# Can't get transform to work



## PC person (Feb 2, 2006)

First of all, I'm trying to see if there's anything I can do if I enlarge an image in photoshop (and it becomes all distorted/pixelated) to make it look better.

For some reason I can't transform-scale a 1.53KB image to a larger size in photoshop, the background is grey, I know the checkerboard pattern means there's no other information with it, not sure what a light grey canvas means. 

Nothing happens when I to select-all, the select-transform selection, and edit transform scale, click the chain next to the percentage of width and height, and change them both to 400% or it's current size, then either press enter or click the checkmark.


----------



## ebackhus (Apr 21, 2005)

Instead of using that you can directly alter the images dimensions with Image->image size... There you can resize using three types of inputs and tell it how to resample the image since it'll be fuzzy.


----------



## PC person (Feb 2, 2006)

ebackhus said:


> Instead of using that you can directly alter the images dimensions with Image->image size... There you can resize using three types of inputs and tell it how to resample the image since it'll be fuzzy.


Ok, but why isn't transform scale working? I haven't quite mastered tweaking the image size yet, I'd have to know what I don't like about my pictures and how to fix the problem. 

I have digital camera too, an Olympus C765UZ. I have to take lots of pictures and make adjustments until I get one I'm satisfied with. True, I have lots more control having the ability to change settings, like aperture/shutter, etc, but I think I'd rather have a camera that would adjust those things for me to get an optimal picture. Which is my opinion is one with perfect light, in focus, and clear. I'm going to have to learn more, as this camera was 300 something dollars, and I have to make the most of it.

Here's the one picture I've taken with it that I'm the most satisfied with

http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l13/thesnare/?action=view&current=bestpic.jpg

Just look how clear and crisp and in-focus the text is, and the lighting on the plastic wrapper, whereas a picture like this I hate 

http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l13/thesnare/?action=view&current=badpic.jpg


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

Post the 1.53kb picture so we can see the dimensions, what format it is and what could be preventing Photoshop from scaling it.


----------



## PC person (Feb 2, 2006)

koala said:


> Post the 1.53kb picture so we can see the dimensions, what format it is and what could be preventing Photoshop from scaling it.


Ok


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

The grey background you're seeing in Photoshop is the window area, not part of the image.

Select All > Transform won't work because you're enlarging the image beyond the canvas size (85x85 pixels in this case).

You could enlarge the canvas to 340x340 and then transform. Or even easier, don't select anything, just go to Image > Image Size, tick the Constrain Proportions box and set the width to 400%.
















JPG enlarged 400% at 10% compression, 5kb


----------



## PC person (Feb 2, 2006)

this picture is definitely bigger, just not as good quality as the smaller one. Can I fix it to look decent and print on an 8 1/2 by 11 inch (21.590 cm by 27.940cm) piece of paper without making it a gigantic file size?


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

You'd be better off finding a larger picture to work with. The detail you see in a small 85 x 85 image becomes pixellated when you enlarge it. Photoshop can smooth out the jaggies to a certain extent, but you won't get a good result without a decent original image.

This image is 320 x 289 pixels (24kb). Enlarged 200% it is 638 x 576 (21.59 x 19.5cm, 65kb) and you can still see the detail clearly because of the quality of the original image.



















The small picture you posted would need to enlarged by 720% to fit on a 21.59 x 21.59 piece of paper. Even saved without any JPG compression, this is what you get (88kb)...


----------



## v-six (Sep 12, 2004)

PC PERSON said:


> Can I fix it to look decent and print on an 8 1/2 by 11 inch (21.590 cm by 27.940cm) piece of paper without making it a gigantic file size?


To make this look decent in print, you'll need a better quality original. Keep in mind that the dpi of an image for print should be atleast 3x greater than the on-screen version, meaning a 3 inch by 3 inch image on screen will look of equal quality printed 1 x 1... Screen resolution is 72 dpi, good resolution in print is 250 dpi, and optimal is 300. There's no way to interpolate something that small up to the quality it needs to be without an image restoration specialist and a lot of time.


----------



## PC person (Feb 2, 2006)

> You'd be better off finding a larger picture to work with. The detail you see in a small 85 x 85 image becomes pixellated when you enlarge it. Photoshop can smooth out the jaggies to a certain extent, but you won't get a good result without a decent original image.


Ok, guess I'm out of luck then, but thanks anyway. What could the creator of that image have done so that it would look decent on an 8 1/2 by 11 inch piece of paper?



> This image is 320 x 289 pixels (24kb). Enlarged 200% it is 638 x 576 (21.59 x 19.5cm, 65kb) and you can still see the detail clearly because of the quality of the original image.


I see you know what oddworld is too :smile: 





> The small picture you posted would need to enlarged by 720% to fit on a 21.59 x 21.59 piece of paper. Even saved without any JPG compression, this is what you get (88kb)...


Would it be possible to change the pic to make it to be composed of more pixels? So, it would look decent, even it's just a picture, and not something you would print (and it would have a huge filesize)


----------



## v-six (Sep 12, 2004)

PC person said:


> Would it be possible to change the pic to make it to be composed of more pixels? So, it would look decent, even it's just a picture, and not something you would print (and it would have a huge filesize)


It's called interpolation. That's exactly what happens when you increase the image size of an image. Unfortunately, there's no way to magically do this without losing image quality. You may get slightly better results increasing the image size several times at smaller incriments.


----------



## PC person (Feb 2, 2006)

v-six said:


> It's called interpolation. That's exactly what happens when you increase the image size of an image. Unfortunately, there's no way to magically do this without losing image quality. You may get slightly better results increasing the image size several times at smaller incriments.


Ok, why is image quality lost though? I understand I can't fix it now, just curious as to why it degrades as you enlarge it. I thought simply adding more pixels per inch would fix the problem, and it would be a higher file size, but I guess that doesn't work either for some reason.


----------



## v-six (Sep 12, 2004)

PC person said:


> Ok, why is image quality lost though? I understand I can't fix it now, just curious as to why it degrades as you enlarge it. I thought simply adding more pixels per inch would fix the problem, and it would be a higher file size, but I guess that doesn't work either for some reason.


When you interpolate an image, the software is called upon to fill in the new pixels as well as it can.

For instance, If you had a small picture of Robert De Niro and make it ten times larger, Photoshop would have to take his mole which would be a tiny speck, and resize it ten times larger. The software isn't human. It's never seen Robert De Niro before, or his mole. It has to calculate exactly what to do with all of the extra pixels. Until some genius writes some code to recognize Robert De Niro, we're out of luck. 

In your case, the image is a JPG. This is a lossy file format, meaning that information in the image has already been lost, and much of it has been blurred. It looks decent on screen in a small image, but blow it up and you will see all of the lossy fuzz.


----------

