should i be cropping instead of resizing?

[HEATWAVS]

i have photos that need reframing. i have been resizing them to do this. meaning i have been making the picture bigger so that it basically zooms in and i keep the frame the same size. i do this in photoshop using the transform tool.

should i be doing this or should i be cropping the image making the frame smaller? i dont like the smaller frame, but just wondering.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

i have photos that need reframing. i have been resizing them to do this. meaning i have been making the picture bigger so that it basically zooms in and i keep the frame the same size. i do this in photoshop using the transform tool.

should i be doing this or should i be cropping the image making the frame smaller? i dont like the smaller frame, but just wondering.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. By reframing, I assume you mean changing the crop of the image? Cutting of some of the sides of the image?

Understand that digital image files have no intrinsic physical size whatsoever; rather, they have certain pixel dimensions. For example, my camera delivers images that are 4928 pixels along the long edge, and 3264 along the short edge. Cropping cuts off the unwanted pixels, leaving the others intact.

If you do a resize, the computer software has to resample the image, changing its pixel structure, either eliminating pixels when making it smaller, or interpolating pixels when making it larger. This interpolation is false detail, which may not be particularly convincing when examined up close, and is likely to be rather soft without the impression of sharpness.

If you often find yourself cropping your images severely, understand that resizing won't be making up for anything that is lost. Instead, you might consider zooming in closer to your subjects, or standing closer so as to fill your frame better.

I ought to mention the Perfect Resize product, which uses fractal mathematics to artificially generate plausible detail when enlarging an image. It isn't perfect, but it does allow you to enlarge a photo to a larger size more satisfactorily than Photoshop.

 

[jbf]

Mark gave a great answer about the issues involved. The short answer is that you should always save a copy of the unedited original then crop. Crop for artistic reasons only, never to resize. Use the crop tool, not the transform tool. Never upsize for any reason (there are rare exceptions, but you will only be degrading the image quality by doing this). Never downsize for printing. Send all of the pixels to the printer. Specify the print size in the printer properties and let the printer figure out the rest. Only downsize for output to digital media to make the file size and display size user friendly. Use the Image Size menu command to downsize.

 

[Chris R-UK]

i have photos that need reframing. i have been resizing them to do this. meaning i have been making the picture bigger so that it basically zooms in and i keep the frame the same size. i do this in photoshop using the transform tool.

should i be doing this or should i be cropping the image making the frame smaller? i dont like the smaller frame, but just wondering.

Resizing an image changes the number of pixels in the image without changing the composition. For example, if you have a 4000x6000 MP image that you want to post to the web at 1800x1200 pixels resolution, you resize the image to reduce the number of pixels. Sometimes you need to resize upwards, e.g. when you don't have the required resolution for a very large print.

Cropping changes the composition of the image by removing parts of it and that will also reduce the total number of pixels.

Cropping and resizing have different functions and often you will do both, e.g. crop the image to improve the composition and then resize it for the web. I do that almost every time I post an image here.

 

[HEATWAVS]

Mark gave a great answer about the issues involved. The short answer is that you should always save a copy of the unedited original then crop. Crop for artistic reasons only, never to resize. Use the crop tool, not the transform tool. Never upsize for any reason (there are rare exceptions, but you will only be degrading the image quality by doing this). Never downsize for printing. Send all of the pixels to the printer. Specify the print size in the printer properties and let the printer figure out the rest. Only downsize for output to digital media to make the file size and display size user friendly. Use the Image Size menu command to downsize.

I do keep a unedited copy. the reason im asking is because i took photos at a concert and the composition has too much of say a wall. it was a concert i decided to shoot on my own and not for the artist so i did what i could rather then working with the venue/artist.

heres an example of what i did. btw i took this with a film camera with 3200 is film so thats why its grainy. the one thing i dont like about cropping is the frame becomes smaller. im trying to avoid that but if i cant then i guess i can deal with it

 

[HEATWAVS]

i have photos that need reframing. i have been resizing them to do this. meaning i have been making the picture bigger so that it basically zooms in and i keep the frame the same size. i do this in photoshop using the transform tool.

should i be doing this or should i be cropping the image making the frame smaller? i dont like the smaller frame, but just wondering.

Resizing an image changes the number of pixels in the image without changing the composition. For example, if you have a 4000x6000 MP image that you want to post to the web at 1800x1200 pixels resolution, you resize the image to reduce the number of pixels. Sometimes you need to resize upwards, e.g. when you don't have the required resolution for a very large print.

