terriscrapper Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I have tried using the content aware...it does fine on the upper object but the one where the brick has a long line of brown....the brick becomes all distorted after using.... I tried cloning but that became too muddy... It would be right there in front!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRS Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Of course the object has to be right in the front, lol! This might be hard to do with the brick lines, but try selecting a section of the brick and copy/paste it and try to line it up over the objects you are trying to cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariJ Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I would do what Carla said - takes a lot of time and patience and numerous tries but you can get it to work, usually! And, thanks Carla, I usually duplicate, marquee cut out the pieces and then work with them - selecting, copy and pasting is much easier! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terriscrapper Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 Of course the object has to be right in the front, lol! This might be hard to do with the brick lines, but try selecting a section of the brick and copy/paste it and try to line it up over the objects you are trying to cover. I'm seeing bricks, Lol...I tried it...doesn't work...it doesn't sit straight with the bricks...may just have to leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Try free transform. Resize and skew to maintain perspective. Feather edges to blend the outer seams. I didn't spend a lot of time on this, but a few more minutes, I could tidy it up more. Doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatlady Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Try free transform. Resize and skew to maintain perspective. Feather edges to blend the outer seams. I didn't spend a lot of time on this, but a few more minutes, I could tidy it up more. Doable. Great work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terriscrapper Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 Try free transform. Resize and skew to maintain perspective. Feather edges to blend the outer seams. I didn't spend a lot of time on this, but a few more minutes, I could tidy it up more. Doable. Wow! That looks terrific...did you mean do a selection of strip of brick and you resized it to fit?? Also I have never used the skew...need a little guidance of how to do this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Turns out I didn't need to skew because the big section that I copied, once resized, "fitted" over the objects and aligned up fairly well with the direction of the bricks. If it had not lined up, I would then apply some skewing. I only mentioned skewing because you said "...doesn't sit straight..." If you want to see how skewing affects an image: Image> Transform... Skew Distort Perspective Choose any of those options. (They are similar and I haven't used them enough to know the subtle differences). Drag the corners of your image up and down, and side to side, and you will see the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariJ Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Wow, Linda - that's fantastic and looks great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Thanks, MariJ and Debby! That's just with the first copy/paste - it would still need touches of cloning to fix up the edges around some of the bricks. Terri, I made a feathered polygonal selection of the left area of the wall. Copied it and pasted it onto a new layer. Then I moved the new image over the objects. I resized and repositioned the image to best match the brick pattern. You would still have to do touch-up cloning around the edges of the copied section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terriscrapper Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Thanks, MariJ and Debby! That's just with the first copy/paste - it would still need touches of cloning to fix up the edges around some of the bricks. Terri, I made a feathered polygonal selection of the left area of the wall. Copied it and pasted it onto a new layer. Then I moved the new image over the objects. I resized and repositioned the image to best match the brick pattern. You would still have to do touch-up cloning around the edges of the copied section. I feel this is the best I can do...tired of looking at bricks.... I've got a lot to learn on that aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 terri, if you want to email your original photo to me, I can do the bricks for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRS Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I think it looks great! No one will notice that you manipulated the bricks. Their eye will be focused on the person and frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheri T Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Yep, I agree with Carla - it looks great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariJ Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 terri, if you want to email your original photo to me, I can do the bricks for you. Linda that's so kind of you -- ScrapGirls are the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Thanks, MariJ! Terri and I connected and it's all good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Terri, I notice that you are enlarging the photo to print as 12 inches tall. The photo you sent me was 2000 pixels tall, so the dpi of your photo will only be 167. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terriscrapper Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 Terri, I notice that you are enlarging the photo to print as 12 inches tall. The photo you sent me was 2000 pixels tall, so the dpi of your photo will only be 167. I changed the dpi to 300...I have a couple of layouts I want you to look at... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I like what you've done with your layouts. Sorry, but your comment that you changed the dpi to 300 doesn't mean your photo won't print blurry. A photo has a fixed number of pixels. You artificially blow up a photo by adding blank or interpolated pixels, but this does not improve the print quality. There's not a lot we can do when provided with low resolution photos from camera phones. They print blurry when printed at a large size. When given several low res photos, I collage them on a single page. So my 12"x12" page contains photos that are around 3"x4". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I should clarify. There are some very complex technologies that can create interpolated pixels, resulting in better enlarged prints. Apparently, something called "S-Spline" surpasses Photoshop's Bicubic interpolation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terriscrapper Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 Terri, I notice that you are enlarging the photo to print as 12 inches tall. The photo you sent me was 2000 pixels tall, so the dpi of your photo will only be 167. Hey, thanks for the tip...yes, this has always been an issue...I printed the layout and it doesn't look distorted. I wonder if it's because the photo was HUGE, like 45 x 34 to start with, so when I changed the dpi and resized it to the 12 long it came out ok...Thoughts? All of the photos were absolutely huge!