This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > PainShop Pro Scripting > June 2006 > Script for saving file 3 diff ways (PSP 8) ?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Script for saving file 3 diff ways (PSP 8) ?
|
|
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-05-30, 6:51 pm |
| Hello!
I just joined the group. I'm a scrapbooker.
I use Paint Shop Pro 8.
I'm interested in finding a script (or purchasing one) that saves a psp
file 3 different files:
1. psp file (keeeping layers separate)
2. Jpeg file for printing...also will automatically resize my layout to
be on a 10 x 12 canvas. Otherwise Sam's photo lab cuts off my sides.
3. and low resolution jpeg file for posting on web sites, etc. (This
would also involve a 'resize' and change of resolution too.
Can anyone help me please?
Thanks so much.
Dalynn
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-30, 6:51 pm |
| Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
>
> Hello!
> I just joined the group. I'm a scrapbooker.
>
> I use Paint Shop Pro 8.
>
> I'm interested in finding a script (or purchasing one) that saves a psp
> file 3 different files:
>
> 1. psp file (keeeping layers separate)
File > Save As will do that.
> 2. Jpeg file for printing...also will automatically resize my layout to
> be on a 10 x 12 canvas.
All this business about cutting off side suggests that you are making
images with the wrong aspect ratio. In other words, the proportion
of width to height does not match that later used for printing. Use
the correct aspect ratio to start with and there won't be a need
for any fiddling later. If bits are removed from your image then
resizing is not what is needed. Instead you need to crop the image to
the correct aspect ratio or you need to add content to one or more
sides of the image to get the correct aspect ratio. For instance,
just as an example, you could add some plain white top and bottom or
twice as much white only on the top. Cropping and deciding what to
remove (just like Sam) or adding content involve artistic decisions.
It is unwise to leave them to a stupid script with no artistic
sensibilities.
> Otherwise Sam's photo lab cuts off my sides.
Boy, that must be painful, though of course it's a great way to
lose weight. People are always trying to cut off my sides, though
since I'm a vegetable it is more understandable.
> 3. and low resolution jpeg file for posting on web sites, etc. (This
> would also involve a 'resize' and change of resolution too.
No, it wouldn't. Image resolution is completely irrelevant to
displaying images on screen. The number of pixels in your image
determines how big a picture is on your screen (along with the
screen area in pixels you set in Windows Display Properties and
the physical size of your monitor). The image resolution is just
a conversion factor to determine how many image pixels fill every
inch of paper when you print the image.
> Can anyone help me please?
I wouldn't be surprised if someone could help you. However, before
any attempt to do so, a lot has to be established. PSP is not
designed for scripts to do their own file saving so the script
can't just be recorded. A certain amount of hand-coding is needed.
However, you've omitted all the details that would make this possible
to do. Moreover, there is another thing.
Scripts exist so that things you do over and over again can be
automated to save you time. However, I don't think that saving the
files is the time-consuming step in making a scrapbook layout. I
have the impression that you aren't asking for a script because you
save millions of layouts per day and need automation. Instead you
are asking because you aren't sure of the steps that are needed.
Since anyone writing a script would have to be sure of the steps
and, if you were sure of the steps, you might not need a script,
it would be a good thing to sort out what you want to have happen.
You need to state the size of you images in pixels. You need to
state the resolution of the image that you are using. You need to
state how you want to cope with that knife-wielding maniac at Sam's
i.e. cropping, adding content, or deforming the image by resizing
height and width by different amounts. You need to explain why you
aren't making things with the desired aspect ratio in the first
place. You need to explain what size (in pixels) you want to use
for what you describe as a "low resolution jpeg file for posting on
web sites".
> Thanks so much.
> Dalynn
| |
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-05-30, 6:51 pm |
| First of all thank you so much for responding to my query so thouroughly
and promtly. I can tell this is a devoted group. I think I probably did
not explain my wishes very well and I apologize for that. -So I will try
to clarify...please, try to be patient with me.
I have been digitally scrapbooking for about a year using PSP 8. -So I
consider myself experienced with the program, but by no means an expert.
And I have not attempted creating scripts at all... yet.
Currently here is what I do:
1. I create a 10 inch by 10 inch scrapbook layout at 300 ppi. I like to
keep a psp file, obvioulsy, because sometime I like to go back and make
changes. I perform a save when the layout is finished.
2. Next I merge the all the layers together, change the canvas size to
10 x 12, do a file>save as a jpeg. Why do I change the canvas size when
I want my finished 'product' to be a 10 inch by 10 inch square?
Because Sam's does not print square formats...only 8x10, 10 x 12, 10x
14, 11 x 14, etc.
I have tried to upload a 10 x 10 jpeg (ordering a 10 x 12 print) but
they always enlarge the entire image to fill the 12 inch length...I
suppose not noticing that in the process the 'sides' are cut off...lol.
So to remedy this I just make sure my image is on a 10 x 12 'canvas and
I cut off the one inch white strip off the top and bottom at home using
my handy dandy paper trimmer.
3. Lastly, for the final file I need:I Resize my 10 inch by 10 inch jpeg
to be 72 ppi (all that's necessary for viewing on a monitor, then resize
to be 600 by 600 pixels.) Then I do a jpeg optimiser to reduce the size
of the file to be under 100 KB so that I can upload the image to an
popular online gallery for scrapbookers. (I also use this size to email
submissions for scrapbooking magazines, books or just to include my
pages in emails to family and friends. When the subbmission is accepted
by a magazine editor then I email the full size at 300ppi for high
quality printing.)
These are the steps I am currently doing day in and day out, and no, I'm
not doing this millions of times per day...but I just thought if such a
script was already availabe (or possible to create) it would save time.
Why not ask, right? I would pay for such a thing and I know several
other PSP scrapbookers who might too/.
It's like this...I used to access all the PSP tools via the pop down
menus (or on-screen tool palette) using my mouse. But then one day I
decided to make myself learn the short-cuts. I printed out the ones I
use all the time and taped them to the edges of my monitor. NOw I
couldn't imagine having to use all the pop-down menus (or search the
tool palettes on screen) just to find what I'm looking for...I just do T
for text, Ctrl V for paste as new image, etc.
I';m a member of a digital scrapbooker online community. Most of them
use photoshop. -They have the capability to automate the file resizing,
saving in different formats, and I guess the concept intriqued me enough
to prompt me to see if such a thing was possible for PSP. All those 5 or
10 minutes add up, you know?
Again,
Thank you so much,
I'm sorry if it's like I'm asking for my mini-van to get 1,000 miles to
the gallan and travel to the moon...lol.
Dalynn
Spandex Rutabaga wrote:[color=darkred]
> Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
>
>
>
> File > Save As will do that.
