Why does rotating a layer cause image size to increase?

I was working on the top layer of a PSD document and did a custom rotation of 45 degrees so I could get a better painting angle. When I rotated the layer back I noticed my image size had increased from 10 x 8 inches to 18.3 x 18.3. When I tried to resize the image back to 10 x 8 it made my image fat and squatty. Any ideas what I did wrong when rotating? I just wanted a better wrist angle for stroking lines...

This is an example of using Image>Resize>Reveal All.
If you rotate a layer, using free transform or Image>Rotate>Free Rotate Layer,
then setect the move tool, you should see a bounding box well outside the original image.
This is the part of the photo you can't see after rotating the layer.
If you then were to go to Image>Image Size>Reveal All, elements makes those areas visible.
The only thing about rotating images or layers at angles other than 90 degree increments,
is that might degrade the image some.
MTSTUNER

Similar Messages

Why does PDF Optimizer no longer reduce size after CS4 upgrade?

I've been able to successfully reduce the size of the PDFs created from my Illustrator files for years using Advanced> PDF Optimizer in Acrobat Pro. Upgraded to CS4 last week. Now it seems to have reduced everything, but the files are still huge. When I check Space Audit 96% or more is taken up by "piece information".
I've tried changing the Adobe PDF presets, the Document Raster Effects settings, and outlining all text in Illustrator to see if that made a difference. Nothing. The frustrating thing is i've done this for years with no problem. HELP?!?!

From: Riannosda <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:06:34 -0600
To: Pamela Myhre <[email protected]>
Subject: Why does PDF Optimizer no longer reduce size
after CS4 upgrade?
Hi, I've found the solution because today it happened to me as well.
Just go to "PDF Optimizer", then click to "Discard user data" and finally to
"Discard private data from other applications": in this way you delete any
information left by Illustrator and your file's size will get reduced.
It works.
Good luckThanks so much! That works like a charm!!
Pamela

Email-to facilitate emailing a photo by gmail or AOL, I reduce the file size. Is it better to reduce the image size or increase the jpg compression?

To facilitate emailing a photo by gmail or AOL and avoid overwhelming the recipient's screen, I reduce the file size. Is it better to reduce the image size or increase the jpg compression? I have been making a duplicate image of 35 MB and reducing the image size to 8"x12" at 72 resolution giving a file size of 1.4 MB. Then I SAVE AS a jpg of medium compression giving a file size of about 111 KB. Overkill?

Go to File>save for web.
I usually make the long side 800 px
At the bottom of the dialog, check "constrain proportions."
At the top, select JPEG in the dropdown for the file format.
All the work is done for you! 72px/in is ok for web work. 240-300px/in is the recommended range for printing.

Why does CS6 no longer export images out at their boundary/artboard size? Am I missing something?

I recently upgraded to Illustrator CS6, and suddenly clients have been remarking that the file sizes are wrong or there's "a ton of white space around the logo." I checked it out, and sure enough, it appears that whenever I export a file, it does not crop it to the image boundary like it used to, even if I had manually adjusted the artboard to fit closely around it. After a bit of trial and error, I discovered that I have to click "Use Artboards" on the Export dialog each time. The super annoying part is that it doesn't STAY checked, AND it adds a number to the end of the file name. So I often forget to check it (not used to the extra step in workflow), and if I make a modification to the file, I can't just export over the previous version. It requires me to export it, go find it in finder, and manually delete the extra number off the file name. Ugh! The extra steps are adding way too much time when I'm saving out many files. I'm about ready to go back to my previous version just from this alone.
Help! Am I totally missing something? Is there an easier way to do this? It seems like the addition of this feature would only cause extra problems...

I did a quick test of this, and my CS6 Ai does indeed export to the exact size of the artboard, even if there are elements outside this boundary. Imo, this is an improvement over earlier versions: if you had some art hanging over the artboard edge in CS5, the export size would be larger than the artboard, to include even hidden paths. But CS6 is an improvement in this regard. Yes, it would be nice if your choice of "use artboard" was remembered or a choice in the prefs, but this is a small inconvenience, imo. Regarding the addition of -01, etc. to each successive export, why not just send the latest export to your client? You can delete the earlier versions later.
Another plus: if you run in 64-bit, CS5 is slow on opening each file, which is thankfully not so with CS6.
DS

Why does ppi matter for web images?

