Jump to content
WnSoft Forums

Photoshop 'batch resizing' for PTE

Almark

By Almark
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Almark Advanced Member

Almark

Posted
Posted

This forum has been so helpful to me over the last few days I thought I should offer something in return.

I am prepared to offer 'action' files to be used in Photoshop to do a number of batch tasks, for example - landscape images:

1 convert to 72 dpi,

2 resize to 1024x768

3 * adjust auto levels

4 * add a small white border

4 apply sharpening at 100%, 0.7, 0 (regarded as a one size fits all - for AV's.)

5 save to med quality

* optional

To explain more, this what I do. After converting from raw, making adjustments, edits etc, I save all files as max quality jpgs to a folder 'hq_jpgs'.

I then move all the landscapes to a folder 'hq_jpg_land' and all the portraits to ' hq_jpg_port'. At this stage they are all 300dpi and huge pixel dimensions.

I then use an action in a batch process in Photoshop that will convert them all for AV use. I have one for landscapes and one for portraits. I simply select the folder I want to 'batch' and create a new folder for the output, eg 'av_land_jpgs' or 'av_port_jpgs'.

What many folk do not know, is that batch processing can be fully automatic, or can have a pause built in. For example you can bring up levels and then pause it, so that you can check the histogram and make minor adjustments for each image. This is very useful for folk who have not done any, or much, pre processing of their images. You can also do the same for crop, obviously before resizing...

So at this stage, this is just an offer. If folk tell me what they want included in a batch process I am more than happy to make the action, post it here, and if need be make a tut on how to make it work.

[bTW, anyone who has Photokit plug-ins, did you know that you can include these in a batch process? If you have a setting that you always use, say for example - "Module: Photokit Color 2 / Set: Tone enhance / Midtone Contrast 2" then this can be automatically applied to all images. The one I often use is Photokit Output Sharpener, set for 1024 wide at med sharpening.]

So please let me know if you are interested.

LumenLux Advanced Member

LumenLux

Posted
Posted

Mark -

Although it has taken me a couple of days to see your post, I am absolutely interested. I would love the actions and even more, your offered instruction/help. Personally, I am embarrassed how little I know of Photoshop. Because I have never taken a broad, organized approach to the software, I find myself jumping from program to program to accomplish certain tasks. At least two of the batch tasks you mention, resizing, and levels with a custom stop to adjust, are two that would be especially nice to have a good system within PS. Also, you had mentioned earlier your love for RAW. Again, I admit I have done nothing with the few RAW exposures I have made. So I am interested there as well.

A side issue - Do you have any idea how much of your Photoshop action work can also be used in Photoshop Elements. I have really become more and more satisfied with Elements. I have a desire to get better with Photoshop but would also like to understand better how far Elements can go with actions such as yours.

Now, I will share a personal observation. What ever you determine to share with members of this forum will be widely appreciated. Far beyond those who will post a response, there will be many expressing silent thanks.

susiesdad Average Member

susiesdad

Posted
Posted
I am prepared to offer 'action' files to be used in Photoshop to do a number of batch tasks, for example - landscape images:

1.................

So please let me know if you are interested.

Yes please Mark all the actions you mention would be most helpful. It was through searching for actions that led me to discover PTE and now I am a hooked AV enthusiast. ;)

Alan

davegee Advanced Member

davegee

Posted
Posted

Hi Almark,

Just one point - there is absolutely no point in converting to 72ppi as part of this process.

The end result is exactly the same if left at 300ppi or indeed if changed to 3000ppi as long as you do not resample during the process.

If you enter photographic competitions you will find that the 300ppi JPEGS are specified as a requirement, but this is for a reason and, I believe, to prevent confusion at the printers if your image finds its way into a catalogue. So, perhaps it is better to leave your images at 300ppi when saving as JPEGS?

Otherwise, I applaud your initiative.

DaveG

denwell Advanced Member

denwell

Posted
Posted

Mark

Can I ask for some justification for your statement above on sharpening for AV use "apply sharpening at 100%, 0.7, 0 (regarded as a one size fits all - for AV's.)" ?

I'm not implying any criticism at all - just interested in the background thinking to this assumption.

DEN (NE UK)

Almark Advanced Member

Almark

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK Folks, I will go ahead and make some actions. let me think of the best way to do this.

Den, re the sharpening, I picked this up from a so-called Photoshop Guru - during a local AV Group Workshop. He referred to it as output sharpening.