>
>
>
>
> All this business about cutting off side suggests that you are making
> images with the wrong aspect ratio. In other words, the proportion
> of width to height does not match that later used for printing. Use
> the correct aspect ratio to start with and there won't be a need
> for any fiddling later. If bits are removed from your image then
> resizing is not what is needed. Instead you need to crop the image to
> the correct aspect ratio or you need to add content to one or more
> sides of the image to get the correct aspect ratio. For instance,
> just as an example, you could add some plain white top and bottom or
> twice as much white only on the top. Cropping and deciding what to
> remove (just like Sam) or adding content involve artistic decisions.
> It is unwise to leave them to a stupid script with no artistic
> sensibilities.
>
>
>
>
> Boy, that must be painful, though of course it's a great way to
> lose weight. People are always trying to cut off my sides, though
> since I'm a vegetable it is more understandable.
>
>
>
>
> No, it wouldn't. Image resolution is completely irrelevant to
> displaying images on screen. The number of pixels in your image
> determines how big a picture is on your screen (along with the
> screen area in pixels you set in Windows Display Properties and
> the physical size of your monitor). The image resolution is just
> a conversion factor to determine how many image pixels fill every
> inch of paper when you print the image.
>
>
>
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if someone could help you. However, before
> any attempt to do so, a lot has to be established. PSP is not
> designed for scripts to do their own file saving so the script
> can't just be recorded. A certain amount of hand-coding is needed.
> However, you've omitted all the details that would make this possible
> to do. Moreover, there is another thing.
>
> Scripts exist so that things you do over and over again can be
> automated to save you time. However, I don't think that saving the
> files is the time-consuming step in making a scrapbook layout. I
> have the impression that you aren't asking for a script because you
> save millions of layouts per day and need automation. Instead you
> are asking because you aren't sure of the steps that are needed.
>
> Since anyone writing a script would have to be sure of the steps
> and, if you were sure of the steps, you might not need a script,
> it would be a good thing to sort out what you want to have happen.
> You need to state the size of you images in pixels. You need to
> state the resolution of the image that you are using. You need to
> state how you want to cope with that knife-wielding maniac at Sam's
> i.e. cropping, adding content, or deforming the image by resizing
> height and width by different amounts. You need to explain why you
> aren't making things with the desired aspect ratio in the first
> place. You need to explain what size (in pixels) you want to use
> for what you describe as a "low resolution jpeg file for posting on
> web sites".
>
>
| |
| Vern Stump 2006-05-30, 6:51 pm |
| Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
> Hello!
> I just joined the group. I'm a scrapbooker.
>
> I use Paint Shop Pro 8.
>
> I'm interested in finding a script (or purchasing one) that saves a
> psp file 3 different files:
>
> 1. psp file (keeeping layers separate)
> 2. Jpeg file for printing...also will automatically resize my layout
> to be on a 10 x 12 canvas. Otherwise Sam's photo lab cuts off my
> sides. 3. and low resolution jpeg file for posting on web sites, etc.
> (This
> would also involve a 'resize' and change of resolution too.
>
> Can anyone help me please?
> Thanks so much.
> Dalynn
Dalynn:
Recommend you subscribe to corel.PaintShopPro_Scrapbooking. Sally Beacham
and her group do a tremendous job with PSP for digital scrapbooking.
Thanks, Vern
| |
|
|
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-05-30, 6:51 pm |
| Cool! It worked! Thank you so much!
If I understand correctly...it's up to me to 'rename' the Image 1, Image
2, correct? Because the psp script can't perform this function.
Usually I just put WEB or PRNT on the end of my original file name to
differentiate the files.
For example:
My original PSP file: Christmas.psp
My high quality jpeg: ChristmasPRNT.jpg
My low resoultion, 600 x 600 would be: ChristmasWEB.jpg
-Also the online 'gallery' requires the uploaded file to be under 120KB
so I perform a 'jpeg optimiser'...thingy (don't you love my techno
lingo?...lol) to compress the file to be just under that.
Really excited to find out this script is possible in PSP (to a certain
degree)...sometimes my Photoshop buddies can be a tad stuck-up... :-)
So where do we go from here? Can the optimiser thingy be added? Do you
have a paypal account set-up so I can pay you for your time?
Sincerely appreciative,
Dalynn
Joske wrote:
> Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Saving always means naming and a location to save to... that is not
> something the script can guess. The other steps can be scripted more
> easily - I have attached an example from which you may be able to
> tell if it is in the direction you want.
>
> The script makes a duplicate of the original pspimage, merges the
> layers in this duplicate and then resizes it to 72ppi 600x600.
> It makes another duplicate merging the layers and resizing the
> canvas to 12x10 inch with a white background.
>
> The numbers of that latter step are easily reversed if they have to
> by editing the numbers in the script. Is this close to what you have
> in mind?
>
> Joske
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-05-30, 6:51 pm |
| Thanks for the suggestion!
I'm excited to find out a psp scrapbookers group even exists!
I'm off to find them now.
Dalynn
Vern Stump wrote:
> Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
>
>
>
> Dalynn:
> Recommend you subscribe to corel.PaintShopPro_Scrapbooking. Sally Beacham
> and her group do a tremendous job with PSP for digital scrapbooking.
> Thanks, Vern
>
>
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-30, 6:51 pm |
| Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
> Currently here is what I do:
> 1. I create a 10 inch by 10 inch scrapbook layout at 300 ppi. I like to
> keep a psp file, obvioulsy, because sometime I like to go back and make
> changes. I perform a save when the layout is finished.
PSP 8 does not handle memory very well. If you work at 200 ppi
instead of 300 ppi you will use 44% of the memory you are using now.
Everything will also happen faster. Meanwhile, the print won't
look perceptibly different. (Yes, I am aware that 300 ppi is used
blindly by many scrapbookers as a "bigger must be better" mark eting
thing :)
> 2. Next I merge the all the layers together,
You don't need to merge.
> change the canvas size to
> 10 x 12, do a file>save as a jpeg.
Saving as JPEG automatically merges the layers for you since the
JPEG format does not support layers.
> Why do I change the canvas size when
> I want my finished 'product' to be a 10 inch by 10 inch square?
> Because Sam's does not print square formats...only 8x10, 10 x 12, 10x
> 14, 11 x 14, etc.
You can record this step easily enough with File > Script > Start
Recording. The Canvas Size command won't change the relative
position of the content of different layers. (If you do decide to
merge your image you can also use Image > Add Borders to enlarge
your image for Sam and his club.)
> 3. Lastly, for the final file I need:I Resize my 10 inch by 10 inch jpeg
> to be 72 ppi (all that's necessary for viewing on a monitor, then resize
> to be 600 by 600 pixels.)
I tried to explain this before. I'll do it again. It doesn't make
ANY difference what the resolution is when you display an image on
screen. Look at the attached images on your screen. Then open them
in PSP and do Image > Image Information to look at the resolution.
Now do you believe me? Resolution is a conversion factor between
pixels (which is how digital image size is measured) and inches
(which are physical units we use in the US). Resolution is only
relevant when you are scanning a photographic print or slide or
printing a digital image. It has nothing to do with the size of
images on your screen for web pages or in email.
