What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Resizing with Content aware in PS 2017


SuzPhotos

Active Member
Messages
35
Likes
3
I have a photo that is approximately 24+ x 18+. I want to print it at 20x24. I'm not sure how to upsize it using content aware to arrive at this size. I've attached my screen shot. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-11-18 at 2.02.22 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-11-18 at 2.02.22 PM.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 2

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
There are several other methods available to change the printed size of an image. May I ask, was there a specific reason you required this to be accomplished using, "content aware resizing"?

Tom M
 

SuzPhotos

Active Member
Messages
35
Likes
3
There are several other methods available to change the printed size of an image. May I ask, was there a specific reason you required this to be accomplished using, "content aware resizing"?

Tom M

Sam's Club is offering 50% discount on 20x24 canvas wraps, and only that size, and as I understand Content Aware, it fills in pixels when you resize a photo. Any help will be appreciated.
 
Last edited:

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Yes, to maximize the chance of anyone helping you and giving you reasonable advice, we need to see the entire photo under discussion, not with 70% of it covered by the "image size" dialog box.

In addition, the image you posted is not the actual photo. It is nothing but a screen grab. Screen grabs have limited resolution and often are tagged with the color profile of your monitor, not with a standard color profile such as sRGB. Either of these factors can cause problems. Can you please just post the image itself, before anything was done to it, in exactly the state and file format that it came out of the camera, eg, as a JPG, a Nikon or Canon raw data file, etc.

...as I understand Content Aware, it fills in pixels when you resize a photo...
With one exception (nearest neighbor), all of the resizing methods, including the oldest and simplest (ie, straight bilinear) all fill in pixels if you have the "re-sample" option checked, which is probably what you are going to wind up doing. There are many times when one of these (eg, bicubic, bicubic softer, bicubic sharper, etc.), especially in conjunction with some judicious cropping, or reflecting and/or stretching an edge will work much better than content-aware scale, especially on canvas wraps.

In addition, having an experienced Photoshopper working on the original is almost always going to produce better results than the same person attempting to image that has already been edited, especially when this done by a less experienced Photoshopper.

I am just trying to get you the best image possible and then tell you how to do the same.

Cheers,

Tom M
 
Last edited:

SuzPhotos

Active Member
Messages
35
Likes
3
This is a full size image, 15mb, so I'm not sure it will be visible here. I tried to attach it and the photo would not attach. Let me know if I need to downsize the file size if you can't see it..........Okay, not visible. What size does it need to be to upload here?
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
The best thing to do is to simply upload the file to dropbox, yousendit.com, or one of the zillion other free file sharing services, and then post the link here in this thread.

To get the largest number of people to participate in this discussion, please select a file sharing service that doesn't require the recipient to go through a tedious registration process if all the recipient wants to do is simply to download a file.

A second possible approach one can use (in certain cases) is to simply zip the file and upload the zipped version to this forum. The forum's uploading software won't be able to tell the dimensions of the file in pixels, and although it will complain about it being a zip, it will still allow one to upload a file. The catch is that the zipped version has to be smaller than about 10 Megabytes (...I don't remember the exact number), so this method will probably not work on your 15 Meg file. (See PS#2. The correct file size limit for zip files is 30 Megs, not 10, so this method would work for you.)

A third and final possibility is that, as you suggested, one could down-rez the file to make it less than 3500 pixels in both dimensions, but needlessly throwing away pixels like this lowers the resolution of the file and defeats the purpose of good Photoshop technique. In addition, I've seen quite a few cases where people make errors while doing this, thereby further delaying providing them help with their problem. That's why we generally prefer the Dropbox or Zipping methods.

Don't worry - we will get to the bottom of this.

Tom M

PS - By the way, what type of file are you trying to send? JPG? NEF? CR2?

PPS - Gedstar, one of the other moderators, refreshed my memory. The file size limit is 30 MB for Zip files, so, method #2 will work for you. Thank you, Ged!
 
Last edited:

SuzPhotos

Active Member
Messages
35
Likes
3
The best thing to do is to simply upload the file to dropbox, yousendit.com, or one of the zillion other free file sharing services, and then post the link here in this thread.

To get the largest number of people to participate in this discussion, please select a file sharing service that doesn't require the recipient to go through a tedious registration process if all the recipient wants to do is simply to download a file.