Cropping changes the composition of the image by removing parts of it and that will also reduce the total number of pixels.

Cropping and resizing have different functions and often you will do both, e.g. crop the image to improve the composition and then resize it for the web. I do that almost every time I post an image here.

 

[HEATWAVS]

i have photos that need reframing. i have been resizing them to do this. meaning i have been making the picture bigger so that it basically zooms in and i keep the frame the same size. i do this in photoshop using the transform tool.

should i be doing this or should i be cropping the image making the frame smaller? i dont like the smaller frame, but just wondering.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. By reframing, I assume you mean changing the crop of the image? Cutting of some of the sides of the image?

Understand that digital image files have no intrinsic physical size whatsoever; rather, they have certain pixel dimensions. For example, my camera delivers images that are 4928 pixels along the long edge, and 3264 along the short edge. Cropping cuts off the unwanted pixels, leaving the others intact.

If you do a resize, the computer software has to resample the image, changing its pixel structure, either eliminating pixels when making it smaller, or interpolating pixels when making it larger. This interpolation is false detail, which may not be particularly convincing when examined up close, and is likely to be rather soft without the impression of sharpness.

If you often find yourself cropping your images severely, understand that resizing won't be making up for anything that is lost. Instead, you might consider zooming in closer to your subjects, or standing closer so as to fill your frame better.

I ought to mention the Perfect Resize product, which uses fractal mathematics to artificially generate plausible detail when enlarging an image. It isn't perfect, but it does allow you to enlarge a photo to a larger size more satisfactorily than Photoshop.

 

[jbf]

The original and cropped photos below are the same size: width = 4373 pixels, height = 2933 pixels. Either you downsized the original or upsized the crop so that the size would match. I'll assume from what you've said in your posts that you upsized the crop. According to your statement below, you upsize because you want the frame to be the same size for the original and the crop. My question is, why do you want the frame to be the same size?

There are legitimate reasons why you'd want to maintain a standard aspect ratio (physical frame size when printing, uniform presentation when displaying sets of images on screen). You can maintain the same aspect ratio when cropping by selecting the entire photo using the crop tool then holding the shift key and dragging the corners toward the center to crop, or you can enter the ratio in the Height and Width boxes with the crop tool selected.

I can't think of a reason why the absolute pixel dimensions need to be the same for the original and the crop. Upsizing in Photoshop won't help when printing. I'm not sure that's true 100% of the time, but having Photoshop interpolate new pixels prior to printing a photo is not a good thing typically (it will degrade the image quality). Upsizing the crop to match the original shouldn't be necessary for viewing on the screen of an electronic device because you probably aren't posting the original, and if you do post the original you'll have to downsize it anyway unless you're viewing your images at over 4000 pixels on an edge.

What's the thinking behind your statement below?

the one thing i dont like about cropping is the frame becomes smaller. im trying to avoid that but if i cant then i guess i can deal with it

 

[chuxter]

just wanted to clarify that i used a film camera for this. didnt mention in the original post. i also meant resize via transform tool by dragging the corners. the picture ends up bigger then the frame but i can recompose that way. thats how i do it in the dark room when making prints....

You are quite confused. Don't take that as an insult...

OK, you started out with film, took quite underexposed, grainy images. Then I assume you scanned them, creating JPEG files, which you imported into PS. Right?

Before you moved to the digital realm, those film images had a physical size [I'm guessing a 35mm camera, thus the image was 36mm x 24mm]. After you scanned them, they only have pixel dimensions, which do not exist in the real, physical world.

Thus, your claim that the transformed digital image is larger than "the frame" seems nonsensical. It might help us to know what "the frame" is... :-0

Any "size" digital image [of a constant aspect ratio, like 3:2] will fit ANY frame with that aspect ratio. you can print a 300 x 200, 1500 x 1000, 3000 x 2000, 6000 x 4000, or 9000 x 6000 digital image at any size that has a 3:2 aspect ratio. I just picked a few pixel dimensions; there are many others. HOWEVER, it can't be "resized" to fit any other aspect ratio w/o distorting the image.

SO, you can't take that 3:2 image and "resize" it to fit into an 8" x 10" frame! To do this, you must CROP the image, which involves throwing away parts of it.

My point is that until you change your paradigm to a digital one, you will not understand the differences between cropping and re-sizing.