Recording the Image > Resize step is easy enough because the original
and final sizes are always the same. Since you are resizing from a
3000 x 3000 pixel image (10 inches with a conversion factor of 300
pixels per inch) to 600 x 600 pixels, that gives you an image only
20% of the original in each dimension. That's quite a large loss in
image information. You may want to throw in a sharpening step after
resizing to make it seem like your image has more detail. Unsharp Mask
with Radius 1.00, Strength 50 and Clipping 5 would be a good starting
point for that.
> Then I do a jpeg optimiser to reduce the size
> of the file to be under 100 KB so that I can upload the image to an
> popular online gallery for scrapbookers.
A script can't decide for you whether there are ugly artifacts from
too much JPEG compression or if some fine detail is lost because of
using the wrong Chroma Subsampling setting. (Use 1x1 1x1 1x1 Chroma
Subsampling when there is text or line art in your image or stripes
or dots a few pixels in size. Use 2x2 1x1 1x1 otherwise for a smaller
compressed size.) Apart from that, PSP doesn't make it easy to
compress to a target size. The difficulty here comes from the fact
that different images compress to different degrees depending on the
specific content in them. As a result you would be wise to run this
JPEG Optimizer step interactively so the best settings can be chosen.
Another aspect that the script can't do is guess how you want to
name all your files and guess in which folders to put the files.
Since you are saving two versions in the JPEG format you either
have to have unique filenames or unique folders.
Joske has given you a script that has a lot of the steps that you
need. You can also record the steps for yourself using the File >
Script menu and doing the steps once exactly as you would do them
for each layout. Just leave the file opening and saving steps out
of the recording. If you don't, the actual names of the files you
used will appear in the script so you will always open the same
file and save every layout under exactly the same name(s). Don't be
too wary of scripts. You can open Joske's script in a text editor
like Notepad. It will look "computerese" but if you scroll through
it you should quickly get an idea of what it is doing since it is
written in human-readable pseudo-English (actually a language called
Python).
| |
|
|
|
|
"Dalynn Montgomery" <dlaynn.montgomery@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:447ca48f$1_3@cnews...
> Thanks for the suggestion!
>
> I'm excited to find out a psp scrapbookers group even exists!
> I'm off to find them now.
> Dalynn
>
>
Hi Dalynn,
I also created a 3 step script to save the 3 final images that I need for
scrapbooking. It really saves time when saving your LO's. A lady at SBB made
a script for PSCS2 and posted it for the other PS people. So I recorded on
for PSPX and it works great!
If you are interested in another great Scrapbooking site check us out at
Scrapbook-bytes.com :o)
| |
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| Thank you for your patience with me. I really appreciate what I've
learned from you today (even if I do feel somewhat 'dumb' realizing I've
been performing extraneous steps for the past several months...lol).
You are right...
Saving as JPEG automatically merges the layers for you since the
> JPEG format does not support layers. (one unnecessary step)
I don't need to change the resoloution to 72 ppi after all.
Aparently several scrapbookers are misled in this notion. There are
online scrapbookers websites that give directions to newbie digital
scrappers telling them to be sure to change ppi to 72...lol.
I even tested this(not that I didn't believe you...just had to prove it
to myself I guess...lol).
I took my psp file >resized to 600 x 600 pixels both with 250 ppi (I
think earlier I said 300 ppi...but I'm actually doing 250..splitting the
difference I suppose) and then by first changing the resolution to 72
ppi. On both files I did the jpeg optimizer and the produced files were
exactly the same size! (so there is the 2nd unnecessary step I suppose).
I could not discern a noticiable quality difference between the 2
files in the the quality of the image on the monitor.
> You may want to throw in a sharpening step after
But, when do you recommend I perform the unsharp mask? I will need to
merge the layers first, right? -Otherwise it only performs the task on
the active layer. After merging, then performing the unsharp mask would
I then do the jpeg optimizer to get the file size to be under 120Kb (the
web gallery maximum allowable size)? Do I have the order of operations
correct?
Sincerely,
Dalynn
(sometimes slow to learn, despite my high IQ...lol)
Spandex Rutabaga wrote:[color=darkred]
> Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
>
>
>
>
> PSP 8 does not handle memory very well. If you work at 200 ppi
> instead of 300 ppi you will use 44% of the memory you are using now.
> Everything will also happen faster. Meanwhile, the print won't
> look perceptibly different. (Yes, I am aware that 300 ppi is used
> blindly by many scrapbookers as a "bigger must be better" mark eting
> thing :)
>
>
>
>
> You don't need to merge.
>
>
>
>
> Saving as JPEG automatically merges the layers for you since the
> JPEG format does not support layers.
>
>
>
>
> You can record this step easily enough with File > Script > Start
> Recording. The Canvas Size command won't change the relative
> position of the content of different layers. (If you do decide to
> merge your image you can also use Image > Add Borders to enlarge
> your image for Sam and his club.)
>
>
>
>
> I tried to explain this before. I'll do it again. It doesn't make
> ANY difference what the resolution is when you display an image on
> screen. Look at the attached images on your screen. Then open them
> in PSP and do Image > Image Information to look at the resolution.
> Now do you believe me? Resolution is a conversion factor between
> pixels (which is how digital image size is measured) and inches
> (which are physical units we use in the US). Resolution is only
> relevant when you are scanning a photographic print or slide or
> printing a digital image. It has nothing to do with the size of
> images on your screen for web pages or in email.
>
> Recording the Image > Resize step is easy enough because the original
> and final sizes are always the same. Since you are resizing from a
> 3000 x 3000 pixel image (10 inches with a conversion factor of 300
> pixels per inch) to 600 x 600 pixels, that gives you an image only
> 20% of the original in each dimension. That's quite a large loss in
> image information. You may want to throw in a sharpening step after
> resizing to make it seem like your image has more detail. Unsharp Mask
> with Radius 1.00, Strength 50 and Clipping 5 would be a good starting
> point for that.
>
>
>
>
> A script can't decide for you whether there are ugly artifacts from
> too much JPEG compression or if some fine detail is lost because of
> using the wrong Chroma Subsampling setting. (Use 1x1 1x1 1x1 Chroma
> Subsampling when there is text or line art in your image or stripes
> or dots a few pixels in size. Use 2x2 1x1 1x1 otherwise for a smaller
> compressed size.) Apart from that, PSP doesn't make it easy to
> compress to a target size. The difficulty here comes from the fact
> that different images compress to different degrees depending on the
> specific content in them. As a result you would be wise to run this
> JPEG Optimizer step interactively so the best settings can be chosen.
>
> Another aspect that the script can't do is guess how you want to
> name all your files and guess in which folders to put the files.
> Since you are saving two versions in the JPEG format you either
> have to have unique filenames or unique folders.