Hello
When placing an image in my (web/pixel) project the resolution is dependent from the set ppi.
When I create a new document for web, then logically only the pixels matter. Nonetheless there's a ppi field, why? And depending what value it has, placed pictures (file > place or drag&drop from Windows' explorer) get resized instead of the wanted 1:1 resolution.
1 pixel should remain 1 pixel when working with in pixels.
Try it out:
Create a new document with Full HD resolution (1920x1080 pixels), set ppi to 10.
Import a Full HD picture (Blu-Ray screenshot whatever) and it's mini-sized.
My screen resolution is 59 ppi (I use my 39" TV as monitor) and this is set in the Photoshop preferences (in case I do some print stuff that I get a 1:1 view if wanted). If there was any logic behind the pixel-ppi-placing thing, then this set standard monitor ppi should bring me a 100% sized picture... but it doesn't. Only when the ppi is set to the fantasy value of 72 I get a 100% sized placing.
This can be disturbing and is very annoying when starting a new project by opening an image that does not come with 72 ppi by default (my Canon camera makes 180 ppi JPEG photos) and placing new pictures in this project. They get opened in wrong sizes, in my case largely upscaled, with no way to correct it but guess-scaling it down.
Bug?
Pls pls fix it.
Ppi has nothing lost in pixels-only projects.
The only way that works is to open all single images in Photoshop as tabs, and then drag&drop from within Ps. -.-
Regards
Mopsi
Example screenshot: http://www.m-i-u.de/images-i83580bxvogj.jpg
The yellow framed layer is a image from my camera, opened in Photoshop CS6 extended. 3264x2448 pixels (180 ppi).
The green framed layer is a screenshot from a movie, drag&drop from the explorer. 1920x1080 (normally) unwanted upscaled here.
The red framed layer is a screensot as well, but drag&dropped from a tab within Photoshop. It remains in its original resolution of 1920x1080.

I'm wrong and your right. I just did some testing and Photoshop does indeed interpolate the lower resolution 600x400 72DPI image is up size to match the higher resolution document document size during the place process. I just assumed Photoshop would preserve image quality and not interpolate the image.    As you have shown it does interpolate the image which greatly lowers the image quality of re-sized low resolution image.
This shows you should not use Photoshop to merge images into a composite if they have greatly different resolutions. I don't have a problem there for I never use "save for web" to save images to be displayed on displays from the web or my machine. I use Fit Image and save as, or a Image Processor script that uses Fit Image to re-size and uses save as. The leave all my images files resolution setting unchanged.   For some reason Save for Web changes all jpeg files it saves resolution setting to 72 DPI even if they are 8MP images for high resolution displays..
During testing I also tried using Photoshop's script Load Files into Stack instead of using Place. That script works the way I assumed Photoshop Place would work. Images layer are not interpolated they remain the correct number of pixels and the image quality is not is not changed.. The image layer are normal layers but can be converted to smart object layers however the object would be normal layer not an image file.
When you use Place you get
It also possible to undo Photoshop's Place scaling with a simple calculation. Divide the image layer's original dpi by the document's dpi here there are three layer that did not start at 300dpi. two started out as 74dpi image file the other a 500dpi image file. 72/300=.24 = 24% the other 500/300=1.66666 = 166.66%
all you need do is change the associated layer's image transform width and height scale from 100% to the calculated percents
The only time I set document to 72DPI resolution is in Photoshop Scripts so I can calculate a font size for a charter sting so it will fit the canvas size. Photoshop Text Tools seem to be tied to 72DPI resolution. Once I add the text layer I restore the document DPI resolution back to its original setting.
So when it comes to Photoshop all files use in a project should have identical DPI resolution for best result when making composites.    My image files are either RAW files which have no DPI for they are not RGB image files. Or RGB Image files that have a high DPI resolution. I process images for print. Image files DPI resolution is meaningless when if comes to Display Screens. All that matters is the number of pixels a display can display and the number of pixels in the image. Even images I re-size for display screens DPI are high for I do not use "Save for Web". I see no good reason to strip metadata and change resolution to 72DPI. I tend not to interpolate image except the ones I save to be displayed on a display. I change Print size by changing the DPI setting without resample. My Epson 4800 inkjet printer has no problem printing high resolution pixel I see no reason resample my camera 16MP image down in size just to print at 300dpi. If I want to a single 6"x4" print I see nothing wrong printing it at 816DPI. My eyes can not resolve down there the printer can. However when Printing on Roll Paper many 6"x4" the composite document I create via a script has a 300DPI resolution and the image layers are resized to be 6" x 4".

Why does Fireworks CS5 keep resizing images when I paste them?

