A particular kind of cropping
May 28, 2011 8:14 AM Subscribe
Is there any non-Photoshop image editor for Mac which will do exactly this kind of resizing?
There's a particular feature of Photoshop that I am looking for in another Mac image editor, especially one that is free or inexpensive.
In short, select the crop tool, set the crop tool dimensions in the little info bar at the top of the screen, and then drag the crop tool on the image to select the part that you want to be those dimensions. The drag is constrained proportionately, so you can make a tiny crop or a large crop, but it is always constrained to the same ratio so that when you make the crop happen you get an image that is exactly the pixel height and pixel width you want and exactly the part of the image you want all at once.
So, if you input cropping dimensions of 300x100, Photoshop will let you drag the crop area to be 150x50 or 900x300 or another pair of dimensions on the same ratio but the resulting image after completing the crop in any case is always going to be 300x100.
I can't seem to find another crop tool in another image-editing program that works this way. They seem not to allow one to constrain the crop tool and then allow the proportionate crop area adjustment.
Instead, they do one or more of these:
--Only allow you to set a fixed crop size that cannot be scaled up or down. That is, a 300x100 crop width is always and only that, regardless of how large your original image is, which requires to you to guess at how large to make your crop on on the same ratio so that you can, in a second step, scale the image down and get roughly what you want.
--Allow you to make the crop area proportionately larger or smaller, but then they change the pixel dimensions. So, they keep the ratio but they don't keep the height and width. Pixelmator and iPhoto, for example, do this.
--Only allow you to constrain the crop area to a square if you hold down Option or another key and drag on the corners or edges of a crop selection.
For the most part, the other programs seem to conflate selecting an area with cropping, or they conflate resizing a whole image with cropping.
I feel like it's such a useful feature it must be there, but I can't seem to find it in Seashore, GraphicConverter, Acorn, iPhoto, Pixelmator and other apps.
Because people have repeatedly told me this feature is in other programs only to find that it isn't (and they realize it when they try to show me), I'm including a video to show how Photoshop does it.
I'm not looking for answers like "estimate how much to resize the whole image so that the crop you make on that is about the dimensions you want." It's not accurate enough and it takes too long.
There's a particular feature of Photoshop that I am looking for in another Mac image editor, especially one that is free or inexpensive.
In short, select the crop tool, set the crop tool dimensions in the little info bar at the top of the screen, and then drag the crop tool on the image to select the part that you want to be those dimensions. The drag is constrained proportionately, so you can make a tiny crop or a large crop, but it is always constrained to the same ratio so that when you make the crop happen you get an image that is exactly the pixel height and pixel width you want and exactly the part of the image you want all at once.
So, if you input cropping dimensions of 300x100, Photoshop will let you drag the crop area to be 150x50 or 900x300 or another pair of dimensions on the same ratio but the resulting image after completing the crop in any case is always going to be 300x100.
I can't seem to find another crop tool in another image-editing program that works this way. They seem not to allow one to constrain the crop tool and then allow the proportionate crop area adjustment.
Instead, they do one or more of these:
--Only allow you to set a fixed crop size that cannot be scaled up or down. That is, a 300x100 crop width is always and only that, regardless of how large your original image is, which requires to you to guess at how large to make your crop on on the same ratio so that you can, in a second step, scale the image down and get roughly what you want.
--Allow you to make the crop area proportionately larger or smaller, but then they change the pixel dimensions. So, they keep the ratio but they don't keep the height and width. Pixelmator and iPhoto, for example, do this.
--Only allow you to constrain the crop area to a square if you hold down Option or another key and drag on the corners or edges of a crop selection.
For the most part, the other programs seem to conflate selecting an area with cropping, or they conflate resizing a whole image with cropping.
I feel like it's such a useful feature it must be there, but I can't seem to find it in Seashore, GraphicConverter, Acorn, iPhoto, Pixelmator and other apps.
Because people have repeatedly told me this feature is in other programs only to find that it isn't (and they realize it when they try to show me), I'm including a video to show how Photoshop does it.
I'm not looking for answers like "estimate how much to resize the whole image so that the crop you make on that is about the dimensions you want." It's not accurate enough and it takes too long.
