Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

How to resize a logo saves as PNG?

Mar 1, 2013 2:31 PM

I've got an all type logo saved as a PNG and need it in different sizes. How can keep the spacing and type customization from the original logo and generate versions with a smaller (or bigger) type size?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 1, 2013 2:49 PM   in reply to Joe333

    Do you have the logo as Photoshop Type layer(s) or Shape layer(s), or vector artwork in an AI, PDF, EPS or similar file?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 1, 2013 3:28 PM   in reply to Joe333

    You won't need to use Illustrator to recreate it from scratch if you originally managed to create it in Photoshop. I was just wondering what files you might have in adition to the PNG.

     

    So you have only a PNG. If it contains the logo at the largest size needed then it's possible that you'll be able to generate satisfactory smaller images from it. Helping you will be much easier if you attach the PNG to a reply and state the sizes you require.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 1, 2013 3:32 PM   in reply to Joe333

    Just use Image > Image Size. The size of the vector will scale, but up and down, without loss of quality.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 1, 2013 4:34 PM   in reply to Brett N

    Brett N wrote:

     

    Just use Image > Image Size. The size of the vector will scale, but up and down, without loss of quality.

     

    Vector? I suppose it's possible that Joe still has the PSD but I thought he had saved it to PNG then discarded it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 1, 2013 4:36 PM   in reply to conroy

    True, but it was mentioned that the vector could be easily recreated.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 1, 2013 4:36 PM   in reply to Joe333

    Joe, do you still have the Photoshop PSD file?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 1, 2013 4:38 PM   in reply to Brett N

    Brett N wrote:

     

    True, but it was mentioned that the vector could be easily recreated.

     

    Yep, I was going to try a simple size reduction of the PNG first, just in case that would be an even easier solution.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 4:30 AM   in reply to Joe333

    ReadyJoe wrote:

     

    Should I start with a Vector "master," and use it to create

    different sizes through copies, then save each of those as PNG's?

     

     

    Yes.

     

    And keep the vector artwork in case you ever need it again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 4:36 AM   in reply to Joe333

    ReadyJoe wrote:

     

    Here's one of the PNG copies of the very simple logo. Thanks again.

     

    No image is there. In case you're posting via email, attachments don't make it the forum that way. Attachments must be made with the Web interface.

     

    Anyway, only post the PNG if you are not going to redraw the logo in vector form with type or shape layers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,057 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 6:00 AM   in reply to conroy

    Yes Keep your PSD file with vector type layers Shapes and Text.  Do not make these into raster layers. You can always resize this type of document up in size without loosing quality and save a larger png with a new name.  If you do not want to keep the PSD create the logo png larger then you would ever use.  Large png file will scale down in size well. Can even be scaled using html you can click on these and see they are all the same large file scaled down.
    http://www.mouseprints.net/old/dpr/TextTurorial.png
    http://www.mouseprints.net/old/dpr/TextTurorial.png
    Even Distort it
    http://www.mouseprints.net/old/dpr/TextTurorial.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,057 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 8:36 AM   in reply to Joe333

    Text layer are like a vector layer. With CS6 they can be converted to Shape layers they then are vector shape layers. When you Flatten your left with a single raster Layer do not flatten.  You want to preserve your work your Text and you Vector layers.  You do not need to flatten to save a Jpeg or PNG file.  I believe PNG-24 is what you want it supports more colors and levels of transparency then normal PNG.

     

    When you use Save AS and Save for Web Photoshop will temporary flatten the document convert to 8 bit color if needed and may offer a convert to srgb option to save a flattened Jpeg or PNG file PNG files also may have and Alpha channel.  Once the file is save Photoshop reverts the document back in time to the state is was in before the Save As or Saved for Web. You can then save it as a Layered Tiff, PSD or PSB file in addition to your PNG and Jpeg file you may have saved.

     

    You could also add a layer and have Photoshop animate that layer and save an animated gif.

    [ JJMack ]
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 10:46 AM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    When you use Save AS and Save for Web Photoshop will temporary flatten the document convert to 8 bit color if needed and may offer a convert to srgb option to save a flattened Jpeg or PNG file PNG files also may have and Alpha channel.  Once the file is save Photoshop reverts the document back in time to the state is was in before the Save As or Saved for Web.

