Crop sizing control

How do I keep pictures I've cropped from enlarging mostly out of view (to fill the screen) when preparing and watching a slide show?

When cropping try to keep the same aspect ratio as all the other slides.

Similar Messages

Where are post-crop vignetting controls in ACR 6.7

Post crop vignetting was added into an earlier version of ACR (in CS4), but this function does not appear under Lens Corrections in my version of ACR 6.7. Where are these controls now?

Under fx, at least in 7.1.
Richard Southworth

How to add crop image control in wpf in simpler way..?

HI,
It is extended question to other question which is in this following link:
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/cc44411b-e105-45d4-9e26-f0c08252b783/how-to-get-transparency-scroll-bar-to-view-background-image-of-canvas?forum=wpf&prof=required
Actually, now I'm getting full image as background to canvas.
I need to crop image in "Change-Background" tab, so that I can get cropped image as background brush to canvas in tools tab.
I hope question is Understandable. If not ask me here.
Regards,
Viswa.

Hi Franklin,
Can you plz give XAML code too?
And I need, the user select these {
newPoint(0,0),300,300) }
2 points on click event on Image, and then can crop it from this line from above code
ib.ImageSource = CutImage(new BitmapImage(new Uri(op.FileName)), new Point(0, 0), 300, 300);
I hope you got my issue.
Regards,
Viswa

Applying a border to a cropped image??? Help.

How do i apply a border to an image that's been cropped? It seems that everything I try will add the border to the original edges of the image, and then the border gets cropped out along with the edges of the video when I start cropping.

Magic-hat wrote:
So, this would mean that by using a color matte underneath, it's parameters would be independent of those of the image above it?
Yes
If I wanted to have the image move or re-size, I would have to then apply the changes to the border seperately as well?
Yes, although since you are cropping an image you could copy the clip you've cropped, then Control Click the matte clip, select Paste Attributes, and check the Crop box. This will size your matte to the exact crop of your clip. Then load the clip into the viewer and since it's a crop you can slightly modify the crop or you can simply move the matte clip a little down and to the right or left or whatever your taste desires. Now you have your clip and a border.
If I wanted to have the image move or re-size, I would have to then apply the changes to the border seperately as well? Or would I nest them into 1 clip then apply size changes?
At this point Nesting them would be faster.

Applying smart filter to a cropped image

In my case, I have a smart layer and the smart filters on it.
I cropped the smart layer without deleting cropped pixels and now I want to apply a little bit vignette and a border with one of the smart filters.
But, the smart filter is applied to all the pixels in the image, not to the cropped ones.
I'm duplicating the smart layer and rasterizing it and applying the filter on this second rasterized layer, but there is no way, the filter is always applied to the uncropped image.
Is there a way to apply a smart filter only to the cropped pixels of an image?

Magic-hat wrote:
So, this would mean that by using a color matte underneath, it's parameters would be independent of those of the image above it?
Yes
If I wanted to have the image move or re-size, I would have to then apply the changes to the border seperately as well?
Yes, although since you are cropping an image you could copy the clip you've cropped, then Control Click the matte clip, select Paste Attributes, and check the Crop box. This will size your matte to the exact crop of your clip. Then load the clip into the viewer and since it's a crop you can slightly modify the crop or you can simply move the matte clip a little down and to the right or left or whatever your taste desires. Now you have your clip and a border.
If I wanted to have the image move or re-size, I would have to then apply the changes to the border seperately as well? Or would I nest them into 1 clip then apply size changes?
At this point Nesting them would be faster.

HELP - lightroom 4, my cropping tool is not working as it use too.

I use to be able to grab a corner of the crop tool, usually the bottom right corner, then manipulate moving it to desired size. Now, when I grab this corner, I can only push in one direction. If I push too much, then the horizontal becomes a vertical, bouncing between the two. I have checked to see if I may have changed something in the settings, but see nothing to change. Anyone have ideas, would greatly appreciate some help, thanks. Steve

I'm not quite understanding the issue. But I'm wondering if this is a problem caused by having the aspect ratio locked. If you click on the little padlock that's visible in the crop tool controls, does that make a difference for you?