Grassy_Knollington New Member

Grassy_Knollington

Posted
Posted

Thanks eversomuch for this Almark. I created a re-sizing Action myself yesterday (after researching a "how to" via Google) in PS after purchasing Dom's 2 Pic Photo Album (and having to resize my photos to fit).

However, yours is so much better - Cheers mate.

susiesdad Average Member

susiesdad

Posted
Posted
can someone, preferable someone not too familiar with Photoshop, please have a go at this.

Thanks Mark. It works a treat. I have learnt a few new things about Photoshop through studying your 'actions'. I will need to amend the file save destination though, presumably the step to take would be enter a substitute step by recording from the save point.

Alan

Ronniebootwest Advanced Member

Ronniebootwest

Posted
Posted
Hi Almark,

Just one point - there is absolutely no point in converting to 72ppi as part of this process.

The end result is exactly the same if left at 300ppi or indeed if changed to 3000ppi as long as you do not resample during the process.

DaveG

Not sure that I agree here Dave, What about image size??

Ron

fh1805 Advanced Member

fh1805

Posted
Posted

Ron,

You asked "...what about image size?"

A 1024x768 image will always have 786432 pixels no matter whether it is done at 7dpi, 72dpi, 7200dpi or 72million dpi. For projected or monitor displayed images the only thing that matters is the pixel by pixel value. The file size will also be the same no matter what dpi is used. What will change, dramatically, is the quality of any print taken from that image - and the maximum size of print achievable without obvious loss of quality. If anyone really wants to protect their PTE sequence images from being pirated they should create them at the largest possible dpi.

For example:

- a 1024x768 image at 7dpi will print to a size in excess of 370cm wide

- the same image at 2000dpi will print to a size of 1.3cm wide.

Anyone reading this who finds it hard to believe, just play around doing image resizing in Photoshop and study the results.

davegee Advanced Member

davegee

Posted
Posted

Sorry,

I did not want to bring the old arguement up - the point I was making is that it was / is a redundant step in Almark's Action.

This is basic stuff - it does not need to progress into a full scale debate. Just look at what happens when you alter settings in "Image Size" with Resample turned first "OFF" and then turned "ON".

"Bigger is better"? - That depends on whether your Graphics Card is up to it and whether or not you are using PZR, surely, Ken?

DaveG

Ken Cox Advanced Member

Ken Cox

Posted
Posted

DAVE

when i had my present system built it had a ati 64 mb all in wonder card and i did not have a problem using "as took picts" doing shows

then we migrated to the pan and zoom and i settled on 1280/960 size and had no problems with my shows but was seeing some problems with Lin and other shows where they were really "pushing the envelope"

I had a chance to get a new card

11/11/2006

changed out ATI - all in wonder 2006 edition

Is a 9600 with 256 ram

since that change seldom see a problem with other people's shows

I still use 1280/960 - picts are +- 500 kb each

from my wet darkroom days i remember how much easier it was to work with med format negs than with 35mm negs so i guess that is why i use the "bigger is better" quote.

years ago when i first started making shows i was scanning 8 x 10 calendar picts at 300 dpi -- they were +- 25 mb each -i was using the info from Wayne Fulton's "scantips" site on how to minimize jaggies in repro scans from printed material -- I then would resize the scans to 800/600 or 640/480 and picts were +- 60 kb with no jaggies

Hans klinken came up with a standard he used that was 719/519 :)

my, how times change

ken

davegee Advanced Member

davegee

Posted
Posted

I can see where you are coming from, Ken.

I looks as though 1400x1050 will be the new standard for Digital Projection in competition work over the next few years so I am now in the market for a new monitor which will be 1050 high.

I may be wrong but I don't think that there is a 1400x1050. (Before anyone jumps in - I insist on running my monitor on ITS maximum resolution so a larger res monitor running at 1400x1050 won't do for me).

Once I have the monitor, which could well be a wide screen, I will then have to think about upgrading my shows to that res.

DaveG

Ken Cox Advanced Member

Ken Cox

Posted
Posted

yes Dave if i had known the way we were heading, my saved picts would have been a lot bigger but to redo there isnt enough hours in the day :(

" think big "

ken

Almark Advanced Member

Almark

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Folks, I excluded the image resample to 72dpi as a result of the earlier feedback. I anyone wants the action set to include re size to 1400x1050 just let me know and I will update it. Folks looking for a monitor or laptop that will display 1400x1050 will probably have to go for 1920x1200, which also allows for HD playback.