     

    Is that pure fantasy? What evidence is there that Save As and Save For Web flatten (or in any way change) a document then revert the document to a previous state?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,057 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 11:46 AM   in reply to conroy

    What I see is after a do a save for web a jpeg file my document in Photoshop still has ProPhoto RGB profile, is16 bit color and Layered. When I open the saved jpeg file it has 8bit color,  sRGB color Profile and is a single background layer. 

     

    This operation is not the same in all versions of Photoshop. Some version of Photoshop do not even offer a save as jpeg when a document had 16bit color.  In those versions of Photoshop you have to dupe the doc and change the dupe to 8bit mode if you did not want to loose your 16bit color information. I'm sure your brain has this knowledge. 

     

    I do not have acces to Adobe source code if you want to show me what I wrote is pure fantasy post Adobe code else what I wrote is an educated guess as to how Adobe saves a flattened 8 bit sRGB Jpeg image from a 16bit ProPhoto Layered document in Photoshop.  Since Adobe keeps history states the easiest way for them to save a jpeg would be to do normal operations like convert to sRGB, change to 8bit mode, flatten, save a jpeg image then revert back.  Fantasy perhaps but it seems to ba a logical thing to do IMO.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 12:27 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    What I see is after a do a save for web a jpeg file my document in Photoshop still has ProPhoto RGB profile, is16 bit color and Layered. When I open the saved jpeg file it has 8bit color,  sRGB color Profile and is a single background layer. 

     

    So far, no indication that a flattening of the document then restoring of pre-flattened state has occurred.

     

    This operation is not the same in all versions of Photoshop. Some version of Photoshop do not even offer a save as jpeg when a document had 16bit color.  In those versions of Photoshop you have to dupe the doc and change the dupe to 8bit mode if you did not want to loose your 16bit color information. I'm sure your brain has this knowledge.

     

    Still no indication that a flattening of the document then restoring of pre-flattened state has occurred.

     

    I do not have acces to Adobe source code if you want to show me what I wrote is pure fantasy post Adobe code

     

    I don't need to post source code which you know I cannot have - you go on to admit that your claims were fantasy - see below.

     

    else what I wrote is an educated guess as to how Adobe saves a flattened 8 bit sRGB Jpeg image from a 16bit ProPhoto Layered document in Photoshop.  Since Adobe keeps history states the easiest way for them to save a jpeg would be to do normal operations like convert to sRGB, change to 8bit mode, flatten, save a jpeg image then revert back.

     

    So, you reckon that a normal flatten operation occurs. Flatten creates a completely opaque layer (Background). That would pose a slight problem for exporting a PNG (or any other format) with transparency.

     

    Fantasy perhaps but it seems to ba a logical thing to do IMO.

     

    Fantasy, for sure. At least you've admitted that. You could have answered Joe's question without embedding fiction.

     

    My reason for asking you whether you had posted fantasy is that you mislead people by inventing descriptions of how the software operates without making clear that your statements are guesswork.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,057 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 1:32 PM   in reply to conroy

    conroy wrote:

     

    your statements are guesswork.

     

     

    As surely as your's are.

     

    Like me you do not know how Photoshop works. We do not have access to Adobe source code all you and I have is what we observe working with Photoshop. You seem have a problem with how other believe Photoshop may work.  In the end concepts are what is important not the bit by bit workings of Photoshop bit manipulations of pixels.

     

    Yes I know only the way Conoy think Photoshop works is correct, how dare someone think otherwise.   You believe Adobe would go out of their way to write new code to do functions they have code for.  Where I believe they would use the code they have the code that works.  Why would Adobe add code  to do something the all ready have code for just to do it some other way.  All that does is add more lines of code to be maintained more line of code that may introduce bugs. Even Adobe is not that stupid.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 1:39 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    conroy wrote:

     

    your statements are guesswork.

     

     

    As surely as your are.

     

    I don't recall presenting guesswork without indicating that my statements are guesses. It's quite possible that I have. I'm sure you'll provide examples.

     

     

    Like me you do not know how Photoshop works. We do not have access to Adobe source code all you and I have is what we observe working with Photoshop. You seem have a problem with how other believe Photoshop may work.