>
> Joske has given you a script that has a lot of the steps that you
> need. You can also record the steps for yourself using the File >
> Script menu and doing the steps once exactly as you would do them
> for each layout. Just leave the file opening and saving steps out
> of the recording. If you don't, the actual names of the files you
> used will appear in the script so you will always open the same
> file and save every layout under exactly the same name(s). Don't be
> too wary of scripts. You can open Joske's script in a text editor
> like Notepad. It will look "computerese" but if you scroll through
> it you should quickly get an idea of what it is doing since it is
> written in human-readable pseudo-English (actually a language called
> Python).
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
> I don't need to change the resoloution to 72 ppi after all.
> Aparently several scrapbookers are misled in this notion. There are
> online scrapbookers websites that give directions to newbie digital
> scrappers telling them to be sure to change ppi to 72...lol.
I'm afraid many people are misled by this. In fact, at one point in
the distant past I think the Jasc documentation erred in the same
way. I seldom believe what people say unless they have previously
established a track record with me of knowing things and being right.
The easiest way to pin these things down is to try them the way I
did to show you.
> I even tested this(not that I didn't believe you...just had to prove it
> to myself I guess...lol).
It's OK not to believe me (once, the first time :)
> I took my psp file >resized to 600 x 600 pixels both with 250 ppi (I
> think earlier I said 300 ppi...but I'm actually doing 250..splitting the
> difference I suppose) and then by first changing the resolution to 72
> ppi. On both files I did the jpeg optimizer and the produced files were
> exactly the same size! (so there is the 2nd unnecessary step I suppose).
Well, there you go :) Some file formats such as GIF don't store any
resolution in the file at all so you couldn't even perform a test
with that format.
> But, when do you recommend I perform the unsharp mask? I will need to
> merge the layers first, right? -Otherwise it only performs the task on
> the active layer.
That's correct. I should have made that clear.
> After merging, then performing the unsharp mask would
> I then do the jpeg optimizer to get the file size to be under 120Kb (the
> web gallery maximum allowable size)? Do I have the order of operations
> correct?
The steps are merge then resize (or equally well resize and then
merge but the former is more memory efficient and faster to compute).
Then Unsharp Mask prior to saving with the JPEG Optimizer. Since
the sharpening step emphasizes detail the JPEG algorithm won't find
it as easy to throw away content during the lossy compression and
you may need a slightly higher compression level than without any
prior sharpening.
> Sincerely,
> Dalynn
> (sometimes slow to learn, despite my high IQ...lol)
Well, I'm a vegetable so I'm a slow learner. It tends to stick though
once it gets through my waxy skin.
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
"Dalynn Montgomery" <dlaynn.montgomery@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:447cd03d$1_2@cnews...
>
>
> I don't need to change the resoloution to 72 ppi after all.
> Aparently several scrapbookers are misled in this notion. There are online
> scrapbookers websites that give directions to newbie digital scrappers
> telling them to be sure to change ppi to 72...lol.
There are a LOT of scrapbookers who are misled (and perpetuate the
misleading!) about image and print resolution.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1790570,00.asp
--
Sally Beacham
www.dizteq.com / www.lvsonline.com
Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero
Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| underprocessable | |
|
|
"Sally Beacham" <catintheh@t.com> wrote in message news:447cf4e4_3@cnews...
>
> "Dalynn Montgomery" <dlaynn.montgomery@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:447cd03d$1_2@cnews...
>
> There are a LOT of scrapbookers who are misled (and perpetuate the
> misleading!) about image and print resolution.
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1790570,00.asp
>
>
> --
> Sally Beacham
> www.dizteq.com / www.lvsonline.com
> Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero
> Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
>
>
>
And it doesn't seem to matter when you tell them time and again and give
them examples/links/articles to try for themselves, they just don't want to
believe or try it out!! I think they are afraid of being yelled at or talked
down to in the forums, just like what happens when you mention that 200ppi
is more then enough and 300ppi for kits is overkill!!
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
"hå£ê¥" <trennemo@paulbunyan.net> wrote in message news:447cfd75_1@cnews...
>
> "Sally Beacham" <catintheh@t.com> wrote in message
> news:447cf4e4_3@cnews...
> And it doesn't seem to matter when you tell them time and again and give
> them examples/links/articles to try for themselves, they just don't want
> to believe or try it out!! I think they are afraid of being yelled at or
> talked down to in the forums, just like what happens when you mention that
> 200ppi is more then enough and 300ppi for kits is overkill!!
The designers don't want their competitors to be able to claim that their
images are "lower quality." It's that simple.
Anyone that's "talking down" about 200 ppi just plain doesn't know their
stuff. If they did, they'd be designing to make it EASIER for their
customer to produce a good result, not harder. It's not about making it
better for the customer, it's about continuing to put a few $$$ in their own
pocket.
Sounds familiar, huh?
--
Sally Beacham
www.dizteq.com / www.lvsonline.com
Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero
Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
| |
| Patricia 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
"Dalynn Montgomery" <dlaynn.montgomery@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:447cd03d$1_2@cnews...
>
> I don't need to change the resoloution to 72 ppi after all.
> Aparently several scrapbookers are misled in this notion. There are online
> scrapbookers websites that give directions to newbie digital scrappers
> telling them to be sure to change ppi to 72...lol.
>
> I even tested this(not that I didn't believe you...just had to prove it to
> myself I guess...lol).
> I took my psp file >resized to 600 x 600 pixels both with 250 ppi (I think
> earlier I said 300 ppi...but I'm actually doing 250..splitting the
> difference I suppose) and then by first changing the resolution to 72 ppi.
> On both files I did the jpeg optimizer and the produced files were
> exactly the same size! (so there is the 2nd unnecessary step I suppose).
> Sincerely,
> Dalynn
Don't worry Dalynn you're not the only one that thinks this way re
resolution. Like Tracey ["hå£ê¥"] I have been howled down in scrap forums
for suggesting one doesn't need to change to 72ppi or use 300ppi to do
layouts. Commonsense tells you this after do some tests. You can't go wrong
by listening to Sally. She set me straight when I first started last
year...Pat
| |
|
|
"Sally Beacham" <catintheh@t.com> wrote in message
news:447d019a$1_1@cnews...
>
> The designers don't want their competitors to be able to claim that their
> images are "lower quality." It's that simple.
>
> Anyone that's "talking down" about 200 ppi just plain doesn't know their
> stuff. If they did, they'd be designing to make it EASIER for their
> customer to produce a good result, not harder. It's not about making it
> better for the customer, it's about continuing to put a few $$$ in their
> own pocket.
>
> Sounds familiar, huh?
>
> --
> Sally Beacham
> www.dizteq.com / www.lvsonline.com
> Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero
> Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
>
Yeah but now days everyone is a designer ;o) and even the best of the best
designers are doing this and they are for the most part all creating at
300ppi!! Guess that is why I only create for myself now, I don't even do
freebies.