Best answer: Does Photoshop Elements count as non-Photoshop? It's certainly less expensive.
posted by anildash at 8:49 AM on May 28, 2011
posted by anildash at 8:49 AM on May 28, 2011
Yeah, just do a resize after the fixed-ratio crop. You're actually doing the same amount of work in Photoshop (clicking into a separate dialog, entering the dimensions), just in reverse order.
posted by mkultra at 9:07 AM on May 28, 2011
posted by mkultra at 9:07 AM on May 28, 2011
Yeah, just do a resize after the fixed-ratio crop. You're actually doing the same amount of work in Photoshop (clicking into a separate dialog, entering the dimensions), just in reverse order.
Even better, do the fixed-ratio crop, then use Automator to batch-resize all of the images you cropped all at once. The test workflow I just set up runs:
Even better, do the fixed-ratio crop, then use Automator to batch-resize all of the images you cropped all at once. The test workflow I just set up runs:
posted by The Michael The at 9:36 AM on May 28, 2011Ask for Finder Items >(n.b. this step is optional, depending on whether you want to retain the pre-resized versions or not)
Copy Finder Items >
Resize Images
Response by poster: Just to be clear: the output image is almost always a different ratio than the original image. Are you all assuming they are the same?
Or are you suggesting that I figure out the crop ratio based on the desired output image size and determine the larger crop dimensions needed for the crop tool so that, after the crop, I can then resize it to be the proper output? That's always the first response to this question and a poor one. It lacks elegance and simplicity, especially if your input is 2096x945 and the cropped output needs to be, say, 927x174. These are digital image editors: why should I be doing scrap paper calculations to figure out a crop ratio? And it's only good if you don't care that you will probably have to upscale the image and degrade its quality.
posted by Mo Nickels at 9:47 AM on May 28, 2011
Or are you suggesting that I figure out the crop ratio based on the desired output image size and determine the larger crop dimensions needed for the crop tool so that, after the crop, I can then resize it to be the proper output? That's always the first response to this question and a poor one. It lacks elegance and simplicity, especially if your input is 2096x945 and the cropped output needs to be, say, 927x174. These are digital image editors: why should I be doing scrap paper calculations to figure out a crop ratio? And it's only good if you don't care that you will probably have to upscale the image and degrade its quality.
posted by Mo Nickels at 9:47 AM on May 28, 2011
Response by poster: Another clarification: the fixed ratio crop solution is not acceptable if it means upscaling or resampling the image after a crop. I realize the web is filled with crappy lossy images but I don't intend to add to their numbers.
posted by Mo Nickels at 10:11 AM on May 28, 2011
posted by Mo Nickels at 10:11 AM on May 28, 2011
... the fixed ratio crop solution is not acceptable if it means upscaling or resampling the image after a crop.
But isn't Photoshop doing exactly this, if the image selected isn't the exact size specified?
posted by cameradv at 10:31 AM on May 28, 2011
But isn't Photoshop doing exactly this, if the image selected isn't the exact size specified?
posted by cameradv at 10:31 AM on May 28, 2011
Response by poster: What Photoshop is doing amounts to trim to specific dimensions -- data is remove not resampled or downsampled -- then a resize downward. That latter does add a lossy generation, but it can be mitigated by starting with a non-lossy format, even if it means going from hi-res JPG to PSD or TIFF then cropping/sizing then an export back to a web format.
posted by Mo Nickels at 10:40 AM on May 28, 2011
posted by Mo Nickels at 10:40 AM on May 28, 2011
It lacks elegance and simplicity, especially if your input is 2096x945 and the cropped output needs to be, say, 927x174. These are digital image editors: why should I be doing scrap paper calculations to figure out a crop ratio?
If your output needs to be 927x174, your crop ratio is 927:174. No calculations needed. Most image editing tools have a "fixed aspect ratio" crop option which will happily work with those numbers. Simply plug in the ratio, adjust your selection, crop, then resize the final image.
As mentioned by msk1985, The Gimp is free, and it can absolutely do this (I just checked), though its UI does feel pretty awkward and out of place on a Mac.
posted by SemiSophos at 12:37 PM on May 28, 2011
If your output needs to be 927x174, your crop ratio is 927:174. No calculations needed. Most image editing tools have a "fixed aspect ratio" crop option which will happily work with those numbers. Simply plug in the ratio, adjust your selection, crop, then resize the final image.