How to Resize Dialogue Boxes that do not have Resize Controls

Windows CS3 5.0.3
Is there a way to increase the default size of a dialogue box that does not have re-sizing controls? Specifically the "New Page Reference" box for building an Index. The Index is becoming a little large and I'm having to do a lot of scrolling through the alpha list.

Well, there is the dreaded (for programmers) DPI Setting in your monitor settings. It attempts to re-size dialogs, to cater for larger or smaller fonts (and the reason it is feared by programmers is that it may fail spectacularly). It may or may not influence the size of Windows dialogs in InDesign.
But that really doesn't matter. If the dialog
i does
get drawn larger, that will be because the texts in it are larger. You will not suddenly have more items visible -- it's a different kind of "resize".

How can I increase the pixel count (tolerance) that will invoke sizing handles to make them easier to select and use?

When working with Word tables, re sizing a column's width requires placing the mouse exactly on the line, waiting for the mouse pointer to change to the sizing control, and then you click and drag. The problem is that the tolerance is so unforgiving
(a few pixels one way or the other) that is rather difficult to get and keep the mouse in exactly the right spot to invoke the sizing handle. Because the tolerance is so narrow, by the time you click to drag, the handle control often reverts to a regular
mouse pointer because you moved the mouse a pixel, and instead you find yourself highlighting cell content instead of dragging the column width. And you have to keep repeating this process over and over trial-and-error fashion until you finally get the
sizing handle to display long enough to actually invoke it when clicking. It is rather frustrating. My question is this: Is there a way to increase the tolerance to invoke a sizing handle? In other words, increase the pixel count slightly,
either side of the line, that will invoke the control for the sizing handle? Instead of a few pixels, to something much more realistic/functional, like maybe 5 to 7 pixels either side of the line. This is also a problem when dealing with columns
in Windows Explorer - you find yourself dragging a column instead of re-sizing it because by the time you click the mouse, the sizing control has reverted to a regular mouse pointer - this has long been a source of wasted time and frustration to me. I'm
hoping there might be a way to change this in the Windows registry. Thank you.

Cool article, but not relevant.
I did not import from iPhoto nor Aperture.
I have my photos as JPEG files in a folder on my hard drive.
Photos, the app, did not make any duplicates. Rather, it made a giant Resources folder, almost as big as my folder of Image files.
FInder Info confirms the size increase and lost capacity on my hard drive.
But I appreciate the link. That could certainly give someone the same impression.

Print module - print to file options

When creating JPEGs using the Export function of the Library module, Lightroom 4 offers you very detailed control over the export options, including automated rules for the folder/filename structure.
When creating JPEGs using "print to file" in the Print module, the controls seem to be much more limited. Notably, the folder/filename has to be specified manually for each print job.
Is there a way to keep (or append to) the original filename when exporting from the Print module, short of typing it in by hand for every single image?
(For context: My print lab requires that submitted files exactly match the print, pixel-for-pixel, for everything to work correctly. If the file doesn't match, their print driver will scale and crop until it does. So, if I use the Library module's Export function and the aspect ratio of the file is different from that of the closest available paper, two edges may get cropped. Or, in other words, I have to pad the image with white bars to fill the paper's aspect ratio if I want it to print the way I want it to. The Print module creates files that are perfect for my purposes. But, since I can't figure out how to get it to keep the filename, the back print data on the paper copies- which I will need 8 years later to find the original when a re-print is ordered- is useless.)

Thanks Effeegee. At your suggestion, I tried LR/Mogrify + ImageMagick and, with a bit of tweaking, it does exactly what I need (and far more efficiently than LR4 Print).
For other users' reference, the LR/Mogrify configuration to do this is:
In Lightroom Library -> Export, LR/Mogrify adds "Post-Process Actions". Turn on "Background Canvas" and "Compress to file size".
Under the regular "Image Sizing" control, turn on "Resize to Fit: Dimensions" and set the paper size (long side first) and printer resolution. This resizes the image to fit within the specified paper size.
Under "Mogrify Canvas", set the paper size again (in pixels, long side first), and turn on "Adjust for landscape/portrait". This pads the image with blank borders to exactly fill the specified paper size.
Note that if the short side is specified first, LR/Mogrify sometimes pads on all sides....
To minimize additional JPEG artefacts, I suspect that under Lightroom export's "File Settings" the JPEG quality should be 100 (i.e. negligible loss) and the final compression should be done only after all post-process actions, i.e. use LR/Mogrify's "Compress to given file size". (But don't quote me on that as I haven't traced the actual code path.)