But because 72ppi is what is on almost every tut written for how to resize
for galleries and web...I think I am the only one with a tut for resizing
and leaving the darn 200ppi alone!! :) (Thanks to all of you PSP people, I
don't think anyone has ever explained this to the people using PS, they are
the toughest to convert!!) LOL
I have even had people question me on this tut and I said,,,,,,whatever read
it, try it and see that it works!
| |
|
| SuzShook wrote:
> Hi, Dalynn. I think you have a script that will work, but
> requires you to fill in the names for each of the three saves.
> There is actually a way to do this without having to fill in the
> names each time. I've attached a script that merely saves the
> image, first in PSP format, then twice as a JPEG file, after
> making the appropriate changes to the file and extracting the
> name of the PSP file from the image. All you have to do is fill
> in your path on line 14 of the script, and the name you want to
> give the PSP image on line 15 (WITHOUT the pspimage extension).
> The script will do the rest, silently, using the path and names
> you have chosen.
> This script has to run trusted, as it saves and closes files.
> Just another twist on the topic! Suz
Good twist, Suz. That was the direction I was vaguely thinking of,
but it was way too late in the evening for me to delve into the
exact coding.
But, and this is maybe an obvious remark, this code would
have to be edited for each different pspimage. I'm not sure many
scrappers are comfortable with editing a script.
And as the request is for ease of use, editing a script for each
session for a different pspimage is more work than saving once.
Also, I would guess that the jpeg saves would only be done from a
pspimage that is finished, so a script without the set name and path
seems more useful for any pspimage.
This is why I was going to think of a way to get the name and save
location for the jpegs from (or in any case after) saving the
pspimage.
If an initial save of the pspimage were to go interactively through
the save dialogue to set path and name, then the resulting jpg's
would also get the name (your FileName code can add WEB and PRNT to
it). Is there a way you can implement the path for the jpegs after
the pspimage save in your script?
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
| |
|
|
"hå£ê¥" <trennemo@paulbunyan.net> wrote in message
news:447d276c$1_3@cnews...
>
> "Sally Beacham" <catintheh@t.com> wrote in message
> news:447d019a$1_1@cnews...
>
> Yeah but now days everyone is a designer ;o) and even the best of the best
> designers are doing this and they are for the most part all creating at
> 300ppi!! Guess that is why I only create for myself now, I don't even do
> freebies.
> But because 72ppi is what is on almost every tut written for how to resize
> for galleries and web...I think I am the only one with a tut for resizing
> and leaving the darn 200ppi alone!! :) (Thanks to all of you PSP people, I
> don't think anyone has ever explained this to the people using PS, they
> are the toughest to convert!!) LOL
> I have even had people question me on this tut and I said,,,,,,whatever
> read it, try it and see that it works!
Ps says its got to be 72 If I remember corectly.
| |
| Patricia 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
>
> Yeah but now days everyone is a designer ;o) and even the best of the best
> designers are doing this and they are for the most part all creating at
> 300ppi!! Guess that is why I only create for myself now, I don't even do
> freebies.
> But because 72ppi is what is on almost every tut written for how to resize
> for galleries and web...I think I am the only one with a tut for resizing
> and leaving the darn 200ppi alone!! :) (Thanks to all of you PSP people, I
> don't think anyone has ever explained this to the people using PS, they
> are the toughest to convert!!) LOL
> I have even had people question me on this tut and I said,,,,,,whatever
> read it, try it and see that it works!
>
Hi Tracey, I'm like you now, won't contribute to freebie kits elsewhere as
they stimulate you MUST work at 300ppi and I won't. I also save my web
images at 200ppi and have tried to pass this on but get the same result as
you. Can't see us ever winning...Pat
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| underprocessable | |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| Just realized the two JPEG saves are reversed in the first script I posted.
I just reworked the script and posted it as ss-SavingImages2. This reworked
script uses a different approach. If anyone wants the first script I
posted, I will correct it, but that script entails script editing each time
it's needed, so I think the second script is the way to go. Let me know if
you need the first script. Suz
SuzShook wrote:[color=darkred]
> Hi, Dalynn. I think you have a script that will work, but requires
> you to fill in the names for each of the three saves. There is
> actually a way to do this without having to fill in the names each
> time. I've attached a script that merely saves the image, first in
> PSP format, then twice as a JPEG file, after making the appropriate
> changes to the file and extracting the name of the PSP file from the
> image. All you have to do is fill in your path on line 14 of the
> script, and the name you want to give the PSP image on line 15
> (WITHOUT the pspimage extension). The script will do the rest,
> silently, using the path and names you have chosen.
> This script has to run trusted, as it saves and closes files.
>
> Just another twist on the topic! Suz
>
>
> Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
| |
|
|
"Patricia" <wattspatara@NOSPAMXXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:447d68b4$1_2@cnews...
>
>
> Hi Tracey, I'm like you now, won't contribute to freebie kits elsewhere as
> they stimulate you MUST work at 300ppi and I won't. I also save my web
> images at 200ppi and have tried to pass this on but get the same result as
> you. Can't see us ever winning...Pat
Hi Patricia,
Yes it is amazing how P** headed they all are! I was stubborn also when I
first started asking about this, but not because I "KNEW" how it worked. I
was confused, I never claimed that I thought 72ppi was the only way to go
and that it was the correct way. These people talk about 72 vs. 300 like
they know something we don't!!
But in actuality it is the total opposite. lol
Trev, while doing some searching the net I found a article about ps or pse
(don't remember now) apparently PS has a option in the file menu that makes
the user just click on button and it supposedly optimizes the image. But
this article talked about how the actual settings that the user sees is
actually PS lying (72ppi) to them. I believe I posted this in the PS forums
at SBB but I can't find the old thread anymore. I had one gal try it and she
got what it was I was trying to say to her. But whether or not she went back
to the old way and beliving PS's number or not I don't have a clue.
| |
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| Hi Suz,
It worked great! I love it! Thank you so much.
I'm really, really amazed how helpful everyone has been here!
Right before I stumbled across this newsgroup (correct term?) I noticed
that sometimes people have paypal accounts for donations and such for
the scripts they produce. Do you have such a thing? -
My other question is what is the protocol for my 'sharing' this script
with other scrappers? -Sorry if I'm asking a big no-no...I honestly
don't know what the protocol is for scripts. Are you okay with me
sharing so long as I give you credit...or do you have a website where I
could send people to get this script?
I'm new to the corel.scrapbooking group too and some of them seemed
excited at the idea of this script.
Thank you so much!
Dalynn
SuzShook wrote:
> Good suggestion, Joske - and it's all possible. Here's a new version of the
> Save script that does just that. This version does the following:
> 1. Saves the image in PSP format, interactively, so the user chooses
> both the name and location for the save.
> 2. Extracts the file name, including path name, from the PSP file, and
> uses that information in the next two saves.
> 3. Applies Unsharp Mask - per Spandex Rutabaga's recommendations -
> after 600x600 pixel Resize step.
> 4. "Undoes" the Unsharp Mask and Resize steps before the 10x12
> CanvasResize step to preserve original image integrity.