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinkerbell11 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Great tip, I have never used the skew option! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 45 x 34 doesn't have much meaning unless you know the pixels per inch. Assuming it is 72, this photo is 3240 pixels x 2448 pixels. High quality printing generally requires 300 pixels per inch. That means this photo can be printed as large as 10.8 x 8.16 inches without pixelation. High quality printing requires high pixel density, so the MORE PIXELS your camera captures, the more you can enlarge your print before the pixel density drops below 300. Here's a good article about pixel dimensions and printed image resolution: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/image-size-resolution.html While resolution is a major factor in print quality, I think camera lens quality is just as important, if not more so. My old digital camera takes better pictures than my camera phone, even though my camera phone captures more pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terriscrapper Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 45 x 34 doesn't have much meaning unless you know the pixels per inch. Assuming it is 72, this photo is 3240 pixels x 2448 pixels. High quality printing generally requires 300 pixels per inch. That means this photo can be printed as large as 10.8 x 8.16 inches without pixelation. High quality printing requires high pixel density, so the MORE PIXELS your camera captures, the more you can enlarge your print before the pixel density drops below 300. Here's a good article about pixel dimensions and printed image resolution: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/image-size-resolution.html While resolution is a major factor in print quality, I think camera lens quality is just as important, if not more so. My old digital camera takes better pictures than my camera phone, even though my camera phone captures more pixels. Thanks, I never did totally understand this!! I agree, I had this argument with my son recently because all the photos were taken who his iPhone. I did print this out just on regular paper so its not going to look great...yes, they all were 72...even the person that took pictures with her iPad was 72. As you probably are aware I've resized them all and I was about done. Can you tell me how you figure out how large this is the 10.8x 8.16 without pixelation?? I wonder if I could figure the ones I did full size and simply put them on a background of paper? I had resized it to 300... it now state it is 2700 pixels x 3600. 9x 12 with the 300 dpi....how large would this print then without becoming pixelated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 The way you resized it, you added interpolated pixels. You resampled. Reread the article, especially this part: In Photoshop, you can see the relationship between image size and resolution in the Image Size dialog box (choose Image > Image Size). Deselect Resample Image, because you don’t want to change the amount of image data in your photo. Then change width, height, or resolution. As you change one value, the other two values change accordingly. With the Resample Image option selected, you can change the resolution, width, and height of the image to suit your printing or onscreen needs. When you open an image, deselect RESAMPLE. Change the resolution to 300. Now you see the width and height of the image should you print it at a TRUE 300 dpi, without interpolated pixels. You can use simple arithmetic to figure it out. e.g. 3000 pixels divided by 300 pixels per inch equals 10 inches. Therefore, an original photo with a height of 3000 pixels will print well up to 10 inches. Beyond 10 inches, it will pixelate. The pixelation is worse the less sophisticated the interpolation algorithm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Imagine a jigsaw puzzle of a nature scene. To make the puzzle "larger", you would spread the pieces out. The spaces that now exist between the puzzle pieces is the "pixelation". Photoshop uses bicubic smoothing to guess what colors to fill in those spaces. If the spaces get really big, the guesswork becomes more apparent and the picture gets really muddy looking. I just got a program called PhotoZoom Classic 6. It uses S-Spline technology to fill in those spaces. Reviews say the results surpass bicubic smoothing. I am going to test it out once I learn how to use the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teecee Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 You've given us some great info, Linda. Thanks for sharing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terriscrapper Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 Imagine a jigsaw puzzle of a nature scene. To make the puzzle "larger", you would spread the pieces out. The spaces that now exist between the puzzle pieces is the "pixelation". Photoshop uses bicubic smoothing to guess what colors to fill in those spaces. If the spaces get really big, the guesswork becomes more apparent and the picture gets really muddy looking. I just got a program called PhotoZoom Classic 6. It uses S-Spline technology to fill in those spaces. Reviews say the results surpass bicubic smoothing. I am going to test it out once I learn how to use the program. Wow, thats very interesting information...I had resized one photo to a 12 x 12 that should have only be a 3 x5 at 300 dpi with not checking the resampling!! I had a professional photographer take one picture but he sent it as 72 resolution....I did as you said to not check resampling. It came out to 10x 15. If I try to change the width it lowers the resolution to 264....I really wanted to make this full size 12 x 12 So in other words, I better leave it correct?? I may check out that program! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariJ Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 This is such cool info Linda - I've never understood this all and now it is beginning to make sense!Thanks for all the explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindarobin Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 ...I did as you said to not check resampling. It came out to 10x 15. If I try to change the width it lowers the resolution to 264....I really wanted to make this full size 12 x 12 So in other words, I better leave it correct?? I may check out that program! 264 dpi isn't bad. When it goes below 200 dpi, that's when I get concerned. You could keep the photo at 10 inches wide and crop the height from 15 to 12. Then add pattern paper to make up the 2 inches on the left/right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.