PPI/DPI setting... why do you want it?

I occasionally see requests for a PPI/DPI setting in Aperture and I just noticed a request for the same in the discussion about Adobe's Lightroom. I've posted comments about why a PPI/DPI setting is not needed, so I'm curious to see if maybe I'm missing something and I'd like to hear some feedback on the subject to help educate myself and others along the way. If my examples aren't exactly clear and seem confusing, perhaps someone else can explain what I'm saying in a much more elegant and easier understood way.
Here's a copy of my original post about the subject. I've added a few other examples for further clarification on pixel dimensions in relationship to output.
"An output ppi/dpi setting is not necessary and not relevant and here's why...
Remember, were talking about pixels here, not inches. Pixel dimensions are all that matter when it comes to sizes in digital photography.
So when you export an file from Aperture and want something different from the built-in presets, choose "Edit" from the "Export Preset" pop-up in the Export dialog box. You can then add your own settings based upon the output pixel dimensions you would like to have.
For instance, if you need an 8 x 10 inch image, then take whatever ppi/dpi you would like and times it by those dimensions. A common standard for the web is 72ppi, so your pixel dimensions for an 8 x 10 inch image will be 576 pixels x 720 pixels. A common standard for printing is 300dpi, so then an 8 x 10 inch image will need to be 2400 pixels x 3000 pixels.
Hence, say you have a 2400 pixel x 3000 pixel file, it would equal...
- 8 x 10 inches @ 300 ppi
- 33.333 x 41.667 inches @ 72ppi
- 4 x 5 inches @ 600ppi
- 10 x 12.5 inches @ 240ppi
- 2400 x 3000 inches @ 1ppi
All the above listed dimensions will give you the exact same perfect 8 x 10 inch print from a 300dpi printer. In fact, whatever the dpi of the printer, each of the above listed dimensions will print the same size on the same printer.
Say you gave your favorite printer a file that another image editing application (Photoshop perhaps) says is 33.333 x 41.667 inches @ 72dpi or any of the other combinations I listed above. Well most printers are set to print at 300dpi, so it would output perfectly as an 8 x 10 inch print. If the printer was set to print at 360dpi, then you would have a perfect 6.667 x 8.333 inch print.
Again, if you need an 8 x 10 inch print and the printer prints at 300dpi, then you need a 2400 x 3000 pixel file, if you need a 16 x 20 inch print, and the printer prints at 300dpi, then you need a 4800 x 6000 pixel file. If the printer prints a 240dpi, then an 8 x 10 inch print would need to be 1920 pixels x 2400 pixels and a 16 x 20 inch print would need to be 3840 pixels x 4800 pixels.
So, you see, it doesn't matter what you ppi/dpi is, it can be anything you want it to be. The only thing you need to know is what you want your pixel dimensions to be and choose those based upon what your output device is."
-Robert
PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5Ghz Mac OS X (10.4.3) 4.5GB RAM, Nvidia 7800 GT, 600GB RAID