A second possible approach one can use (in certain cases) is to simply zip the file and upload the zipped version to this forum. The forum's uploading software won't be able to tell the dimensions of the file in pixels, and although it will complain about it being a zip, it will still allow one to upload a file. The catch is that the zipped version has to be smaller than about 10 Megabytes (...I don't remember the exact number), so this method will probably not work on your 15 Meg file. (See PS#2. The correct file size limit for zip files is 30 Megs, not 10, so this method would work for you.)

A third and final possibility is that, as you suggested, one could down-rez the file to make it less than 3500 pixels in both dimensions, but needlessly throwing away pixels like this lowers the resolution of the file and defeats the purpose of good Photoshop technique. In addition, I've seen quite a few cases where people make errors while doing this, thereby further delaying providing them help with their problem. That's why we generally prefer the Dropbox or Zipping methods.

Don't worry - we will get to the bottom of this.

Tom M

PS - By the way, what type of file are you trying to send? JPG? NEF? CR2?

PPS - Gedstar, one of the other moderators, refreshed my memory. The file size limit is 30 MB for Zip files, so, method #2 will work for you. Thank you, Ged!

The easiest for me is to upload to Dropbox and post a link here.
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Before I do anything, I just wanted to check that you realize that there is a discrepancy between the image size you posted in the first message in this thread, 4482x5976 pixels, and the file you put in dropbox, 4147x5184 pixels.

I presume that the dropbox version is the one we should be working with, right?

Also, from the statement in your first post, "...I have a photo that is approximately 24+ x 18+. I want to print it at 20x24...", interpreting this as written, it appears that you intend to switch from a portrait orientation to a landscape orientation. Given the subject matter, that seems unlikely. Can you please clarify this, as well, please.

Tom M
 
Last edited:

SuzPhotos

Active Member
Messages
35
Likes
3
Before I do anything, I just wanted to check that you realize that there is a discrepancy between the image size you posted in the first message in this thread, 4482x5976 pixels, and the file you put in dropbox, 4147x5184 pixels.

I presume that the dropbox version is the one we should be working with, right?

Also, from the statement in your first post, "...I have a photo that is approximately 24+ x 18+. I want to print it at 20x24...", interpreting this as written, it appears that you intend to switch from a portrait orientation to a landscape orientation. Given the subject matter, that seems unlikely. Can you please clarify this, as well, please.

Tom M

Yes, the one from Dropbox is the one I need help with. I'm not sure why the size was different. All I added was a small vignette and added a little warmth. The size I need is 20" wide x 24" tall. Thank you for your help.
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Also, I think I see some odd subtle patterns in the leaves on either side of the couple. I can't be sure of this, but, by any chance, did you try to widen the original a bit to bring it up to 20x24 aspect ratio?

Tom M
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
While I am waiting for your response to my last question, let me give you some background material. There are two commonly used methods to prepare an image to be printed as a gallery wrap on canvas.

1. The first method is to bring the core image up to the overall dimensions of the canvas after it will be wrapped around the stretcher bar frame. Typically one adds an extra 2 inches to each edge to allow enough material to be stapled to the back and/or insides of the stretcher bars.

The usual situation (eg, like yours) is that the original aspect ratio of the image is not the same as what is needed, and you don't have enough image around the subject because the subject is already too close to the edges. So, you will have to add a substantial amount of fake material to the edges of the image. As I mentioned in my previous post, there are several ways to do this. One way is to use the content aware fill function in PS. Depending on the background and how close the subject comes to the edge, occasionally this works, but often it doesn't because it introduces some very odd patterns / artifacts into the added area. Content aware scaling of the entire image, as you suggested, can also be tried, but, in my experience, the results are usually worse than content aware filling of the edges.

2. The second, and more common method is to reflect some of the image itself around each of the original edges of the image. There are many written and YouTube tutorials on this method. Just Google {gallery wrap photoshop tutorial}. The huge advantage of this method over the previous one is that it can be used on images in which the subjects are already very close to the edges of the frame. While the results initially look odd (ie, like a kaleidoscope) before the canvas is stapled over the stretcher bars, the final product doesn't look artificial and is easily accepted by most viewers.


