tune it later.

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.

It would probably help to mention OS and version of Pshop too. Oh, and try stopping in more often than once a month too.
RL
Rainer Latka
Jun 6, 2010
On 06.Jun.10 7:16h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:45:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 29.May.10 17:46h, Voivod wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:04:06 +0200, Rainer Latka
scribbled:

On 28.May.10 23:34h, Joel wrote:
Rainer Latka wrote:

On 28.May.10 15:47h, Rainer Latka wrote:
On 28.May.10 1:32h, Robert Montgomery wrote:
Ragnar wrote:
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in
message
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
If the image only occupies part of the canvas, select the blank border
(Magic Wand on low tolerance) then Invert the selection. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your problem.
R.

Thanks, Ragnar.

That often doesn’t work โ€“ even with a tolerance of 1 โ€“ because some
areas of the images are white or nearly white, so they, too become selected when using your technique.
in that case the trim command is more useful than the magic wand (as
long as the surrounding canvas is monochrome):
monochromatic, I should say
And I still have no clue what the OP really want, and dunno how others
come up with different answers those don’t seem to have anything to do with
the question?
ok, let me describe my interpretation:

The OP wants to select a rectangular subarea of an image. Other than that he did not provide any further clues, so everybody is just guessing.
As I read it the OP wants to select the ENTIRE image:

"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."
So what about the OP’s statement:
The canvas size exceeds the image size.
To me this definitely sounds like the image fills just a subarea of the canvas

To me it says he’s fucked up his settings/preferences and has a serious problem articulating what he’s struggling with.

and:
… either too much or … of the
image is grabbed.
If we were talking about the whole canvas area as you claim, how could one select too much?

All these speculations dont leed anywhere. I’ll keep quiet until/unless the OP cares to enlighten us

Rainer

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

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
J
Joel
Jun 6, 2010
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.

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

b. why you want a larger canvas size

c. do you understand the difference between RATIO, Resolution (PDI), Compression, and W x H etc..?

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.

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

2. If you want the picture displays larger on monitor

You DO NOT need to *move* to a larger canvas size

3. If you want to print the *original* to 3 times larger than *previous* print. I hi-lite the words "original" and "previous" because I don’t know what you have, what you did to it. Or because it doesn’t matter

You DO NOT need to make a larger canvas size

Example, I just printed 1/2 dozen 24×36" prints for my client from the previous 4×6" print, and I didn’t need to make the 24×36" canvas as it’s already been there from the very beginning.

Robert
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 6, 2010
Joel wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

c. do you understand the difference between RATIO, Resolution (PDI), Compression, and W x H etc..?

Yes.

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".
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.

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 โ€“
a.p.macintosh โ€“ 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.)

Robert
J
jaSPAMc
Jun 6, 2010
Robert Montgomery 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.
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 6, 2010
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
Robert Montgomery 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 โ€“ or near white โ€“ 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
V
Voivod
Jun 6, 2010
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:00:57 -0500, Joel scribbled:

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.

Or anything else for that matter.
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 6, 2010
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.

I want the border to be removed, and that’s not what the Trim command is for.

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.

However, I think I just discovered the best solution.

I just made my grid very fine โ€“ 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.)

Thanks for your attempts to help, everyone.

Robert
RL
Rainer Latka
Jun 6, 2010
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.โ€œ * 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.

However, I think I just discovered the best solution.

I just made my grid very fine โ€“ 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. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Thanks for your attempts to help, everyone.

you’re welcome
V
Voivod
Jun 6, 2010
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:07:39 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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 ย– or near white ย– 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?
J
Joel
Jun 6, 2010
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Joel wrote:
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.

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 4×6" print.

2. If you want a VERY LARGE print then at least give some hint. Example 4×6′ (or 48×72") 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 ย–
a.p.macintosh ย– 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 24×36" 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
J
Joel
Jun 6, 2010
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
Robert Montgomery 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 ย– or near white ย– 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).
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 7, 2010
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.โ€œ * 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 โ€“ 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. ๐Ÿ˜‰

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
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 7, 2010
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:07:39 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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 โ€“ or near white โ€“ 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
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 7, 2010
Joel wrote:
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
Robert Montgomery 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 โ€“ or near white โ€“ 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
V
Voivod
Jun 7, 2010
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:46:24 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:07:39 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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 ย– or near white ย– 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.
V
Voivod
Jun 7, 2010
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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.
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 7, 2010
Joel wrote:
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Joel wrote:
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.
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 4×6" print.