I am having a problem in Fireworks CS5 where images that are copied and then pasted into a new document automatically re-size and become either very tiny or very large.
I have taken some screenshots to show this more clearly: (this website only allows me to upload images of 450 pixels across so they are not too clear)
Image 1: I have taken a large image and reduced its size to 100x100 pixels (highlighted in red).
Image 2: I have created a new document which is 100x100 pixels in size.
Image 3: I have copied the image from Image 1 (control + C) and then pasted it into Image 2 (control + V). The image was 100x100 and the new image was 100x100 yet when I paste the image it suddenly becomes 313x313 in size and is too large for the new image. Sometimes it becomes tiny when pasted and is too small for the document.
Can anyone help with this matter? Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but I have tried searching for solutions and tried a range of methods (different kinds of copy and paste etc), but nothing seems to help. Please let me know what I am missing!
Thank you for your help! As I said I am using Fireworks CS5. I am using Windows 7. If there is anything else you want to know just let me know.

I don't know what could be causing the copy/paste resizing issue, but here are a couple of ideas that may help with your workflow:
You can create a new document for animation by choosing File > Open..., selecting multiple images, and clicking the "Open as Animation" option. This will place each image file into its own State.
Consider using commands from the States panel fly-out menu—e.g., Duplicate State, Copy to States, etc.—to move objects from one state to another.
Other commands to copy objects within Fireworks include Edit > Duplicate and Edit > Clone. These do not involve the clipboard and may sidestep the resizing problem.
Sometimes with bitmaps, I like to convert them to symbols, as it allows me to resize the bitmap freely without losing the original resolution. (This might introduce extra steps, but it could allow you to correct the image size after it's been pasted incorrectly.)
It's a longshot, but I wonder if it would help to empty the clipboard contents once in a while, to clear out old data.

Why does iPhoto keep corrupting my images?

For the past year, iPhoto 11 has been tremendously buggy on my early 2011 15" MacBook Pro. It started under Lion and has continued apace under Mountain Lion. It first started going haywire and crashing every time I tried opening it after any premature removals or disk use of my camera card in July 2011. After starting in safe mode and having to rebuild my library several times, it seemed to settle down, and would generally work as long as I restarted the computer after a crash. However, many of my photos ceased to show up properly--either they wouldn't be there at all, or the pictures and/or their thumbnails would be rotated the wrong way, sometimes with the display dimensions reversed so they appeared improperly squashed or stretched. This issue mostly affected photos from c. 2001-2005, which I'd brought over from my iMac to save space on the older desktop computer. (The iMac is backed up with my Time Capsule, but I haven't yet tried to see how that works within iPhoto, nor from my MBP.)
In the past few months, both before and after the installation of Mountain Lion and some updates to iPhoto itself, iPhoto has been acting strangely again. Whether or not there's any "misuse" of a camera card that precipitates iPhoto's misbehavior, it's often been saying that thumbnails are corrupt and need to be rebuilt, but instead of fixing them it makes even more of them look worse than they did before. Especially annoying, it seems to have permanently squashed, stretched, and/or rotated most of the images I'd chosen as Event preview images--i.e., it's done the most damage to a lot of the best pictures in each event, and it's been hitting a lot of the more recent photos than the first set of bugs did. In addition, it quits itself spontaneously at least once per day, and gives an error message when it does so.
I used to love iPhoto, but its behavior lately, and the way it's been corrupting or failing to properly display thousands of my pictures, have been frustrating beyond words. Has anyone else had problems similar to mine with iPhoto lately? I really wish I'd never "upgraded" to the current version, because the new functions shouldn't come at the expense of losing or having to manually rebuild and tweak thousands of photos. Can anyone recommend a solution to stop this from happening further, and to get things back to normal?
Regards,
Brian Green

Where is your Library stored?
What rebuild did you do? iPhoto's own?
As a Test:
Hold down the option (or alt) key and launch iPhoto. From the resulting menu select 'Create Library'
Import a few pics into this new, blank library. Is the Problem repeated there?

Why does Printing a document cause it to be changed?