     

    It's not true that I have a problem with other people's beliefs. I do have a problem with you presenting misleading fiction as if it were fact.

     

     

    In the end concepts are what is important not the bit by bit workings of Photoshop bit manipulations of pixels.

     

     

    You're the one who was inventing "bit by bit workings" of how Photoshop goes about exporting an image file!

     

     

    Yes I know only the way Conoy think Photoshop works is correct, how dare someone think otherwise.   You believe Adobe would go out of their way to write new code to do functions they have code for.  Where I believe they would use the code they have the code that works.  Why would Adobe add code  to do something the all ready have code for just to do it some other way.  All that does is add more lines of code to be maintained more line of code that may introduce bugs. Even Adobe is not that stupid.

     

    I'm not going to indulge in fantasies about whether, or why, Adobe would, or would not, do something. I do not know what Photoshop is programmed to do when exporting an image file. Neither do you, as you admitted long after pretending to do so.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,057 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 3:16 PM   in reply to conroy

    You see what you want. 

     

    Basicly what I wrote was you do not need to flatten a layered or even convert it to 8bit sRGB color to save a jpeg or png file. Many do not know this.

     

    To help the op understand this I tried to tell the op that during the save for web jpeg operation the layered image is flattened into background layer that does not support transparency 8 bit and sRGB color space,  That Save for Web PNG-24 is different for png supports transparency.  That After the Save for Web operation the document is still in its layers in the original color space and color bit depth.  You did not like the wording I used it meant something different to you, For I wrote things like temporary flattened,  converted, mode changed, saved then reverted back to before the save.  Please get over yourself

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 4:43 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    You see what you want. 

     

    Basicly what I wrote was you do not need to flatten a layered or even convert it to 8bit sRGB color to save a jpeg or png file. Many do not know this.

     

     

    JJ, you're backpedaling after writing garbage, yet again.

     

    You absolutely did not "basically write" that which you now claim to have written.

     

    You specifically claimed: "When you use Save AS and Save for Web Photoshop will temporary flatten the document convert to 8 bit color if needed and may offer a convert to srgb option to save a flattened Jpeg or PNG file PNG files also may have and Alpha channel.  Once the file is save Photoshop reverts the document back in time to the state is was in before the Save As or Saved for Web."

     

    The claim which I questioned was precisely that the document would be flattened then restored to it's pre-flattened state.

     

    You later admitted that the statement was fantasy on your part.

     

    If you had simply written what you now falsely claim to have written then this whole dispute would never have arisen.

     

     

    To help the op understand this I tried to tell the op that during the save for web jpeg operation the layered image is flattened into background layer that does not support transparency 8 bit and sRGB color space,  That Save for Web PNG-24 is different for png supports transparency.  That After the Save for Web operation the document is still in its layers in the original color space and color bit depth.  You did not like the wording I used it meant something different to you, For I wrote things like temporary flattened,  converted, mode changed, saved then reverted back to before the save.

     

    Your fiction is worse than useless to anyone. It is positively misleading.

     

     

    Please get over yourself

     

    Unbelievable!!!

     

    I'm not the one who cannot bear criticism.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,057 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2013 6:32 PM   in reply to conroy

    conroy wrote:

     

    Please get over yourself

     

    Unbelievable!!!

     

    I'm not the one who cannot bear criticism.

    No your the one who does not know right from wrong and can not admit it when your wrong.  I have posted thing I have tested and can reproduce on my PC.  You run on Mac and can not test what I have written. So you do not test what I have written on a PC you just write the I'm wrong for you know better.     The truth is you like other post wrong information.  I admit when I post wrong information even to you.  You have a problem there.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 4:08 AM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    conroy wrote:

     

    Please get over yourself

     

    Unbelievable!!!

     

    I'm not the one who cannot bear criticism.

    No your the one who does not know right from wrong and can not admit it when your wrong.

     

    JJ, you are posting further untruths.

     

    We have disagreed many times and you almost always end up projecting your negative character traits onto me.

     

    As a matter of fact, I deliberately do post an admittance to having made a mistake when a mistake is pointed out to me, or when I myself realize the error.