I think all of us are confused what you mean by "...I can't recompose that way." What does "recompose" mean to you in this context?

 

[HEATWAVS]

just wanted to clarify that i used a film camera for this. didnt mention in the original post. i also meant resize via transform tool by dragging the corners. the picture ends up bigger then the frame but i can recompose that way. thats how i do it in the dark room when making prints....

You are quite confused. Don't take that as an insult...

OK, you started out with film, took quite underexposed, grainy images. Then I assume you scanned them, creating JPEG files, which you imported into PS. Right?

Before you moved to the digital realm, those film images had a physical size [I'm guessing a 35mm camera, thus the image was 36mm x 24mm]. After you scanned them, they only have pixel dimensions, which do not exist in the real, physical world.

Thus, your claim that the transformed digital image is larger than "the frame" seems nonsensical. It might help us to know what "the frame" is... :-0

Any "size" digital image [of a constant aspect ratio, like 3:2] will fit ANY frame with that aspect ratio. you can print a 300 x 200, 1500 x 1000, 3000 x 2000, 6000 x 4000, or 9000 x 6000 digital image at any size that has a 3:2 aspect ratio. I just picked a few pixel dimensions; there are many others. HOWEVER, it can't be "resized" to fit any other aspect ratio w/o distorting the image.

SO, you can't take that 3:2 image and "resize" it to fit into an 8" x 10" frame! To do this, you must CROP the image, which involves throwing away parts of it.

My point is that until you change your paradigm to a digital one, you will not understand the differences between cropping and re-sizing.

I think all of us are confused what you mean by "...I can't recompose that way." What does "recompose" mean to you in this context?

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

 

[HEATWAVS]

just wanted to clarify that i used a film camera for this. didnt mention in the original post. i also meant resize via transform tool by dragging the corners. the picture ends up bigger then the frame but i can recompose that way. thats how i do it in the dark room when making prints....

You are quite confused. Don't take that as an insult...

OK, you started out with film, took quite underexposed, grainy images. Then I assume you scanned them, creating JPEG files, which you imported into PS. Right?

Before you moved to the digital realm, those film images had a physical size [I'm guessing a 35mm camera, thus the image was 36mm x 24mm]. After you scanned them, they only have pixel dimensions, which do not exist in the real, physical world.

Thus, your claim that the transformed digital image is larger than "the frame" seems nonsensical. It might help us to know what "the frame" is... :-0

Any "size" digital image [of a constant aspect ratio, like 3:2] will fit ANY frame with that aspect ratio. you can print a 300 x 200, 1500 x 1000, 3000 x 2000, 6000 x 4000, or 9000 x 6000 digital image at any size that has a 3:2 aspect ratio. I just picked a few pixel dimensions; there are many others. HOWEVER, it can't be "resized" to fit any other aspect ratio w/o distorting the image.

SO, you can't take that 3:2 image and "resize" it to fit into an 8" x 10" frame! To do this, you must CROP the image, which involves throwing away parts of it.

My point is that until you change your paradigm to a digital one, you will not understand the differences between cropping and re-sizing.

I think all of us are confused what you mean by "...I can't recompose that way." What does "recompose" mean to you in this context?

Also I was using 3200 film in a dark venue....

 

[Mark S Abeln]

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

Digital resampling doesn't add any new image detail, but instead smoothly interpolates between existing pixels.

Now, not all interpolation methods give you the same results, and the methods used in Photoshop aren't particularly spectacular. But understand that they won't give you anything that didn't already exist in the original image.

 

[HEATWAVS]

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

Digital resampling doesn't add any new image detail, but instead smoothly interpolates between existing pixels.

Now, not all interpolation methods give you the same results, and the methods used in Photoshop aren't particularly spectacular. But understand that they won't give you anything that didn't already exist in the original image.

 

[jbf]

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

Digital resampling doesn't add any new image detail, but instead smoothly interpolates between existing pixels.

Now, not all interpolation methods give you the same results, and the methods used in Photoshop aren't particularly spectacular. But understand that they won't give you anything that didn't already exist in the original image.

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

So basically it's better to cut the image or known as actually cropping?

