Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Automating enlarging + reducing

Jan 18, 2013 1:48 PM

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.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 2:09 PM   in reply to ycardozo

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 2:38 PM   in reply to ycardozo

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 2:52 PM   in reply to ycardozo

    Just pick one image that has a lot of sharp edges and compare at 500% enlargement with different methods..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    4,001 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 3:12 PM   in reply to ycardozo

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    4,001 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2013 4:43 PM   in reply to ycardozo

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points