     

    I have posted thing I have tested and can reproduce on my PC.

     

    I do not believe that you performed tests which revealed a document being flattened then restored to its pre-flattened state when saving to an image file.

     

    You run on Mac and can not test what I have written. So you do not test what I have written on a PC

     

    Very convenient for you, you may think. However, you already admitted to writing fantasy.

     

    you just write the I'm wrong for you know better.

     

    I write that you're wrong when you post misleading fantasy, as if it were fact, in reply to people's questions.

     

    The truth is you like other post wrong information.

     

    Yes, and I have already admitted to posting wrong information.

     

     

    I admit when I post wrong information even to you.  You have a problem there.

     

    You almost never simply admit to an error. You typically write thousands of words of backpedaling and obfuscation in a desparate attempt to be seen as right instead of just admitting your mistake, or saying nothing, and moving on.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,057 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 7:15 AM   in reply to conroy

    I never wrote I could prove Photoshop Flatten saved and reverted document.  It is also one way Photoshop could save a flat jpeg from a layered document.

     

    I once again I failed to live up to conroy English expectations that nothing new for me I failed ever English course I ever had to take.

     

    What I was referring to was you what wrote in an other thread on smart objects.  Where I described what happens to Photoshop written temp files when Photoshop aborts or is terminated by the user and what happens to then when Photoshop terminates normally and when documents are closed in Photoshop.

     

    I have not used a Mac since Apple introduced models after the G5. The G5 I had cost 10K the Apple hardware processor was power PC it had two 300MB scsi disk an optical drive and a USB keyboard and mouse the mouse was round its USB cable was thick and stiff. Every time you let go of the mouse it would be rotated some by the usb cable you would never know which way the cursor would move the next time you touched the mouse. The OS used back the was Apple own OS7 and OS9.  Neather were very good.  When Steve Jobs return to work once more for Apple IBM would not manufacture a low power consuming Power PC for use in a laptop.  Steve had two problem Apple's OS was not up the snuff and he didn't have a processor for a laptop. Steve solved both problem at the same time.  He abandoned the power PC and Apples OS.   He knew the virtues of Unix he had used in in his Next company. He knew there were versions the ran on Intel processor. So Steve adopted Intel and Unix. All Apple need to to was to code a Mac shell for Unix.  Unix has been around for over 50 years now around longer then Windows.  It would not surprise me if Mac Unix cleaned  up after an aborted application better then Windows.

     

    I know how windows worked and have observed what happen in my userid temp folder when Photoshop opens embedded smart objects what happens when Photoshop operate normally and what happens when Photoshop is aborted.  I have observed what happen when Photoshop opens a embedded smart object when the temp file it want to write to the temp folder existed Photoshop add a unique suffix serial number to the smart object name and writes a new file.  A file can exist in the temp folder with the name for normal processing reasons or because a file the should have been deleted was not delete when Photoshop aborted.  During normal processing it is possible to have independent smart object layers the have identical smart object names.  All the a user need do is use layers>smart objects>new smart object via copy.  It is also possible to dupe a document the has a smart object layer the dupe document is independent from the original document. If one open the smart object make changes saves and closed the temp document the temp file hangs around in the temp folder tile the document containing it is closed in Photoshop. Should a user open the embedded smart in the dupe document the temp file still exist for the other document and its contents is not the same as the smart object Photoshop is now opening so. Photoshop write a new temp file with a generated name with the correct content.  You wrote the Photoshop does not normally generate serial numbers yet it easy to prove it does.  You blatantly wrote what I wrote was wrong.  I let it go. The truth is what you wrote is wrong you just don't believe what I and other write could possible be correct for I always write fantasy fiction.

     

    I have also observed if the embedded smart object contains a copy of some Photoshop supported file  type like a placed image file or use of ACR open object option that when these embedded smart object are written to the temp with the file name or file name(suffix number).ext where the .ext is the same as the file extendtion of the copied file.  That when the embedded smart object are not copies of files rather the smart object were made by converting document elements like layer and layer group for which files do not exist. That when these type of smart object are opened the temp file created for the has Photoshop native .psb extensions the same extension it uses when writing auto recovery file. So when Photoshop open an embedded smart object it always first writes a new file into the users temp folder some time it a copy of a file copied into the smart object during smart object creations.   Sometime the file written is new that contains to layers that were converted into a smary object.