Yes, crop it to cut off the parts you don't want. Don't resize it while you are cropping and doing other editing. You posted a sample photo in one of your previous posts that was size: width = 4373 pixels, height = 2933 pixels. Even if you crop it in half, it should still be too large to view the entire image on your monitor at 100%. You will need to downsize it if you want other people to be able to view it at 100% on their monitors. What is the reason to upsize? Isn't the cropped version too large for your monitor so that you have to scroll to see it? What is your monitor resolution set to? Is it larger than 1600x1024?

 

[HEATWAVS]

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

Digital resampling doesn't add any new image detail, but instead smoothly interpolates between existing pixels.

Now, not all interpolation methods give you the same results, and the methods used in Photoshop aren't particularly spectacular. But understand that they won't give you anything that didn't already exist in the original image.

 

[jbf]

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

Digital resampling doesn't add any new image detail, but instead smoothly interpolates between existing pixels.

Now, not all interpolation methods give you the same results, and the methods used in Photoshop aren't particularly spectacular. But understand that they won't give you anything that didn't already exist in the original image.

 

[HEATWAVS]

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

Digital resampling doesn't add any new image detail, but instead smoothly interpolates between existing pixels.

Now, not all interpolation methods give you the same results, and the methods used in Photoshop aren't particularly spectacular. But understand that they won't give you anything that didn't already exist in the original image.

 

[chuxter]

just wanted to clarify that i used a film camera for this. didnt mention in the original post. i also meant resize via transform tool by dragging the corners. the picture ends up bigger then the frame but i can recompose that way. thats how i do it in the dark room when making prints....

You are quite confused. Don't take that as an insult...

OK, you started out with film, took quite underexposed, grainy images. Then I assume you scanned them, creating JPEG files, which you imported into PS. Right?

Before you moved to the digital realm, those film images had a physical size [I'm guessing a 35mm camera, thus the image was 36mm x 24mm]. After you scanned them, they only have pixel dimensions, which do not exist in the real, physical world.

Thus, your claim that the transformed digital image is larger than "the frame" seems nonsensical. It might help us to know what "the frame" is... :-0

Any "size" digital image [of a constant aspect ratio, like 3:2] will fit ANY frame with that aspect ratio. you can print a 300 x 200, 1500 x 1000, 3000 x 2000, 6000 x 4000, or 9000 x 6000 digital image at any size that has a 3:2 aspect ratio. I just picked a few pixel dimensions; there are many others. HOWEVER, it can't be "resized" to fit any other aspect ratio w/o distorting the image.

SO, you can't take that 3:2 image and "resize" it to fit into an 8" x 10" frame! To do this, you must CROP the image, which involves throwing away parts of it.

My point is that until you change your paradigm to a digital one, you will not understand the differences between cropping and re-sizing.

I think all of us are confused what you mean by "...I can't recompose that way." What does "recompose" mean to you in this context?

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

You are STILL quite confused.

Both pictures are the same size! They are BOTH 4373 x 2933 pixels. However, you have cropped the 1st image to make the subjects appear larger in the second image. You did not change the aspect ratio [which is 1.49:1 or just under 3:2]. You did not change the number of pixels [both images are roughly 12.8 MP]. In doing this change, you took some of the pixels and resampled them, to make them "smaller". By "smaller" I mean that the resultant pixels cover a lesser part of the image.

Here is a picture of your two images overlayed:



When you do this, PS has to create data. You took a part of your 1st image that was 3347 x 2244 pixels [7.51 MP] and expanded it to fill that 4373 x 2933 space. PS had to interpolate the data to create an extra 5,290,000 pixels. As another poster mentioned, PS does not have really powerful interpolation algorithm choices to use when making the pixel count increase.

Alternately, you could have cropped the image to show exactly the same things, but that would have resulted in a 7.51 MP image instead of a 12.8 MP image.

You can print either the 12.8 MP or 7.51 MP image. They will look the same, even if you print them really big. WHY? Well, because that image is so noisy, you won't see the differences. Had you presented us w/ a good, sharp image, then I would have said that they still would look much the same. If you print them extremely large, then you will see larger pixels appear in the 7.51 MP version.

 

[HEATWAVS]

just wanted to clarify that i used a film camera for this. didnt mention in the original post. i also meant resize via transform tool by dragging the corners. the picture ends up bigger then the frame but i can recompose that way. thats how i do it in the dark room when making prints....

You are quite confused. Don't take that as an insult...

OK, you started out with film, took quite underexposed, grainy images. Then I assume you scanned them, creating JPEG files, which you imported into PS. Right?