If I am stuck dealing with an image in which the subject(s) has been positioned very close to edge of the image and the aspect ratio is wrong, I usually use a combination of the above two methods. First, I'll manually generate material to fill in the needed edges to get to, in your case, 20" x 24". I'll typically use several different tools to do this, but, most often it will be combinations of the clone stamp tool, stretching (as described above), and occasionally the content aware fill. I'll usually smooth over any obvious glitches with either the patch tool or the spot healing brush. Now,once I have the subject sufficiently far away from the edges over which the canvas will be bent, then I'll use method #2, above, reflection, to further add all the extra material that will be bent around the stretcher bars. In your case, with 2" on each edge, this would increase the overall image size to 24" x 28".

I can do this last step manually (see the above tutorials), but, I'm lazy, and to save myself considerable time, typically use a plugin from OnOne software: "Perfect Resize". Below is a screen grab with guides that show the 20" x 24" un-reflected area.

Tom M
 

Attachments

  • wrap_edges_around_20x24_core_image.jpg
    wrap_edges_around_20x24_core_image.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 1

SuzPhotos

Active Member
Messages
35
Likes
3

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Do you remember this request that I made way back in post #6 in this thread?

"...Can you please just post the image itself, before anything was done to it, in exactly the state and file format that it came out of the camera, ...".

Thank you for *finally* releasing what appears to the the entire, un-cropped, un-edited image. However, there was a reason I was so specific about what I wanted so early in this thread.

The reason was to save me from needing to engage you in an endless back and forth exchange of messages with you so that I could glean the most salient features of the image. In contrast, by effectively being forced to play "20 questions" with you, I could only learn a little bit more about the image with each exchange of messages, and never was quite sure if I actually had the whole story, or most importantly, the entire image.

I am more than happy to help people with Photoshop, but the problem is that by communicating the way you did, and with me having to essentially pry information out of you, you forced me to have to spend vastly more time answering your question than I would have needed had you simply posted the unmodified image right in post #1, or, at least, in post #7, right after my crystal clear request to you.

The specific reason I am so annoyed is that until I saw the version of the image in your last message, I always thought that your image was tightly cropped in-camera, and the only thing that could be done about this was that lots of effort had to be expended to generate a couple of inches of fake, but believable background content out from every edge of the image. As you can tell from my earlier post (#14), generating this "fill" can be a major part of the work needed to prepare an image for a gallery wrap type of mounting.

However, now that I see you had all this extra space around the subjects right from the start, I now realize that I wasted well over an hour of my time explaining something that never needed to be done and then illustrating that essentially irellevant process for you in Photoshop. In contrast, since there was all this extra space around the subjects right from the start, we could have been done in just a few steps.

With the explanations I've given, suggestions that I have made, a finished ready-for-the_printer file, and a little thought, you should be able to carry on by yourself.

Tom M
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to go back and repeat what I've already done, except, this time base the canvas extensions on the full image, ie, the last version of the image that you posted instead of on the preceding cropped versions that you previously posted.

However, I would make one recommendation: IMHO, the background is too busy and distracting. The bokeh (quality of the OOF blur) looks like you shot this image with a typical consumer grade, slow, wide-range kit zoom set at a some safe medium aperture, say, around f/5.6. I would try to minimize the attraction of viewers' eyes towards the background. In addition, I find the bright spots on the woman's knees, as well as the slighter brighter path crossing diagonally at the same level as her knees to be distracting.

Coupled with the lack of truly bright tones in the original (ie, say, greater than 230 out of 256), I would try to compensate for the optical and lighting limitations as well as increasing the drama and separation of the subjects from the background by darkening and simplifying the color structure of the background, and brightening the subjects. Such a change is, of course, a matter of personal taste, but I've had good commercial use of my own environmental portraits by making similar changes.

Cheers,

Tom M

PS - For ease of comparison, I also added a copy of the first full version of the image that you posted. The only change I made to it was to down-rez it to the same size as my "after" version of the same image so there is no bias due to image size differences.
 

Attachments

  • Lance & Anna-46-tjm01-ps03b_fix_skin-01_698px_hi.jpg
    Lance & Anna-46-tjm01-ps03b_fix_skin-01_698px_hi.jpg
    221.7 KB · Views: 17
  • Lance & Anna-46jpg-as_originally_posted-down_rezed_to_698px_hi.jpg
    Lance & Anna-46jpg-as_originally_posted-down_rezed_to_698px_hi.jpg
    216.2 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:

SuzPhotos

Active Member
Messages
35
Likes
3
Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to go back and repeat what I've already done, except, this time base the canvas extensions on the full image, ie, the last version of the image that you posted instead of on the preceding cropped versions that you previously posted.

