|
|
| Author |
Message |
jonss
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Straya
PS Version: CS2
OS: Xp Pro
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:21 am Post subject: Retaining Detail in Downsizing a Photo |
 |
|
I have been less than happy with the result I have obtained downsizing a very large 5 shot stitch. I'm hoping someone can advise me how to optimise future efforts.
The shots started out as the Fujifilm equivalent of RAW and were converted to 240ppi .psd's. The stitched file was huge but needed to be reduced to 72ppi and approx. 400 px x 300px as it's destination is for a web page header. Is there something I'm missing, here? I did the 'bicubic sharper' thingy in PS CS2 but somewhere along the line the writing on a sign on the front of the subject building has lost its readability, almost.
So there's the problem. Should I maybe use a couple of transitions or a particular formula to obtain the optimum ppi in such a major size reduction? I'd really appreciate some help.
Jon |
|
|
|
|
 |
Damo77
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Posts: 114
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
PPI is completely irrelevant here. All that matters is the number of pixels you're resizing to - I think you said 400.
You said you've tried Bicubic Sharper ... have you tried the other two to see if they are any better?
The fact is, you're reducing from a heck of a lot of pixels to hardly any. You're going to lose a massive amount of detail - there simply might not be enough pixels left to render the signwriting clearly. |
|
|
|
|
|
jonss
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Straya
PS Version: CS2
OS: Xp Pro
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Damo77 wrote: | PPI is completely irrelevant here. All that matters is the number of pixels you're resizing to - I think you said 400.
You said you've tried Bicubic Sharper ... have you tried the other two to see if they are any better?
The fact is, you're reducing from a heck of a lot of pixels to hardly any. You're going to lose a massive amount of detail - there simply might not be enough pixels left to render the signwriting clearly. |
Ok, so I'm with you so far and I agree. The loss of detail is unacceptable. I'm maybe getting a little too anal about it but there must be some mathematical formula with saay, a fractal program, designed for optimum reduction as well as optimum enlargement. The question is, will the 'fractal' process, work in reverse.
Just another stumbling block on the way to graphics nirvana, where everything becomes easier, with experience.
...and on the other hand, that's where I'm getting at the formula ie: I got a large 21cm file I want to effectively depict on my homepage. If I could just find a way of applying dimensions which would reduce the image size to pixel ratio. What I need to do is find a program that does that. As you say. Ppi has no relevance , here
Jon |
|
|
|
|
|
Damo77
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
Posts: 114
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'm still suspicious that you're hungry for a bit of pie in the sky ... that is, you're seeking a result that can't exist.
400px wide is very small for a modern website - can't you make it a bit bigger? |
|
|
|
|
|
jonss
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Straya
PS Version: CS2
OS: Xp Pro
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I fear you're right. It can't be done. This has taught me something, I think. Maybe I should use a far smaller original size, in camera, if the finished shot is destined for the webpage headers. You mentioned 400px being small but it's part of a 1024 x 300 header. No matter. Thanks for your interest.
Jon |
|
|
|
|
|
hoogleman
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Posts: 18
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
way to late but if it is the text your having problem with cant you just clone out original text and then retype it with another text layer
_________________
When you photograph people in colour you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in B&W, you photograph their souls! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