When I do page setup, etc, then SAVE the document, and then PRINT the document, the "Changed Bit" in the close box of the document is set, and I cannot just close the document.
Why does Printing change the document?
How can I avoid this. (If I save the document, then Print, I do NOT want any further changes)
Thanks

Bill,
Complaints about actual program misbehavior or outright bugs need to get reported directly to Adobe. This is a users to users forum and while Adobe personnel occasionally show up here (much, much less seldom now than in years past) it is extremely unlikely that they will see or take any action on such reports here. (Although there WAS a recent appearance by an Adobe engineer who independently jumped on an issue that certainly did seem to be a bug).
The kind of thing you've described is annoying and should not happen (yes, lazy programming) but it's interesting sometimes when the explanation for such things reveals intent (rather than ignorance of the apparent defect) in order to solve another problem.
Want REAL annoyance? How about programs that insist on saving (when closing) simply because the file has been opened! That's very common on Windows. Really, really irritating.
But this thread has gone beyond any usefulness regarding your observation of a very tiny pimple on a major gem of engineering. And you've locked horns with one of the major irritants on this forum. If you persist, the 2 of you will just appear to be 2 brats squabbling in a mud hole. He likes that. Do you?
You seem like a nice guy (so far). But it also seems like you like fighting (from this and another thread). It would be interesting to hear more from you. My unsolicited advice? Move on. He will not back down from his childish behavior which is an irritant and embarrassment here to many people. Most of whom simply ignore him and don't stick their necks out like I'm doing now.
He's shamelessly overindulged by the forum moderator who, with all due respect, seems to possess good judgment in most areas save his handling of certain very caustic and inappropriate "members." here. (Sorry Neil)
Ramon is knowledgeable, but confuses the strange protection afforded by a keyboard hitched to the Internet as macho proof of bravado and fearlessness. (He's never "met" anyone who can make him stop posting anything he wants to. Isn't that special?)
On this forum he is not a gentleman. (who knows what he's like in real life? I'll bet he's very different!) Are you a gentleman? Regarding your complaint that you've been insulted, duly noted. I believe most here are on your side. Persist with this for even one more post and you'll have lost your standing. Let it go, COMPLETELY! Start a new thread about something interesting.
Welcome to the fray.
Rich

Why does SAVING a project cause a delay/freeze in Premiere Pro CC?

EASY steps to re-create the issue:
1) Enable GPU Accleration in your Project Settings.
2) Create TWO sequences and add a bunch of clips to your timeline in EACH sequence.
3) Apply an effect like "Warp Stabilizer" to all those clips (or, if you have like 30 short clips add it to say half of them) on each of the two sequences.
4) Wait for the effect to finish working/stabilizing and you'll notice the render bar where the effect was added gradually turns from RED back to YELLOW for smooth playback.
5) You can now toggle back and forth between the two sequences easily and play, edit, etc. All is well at this point...
6) BUT!!!!...once you save the project (or if the project AUTO-SAVES) then now when you toggle back to the other sequence the render bar has returned to RED and you have to WAIT for it to turn YELLOW again which sometimes can take anywhere from a several seconds to 1/2 a minute or even more (depending on how many effects (warp stabilizers in my case) you've added). During this delay, you cannot work or even play the video on BOTH timelines. Once it switches back to YELLOW you can work like normal...until it's saved again.
NOTE#1: If you toggle OFF GPU Acceleration for the project and set it to "Software ONLY" then this issue/delay does NOT occur.
NOTE #2: Another pain is that to save the project above takes upwards of 45 seconds!!!! When I turn off GPU Accleration, saving takes only up to a few seconds. Imagine have to stop work and wait 45 seconds every time your project auto-saves!
This delay above is a real pain when I have multiple sequences with effects and after every time I save the project (or after it's auto-saved) I have to initially sit and wait 30 seconds or more sometimes when I go between sequences.
Why does simply saving a project trigger this issue/delay?
Is this a bug that I should report?
I've tested this on 2 different Mac computers (2011 iMac w/ AMD6970M (1GB VRAM) GPU as well as the supported 2012 Macbook Pro with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650M GPU w/ 1GB VRAM) with the same results.

Booo.
Well, thanks Ann for testing and confiming the issue on a PC as well.
Bug report submitted.
Bummer.

Rotae photo causes image size change?

Hello -- So, I've taken some photos with my camera held vertically, then I import the images, and then I want to rotate them. I KNOW that this did not used to happen in earlier versions of iPhoto, but, when I rotate the image to its proper "direction," the image looks "stretched" vertically. If I rotate it back to its original way, it looks normal, but "sideways." If I try to rotate so that it looks correct, it is stretched. Does anyone know why this is happening, and how to fix it? Thank you very much.

Drag one to the desktop and see how it preforms in Peview - and any other photo editor you might have around
I've not seen this in iPhoto nor have I heard of it in any of the nearly 40 thousand iPhoto '08 posts
LN

Why does my high res photoshop image appear blurry when placed in InDesign and Exported as PDF?