Many of my clients have come to expect me to ftp
their images cropped, sized and sharpened for final
reproduction. They say they get much better results
when I handle all of that. I'm billing by the hour
for Photoshop type work, so it has become a profit
center, and I find that when left to the printer to
sharpen files, and oft times even the designer, they
do not do such a great job.
So, the ability to export at a given size and ppi is
a feature that does not seem at all unreasonable.
Telling my clients that their requests for files at
300ppi are unreasonable is unreasonable. It is not
befitting of a "professional" program to ask us
constantly to do workarounds for such commonly
expected capabilities. But it is, like so many
other "we know best" features, the Aperture way.
David,
I completely understand your point and I really do believe that it would be very simple to add a function like this to both Aperture and Lightroom. It's not like such a common setting is a complete mystery to software developers or anyone associated with the commercial arts industry. So, in light of the fact that Adobe, the king of the commercial art software industry leaves a simple common function such as this out of their application also, one has to ask, why?
I really don't believe for one second that Apple just dropped the ball and didn't include this function just because some believe they rushed a product to market. That just doesn't make any sense. How could you not include what is considered to be such an important function by so many out of an application. Nope, I don't buy it, I truly believe it's not include it on purpose.
So again, I ask why?
I keep having to rethink about what is just "photographic". Remove myself from the business of running my studio. Forget about what a photographer needs in order to run their business, I myself use Photoshop, Bridge, InDesign, Illustrator, GoLive, Quark, QuickBooks, many times a week if not everyday. I need all these things and much more in order to conduct business, but business isn't "photographic". Business is business.
Photoshop is an absolutely wonderful application, but it doesn't do "photography" very well. This is where both Aperture and Lightroom come in. They both ask, what is "photographic" and then only do that.
And again, I keep coming back to the fact that the ability to control DPI/PPI settings is a pre-press function only, it's not a photographic function, never has been and never will be. It maybe a common function that a photography studio may need, but it has absolutely nothing to do with photography. It's strictly pre-press.
With both these new products that Apple and Adobe have offered the photographer, I think they're really trying to drive home the point that they want us "Photographers" to really re-think how we've done things in the digital realm all these past years. They want to help us be "Photographers" not just businesspersons that need to run a multi-function commercial art business.
-Robert

How to fill a 16:9 screen with a 2:3 still photograph?

Hello there,
I am editing a project that combines a large amount of still images and some video. I want to be able to bring images onto the timeline without havig to crop every picture so that it fits the 16:9 ratio. When I add the image into the timeline, the screen always displays black edges on the right and left edges, instead of filling the frame fully with the image I am adding.
I know that I am importing the right amount of pixels in the image, so it should be large enough to be used across the screen. And I don't understand why is the project not filling the entire screen. I just want to avoid the hassle of having to pull the corners in every picture to make it fit the full screen. Any ideas?
Thanks!
E.

Once you have one re-sized, "control+click" the clip > Copy > Select the rest of the images in the timeline > "control+click" on one of them > Paste Attributes > check basic motion > OK
That should ease the pain a bit.