> 5. Closes PSP file without saving at end of script.
>
> Again, script must run from the Trusted folder as it saves and closes files.
> I think this one will do the trick for you, Dalynn. There is no script
> editing needed, as you choose the path and file name for the PSP save which
> is interactive, and the script extracts that information from your original
> saved PSP image. Let me know if you need further changes! Suz
| |
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> Well, I'm a vegetable so I'm a slow learner.
lol....I don't quite know what to make of that...lol,
but I think there is a joke in there somewhere?
What exactly is a spandex rutabaga anyway? :-)
(Thanks again for all your help! I've been trying to decide if I want to
go on the message boards and try to 'prove' to other scrappers the ppi
thing! I probably won't...sounds like more worthy warriors than me have
tried and tried and failed...lol.
| |
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| I tried the script again and just realized that the jpeg optimizer is
'activated' before the layers are merged...so it's really only
optimising the active layer.
If you don't want to fiddle with this script anymore...I guess I could
just merge my layers before using the script?
Thanks,
Dalynn
SuzShook wrote:
> Good suggestion, Joske - and it's all possible. Here's a new version of the
> Save script that does just that. This version does the following:
> 1. Saves the image in PSP format, interactively, so the user chooses
> both the name and location for the save.
> 2. Extracts the file name, including path name, from the PSP file, and
> uses that information in the next two saves.
> 3. Applies Unsharp Mask - per Spandex Rutabaga's recommendations -
> after 600x600 pixel Resize step.
> 4. "Undoes" the Unsharp Mask and Resize steps before the 10x12
> CanvasResize step to preserve original image integrity.
> 5. Closes PSP file without saving at end of script.
>
> Again, script must run from the Trusted folder as it saves and closes files.
> I think this one will do the trick for you, Dalynn. There is no script
> editing needed, as you choose the path and file name for the PSP save which
> is interactive, and the script extracts that information from your original
> saved PSP image. Let me know if you need further changes! Suz
| |
|
| "SuzShook" <suzshook@adelphia.net> wrote in news:447d8b36_2
@cnews:
> Good suggestion, Joske - and it's all possible. Here's a new
version
> of the Save script that does just that. This version does the
> following:
> 1. Saves the image in PSP format, interactively, so the
user
> chooses
> both the name and location for the save.
> 2. Extracts the file name, including path name, from the
PSP
> file, and
> uses that information in the next two saves.
> 3. Applies Unsharp Mask - per Spandex Rutabaga's
recommendations
> -
> after 600x600 pixel Resize step.
> 4. "Undoes" the Unsharp Mask and Resize steps before the
10x12
> CanvasResize step to preserve original image integrity.
> 5. Closes PSP file without saving at end of script.
>
> Again, script must run from the Trusted folder as it saves and
closes
> files. I think this one will do the trick for you, Dalynn.
There is
> no script editing needed, as you choose the path and file name
for the
> PSP save which is interactive, and the script extracts that
> information from your original saved PSP image. Let me know
if you
> need further changes! Suz
As I've been fooling around with this thing I tried your script
and, not surprisingly, it's a better one than mine for sure!
It's nice to have you're as I can learn from it - I don't really
know how to code them so have to record and then make what minor
edits I'm capable of.
I noticed one thing that's different, in that you made the Print
jpg 12 inches wide and I made it 12 inches high. Is that just a
matter of different minds thinking differently, or is the
landscape layout better for scrappers?
Somebody (Sally, I think) pointed out something in the Scrapbook
forum that I never thought of either. As the Print jpg is done
just so the white can be cut off, perhaps one should just make
the 12 inch jpg with a 2 inch white border at top or bottom (or
one side in landscape) rather than 1 inch on each side so only
one cutting operation is needed.
Regards,
JoeB
| |
|
|
"Dalynn Montgomery" <dlaynn.montgomery@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:447dd302$1_1@cnews...
>I tried the script again and just realized that the jpeg optimizer is
>'activated' before the layers are merged...so it's really only optimising
>the active layer.
>
No It will flatten the image to one layer. as in any jpeg but the optimizer
allows you to try different compression, and see there effect on the image.
As in balance the lose of quality by compressing to the file size
[color=darkred]
> If you don't want to fiddle with this script anymore...I guess I could
> just merge my layers before using the script?
> Thanks,
> Dalynn
>
> SuzShook wrote:
| |
|
| "SuzShook" <suzshook@adelphia.net> wrote in news:447d8b36_2
@cnews:
> Good suggestion, Joske - and it's all possible. Here's a new
version
> of the Save script that does just that. This version does the
> following:
> 1. Saves the image in PSP format, interactively, so the
user
> chooses
> both the name and location for the save.
> 2. Extracts the file name, including path name, from the
PSP
> file, and
> uses that information in the next two saves.
> 3. Applies Unsharp Mask - per Spandex Rutabaga's
recommendations
> -
> after 600x600 pixel Resize step.
> 4. "Undoes" the Unsharp Mask and Resize steps before the
10x12
> CanvasResize step to preserve original image integrity.
> 5. Closes PSP file without saving at end of script.
>
> Again, script must run from the Trusted folder as it saves and
closes
> files. I think this one will do the trick for you, Dalynn.
There is
> no script editing needed, as you choose the path and file name
for the
> PSP save which is interactive, and the script extracts that
> information from your original saved PSP image. Let me know
if you
> need further changes! Suz
I'm not Dalynn, and as I said in another post the script works
well, as advertised and expected. However, I just realized that,
if one wants to have control over the compression/file size ratio
the jpg optimizer has to be run interactively. But if it is run
interactively the file name and path commands don't work. i.e.,
my optimizer defaults to its last save path, not to the save path
of the pspimage, and the PRNT and WEB don't get added to the file
names.
Is there a workaround for that, or is one stuck with it because
of default preferences in the optimizer?
Regards,
JoeB
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| Hi, Dalynn. I don't charge for my scripts. I enjoy creating them, and the
gratitude of users is payment enough for me. As for sharing this script, I
will eventually post it on my site with my other scripts. However, I need
to make a few simple changes. For one thing, as Joe noted, I made the final
print version 12 x 10 rather than 10 x 12. Do you want the print image 10
inches wide or 10 inches in height, or does it matter? Let me know and I'll
make that change and post a final version. I usually prefer to have users
obtain my scripts from my site, but I won't get this one up for a while, so
you can go ahead and share it with your scrapper buddies - once I post the
next version. Let me know about the dimensions, Dalynn. Suz
Dalynn Montgomery wrote:[color=darkred]
> Hi Suz,
> It worked great! I love it! Thank you so much.
> I'm really, really amazed how helpful everyone has been here!
>
> Right before I stumbled across this newsgroup (correct term?) I
> noticed that sometimes people have paypal accounts for donations and
> such for the scripts they produce. Do you have such a thing? -
>
> My other question is what is the protocol for my 'sharing' this script
> with other scrappers? -Sorry if I'm asking a big no-no...I honestly
> don't know what the protocol is for scripts. Are you okay with me
> sharing so long as I give you credit...or do you have a website where
> I could send people to get this script?