As mentioned by msk1985, The Gimp is free, and it can absolutely do this (I just checked), though its UI does feel pretty awkward and out of place on a Mac.
posted by SemiSophos at 12:37 PM on May 28, 2011
It's two steps in Pixelmator but there's no manual calculating necessary. I don't quite understand the segment of your question where you ruled this app out.
I just started with a 1024x768 image, set the crop ratio to 927x174, cropped a portion of the picture (stopping to resize and move the crop box along the way--the proportions were retained just as I expected), and then resized the cropped area to 927x174.
It's not great that there's the extra step, but it's not really that many extra keypresses (Command-Option-I, Command-A, 927, Enter).
posted by bcwinters at 2:26 PM on May 28, 2011
I just started with a 1024x768 image, set the crop ratio to 927x174, cropped a portion of the picture (stopping to resize and move the crop box along the way--the proportions were retained just as I expected), and then resized the cropped area to 927x174.
It's not great that there's the extra step, but it's not really that many extra keypresses (Command-Option-I, Command-A, 927, Enter).
posted by bcwinters at 2:26 PM on May 28, 2011
Response by poster: then resized the cropped area to 927x174.
You mean you upscaled it to that size, right? It degrades the quality.
Using the same image and the same destination size that I used in the video, here's what really happens in Pixelmator.
Start with a 1024 × 677 image.
Set the crop tool to 340 x 180 in the Tool Options paletette where it says "Constrain" then "Custom" from the drop-down.
Select the part of the image I want.
Crop.
Now what I have is a 287 x 152 image. NOT a 340 x 180 image.
In order to get the size I want, I now have to scale it upwards. That's a loss of quality that is unacceptable.
So, no, Pixelmator does not do what I want.
posted by Mo Nickels at 6:13 AM on May 29, 2011
You mean you upscaled it to that size, right? It degrades the quality.
Using the same image and the same destination size that I used in the video, here's what really happens in Pixelmator.
Start with a 1024 × 677 image.
Set the crop tool to 340 x 180 in the Tool Options paletette where it says "Constrain" then "Custom" from the drop-down.
Select the part of the image I want.
Crop.
Now what I have is a 287 x 152 image. NOT a 340 x 180 image.
In order to get the size I want, I now have to scale it upwards. That's a loss of quality that is unacceptable.
So, no, Pixelmator does not do what I want.
posted by Mo Nickels at 6:13 AM on May 29, 2011
Photo Mechanic does this, but there's a bit of a hiccup with the dpi. (You set crop area in inches, not pixels.) You'd have to do some experiments to make it work the right way. If all your starting images are the same dpi, then it should work great.
www.camerabits.com There's a 30 day free trial, and after it's $69.
posted by thenormshow at 8:23 AM on May 29, 2011
www.camerabits.com There's a 30 day free trial, and after it's $69.
posted by thenormshow at 8:23 AM on May 29, 2011
Look, if the area that you want in your original image only contains 287 by 152 pixels, then in order to get 340 by 180 pixels you absolutely must resample upwards. No graphics program in the world is capable of generating those pixels in any other way and they do not appear from nowhere. If you use the crop tool in Photoshop and select an area which is small compared to your desired output, you will see a loss of quality. Photoshop simply doesn't tell you that it's doing this, but it is, which you can clearly see if you select an area which is very small.
Almost any modern graphics program, including those mentioned in this thread, will give you very good results (no loss of quality) if you make sure the portion of your image which you want to keep is nearly as large as, or larger than, your desired output size. Using most modern graphics programs (e.g. The GIMP) will give you results which are similar in quality to Photoshop, assuming you made the same size selection.
posted by anaelith at 9:07 AM on May 29, 2011
Almost any modern graphics program, including those mentioned in this thread, will give you very good results (no loss of quality) if you make sure the portion of your image which you want to keep is nearly as large as, or larger than, your desired output size. Using most modern graphics programs (e.g. The GIMP) will give you results which are similar in quality to Photoshop, assuming you made the same size selection.
posted by anaelith at 9:07 AM on May 29, 2011
I have to agree with anaelith here. If you select an area that's 287 x 152 and resize it to 340 x 180--whether in one step with a constrained crop-and-resize in Photoshop or via two steps like in Pixelmator--the end result is the same. Where would Photoshop magically be finding the extra data??
posted by bcwinters at 2:51 PM on May 29, 2011
posted by bcwinters at 2:51 PM on May 29, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by anaelith at 8:27 AM on May 28, 2011