Tool icons, navigation, elements need to be larger for those that want it

I have read through many forums from May 2012 right up through the current ones about this issue. There are a lot of Photoshop users who are complaining about the size of tool icons and other elements as being way too small. Then there are others who defend the size of Photoshop and some who say the icons haven't really changed. Finally, there are some who say Adobe will not do anything about this.
Let me offer a perspective as a 15 year user of Photoshop and other Adobe products. Under the earlier versions of CS, Photoshop would follow the Windows sizing instructions inputed by the user. So if we wanted everything to be large and 150% of normal size, Photoshop would follow those instructions regardless of the monitors resolution. In CC especially, it appears Adobe has abandoned any connection in its software to what the user has defined in Windows about sizing. This isn't so much about the actual size as defined in Adobe's code but how those sizes vary or don't vary based on Windows settings.
This is no minor matter. We are now working on a high resoltuion, 23" Apple Cinema Monitor at top resolution. We do that to get maximam clarity. At the same time, we know that we cannot possibly use any software that looks as small as it would in that resoltuion without adjustment. So we turn around and crank Windows up to maximum oversize in every setting that exist. The result is that desktop icons show at the size we want and other major software also shows at the size we want. The best example is Cubase which is a professional digital audio workstation. Cubase is to muisic what Photoshop is to images. Both highly professional tools. The difference is that even in high resolution, Cubase defers to the Windows sizing. All the icons, menus, navigation bar, track workspace and more are very large just like the icons on our desktop.
This means that we know it is possible and not difficult for all software to follow the Windows settings inspite of the native resolutlion. So far Adobe has chosen not to do this. Below is a screen shot of PS CC on our monitor (actually 2 monitors with Apple Cinema on the left where PS is). Unlike all the screen shots that have been shown by others during the last 18 months, we made sure that our desktop icons could be clearly seen as well. Notice the size difference between PS icons, navigation and elements versus our desktop icons. Cubase looks like our desktop icons. So why can't PS?
It is our recommendation that Adobe do the following immediately. You can't ignore 18 months or more of complaints from a large number of users without addressing the problem. The world has gone to high resolution monitors but for many of us, we need the size of software to be larger than the native resolution we are using. It's not a matter of dropping the resolution. That is not desirable and not necessary based on our actual experience. That produces other types of problems with lack of clarity that don't work. Try to select a single strand of a sound wave when there are one hundred a second in low resolution. We need the resolution but we also need the software to show larger for those that want it. For those that don't, you may be happy but why should everyone else be unhappy or unable to use the new software.
1. Provide a yes/no option to allow Adobe CC to follow the Windows sizing settings inspite of monitor resolution. Those that don't want to do this can leave it no. Those that want it can turn it on and make the entire program look bigger.
2. Provide internal CC settings to increase the size of any and all visual workspace elements and tools on a percentage basis for maximum flexibility. There may be good reasons why some people don't want to change their Windows sizing but do want to increase the visual size of CC programs.
Frankly, this is not rocket science and I'm amazed Adobe didn't jump on solutions after the 2012 forum discussions. To hear from people that nothing is gong to be done is scary for the user and should be scary for Adobe since it could result in losing customers and sales. Let's make this program work for all users on all resolution monitors in the way they need it to work. Other major software companies have done this. Why is Adobe the odd company out on this.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I do appreciate the issues here.
I'm aware of the problems in how applications work in an OS when that OS keeps changing (too much?!). Yes, this could be very consuming from a resource perspective and could take some time.
That's why my second recommendation addresses this problem without having to worry about the OS. It is not a huge resource or time issue for Adobe to provide internal sizing controls for all aspects of its software that have nothing to do with the OS or the resolution of monitor. We've had that sizing control for how big the file we are working with shows on the screen since Photoshop 1.0. I am aware of applications that added such sizing controls over 10 years ago and one of them over 15 years ago. This isn't new.
So let's put aside the disucssion about the OS and just focus on a way to define how big the entire PS program shows including all tools, elements and navigation on a percentage basis. Just an addition to the internal Preferences of the program itself. If I want PS to show at 200% or 300% of it's standard size, let me do it
The time and resources to add this to the program are not huge. Further, since this issue has been discussed for a long time, it should have been much higher on the priority list. If I was running product development, I would have made this a mandatory part of the introduction of CC. The number of complaints are simply too high to ignore this or say that it's going to take time. That tells me it's not a high enough priority on the development list.
Let's remember that for every person who does complain on these forums, there are a hundred or more that don't but are experiencing the same thing. The small size of PS tools, icons, elements and text is simply unacceptable to too many users for it to have gone on unaddressed this long.

Indesign CS5 Duplex printing Postscript file

I am designing a book half english half spanish—It is an instruction manual so you read the english then flip it and read the spanish.
In my Indesign CS5 document pages 1-30 are English then 30-1 again are spanish (upside down). I need to export them as a postscript file so that I can print it double sided correctly for a mock up.
I am making multiples of these books and only some are exporting to a postscript correctly and I cannot figure out why.
When exported to postscript correctly, it should look as if the left page is the cover in english and directly to the right of it is spanish but upside down, and then it alternates all the way to the end. So for example:
Spread 1: English on left right side up, Spanish on right upside down.
Spread 2: Spanish on left, English on right
Spread 3: English on left, Spanish on right.. and so on
But, some, are exporting so it shows a cover, then a blank page, and all the pages are jumbled up. (I do have "do not include blank pages ticked when exporting to postscript)
The only guess I have is that it has to do with the page and section numbering? I don't know if this effects how the postscript converts or not. But, I have several books exporting very differently to post script. Please let me know if anyone can help me figure this out!