However, I would make one recommendation: IMHO, the background is too busy and distracting. The bokeh (quality of the OOF blur) looks like you shot this image with a typical consumer grade, slow, wide-range kit zoom set at a some safe medium aperture, say, around f/5.6. I would try to minimize the attraction of viewers' eyes towards the background. In addition, I find the bright spots on the woman's knees, as well as the slighter brighter path crossing diagonally at the same level as her knees to be distracting.

Coupled with the lack of truly bright tones in the original (ie, say, greater than 230 out of 256), I would try to compensate for the optical and lighting limitations as well as increasing the drama and separation of the subjects from the background by darkening and simplifying the color structure of the background, and brightening the subjects. Such a change is, of course, a matter of personal taste, but I've had good commercial use of my own environmental portraits by making similar changes.

Cheers,

Tom M

PS - For ease of comparison, I also added a copy of the first full version of the image that you posted. The only change I made to it was to down-rez it to the same size as my "after" version of the same image so there is no bias due to image size differences.

I appreciate your input on my photo, although I do not know how you resized it (for future reference). The top photo I assume is the one you worked on. The very first one I posted was my final edited version and it looks like you may have applied the same editing I did. My lens is not a consumer grade lens. It is a Canon brand.

Also, how do I download the one you edited? Or did you put it back in dropbox?
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
"...I do not know how you resized it (for future reference)..."
I used Photoshop's Image / Image Size tool, made sure the "Resample (automatic)" option was selected, and entered 698 pixels as the vertical dimension.

"...The top photo I assume is the one you worked on..."[/i]
Different sized displays and different web browsers may change the order in which images appear, so referring to them by terms like "top" or "first" can be ambiguous. The easiest way to distinguish them is that the one I worked on has the darker background with almost no greens or browns, and smoother, more glowing skin on the woman. Also, on desktops and laptops, you can hover the cursor over each photo and its file name will appear. The resized version of the original that you posted includes the words, "-as_originally_posted-down_rezed_to_698px_hi".

"...The very first one I posted was my final edited version and it looks like you may have applied the same editing I did..."
I started with that one, down rez'ed it (since I knew it was just for purposes of illustration, and only going to be used in this forum) and then applied significant further editing..

"...Also, how do I download the one you edited? Or did you put it back in dropbox?..."
On a desktop or laptop PC, to download images from this forum, just right click on the image and select, "Save image as". On any other device, eg, a phone or a Mac, you'll have to follow whatever procedure you usually use to download images.

Also, no, I didn't upload this down-rez'ed variant of your image to dropbox because I only worked on it in this smaller version for purposes of illustration in this thread, not for printing or other actual use.

"... My lens is not a consumer grade lens. It is a Canon brand..."

Canon makes many consumer grade lenses. In fact, consumer grade lenses, by far, constitute the bulk of its photographic lens sales. For many applications, this class of lens can be perfectly acceptable, it's just that they often exhibit minor image flaws (eg, busy bokeh, vignetting, curvature of field, geometric distortions, flare, etc.) that are greatly reduced in pro models.

EXIF data on your images show that you are using a Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens. This model was introduced 7 years ago, in Fall 2009. Among all Canon zoom lenses sold by B&H photo, one of the largest suppliers of photographic equipment in the world, your lens costs $399. When ranked in order of decreasing price, it is #30 out of 45, ie, in the lowest 66th percentile.

Bob Atkins, the well-known photographic technical expert reviewed it here:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-135/review/

His conclusions were:

"The EF-S 18-135 is a pretty decent lens with the “middle of the road” performance you’d expect from a lens of this class. The zoom range of the 18-135 (equivalent to 28-216mm full frame) covers most of the requirements of the average photographer, from wideangle to telephoto, and does it in a single lens with a very effective IS system. For some users this might be the only lens they need and there’s no denying that not having to switch lenses can be a convenience.

Those looking for the highest image quality will have to pay more and/or be content with a smaller zoom range."

Tom M
 

Top