2. If you want a VERY LARGE print then at least give some hint. Example 4×6′ (or 48×72") 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 โ€“
a.p.macintosh โ€“ 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 24×36" 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.
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 7, 2010
Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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
V
Voivod
Jun 7, 2010
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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).
V
Voivod
Jun 7, 2010
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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!
J
jjs
Jun 7, 2010
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?
D
dorayme
Jun 7, 2010
In article ,
John Stafford wrote:

Just a closing thought.

Promises promises…


dorayme
J
jaSPAMc
Jun 7, 2010
Robert Montgomery found these unused
words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
Robert Montgomery 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 ย– or near white ย– 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.
N
nomail
Jun 7, 2010
Sir F. A. Rien 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
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 7, 2010
Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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
J
jaSPAMc
Jun 7, 2010
Robert Montgomery 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.
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 7, 2010
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
Robert Montgomery found these unused
words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
Robert Montgomery 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 โ€“ or near white โ€“ 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 โ€“ or light-colored โ€“ 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
V
Voivod
Jun 7, 2010
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:23:52 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
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.
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 7, 2010
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
Sir F. A. Rien 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 โ€“ 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
J
jjs
Jun 7, 2010
In article <KD9Pn.6043$>,
Robert Montgomery 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 โ€“ 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.
V
Voivod
Jun 7, 2010
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:04:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:57:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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?
J
Joel
Jun 8, 2010
Robert Montgomery 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. ==================================
J
Joel
Jun 8, 2010
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
Robert Montgomery 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 ย– or near white ย– 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
J
Joel
Jun 8, 2010
Robert Montgomery 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.
J
Joel
Jun 8, 2010
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:00:43 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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
J
Joel
Jun 8, 2010
Robert Montgomery 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.
J
jaSPAMc
Jun 8, 2010
Voivod found these unused words:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:23:52 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
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!
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 8, 2010
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
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 8, 2010
Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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 โ€“ or even vaguely implied โ€“ 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
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 8, 2010
Joel wrote:
Robert Montgomery 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
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 8, 2010
John Stafford wrote:
In article <KD9Pn.6043$>,
Robert Montgomery 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 รขโ‚ฌโ€œ 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 โ€“ and then the opposite corner โ€“ 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
J
jjs
Jun 8, 2010
In article <OUuPn.6119$>,
Robert Montgomery 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.
V
Voivod
Jun 8, 2010
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:45 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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 ย– or even vaguely implied ย– 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.
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 8, 2010
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
J
jjs
Jun 8, 2010
In article <40vPn.6120$>,
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Voivod wrote:
[…]

Put Voivod in your killfile and be happy. He’s a sicko.
V
Voivod
Jun 8, 2010
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:23:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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.
V
Voivod
Jun 8, 2010
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:47:33 -0500, John Stafford
scribbled:

In article <40vPn.6120$>,
Robert Montgomery 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?
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 9, 2010
Voivod wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:45 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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 โ€“ or even vaguely implied โ€“ 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!
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 9, 2010
John Stafford wrote:
In article <OUuPn.6119$>,
Robert Montgomery 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
V
Voivod
Jun 9, 2010
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:17:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:13:45 GMT, Robert Montgomery
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:54:12 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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 ย– or even vaguely implied ย– 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 ๐Ÿ™

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.
RM
Robert Montgomery
Jun 9, 2010
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?

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.
V
Voivod
Jun 10, 2010
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 23:01:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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.
J
jaSPAMc
Jun 10, 2010
Voivod found these unused words:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:17:19 GMT, Robert Montgomery
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.
A
Anon
Jun 10, 2010
"Robert Montgomery" wrote in message
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
J
Joel
Jun 10, 2010
"Anon" wrote:

"Robert Montgomery" wrote in message
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.
MR
Mike Russell
Jun 11, 2010
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
V
Voivod
Jun 11, 2010
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:59:32 -0700, Mike Russell
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.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups ๐Ÿ”ฅ

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections