CS3 Crop Tool question

Snapper

I can't seem to do this, nor find any reference in the PhotoShop help:

I want to set the Crop Tool to a specific aspect ratio - not a specific number of pixels or inches. Similar to the way the Crop Tool works in ACR.

If you enter just a number in the "Width" or "Height" boxes, it defaults to pixels.

I'm thinking I'm out of luck. Of course I can use the Marquee Tool and Crop command, but the Crop Tool is adjustable and has the shield around it.

LAB.rat

I'm afraid we're all out of luck on this one.

If your original already has the correct ratio, you can select all of it and Shift-drag it smaller though, which is minor relief.

If you use the marquee, you could also develop a workflow with a temporary mask and then drag picture or the mask, or resize it.

Maybe the guys from PS Scripting can make something to turn a marquee selection into a Crop selection. I've been meaning to look into that myself.

Richard

Snapper wrote:

I can't seem to do this, nor find any reference in the PhotoShop help:

I want to set the Crop Tool to a specific aspect ratio - not a specific number of pixels or inches. Similar to the way the Crop Tool works in ACR.

If you enter just a number in the "Width" or "Height" boxes, it defaults to pixels.

I'm thinking I'm out of luck. Of course I can use the Marquee Tool and Crop command, but the Crop Tool is adjustable and has the shield around it.

In CS2, you can enter a number in inches in the width and height box while leaving the resolution blank. This constrains the aspect ratio of the crop tool to the proportion you have given. I don't believe it has any other effect on the image.

Edit: Not so fast. It will change the dimensions to whatever you put. So you have to change the resolution back to whatever your original preference was to print the way you intended. The main thing is that the aspect ratio in pixels will be correct after you crop.

colourbox

You can't use the crop tool for a pure aspect ratio, based on the reasons everyone's covered.

You CAN do it with the rectangular marquee tool, so that's the solution.
1. Select the rectangular marquee
2. Set the options bar to Fixed Ratio and enter it
3. Draw your crop rectangle
4. If you need to adjust it, use Select > Transform Selection, size it, hit Return
5. When you're ready, choose Image > Crop, then deselect

This seems to be the only way to crop to an aspect ratio without mucking up the resolution or dimensions.

jfriend

colourbox wrote:

You can't use the crop tool for a pure aspect ratio, based on the reasons everyone's covered.

You CAN do it with the rectangular marquee tool, so that's the solution.
1. Select the rectangular marquee
2. Set the options bar to Fixed Ratio and enter it
3. Draw your crop rectangle
4. If you need to adjust it, use Select > Transform Selection, size it, hit Return
5. When you're ready, choose Image > Crop, then deselect

This seems to be the only way to crop to an aspect ratio without mucking up the resolution or dimensions.

I use the crop tool in CS3 for pure aspect ratio trimming all the time. I just set it to 8" x 12", clear the resolution field and all it will do is trim off the pixels outside the crop tool rectangle that I drag out. It will not resample if you clear the resolution field. Works fine for me.

LAB.rat

I can't believe it really...

Let's say I want to crop a 2:3. So I fill out 2 and 3 and see to it that the resolution field stays empty?

Does not do what you're saying here... What am I doing wrong?

Update: it does work if you use anything but pixels. THANKS!

colourbox

jfriend wrote:

I use the crop tool in CS3 for pure aspect ratio trimming all the time. I just set it to 8" x 12", clear the resolution field and all it will do is trim off the pixels outside the crop tool rectangle that I drag out. It will not resample if you clear the resolution field. Works fine for me.

The problem with the crop tool is that if you want to change the aspect ratio and you use only the crop tool, you can't keep your physical dimensions and resolution. This is a separate issue from resampling. If I start with a 5x3 image at 240 dpi, and I want to crop to 3:2 aspect ratio while maintaining its 3" height, without resampling, the Crop tool can't do it. By entering 3x2 inches with blank resolution in the Crop tool, the only thing that can happen is that the image ends up 3x2 inches at 360 dpi. I have to go back and reset the physical size in Image Size. This is because the crop tool size spec cannot be decoupled from a physical dimension (inches). Check the Resolution and Document Size fields in the Image Size dialog before and after a crop tool resize in inches with the crop resolution blank.

This makes a difference when the physical image size is important. If prepping a file that you're setting up at 14x11 inches at 300 dpi, and then you want to do a 3:2 crop, you don't want it to suddenly be 3x2 inches tall at 1400 dpi, but that's what happens with the Crop tool. I think I ran into this when going to Print Preview next (or even printing) and thinking "How'd it get so small?"

Of course, it won't matter for uploading to Smugmug, because all that matters are the number of pixels you have. But if you're trying to print, or have it import into a layout app at the dimensions you want, it's an issue.

With the rectangular marquee, I can enter 3:2 aspect ratio, crop using full height, and after the Crop command, Image Size says it's exactly the same height and resolution that it was before; all it did was chop off pixels. That's why I think it's "pure" aspect ratio cropping. By asking for nothing more than an actual aspect ratio, it changes the least data in the image.

I'm not saying the Crop tool is the wrong way, just that it is not always the right way, and especially not for aspect ratios where the existing physical dimension and resolution are important.

Richard

LAB.rat wrote:

I can't believe it really...

Let's say I want to crop a 2:3. So I fill out 2 and 3 and see to it that the resolution field stays empty?

Does not do what you're saying here... What am I doing wrong?

Update: it does work if you use anything but pixels. THANKS!

Glad to hear you've got it working. If you are using the crop tool, you may run into problems printing unless you remember to resize the image after cropping.

• Image->Image Size
• Uncheck Resample Image
• Enter the resolution you originally had--I usually use 300 dpi as a default.
• Click OK.

The physical dimensions will now be readjusted and since you haven't resampled, there is no loss of image quality.

I prefer the crop tool to the marquee because I find it easier to visualize the result with the crop shield than with the tiny marquee frame. It is somewhat clunkier because of the second step. Technically, there is a second step in the marquee tool as well, but it is a faster one. If you do this sort of thing often--and always use the same resolution--you might want to record an action for changing the resolution and assign it to a function key.

In the best of all possible worlds, there would be a fixed aspect ratio option in the crop tool that didn't muck with dimensions or resolution. Seems like it shouldn't be too much to ask.

Cheers,

jfriend

rsinmadrid wrote:

In the best of all possible worlds, there would be a fixed aspect ratio option in the crop tool that didn't muck with dimensions or resolution. Seems like it shouldn't be too much to ask.

What you ask for isn't possible. You can't remove pixels and keep dimension and resolution fixed.

Resolution = dimensions / pixels. By definition, cropping without resampling is removing pixels. So, you can see that you can't remove pixels and keep dimensions and resolution the same. If # pixels changes, then either resolution or dimension (or both) has to change too.

In my work, I set the dimension in the crop tool (thus setting my aspect ratio) and clear the resolution so it won't resample. This sets the dimensions and removes pixels without resampling and the resolution changes according to the above formula.

I also find the crop tool nicer to use than the marquee for this. Either can do the job. The crop tool is more powerful because you can control additional things besides just the crop area.

Richard

jfriend wrote:

What you ask for isn't possible. You can't remove pixels and keep dimension and resolution fixed.

Resolution = dimensions / pixels. By definition, cropping without resampling is removing pixels. So, you can see that you can't remove pixels and keep dimensions and resolution the same. If # pixels changes, then either resolution or dimension (or both) has to change too.

In my work, I set the dimension in the crop tool (thus setting my aspect ratio) and clear the resolution so it won't resample. This sets the dimensions and removes pixels without resampling and the resolution changes according to the above formula.

I also find the crop tool nicer to use than the marquee for this. Either can do the job. The crop tool is more powerful because you can control additional things besides just the crop area.

Yes, of course. I stated it badly. What I really want is to give the crop tool the aspect ratio, let the resolution stay unchanged and let the dimensions fall where they may, all in a single step.

jfriend

rsinmadrid wrote:

Yes, of course. I stated it badly. What I really want is to give the crop tool the aspect ratio, let the resolution stay unchanged and let the dimensions fall where they may, all in a single step.

Yep, that's one thing I don't think you can do with the crop tool and that is the way the marquee tool works.

Personally, I only care about resolution when I'm trying to resample (and thus achieve a particular pixel pitch on the printer) and then, I use the Image Size function because it gives me direct control over things like the resampling method.

LAB.rat

I still like it enough to make a Crop hotkey action or two out of it, which takes care of resetting the resolution.

Example action
- select Crop Tool 2:3
- Crop and check dialog checkbox afterwards if you like a starting crop selection without having to "continue" the action, otherwise insert a Stop
- reset resolution to your liking
And if you like, add...
- Stop/Continue to continue on to...
- reset resolution to your other liking

If you don't care about resolution at the time, insert a regular Stop w dialog box checked off; you can then still Continue if you wish, but are not bothered by a dialog box.

If you use the crop "hide" option as your default, you could also insert a stop/continue to Select All and Crop after all.

Shame I can't get the crop centered in the picture, because if you record the crop when the ruler is in percent mode, the crop will not listen to the 2:3 ratio, but will respect the percentage of the picture cropped.

Snapper

Thanks to all who have replied. I pretty much do what most others do: set the aspect ratio in inches, and then I have a hotkey to reset the resolution back to my default of 300ppi.

Would be nice to have an aspect ratio only option though, where the resolution stays the same and, as Richard says, the dimensions fall where they may, as in ACR.

jfriend

Snapper wrote:

Thanks to all who have replied. I pretty much do what most others do: set the aspect ratio in inches, and then I have a hotkey to reset the resolution back to my default of 300ppi.

Would be nice to have an aspect ratio only option though, where the resolution stays the same and, as Richard says, the dimensions fall where they may, as in ACR.

Why do you resample to set the resolution back to 300ppi? Everytime you resample (and create new pixels), it degrades the image some.

LAB.rat

As I understand him, he's just resetting the resolution, not resampling.

jfriend

LAB.rat wrote:

As I understand him, he's just resetting the resolution, not resampling.

