Problems creating collage

pdxrjt · Post by **pdxrjt** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:51 am

Hi, I am trying to create a collage of 4 2x3 pics printed on a 4x6 picture. I have 4 pics which are (according to Image/Canvas size) 2x3. I create a new file which is supposedly 4x6. According to the help me, this is what I would do next:

Open the photos that you want to combine and decide which image to use as your base image. Copy the other images into the base image by clicking an image, choosing Edit Copy, clicking the base image, and choosing Edit Paste As New Layer. Position each layer with the Move tool .
However, when I paste as a New Layer, the 2x3 totally fills up the new layer (the supposedly 4x6 layer.) There appears to be no way to adjust the size or move it at all. When looking at the layer palette, it is just as big as the 4x6. Even when I resize the image (again) by cropping to a 2x3 and paste.... same thing. I can select a portion of the 4x6 and do paste to selection, but then I can't move or adjust the size the the selection.

Okay, what the heck am I doing wrong. I have been at this for an hour and am stumped.

TIA

allicorn · Post by **allicorn** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:53 am

Could be that the resolution of the source images - or one of them anyway - is very different.

Two images can have the same "print size" while actually having wildly different sizes in pixels. If you're loading each up seperately and printing them out, that won't be a problem but if you're pasting one into the other, the effect would be a lot like what you're getting.

Check the "Pixels per Inch" (or "pixels per cm") number in the Image Information dialog. Do all the images have the same value? If not, they'll seem to change size when you paste one into an image based on another.

You can change that value using Image->Resize Image by unchecking the "Resample Using" box (you might need to check "Advanced Settings" to see it) and then just pop a new number in the Resolution field toward the top of the dialog. Make all the resolutions the same and you should be set - if that was what was causing the problem that is

Alli

pdxrjt · Post by **pdxrjt** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:29 pm

Okay, still have to mess with it. One of the four 2x3s was 954 x 636 pixels.... that one worked fine. The others were thousands of pixels. So I tried to change one of the ones that didn't work to 954 x 636 pixels, both with and without resampling checked and the quality of the image went way down, but it remained big. Further thoughts are (as always

) appreciated, but I will continue to work on this throughout the day.

Thanks

allicorn · Post by **allicorn** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:26 pm

Ok, say you've got two images - "image A" is 600x600 pixels, and "image B" is 6000x6000 pixels (!) but both of which have print sizes of 6x6 cm and you'd like to merge them into a single image 12cm wide by 6cm high...

There's really no getting around the fact that Image B is much higher quality than Image A - that little 600x60 pic just doesn't have a huge amount of detail there.

If you loaded up image A and opened the Image Information dialog you'd see:

Dimensions: 600 x 600 pixels , 60 x 60 mm
Pixels per cm: 100

And for image B it'd be:

Dimensions:6000 x 6000 pixels, 60 x 60 mm
Pixels per cm: 1000

You can see that both have the same print size (a 60000 mm (6cm) square) even though their pixel dimensions are very different.

If you just pasted image A into image B, it'd look tiny (1/10th the size) and if you did it the other way around, image B would dwarf image A by the same factor of 10.

So to get them to play nice in the same image, their dimensions in pixels need to be on the same scale. This means either resampling image A all the way up to 6000x6000 or shrinking image B down to 600x600.

Resampling image A up would mean going into Image->Resize, checking "Resample Using" to on and putting 6000 into the width/height boxes under "Pixel Dimensions". This would make image A much higher resolution but there's no way for PSP to fill in the missing detail that really should be there in an image that size, so you may end up with rather jagged/pixelly looking results. Of course we're going up by a factor of 10 here, if its less than that then the jaggedness won't be so bad.

Alternatively, resampling image B down to fit would be the reverse. With "Resample using" checked, putting 600 into the "Pixel Dimensions" boxes would shrink it down to the same pixel size as image A. Of course, 9/10ths of the detail would get thrown out though, tending to make the image look a lot less sharp. Again, the closer the two images' pixel sizes to begin with, the less damage the resampling will do.