Before you moved to the digital realm, those film images had a physical size [I'm guessing a 35mm camera, thus the image was 36mm x 24mm]. After you scanned them, they only have pixel dimensions, which do not exist in the real, physical world.

Thus, your claim that the transformed digital image is larger than "the frame" seems nonsensical. It might help us to know what "the frame" is... :-0

Any "size" digital image [of a constant aspect ratio, like 3:2] will fit ANY frame with that aspect ratio. you can print a 300 x 200, 1500 x 1000, 3000 x 2000, 6000 x 4000, or 9000 x 6000 digital image at any size that has a 3:2 aspect ratio. I just picked a few pixel dimensions; there are many others. HOWEVER, it can't be "resized" to fit any other aspect ratio w/o distorting the image.

SO, you can't take that 3:2 image and "resize" it to fit into an 8" x 10" frame! To do this, you must CROP the image, which involves throwing away parts of it.

My point is that until you change your paradigm to a digital one, you will not understand the differences between cropping and re-sizing.

I think all of us are confused what you mean by "...I can't recompose that way." What does "recompose" mean to you in this context?

If you look at the second picture it is now bigger. If I were to have used a bigger workspace in photoshop you would see the picture has gotten bigger. Right now it looks more zoomed in. You get what I'm saying by bigger now? Btw I use digital and film.

You are STILL quite confused.

Both pictures are the same size! They are BOTH 4373 x 2933 pixels. However, you have cropped the 1st image to make the subjects appear larger in the second image. You did not change the aspect ratio [which is 1.49:1 or just under 3:2]. You did not change the number of pixels [both images are roughly 12.8 MP]. In doing this change, you took some of the pixels and resampled them, to make them "smaller". By "smaller" I mean that the resultant pixels cover a lesser part of the image.

Here is a picture of your two images overlayed:



When you do this, PS has to create data. You took a part of your 1st image that was 3347 x 2244 pixels [7.51 MP] and expanded it to fill that 4373 x 2933 space. PS had to interpolate the data to create an extra 5,290,000 pixels. As another poster mentioned, PS does not have really powerful interpolation algorithm choices to use when making the pixel count increase.

Alternately, you could have cropped the image to show exactly the same things, but that would have resulted in a 7.51 MP image instead of a 12.8 MP image.

You can print either the 12.8 MP or 7.51 MP image. They will look the same, even if you print them really big. WHY? Well, because that image is so noisy, you won't see the differences. Had you presented us w/ a good, sharp image, then I would have said that they still would look much the same. If you print them extremely large, then you will see larger pixels appear in the 7.51 MP version.

They are the same size now because of What's saved is what's in the workspace. What's outside of the workspace is ignored.

Btw it's grainy because it's film....

 

[chuxter]

You are STILL quite confused.

Both pictures are the same size! They are BOTH 4373 x 2933 pixels. However, you have cropped the 1st image to make the subjects appear larger in the second image. You did not change the aspect ratio [which is 1.49:1 or just under 3:2]. You did not change the number of pixels [both images are roughly 12.8 MP]. In doing this change, you took some of the pixels and resampled them, to make them "smaller". By "smaller" I mean that the resultant pixels cover a lesser part of the image.

Here is a picture of your two images overlayed:



When you do this, PS has to create data. You took a part of your 1st image that was 3347 x 2244 pixels [7.51 MP] and expanded it to fill that 4373 x 2933 space. PS had to interpolate the data to create an extra 5,290,000 pixels. As another poster mentioned, PS does not have really powerful interpolation algorithm choices to use when making the pixel count increase.

Alternately, you could have cropped the image to show exactly the same things, but that would have resulted in a 7.51 MP image instead of a 12.8 MP image.

You can print either the 12.8 MP or 7.51 MP image. They will look the same, even if you print them really big. WHY? Well, because that image is so noisy, you won't see the differences. Had you presented us w/ a good, sharp image, then I would have said that they still would look much the same. If you print them extremely large, then you will see larger pixels appear in the 7.51 MP version.

They are the same size now because of What's saved is what's in the workspace. What's outside of the workspace is ignored.

I don't think I can help you further. It may be a language issue, but what you write seems nonsensical and you use strange terms [to me]. I don't have a clue what you mean by "What's saved is what's in the workspace". Add that to "frame" [which i asked you to define] and I'm getting as confused as you are. :-(

Btw it's grainy because it's film....

Yes.