OK, that would be better (no resampling), but I still wonder why even bother to change the resolution. It's just a label on the image - doesn't affect the pixels at all.

LAB.rat

I could imagine this "label" might get more important, even on some web applications, as it can be for DTP programs or printing.

So I would see it more as a smart way of "clean habits" or even etiquette which might prove useful in some future.

jfriend

LAB.rat wrote:

I could imagine this "label" might get more important, even on some web applications, as it can be for DTP programs or printing.

So I would see it more as a smart way of "clean habits" or even etiquette which might prove useful in some future.

OK to have that as a habit I guess (it does no harm if you don't resample) though I don't spend time on things that don't affect the image and don't seem to have any other obvious use.

Web browsers obviously do image display based purely on the number of pixels (both labeled dimensions and ppi are ignored).

Some programs that do printing use the labeled dimensions to determine the print size. For these programs, the labeled ppi is really just a calculated value so you can easily see what the ppi will be if it is printed at the labeled size. I don't know of any program that actually uses the ppi for something.

Again, not worth arguing about, I'm just trying to understand if there's some practical benefit to adding an extra step to the workflow to set the ppi (which causes the labeled dimensions to get recalculated based on how you cropped it).

LAB.rat

jfriend wrote:

Web browsers obviously do image display based purely on the number of pixels (both labeled dimensions and ppi are ignored).

I was imagining some future use where it would be interesting..., but I'm probably off on my example...:D

Say you are allowed to download a book from a webpage because these ppl want it to be like that (instead of pdfs) which you are also allowed to print in full resolution. The page has to serve as a web page and a full res printable book at the same time.

The pics would show up at web page size thanks to html resizing, but wouldn't the higher resolution label (AND true hires dimensions) be necessary for some printing applications or to display the pics at the correct size in this new Acrobat like importing app, just like an In-Design knows how to display it depending on resolution?

Like I said, could be off on this example and this may already be no problem, but you probably have an idea what I mean.

I would just consider it bad practice to have your resolutions all over the place, "estethically" and for reasons just mentioned.

A label is after all still a label and can be used for... labeling
If you'd do a search for all your pics of a certain resolution and you have dozens of resolutions showing up, it looks kinda unprofessional and a missed opportunity, unless they already have a purposeful meaning to you.

In practice, I'm with you most of the time...

jfriend

LAB.rat wrote:

I was imagining some future use where it would be interesting..., but I'm probably off on my example...:D

Say you are allowed to download a book from a webpage because these ppl want it to be like that (instead of pdfs) which you are also allowed to print in full resolution. The page has to serve as a web page and a full res printable book at the same time.

The pics would show up at web page size thanks to html resizing, but wouldn't the higher resolution label (AND true hires dimensions) be necessary for some printing applications or to display the pics at the correct size in this new Acrobat like importing app, just like an In-Design knows how to display it depending on resolution?

Like I said, could be off on this example and this may already be no problem, but you probably have an idea what I mean.

I would just consider it bad practice to have your resolutions all over the place, "estethically" and for reasons just mentioned.

A label is after all still a label and can be used for... labeling
If you'd do a search for all your pics of a certain resolution and you have dozens of resolutions showing up, it looks kinda unprofessional and a missed opportunity, unless they already have a purposeful meaning to you.

In practice, I'm with you most of the time...

I see where you're going, but I think that's a reason to set the labeled size, not the ppi.

The ppi is, after all, just the size/#pixels and doesn't even need to be labeled in the first place (it seems redundant to me) if the size is labeled and since the #pixels is always known.

Anyway, it sounds like we understand each other.

Snapper

jfriend wrote:

I see where you're going, but I think that's a reason to set the labeled size, not the ppi.

The ppi is, after all, just the size/#pixels and doesn't even need to be labeled in the first place (it seems redundant to me) if the size is labeled and since the #pixels is always known.

Yes, that's my feeling as well. Until we get to the print stage then ppi is meaningless, is it not? (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) I reset the resolution to my default of 300ppi purely, as Mr Rat suggests, for etiquette, aesthetic and cleanliness-of-habit reasons.

LAB.rat

Snapper wrote:

Until we get to the print stage then ppi is meaningless, is it not? (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

Well, if you have to send some of your pictures to a layout service for some article or book, you can keep control over the displayed size on DTP import by specifying the width/height or resolution in Image Size's Document Size (while at the same time keeping the dimensions hi-res for printing). A program like InDesign will then respect these dimensions on import and display it so, so they won't have to guess or adjust when you don't want them to. You can so prepare your pics at the lowest necessary file size as well.

I've always thought this was the point of specifying resolution in the first place: for the DTP world.

Of course there will also be a lot of times when people have no clue or give the layout people the freedom to more or less resize how they see best and just send whatever resolution, as long as the dimensions suffice for printing.

I've just tested it and InDesign also seems to place the pics with some intelligence, eg. a hi-res pic at 72dpi will not display at say 120cm but more or less as large as the current page. It will however respect pics specified to display smaller than the page.