In preferences, I have photoshop's sizing set to bicubic smoother since most of what I do when resizing is enlarging. However, I now have 200 images I need to reduce in size. If I go to photoshop's image processor, is 'bicubic smoother' what will be used during the resizing since that is my default? Or does the automatic resizing use 'auto bicubic?' I downsized an image using the auto tool and then did one manually using 'bicubic sharper' and the one I did manually did seem to be a bit sharper. I want the images to be as sharp as possible.
What version are you using? Believe default for CS6 is auto bicubic, but suggestions are bicubic smoother is better. Here is a link that has examples of the different smoothing effects to show the difference, and an excellent explaination off what is needed for reducing or enlarging image. http://forums.adobe.com/thread/984913
Beleive it should use the default you set.
I'm in CS6 on windows 7. And after reading the dialog from thread 984913, I am even more confused. It seems to say when you use the automatic resizing tool to do bulk resizing that the program chooses depending on whether you are upsizing or downsizing. Or does it? Does it choose automatically only if bicubic automatic or just bicubic are your default settings?
All I can say is when I did an auto resizing, the image was not as sharp as when I did it manually. In this case, I DO want the extra sharpening. And since my default setting is bicubic smoother...is what what was being used. Or not? Thks in advance.
If you read the thread you know as much as I do. All I can do is guess that you would have to have to set on bicubic autonatic to change bicubic mode for smooting or sharpening depending on whether you are upsampling or downsampling.
If all your images are being downsampled you might just set default to bicubic sharpening for the batch. If it was me I would run a few tests of bicubic auto and bicubic sharpening and see how that compares to your manual sharpening setting.
Please report back with results as I am sure others would be interested as to what you find.
In this case, everything in this group of images is being downsized. I think I will reset my default to bicubic sharpening and do a handful of images, then do them manually and compare. Doing 200 images one....by.....one is beyond tedious. to be honest, the difference I saw before was so slight, I am curious about whether I will see anything in this test.
At this point, I am a bit crosseyed from staring at images closeup. Anyway, I chose a closeup of a silkworm with hairs and indeed, the one I did manually using bicubic sharper does seem a hair (sorry about that) sharper than the one I did using auto with the default set at bicubic smoother. The difference is really minute, however. But it does seem that if you have chosen a specific setting...sharper or smoother...that is what will be used if you automate the process.
Doing 200 images one....by.....one is beyond tedious.
Why don't you create a set of actions in Photoshop itself, you can choose the Bicubic method in the image size window and it will be recorded in your actions.
Give the actions a proper and easy recognizable name. Now in Bridge select the files you want and use menu tools / Photoshop / Batch and choose the action you desire.
I used to have two sets of each action for a landscape and portrait size because I could not find any info of Bicubic resampling options when using 'Fit Image'
CS6 has the wonderful option of inserting conditional for your actions which is something like the "if - Then else" command. I now have the portrait and landscape combined in such an 'If" action and PS auto detect which action to use based on the portrait and landscape size of the files.
Although I think Image processor is a nice piece of work from the famous Doctor Brown I have far more options (almost everything can be recorded in an action, including tools) in my own created actions and I never use Image Processor for that reason but have a lot of actions in dedicated sets so they are very easy to find.
well, i just took another look at images done manually vs automatically , this time at 500% and the manual ones are sharper, even tho i changed the default to bicubic sharper. oh well, back to creating an action. thanks all
this time at 500% and the manual ones are sharper,
That's what we call pixel peeping and honestly I don't see much point in this. Enlarging at 100 % for actual pixels is one thing, looking at with glasses on from a distance of about 30 to 40 cm an other and enlarging this in the same situation to 500 % is never going to happen in real life.
The trouble with monitors and computer is that you tend to enlarge things much further then it will be seen in real life. Therefor judging things at 500 % at close range for judging a tiny bit more or less sharpness might proof you see a little difference but really doubt if anybody in real life situations will spot that difference...
Imaging you would stand for a billboard at very close range, that is as much as pointless in judging the sharpness as 500 % on a monitor.....
We used to paint with small pencils on pictures for retouch in the old days, having done this and glance again with concentration and good lightning you might see another set of tiny spots but that's about it.
Having the ability of enlarging to 100 % on a monitor makes things even worser and already lets you look at spots (and adjust) you won't see with the naked eye.
But that's only my humble opinion
Europe, Middle East and Africa