     

    Photoshop is a very complex program some time we can observe how Photoshop works by observing visible external side effects that happen when Photoshop does some things. However some process like save for web dose not seem show any visual side effects Photoshop does not seem to update any of its panels, palettes, windows or tabs during the process no work file are written all we can observe is that a new image file is created or an old image file is replaced.  These files may be flat may have frames may a alpha channels however some elements contained in the document a smart layers, adjustment layers, smart filter adjustments etc will not be in the saved file for save for web can not save layered files like Tiff, PSD or PSB files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 7:46 AM   in reply to JJMack

    What on earth is your point now, JJ?

     

    What have Steve Jobs, SCSI and UNIX got to do with anything in this thread?

     

    Why on earth are you writing an essay on Smart Objects?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 7:54 AM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    You wrote the Photoshop does not normally generate serial numbers yet it easy to prove it does.

     

    I have no idea what you are on about. I have no recollection of ever writing about serial numbers.

     

    You better post a link to where I write about serial numbers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    6,057 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 8:28 AM   in reply to conroy

    So you have a poor memory

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

     

    5.conroy,

     

    Feb 25, 2013 3:09 PM   in reply to Cuprik

    Report

     

    That appending of a number won't usually happen. It's only happening at the moment because there currently already is a file (the one you saved in step 3, above) in the temporary folder with the same name as the SO's file.

     

     

    25.conroy,

     

    Feb 26, 2013 4:52 PM   in reply to JJMack

    Report

     

    JJMack wrote:

     

    Conroy I never mean to attract you debating may seem like an attack not my intent. I have see you get upset in several treads because of what others have posted.

     

    JJ, give it a rest. I don't want to go so far as to call you a liar, but you are the one with a history of exploding into a rage in this forum and a history of falsely claiming that I "get upset".

     

     

    I do not care if you think what I post is garbage and incorrect.  I know better for all I have posted I have tested and am able to repeat on my machines.

     

    You posted something that's factually wrong.

     

    I posted a contradiction.

     

     

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

    You contradiction is not how PC Windows and CS6 works from what I see on windows

    That is what why I wrote an essay on Smart Objects.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 9:29 AM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    So you have a poor memory

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

     

    5.conroy,

     

    Feb 25, 2013 3:09 PM   in reply to Cuprik

    Report

     

    That appending of a number won't usually happen. It's only happening at the moment because there currently already is a file (the one you saved in step 3, above) in the temporary folder with the same name as the SO's file.

     

     

    25.conroy,

     

    Feb 26, 2013 4:52 PM   in reply to JJMack

    Report

     

    JJMack wrote:

     

    Conroy I never mean to attract you debating may seem like an attack not my intent. I have see you get upset in several treads because of what others have posted.

     

    JJ, give it a rest. I don't want to go so far as to call you a liar, but you are the one with a history of exploding into a rage in this forum and a history of falsely claiming that I "get upset".

     

     

    I do not care if you think what I post is garbage and incorrect.  I know better for all I have posted I have tested and am able to repeat on my machines.

     

    You posted something that's factually wrong.

     

    I posted a contradiction.

     

    I never said anything about serial numbers. I did write about a number being appended to a file name in another thread, but how was I supposed to know that you now refer to that as a serial number.

     

    Anyway, I was correct when writing: "That appending of a number won't usually happen. It's only happening at the moment because there currently already is a file (the one you saved in step 3, above) in the temporary folder with the same name as the SO's file."

     

    That thread was very similar to this one. You posted garbage which I contradicted.

     

     

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

    You contradiction is not how PC Windows and CS6 works from what I see on windows

     

     

    What!?!?

     

    You have it completely and utterly wrong again!

     

    And you have posted my reply #5 to Cuprik followed by your reply #25 to me, and no link to the thread so readers can see these posts (or partial posts, perhaps) in context.

     

    After my contradiction of something untrue which you wrote, you went on to actually test your PC and discovered exactly the same file naming behaviour was happening there as was happening on my Mac.

     
    |
    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