I had a brief PM conversation with Stephen this morning, and it just hit me that I may have been thinking about this incorrectly. There are actually two approaches to this kind of document.
The approach I've been envisioning presents the reader with all the text on only the right-hand pages -- the lefts are all the other language upside down. But thinking back to my youth and buying some two-title sci-fi paperbacks, I think those were built so that if you tore apart the binding in the center of the book you'd wind up with two "normal" books without back covers, and there would be no page overlap between the two titles.
I'm guessing that the OP actually means to do the second, and I apologize for being dense yesterday. Seems like it was happening all week. If that's true (I mean the binding layout, not my being dense), then I understand what you were saying about Print Booklet, and there's actually a pretty easy way to make this work, I think without a plugin (though IDImposer might turn out to be even easier).
Here's the approach I would use to make a single book that can be cut apart to make two independent volumes:
First, download Scott Zanelli's Multipage Importer script from InDesignSecrets » Blog Archive » Zanelli Releases MultiPageImporter for Importing both PDF and INDD Files The script allows you to automate placing multiple pages from either a PDF or another .indd file into a new .indd doc, and it allows you to select the page range to import, the page on which to start placing, and allows scaling, rotation and alignment adjustments.
Since you have two 30-page sections, make a new 60-page file. The first time you run the script, place the first 30 pages normally, starting on page 1. Now run the script again, choosing the range 31-60, but do the following: check the Reverse Page Order box, Start Placing on Doument Page 31, and Rotate 180:
You can run this new file trough Print booklet.
The original content in the new file cannot be edited directly other than moving pages around or cropping/sizing/repostioning the page images. If you need to make text changes or other edits, do them ithe original, then update the links.

Need to split one large high-res video into sub-parts

I have a very large high-res video (5760 x 3240) that I would like to split into 9 separate videos, each 1920 x 1080. These would make up the content of a 3x3 video wall and would be 'stitched' back together by the media players driving the wall.
I am new to After Effects, so sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but I was told this was possible using AE.

Thanks for all the responses.
My next question was how I can make sure I am positioning the video in the composition to the exact pixel. Seems a little inexact just dragging, but I will try the advanced sizing controls.
I am being told that the individual media players can sync up to the ms. We are going to test everything this week once we receive the final video. Since the entire video will be 60gb, there is the question of storage, so we are adding 64gb flash to each player.
We are doing a similar wall in Europe and they are using a single video server along with a matrixer to get the job done.
I've done 2x2 walls pixel perfect and most hardware will choke on that, so I am hoping the multiple media players will be better in handling smaller chunks.
I will let you know how it works out.

Appearance on screen (via projector) when presenting - full screen or not?

How do I control / determine how keynote uses the "full screen" to run a presentation? I am anxious that when I have to run it through a projector it will appear too large or too small - any tips re using Keynote with a projector - as I have not done that yet but will have to soon.
Also - what does the slide size on the initial drop down box control? using this I can make the photos I bring in very large, but to large to be practical - what is the purpose of this sizing control?

<< How do I control / determine how keynote uses the "full screen" to run a presentation? I am anxious that when I have to run it through a projector it will appear too large or too small - any tips re using Keynote with a projector>>
Once the computer and projector are connected and operating, first go to System Preferences > Displays and click on the button "Detect Displays." This will show you the current settings for the resolution of both displays. Adjust these if/as necessary to produce a proper image on both your computer and the projector.
One useful tool to check and adjust these settings is to use a "test pattern" slide. You can find several from which to choose (and copy) by searching Google for the words "test pattern." (The old "Indian Head" test pattern is always fun.)
Next, if you will be using the projector for presentation to your audience and your computer display for your Presenter Notes, be sure that "Mirror Displays" is NOT checked in the System Preferences > Displays > Arrangement window.
Now, in the Keynote Preferences > Slideshow Preferences menu, check the box "Scale slides up to fit display." This will ensure that your slides fill the projection display properly. Then check the button "Present on Secondary Display" to assign your presentation to the projector and in the Keynote Preferences > Presenter Display Preferences menu check the box "Use alternate display to view presenter information; this will put the Presenter notes and cues onto your computer monitor.
You also might want to try checking all of the other boxes in this menu; the information this will put on your screen will be very helpful while making your presentation.
Good luck.

Crop sizing control

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for