  • 2 weeks later...
JohnB Junior Member

JohnB

Posted
Posted

A friend and I wrote a resizing action a year or so ago and thoroughly tested it on a variety of machines. we found that some machines act differently even if they are all running XP Pro. This action has been tested on Photoshop CS, CS2 and CS3 running on Windows 2000, XP Home, XP Pro and Vista home.

The action handles portrait and landscape images automatically and puts the result in a folder the user specifies leaving the original files alone. You can put a white line round the image if you like.

I've written the step by step instructions in simple English so that even those not very experienced with Photoshop actions can load them.

There are three things to note especially:

(1) there is no mention of dpi; the dpi is totally irrelevant when sizing images for projection. How I wish this old red herring could be laid to rest!

(2) Very gentle automatic sharpening is applied using the 'bicubic sharpen' feature. This sort of automatic sharpening has been tested by over a dozen users to be the best when downsizing for projection. In the very unlikely event that you are not downsizing, you should omit those steps.

(3) It may seem very peculiar to both experienced and inexperienced users to be so fussy about the 'dummy' image which is used to let you record the action. We found that on some machines Photoshop would not record an action which did nothing (like, for example, flatten an image which is already flat). This behaviour seems to be unpredictable, we could record a 'nothing' action on some machines, but not on others even if they were both using the same version of Photoshop and the same operating system. We haven't found out why this is, but just got round the problem!

Good luck to everyone

John

(let's hope the attachment is uploaded properly)

Automated_image_resizing.pdf

  • 1 month later...
cjdnzl Advanced Member

cjdnzl

Posted
Posted

At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire, I would like to clarify some misconceptions about ppi and dpi, two terms which are wrongly used about 90% of the time - including by such programs as Photoshop. PS's image resizing is always in ppi, but PS calls it dpi - flat out wrong!

When talking about images, the term is ppi - pixels per inch. There is no such thing as dots per inch in a digital image; it is simply wrong to use dpi when referring to images. ppi is a measure of how big the image will print; halve the ppi and the image will print twice the linear size, but at reduced digital resolution, of course.

Dots per inch is what a printer does, with ink. Modern printers print at something like 4,800 dots of ink per inch horizontally, and 2,400 dpi vertically. If you are printing a 300ppi image on such a printer, the printer will lay down 16 dots of ink horizontally by 8 dots of ink vertically, that's 128 dots of ink for each and every pixel of your image. This allows the printer to mix inks to produce a close approximation to the color of the particular pixel it is printing.

The printer always lays down its designed dpi regardless of the image ppi it is printing. Remember, ppi is image-speak; dpi is printer-speak.

Colin

mbskels Average Member

mbskels

Posted
Posted
If anyone really wants to protect their PTE sequence images from being pirated they should create them at the largest possible dpi.

Anyone reading this who finds it hard to believe, just play around doing image resizing in Photoshop and study the results.

Without wishing to reopen the image size discussion (please!!) I think it needs to be noted that this approach will not afford any protection to those producing PTE sequences.

As you have stated earlier in your response the only relevant issue is the pixel size of the image. The dpi (or ppi for the purists!) is simply a tag applied to the image (metadata) and can be easily changed with a variety of software products. The maximum print size without visible pixelation is determined by the number of pixels in the image - the larger the image size in pixels the larger the print size that is possible.

malcolm

  • 1 month later...
ryt Junior Member

ryt

Posted
Posted

Mark,

I recently got involved in wedding photography. My first wedding was in March of this year and I spent nearly two weeks trying to re-size everything. It was an exceptionally tedious and boring process. I shot my second wedding on Sat 31st May. I cannot thank you enough for posting the advice and preparing the action on batch re-sizing. I followed your instructions and it has worked out tremendously well. I have processed over 400 images in less than two hours, and that includes me testing the process to make sure it worked. You are a star man. I was kind of concerned after reading all the threads connected to your post however I ignored them and followed your instructions.

Thanks once again, you have saved me lots of time.

ryt

  • 4 months later...
dahol Junior Member

dahol

Posted
Posted

Hi Mark

I have read your very informative article on the P2E forum and wondered

if you would mind if I made it available to the members of my club Sale

Photographic Society www.salephoto.org.uk as I feel they would find it

very useful.It would of course be credited to you.

Many thanks.

Dave Hollows

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...