Depending on which way looked better, we've now got either two images that are both 600x600 pixels or two that are 6000x6000 pixels. Creating our final double-width image would be as simple as using Image->Canvas Size to add some extra space in one of the images and then pasting the other into it.

There's a third way of course - which might be the best bet for quality if the images really do have very different pixel sizes - and that would be to do both steps. Pick a pixel size thats about mid-way between the smallest and largest image - size the small images up to meet that and the large images down to the same value. All images will lose some quality just like above, but the effect for each should be less noticeable.

Hope that helps!
Alli

pdxrjt · Post by **pdxrjt** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:28 pm

Again thanks for the reply.

When I try to resize, it doesn't seem to work. My main goal is to resize to a 3 x 2. (Or, it would be nice to be able to resize the image in the collage!!) Althought it is getting closer..... I noted that if I select 2x3 and 318 pixels per inch resolution..... it is very close..... the pics seem to be a bit bigger than 2-3, but not much (I say that because they take up a little bit more than 1/4 of the supposedly 4x6 blank I have created. However, when I look at the size etc. it clearly says 2x3 or 1.9999 x 3 or something like that.

Sooooo, I got one done.... with a little "creative cropping" because they were a bit large. Further thoughts on trying to get the right size would be helpful. This may be why some of my images appear slightly cropped when I use an on-line printer.

My image size is supposedly say 4x6, but I have noticed a bit cut off..... so the next question..... how to get exactly the right size image!!

TIA, you are very helpful Allicorn!!

allicorn · Post by **allicorn** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:26 pm

it would be nice to be able to resize the image in the collage

You can actually do that, although its perhaps not obvious that the ability is there.

Whenever you have a image on a (non-background) layer, you can use the "pick" tool (the icon just looks like a mouse pointer arrow).

So say you've got a background layer filled with some image or texture and then a smaller picture floating on a layer above it, just select the pick tool (might be hidden on the tiny drop-down arrow beside the "move" tool, which looks like a four-headed arrow), then click the floating image. You should see the eight "handle" dots pop up around it and a rotate handle in the middle. Working with those should be familiar from working with vector layers or text but this actually works even for raster layers - very handy! You can stretch, skew (hold ctrl while playing with the handles), distort (hold shift) and rotate the image. The handles will all conform to any grid/guide snapping settings you've got turned on (handy when you're lining up multiple images!) and when using the rotate handle you can hold down shift to limit the rotation to steps of 30 degrees.

I noted that if I select 2x3 and 318 pixels per inch resolution..... it is very close..... the pics seem to be a bit bigger than 2-3, but not much (I say that because they take up a little bit more than 1/4 of the supposedly 4x6 blank I have created. However, when I look at the size etc. it clearly says 2x3 or 1.9999 x 3 or something like that.

Apologies if I'm being too obvious but don't forget that even the blank (literally, a blank image made with file->new?) will have a "pixels per inch/cm" value and a "pixel dimension" too.

I guess the important thing to understand about all this is that the printable size of an image can vary even though the pixel dimensions remain the same - and vice versa. Once you select and paste some pixels (even all of them) from one image into another, the print size of the first image becomes irrelevant - its just the pixels that are getting copied. If you need the relative scale of imagery in the two pics to remain the same while copy-pasting, then that imagery has to be on the same same scale in pixels - which isn't necessarily true even if they have the same print size.

TIA, you are very helpful Allicorn!!

Thanks, I try! I just really enjoy working with PSP myself and like to help others get the most out of it if I can.

Alli

pdxrjt · Post by **pdxrjt** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:33 pm

Well after your suggestions on my Stonehenge pics (BTW--learned a heck of a lot messing with that one).... I upgraded to 12 to try some of your suggestions. I just ordered a couple of books to help me master 12... I learn much better with reading and experimenting than any other way! So I will keep messing with these to see how it turns out.

Thanks again

ps My Stonehenge pics needed just a bit of a softening tool.... just a touch here and there.... worked pretty well. Took those after my first trip to the UK in August!

Edit: Ah.... I think the pixels per inch did the trick!!