>
> I'm new to the corel.scrapbooking group too and some of them seemed
> excited at the idea of this script.
>
> Thank you so much!
> Dalynn
>
>
>
> SuzShook wrote:
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
JoeB wrote:
> "SuzShook" <suzshook@adelphia.net> wrote in news:447d8b36_2
> @cnews:
>
>
> I'm not Dalynn, and as I said in another post the script works
> well, as advertised and expected. However, I just realized that,
> if one wants to have control over the compression/file size ratio
> the jpg optimizer has to be run interactively. But if it is run
> interactively the file name and path commands don't work. i.e.,
> my optimizer defaults to its last save path, not to the save path
> of the pspimage, and the PRNT and WEB don't get added to the file
> names.
>
> Is there a workaround for that, or is one stuck with it because
> of default preferences in the optimizer?
>
> Regards,
>
> JoeB
You're right, Joe. If you want optimizer control, the steps have to be
changed to interactive, and you lose the location/name parameters. Why PSP
ignores these parameters in scripts is beyond me. I've posted the question
to Corel - perhaps there's a logical explanation, but I rather think it
might be arbitrary, as when and why scripts take defaults is a crap shoot,
as far as I can see. I've never seen any logic in the way parameters are
used or ignored. Will let you know if I hear anything pertinent. Suz
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
JoeB wrote:
> "SuzShook" <suzshook@adelphia.net> wrote in news:447d8b36_2
> @cnews:
>
>
> As I've been fooling around with this thing I tried your script
> and, not surprisingly, it's a better one than mine for sure!
> It's nice to have you're as I can learn from it - I don't really
> know how to code them so have to record and then make what minor
> edits I'm capable of.
>
> I noticed one thing that's different, in that you made the Print
> jpg 12 inches wide and I made it 12 inches high. Is that just a
> matter of different minds thinking differently, or is the
> landscape layout better for scrappers?
I didn't even notice that, Joe. I'm not sure it matters, but I'm not a
scrapper, so will need feedback from them. I posted about this to Dalynn -
perhaps she has a preference. Because the starting image is square, it
probably doesn't matter. Suz
>
> Somebody (Sally, I think) pointed out something in the Scrapbook
> forum that I never thought of either. As the Print jpg is done
> just so the white can be cut off, perhaps one should just make
> the 12 inch jpg with a 2 inch white border at top or bottom (or
> one side in landscape) rather than 1 inch on each side so only
> one cutting operation is needed.
>
> Regards,
>
> JoeB
| |
|
| "SuzShook" <suzshook@adelphia.net> wrote in news:447df4a7$1_1
@cnews:
>
>
> JoeB wrote:
does[color=darkred]
user[color=darkred]
PSP[color=darkred]
10x12[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
Dalynn.[color=darkred]
file[color=darkred]
extracts[color=darkred]
know[color=darkred]
that,[color=darkred]
ratio[color=darkred]
run[color=darkred]
i.e.,[color=darkred]
path[color=darkred]
file[color=darkred]
because[color=darkred]
>
> You're right, Joe. If you want optimizer control, the steps
have to
> be changed to interactive, and you lose the location/name
parameters.
> Why PSP ignores these parameters in scripts is beyond me. I've
posted
> the question to Corel - perhaps there's a logical explanation,
but I
> rather think it might be arbitrary, as when and why scripts
take
> defaults is a crap shoot, as far as I can see. I've never seen
any
> logic in the way parameters are used or ignored. Will let you
know if
> I hear anything pertinent. Suz
>
Thanks for the info. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't me doing
something wrong. And I appreciate having that code snippet in
your script for the file name/path, which would certainly be
useful if doing multiple saves of different sizes in non-lossless
formats.
Regards,
JoeB
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:26:43 -0500, Dalynn Montgomery
<dlaynn.montgomery@verizon.net> wrote:
>Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
>
>
>lol....I don't quite know what to make of that...lol,
>but I think there is a joke in there somewhere?
>
>What exactly is a spandex rutabaga anyway? :-)
>
>(Thanks again for all your help! I've been trying to decide if I want to
>go on the message boards and try to 'prove' to other scrappers the ppi
>thing! I probably won't...sounds like more worthy warriors than me have
>tried and tried and failed...lol.
Don't worry about the battle - do what YOU want to do, and you win the
war.
The only people that the battle REALLY matters to are the designers
who sell products at that resolution, and the customers who allow
themselves to be dependent on it (and the designers.) You seem like a
smart enough gal to roll your own, so to speak.
Sally Beacham
| |
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| I noticed the size change...but didn't mention it because I didn't want
to 'be a pain'...lol. I do prefer to have a 10inch width and a 12 inch
height to my canvas. I know there has been talk of just making the 2
inches on one side of the canvas, but I like having 1 inch on the top
and the bottom.-Like you did it. (Sam's photo lab is a bit sloppy
sometimes and I prefer to not take chances. I endure this inconvenience
of having to make two trims with my paper cutter because their prices
are inexpensive :-)
Can you tell me your website address so I can send interested PSP
scrappers your way when you post it?
Thanks so much,
Dalynn
SuzShook wrote:
> Hi, Dalynn. I don't charge for my scripts. I enjoy creating them, and the
> gratitude of users is payment enough for me. As for sharing this script, I
> will eventually post it on my site with my other scripts. However, I need
> to make a few simple changes. For one thing, as Joe noted, I made the final
> print version 12 x 10 rather than 10 x 12. Do you want the print image 10
> inches wide or 10 inches in height, or does it matter? Let me know and I'll
> make that change and post a final version. I usually prefer to have users
> obtain my scripts from my site, but I won't get this one up for a while, so
> you can go ahead and share it with your scrapper buddies - once I post the
> next version. Let me know about the dimensions, Dalynn. Suz
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:21:45 -0500, "hå£ê¥" <trennemo@paulbunyan.net>
wrote:
>
>Yeah but now days everyone is a designer ;o)
No, everyone and their brother hangs a tag out that says they are a
designer. I could call myself a physicist but that doesn't mean I know
very much about physics. ;-))))
>and even the best of the best
>designers are doing this
Nope, the best of the best aren't doing it. The best of the best ist
defined (in my book anyway) as a designer who can create an excellent
image that is usable by all customers - and that means thinking about
the best way for those customers to use their product. If you define
"best" as those designers who are blindly following some design
"standard" created by a few people who frankly didn't know any better
at the time (and will freely admit it now!) - then I guess they're
pretty garn good! ;-)))
>and they are for the most part all creating at
>300ppi!! Guess that is why I only create for myself now, I don't even do
>freebies.
;-)))))) See? You're your best customer.
