PhotoPlus X4: Re-sizing Macro ?

[aargee]

When I re-size I (as I was told by a pro photographer) use at least 4 stages. i.e. 4000 to 3000 to 2000 to 1000 and sometimes to 750 (pixels width).

At each stage I need to link the width to the height and move the quality setting to high (Lanczos). Also at the start I change for 150 dpi to 300 dpi.

Is it possible to write a macro that changes all of these settings at Stage 1 instead of having to redo them at every stage?

As an afterthought why does Serif not set up an automatic width/height link and highest quality as standard?

[AlfredP]

Originally Posted by aargee When I re-size I (as I was told by a pro photographer) use at least 4 stages. i.e. 4000 to 3000 to 2000 to 1000 and sometimes to 750 (pixels width).

Halving the dimensions makes sense to me, so I can see why you would go from 4000 to 2000. I cannot see why you would go from 4000 to 1000 in two stages instead of one, or why you would ever want to use 3000 as an intermediate stage between 4000 and 2000. Going from 4000 to 3000 to 750 is much the same as going from 4000 to 1000 to 750.

Originally Posted by aargee At each stage I need to link the width to the height

The 'Maintain Aspect Ratio' option is selected by default in the Image Size dialog, so no further action should be required in order to keep the width and height linked.

Alfred

[aargee]

"Maintain Aspect Ratio" is certainly default but you still need to "click" in the other box - the change is not automatic.

The reason for the staged reduction is professional advice and experience. There is a significant quality difference in an image reduced from (say) 4000 to 1000 in one step compared with one made by a three stage reduction (4000 to 3000 to 2000 to 1000. Even an untrained eye can see this difference. The result is that more and more obvious sharpening is needed in the first image( a HSV decomposition so the only the "value" was sharpened would be useful dear Serif). Try it yourself. I work with .raw images developed in Raw Therapee and sent to X4 as .tiff. I did once use UF Raw but since they updated the program it now tells me I have lost a .dll file whatever that is. jpeg images deteriorate significantly during reduction/enlargement due to the "lossy" nature of the file system and I wouldn't even consider them for size alteration.

So my question remains - is a macro possible that includes slider changes and clicks in boxes?

[dwalby]

The reason for the staged reduction is professional advice and experience. There is a significant quality difference in an image reduced from (say) 4000 to 1000 in one step compared with one made by a three stage reduction (4000 to 3000 to 2000 to 1000. Even an untrained eye can see this difference.

One has to ask why if you're reducing an image from let's say 4000x3000 (12MP) to presumably 1000x750 (0.75MP) why image quality is even a factor at all. This size would normally be used only for e-mail or Web display, certainly not printing, so its kind of a moot point what quality you end up with. Also, the stepped approach, used years ago when uprezzing, not downsizing, has become less necessary as better interpolation algorithms have become available in image processing software. Going the other way, from large to small, its not worth worrying about because you're throwing a good portion of the image information away anyway.

Regarding the professional experience part, I've known a few professional photogs who didn't know squat about computer processing of images, so that doesn't mean everything they say makes sense. The advice you've been given seems suspect to me.

The result is that more and more obvious sharpening is needed in the first image( a HSV decomposition so the only the "value" was sharpened would be useful dear Serif).

Here's a perfect example of bad image processing advice, presumably from your professional friend. You always sharpen LAST, not first when resizing an image, so its no wonder you notice a big difference when you use the wrong method to begin with. Kind of like driving your car down a ski slope and complaining that its brakes aren't very effective and should be upgraded.

jpeg images deteriorate significantly during reduction/enlargement due to the "lossy" nature of the file system and I wouldn't even consider them for size alteration.

JPEG compression only occurs when you SAVE a file, not when you manipulate it with other features of an image processing tool. Those other features may in fact have their own losses and distortions, but to blame it on JPEG is not accurate.

So my question remains - is a macro possible that includes slider changes and clicks in boxes?

In theory any macro is possible, if you record it a particular way it should play back the same way. Resizing is such a simple process that the batch window has that built in if you check the box. Try it yourself and see if you can achieve what you want. The real question is what is your goal of this batch downsizing process? If you're trying to optimize for e-mail, there are other tools specifically designed to do that which probably work as well or better than recording a macro in PhotoPlus.

You have made a few claims in this post, worded as if you are an authority, when in fact you appear to have little experience at all on this topic. Perhaps you could ask questions and learn, as opposed to trying to educate when you possess incorrect or at best misguided knowledge on the topic.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

I would simply use FastStone PhotoResizer or IrfanView, and run the batch process as many times as required, reducing it by x% each time.

Copy all of the images to a working folder, and use the overwrite option to save time.

Note that IrfanView does not use Lanczos3 for downsizing, but PhotoResizer does so it may be much slower.

I tested with PhotoResizer — downsizing a folder from the Premium Image Collection four times by 50% each time. It was very easy to achieve — the first run took a few minutes, but after that subsequent batch runs were quick.

[aargee]

Let's get this straight. I do not claim an special expertise or knowledge. I'm not so stupid that I don't know to sharpen last!! The images are generally produced for posting on another special interest forum and I like them to look as good as possible even in the knowledge that some viewers can not fully appreciate the results. One should always try to achieve the best possible results under any circumstances.

I did ask for advice but, except for a late entry. it has been generally ignored in points scoring.

[dwalby]

Originally Posted by aargee I did ask for advice but, except for a late entry. it has been generally ignored in points scoring.

You got lots of advice.

At least two of us told you that resizing in one step is going to work as well as 4 steps and be easier to implement.

I suggested that if you pull down the batch command tab, resizing is already there as an option and you don't need to record a macro.

I suggested that there are other tools out there specifically for batch image resizing that might work better than using macros in PhotoPlus. Since there are so many of them I didn't bother listing them by name, I assumed that you'd do a web search and find a few of them.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

I have also heard that downsizing in several steps produces better results. If producing low resolution images for an online photo gallery from high resolution camera images, then it might be worth the effort.

You might also want to take a look at the RIOT plugin for IrfanView. That is a more specialised tool, though I think PhotoResizer wins on ease of use.

[Geoff Blanthorn]

Originally Posted by aargee Let's get this straight. I do not claim an special expertise or knowledge. I'm not so stupid that I don't know to sharpen last!! The images are generally produced for posting on another special interest forum and I like them to look as good as possible even in the knowledge that some viewers can not fully appreciate the results. One should always try to achieve the best possible results under any circumstances. I did ask for advice but, except for a late entry. it has been generally ignored in points scoring.

Nobody is calling you stupid. Please bear in mind that those good enough to offer help here have absolutely no idea of your knowledge or competence with PhP or photos in general. If they tell you things you already know, it may well help others who are following the thread to learn things that they do not already know.

Anyway, attached are two copies of the same image. One was reduced in size by 90% in one step and the other in 10 steps. Can you, or anyone, spot which is which? (They look identical to me.)

Geoff