Hi there,
I have a problem I've been trying to solve for days but just can't find the answer anywhere on the internet.
I have a large, good quality photoshop file (2268 x 979 pixels, resolution 300 pixels per inch). When I place it into InDesign, the image appears OK (I've changed my display settings to HIGH) - I then resize it in InDesign to 10% and the file still looks great! Then, when I export it as PDF (high quality print) it looks blurry.
Does anybody know why? The strangest thing is, I've placed other photoshop images in the same InDesign file and they look crystal clear. It is just this one I am having trouble with. I've saved it in the same folder as the other pictures, I've tried placing it as psd. , jpg. , photoshop pdf, png. everything...
The image looks great in both photoshop and indesign, only when exported as pdf it looks awful.
Any help will be greatly appreciated,
Many thanks in advance!
Weronika

It's probably the extreme reduction -- you're throwing away 90% of the image pixels and interpolating, and then using jpeg compression on top.

Why does Photo Booth provide 'mirror' images?

I took a number of pictures of my friends with Photo Booth and realised that something was wrong. When I looked closer I noticed that all the photos had been reversed and were in fact mirror images of the actual person. Why is this? I had to use the "Flip Photo" command to make them normal. I would suppose this is how the original iSight works as well although I have never tried it.
Then I noticed that there is an "Auto flip all photos" command, which of course is what I choose. But it is beyond me why this is not the default in the first place.
When you use a camera with a timer on it to take your picture, it does not give you a mirror image, it provides you with the true image. iSight should also IMHO.
Griff

It's because it's more natural for people to see themselves in a mirror while getting ready for the picture. Thus if they lift their right hand the hand on the right side of the screen would appear to rise. If the picture suddenly flipped after taking the picture, this could be confusing, which is why it isn't the default, but simply an option.

Why Does Lightroom Web Module Export Images At 240 ppi?

Firstly, please forgive my ignorance on this subject. I am in the process of getting together a website of my images and have been experimenting with preparing the images and thumbnails through Lightroom's web module. I've noticed that when opening the finished images in Elements, that they have all been converted at 240ppi. Surely, images for websites should be at 72ppi (or possibly 96ppi)? Or am I dimmer than even I thought?

should I simply ignore the resolution box?
Yes indeed. You set the size unit box in the export dialog simply to pixels and then size the right number of pixels for your web use. Typical is for example 800 pixels on the long end. The resolution box is not relevant for web use. It is really only used as a hint to a final printing size.
So I imagine the 240ppi conversion must be the Lightroom default value. Do you think?
Very likely so. I believe Lightroom, just like Photoshop, assumes 240 for files that do not start out having the tag so that is probably what happened if this started as a scan. Many scanners do not write this tag at all, but most DSLRs write the tag into their files and it is usually 240 for older generation cameras and 300 for later ones. I don't know why they do that as it is again not relevant as people print at any size they want.

Why does my browser keeps causing my computer to get pinwhelled?

I don't know why it is happening but I will be using my laptop and hae multiple tabs open then I would go to do something else and instead of my browser just running in the background it will show up as not responding. Then when I try to force quit it, I wait two minues and nothing happens. This puts me in the postion of having to hold down thep ower button to turn off my computer. This even sometimes when im using the browser and in the middle of doing something.
I tried switching browser but to no avail, since the problem still presits.
Am I alone here? Can I possibly have too many files on my PC? Do I need to somehow defrgment my drive? or does anyone have any ideas?
Thank you!

Start in Safe mode again and then click the option to '''Disable All Add-ons''' followed by "'''Makes Changes and restart'''",
Then it's simply a case of re-enabling them one-by-one until the problem recurs. Then you know it was the previous one which is causeing the problem.
The add-ons manager is accessible by clicking '''Tools '''| '''Add-ons '''| '''Extensions'''. Laborious I know but it's the only way of doing it.

Converting RGB to Gray, why does PS ask about flattening image?

When I have a layered RGB image and change the mode to Gray, PS asks whether I want to flatten the image (thus losing layer information).
Why is this, I don't see why this is desirable or common?

Why is this, I don't see why this is desirable or common?
Because a grayscale image has only ONE color channel Jace. Look at your channels panel. Thats why converting your image into grayscale MODE is a destructive process, and needs to dump all your layers.
There is a non-destructive way to do it using an RGB Smart Object embedded in your grayscale document, but this may be a little beyond what you are trying to do?
There are two good(ish) ways to make an RGB image into a grayscale: One Zeno has told you is to use a Black & White adjustment layer. A less flexible, but also less damaging method is to use a Channel Mixer layer with the Monochrome checkbox.

Why does rotating a layer cause image size to increase?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for