>But because 72ppi is what is on almost every tut written for how to resize
>for galleries and web...I think I am the only one with a tut for resizing
>and leaving the darn 200ppi alone!! :) (Thanks to all of you PSP people, I
>don't think anyone has ever explained this to the people using PS, they are
>the toughest to convert!!) LOL
A closed mind is an open book. I read them all the time.
>I have even had people question me on this tut and I said,,,,,,whatever read
>it, try it and see that it works!
There you go.
Sally Beacham
>
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| underprocessable | |
| Sally Beacham 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:59:52 +1000, "Patricia"
<wattspatara@NOSPAMXXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
>
>Hi Tracey, I'm like you now, won't contribute to freebie kits elsewhere as
>they stimulate you MUST work at 300ppi and I won't. I also save my web
>images at 200ppi and have tried to pass this on but get the same result as
>you. Can't see us ever winning...Pat
All it takes is enough customers asking for 200 ppi. The problem is -
if you are smart enough to know that 200 ppi is all you need, you are
smart enough to make your own graphics, so you don't need the design
kits anyway. Ain't that the beauty of it - you are smarter than the
average bear AND you save money, too. (And that's the bad news to the
designers who AREN'T smarter than the average bear, and don't get your
money, either. ;-)))))
Sally Beacham
>
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:00:08 -0400, "SuzShook" <suzshook@adelphia.net>
wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>I didn't even notice that, Joe. I'm not sure it matters, but I'm not a
>scrapper, so will need feedback from them. I posted about this to Dalynn -
>perhaps she has a preference. Because the starting image is square, it
>probably doesn't matter. Suz
I think Dalynn preferred two borders, because her photo finisher
occasionally cuts off the layout on the "clean" edge.
I'm gonna steer that gal to printing at home, Sam's seems to be doing
a number on her prints! ;-))))) Print Layout never gives me this
kind of back-talk!
Sally Beacham
| |
|
| JoeB wrote:
> "SuzShook"wrote
[color=darkred]
> As I've been fooling around with this thing I tried your script
> and, not surprisingly, it's a better one than mine for sure!
> It's nice to have you're as I can learn from it - I don't really
> know how to code them so have to record and then make
> what minor edits I'm capable of.
You could consider becoming a C-Tech, Joe? They can forward our
questions in these groups to a special group or to C staff directly,
and receive answers they can then relay back to us. Especially for
scripting this would be an advantage, as there is very little of the
more detailed possibilities for PSP out there - I know I have found
myself painstakingly searching for clues in Python groups that
aren't even PSP specific. A C-Tech on the other hand can tap into
the knowledge of the programmers at C by showing our messages.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
| |
| Dalynn Montgomery 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| SuzShook wrote:
> Here's the final version of the script, Dalynn - with the width of 10 and a
> height of 12! My site address is:
> http://users.adelphia.net/~suzshook/index.htm
> Suz
Thank you, thank you so much!
Sending cyber brownies to you as I type!
Dalynn
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| Ooo, I love brownies - and Cadbury mini-eggs, too (the ones with the
delicate eggshell coatings!!!)! Suz
Dalynn Montgomery wrote:
> SuzShook wrote:
>
> Thank you, thank you so much!
> Sending cyber brownies to you as I type!
> Dalynn
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:447dffff$1_3@cnews...
> JoeB wrote:
>
>
>
> You could consider becoming a C-Tech, Joe? They can forward our
> questions in these groups to a special group or to C staff directly,
> and receive answers they can then relay back to us.
Not as much or as easily as you might think. Sadly.
--
Sally Beacham
www.dizteq.com / www.lvsonline.com
Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero
Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
| |
|
| Amen!! LoL
"Sally Beacham" <silly@sally.com> wrote in message
news:hf0s72pjtfcltbefiq2h9l4l4per7l59qu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:00:08 -0400, "SuzShook" <suzshook@adelphia.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think Dalynn preferred two borders, because her photo finisher
> occasionally cuts off the layout on the "clean" edge.
>
> I'm gonna steer that gal to printing at home, Sam's seems to be doing
> a number on her prints! ;-))))) Print Layout never gives me this
> kind of back-talk!
>
> Sally Beacham
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| SuzShook wrote:
>
> Good suggestion, Joske - and it's all possible. Here's a new version of the
> Save script that does just that. This version does the following:
> 1. Saves the image in PSP format, interactively, so the user chooses
> both the name and location for the save.
> 2. Extracts the file name, including path name, from the PSP file, and
> uses that information in the next two saves.
> 3. Applies Unsharp Mask - per Spandex Rutabaga's recommendations -
> after 600x600 pixel Resize step.
> 4. "Undoes" the Unsharp Mask and Resize steps before the 10x12
> CanvasResize step to preserve original image integrity.
What happens if they've switched the Undo off or have it set at
only one step? (I admit this is a low probability situation :)
> 5. Closes PSP file without saving at end of script.
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
Spandex Rutabaga wrote:[color=darkred]
> SuzShook wrote:
>
> What happens if they've switched the Undo off or have it set at
> only one step? (I admit this is a low probability situation :)
>
Interesting question. With Undo off, script will fail - I'll have to add a
warning about that in the ReadMe file. With Undo set to 1 step, the script
still runs to completion, even though there are two UNDOs. Strange.....
Suz
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
| SuzShook wrote:
> With Undo set to 1 step, the script
> still runs to completion, even though there are two UNDOs. Strange.....
Might be related to undo optimization.
| |
| SuzShook 2006-06-03, 7:29 pm |
|
Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> SuzShook wrote:
>
>
> Might be related to undo optimization.
I've taken the EnableOptimizedScriptUndo step out of the script - can't
insert any UNDOs if that step is in there - and tried it with number of
UNDOs set to 1 in Preferences, and the script will do as many UNDOs as are
inserted in the script - no problem. Of course, if the Undo system is
disabled, the script fails, but it does not respect the number of UNDOs set
in Preferences at all. Another example of where scripts don't follow all
the same rules as PSP. Very frustrating for scripters to figure out what's
happening at times. Suz
| |
|
| "SuzShook" <suzshook@adelphia.net> wrote in news:447eddb7$1_1
@cnews:
>
>
> Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
does[color=darkred]
user[color=darkred]
PSP[color=darkred]
10x12[color=darkred]
at[color=darkred]
>
> Interesting question. With Undo off, script will fail - I'll
have to
> add a warning about that in the ReadMe file. With Undo set to
1 step,
> the script still runs to completion, even though there are two
UNDOs.
> Strange..... Suz
>
I agree with Spandex that the situation of having Undo turned off
is unlikely in the extreme for anyone serious enough with the
program to be using scripts like this.
When I did my script, I did the 10x12 enlargement first so there
was no USM at that stage. And (just 'cause I didn't think of it
at the time) I didn't use Undo to remove the white borders again
but simply did another canvas resize back to 10x10 subtracting
the top and bottom. My last step was the 600x600 with USM and
saving that. At the end of the script I do have undos to restore
the original image, but if the script failed at that stage it
wouldn't really matter because all of the images have been saved.
Regards,
JoeB
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2009 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|