Cut vs crop.

Is it better to cut and paste into a new image,
than crop and save to a new image.

On Mar 22, 3:28 pm, irwell wrote:
Is it better to cut and paste into a new image,
than crop and save to a new image.

I don't know what program you are using but in Photoshop Elements it
is much easier to just crop, doing that you can constrain the image
size to say something like 3x2. You can also setup the resolution
when you crop, resizing at the same time you crop. As an example you
can crop and have the resulting image be 4 x 6 inches at 300 ppi,
which can be pretty handy.

Scott

On Mar 22, 6:28 pm, irwell wrote:
Is it better to cut and paste into a new image,
than crop and save to a new image.

I say stay away from cut and paste. You never know what could happen
to the image during cut and paste (which takes place outside the photo
editing program).

On Mar 23, 2:00 am, "Bucky" wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:28 pm, irwell wrote:

Is it better to cut and paste into a new image,
than crop and save to a new image.

I say stay away from cut and paste. You never know what could happen
to the image during cut and paste (which takes place outside the photo
editing program).

Depends on the editing program. Both PSP and Photoshop both paste
from within the program. Original is not altered unless you save the
original file with some editing on it.

Still, I also recommend using the crop function if that is all you are
doing. Save cut or copy and paste for more complicated work.

On 23 Mar 2007 06:31:04 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
wrote:

On Mar 23, 2:00 am, "Bucky" wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:28 pm, irwell wrote:

Is it better to cut and paste into a new image,
than crop and save to a new image.

I say stay away from cut and paste. You never know what could happen
to the image during cut and paste (which takes place outside the photo
editing program).

Depends on the editing program. Both PSP and Photoshop both paste
from within the program. Original is not altered unless you save the
original file with some editing on it.

Still, I also recommend using the crop function if that is all you are
doing. Save cut or copy and paste for more complicated work.

On Irfanview there is a function, 'Cut and leave Selection'
this seems pretty handy as the resolution stays the same,
whereas with using Crop, the cropped area pixels seem larger and
blockier.

irwell wrote in
:

On 23 Mar 2007 06:31:04 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
wrote:

On Mar 23, 2:00 am, "Bucky" wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:28 pm, irwell wrote:

Is it better to cut and paste into a new image,
than crop and save to a new image.

I say stay away from cut and paste. You never know what could
happen to the image during cut and paste (which takes place
outside the photo editing program).

Depends on the editing program. Both PSP and Photoshop both
paste from within the program. Original is not altered unless
you save the original file with some editing on it.

Still, I also recommend using the crop function if that is all
you are doing. Save cut or copy and paste for more complicated
work.

On Irfanview there is a function, 'Cut and leave Selection'

Er, isn't that usually called "Copy"?

--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."

Terry Austin

On Mar 23, 8:15 am, irwell wrote:
whereas with using Crop, the cropped area pixels seem larger and
blockier.

huh? that doesn't sound right. maybe you have "fit to screen", and the
image resolution is smaller than screen resolution, and you don't have
resample mode selected. cropping does not make anything "blockier".
choose the "1:1" view mode.

On 24 Mar 2007 02:02:06 -0700, Bucky wrote:

whereas with using Crop, the cropped area pixels seem larger and
blockier.

huh? that doesn't sound right. maybe you have "fit to screen", and the
image resolution is smaller than screen resolution, and you don't have
resample mode selected. cropping does not make anything "blockier".
choose the "1:1" view mode.

Whether either of the "fit to screen" options are enabled or both
are disabled, I've noticed something similar that only happens when
the resampling display option is enabled in Irfanview. If a very
small image is increased or decreased in size using the '+' or '-'
keys (for my current Irfanview configuration), the image's pixels
will be clearly defined. If the 'F' key is pressed to zoom the tiny
image to Full Screen size, the image's pixels are nicely blurred. I
noticed this when looking at very small images of Saturn.
Maximizing the size by typing 'F' produced a clearly defined oval
shape, but following that by slightly reducing the size by typing
'-' once or twice changed the smooth oval into a nearly
unrecognizable object made up of big, square pixels. Typing 'F'
once more produced the smooth, more recognizable object, so typing
'F' triggers resampling, I guess. Another way to 'smooth' the
pixels is to pop up the 'Resize/Resample Image" form, make sure that
"Resample (better quality)" is enabled, and also enable the 'Best
fit to desktop' option. This option doesn't stick, so it has to be
frequently reapplied. But when it is enabled, resampling appears to
also take place even when the '+' and '-' keys are typed.

On Mar 23, 9:15 am, irwell wrote:

On Irfanview there is a function, 'Cut and leave Selection'
this seems pretty handy as the resolution stays the same,
whereas with using Crop, the cropped area pixels seem larger and
blockier.


With ANY photo editor, cropping always DOES reduce resolution, i.e.,
the number of pixels in the cropped image. It HAS to. Now, you may be
able to upsample to a degree, depending on how good the upsampling
algortithms of the editor are. But there is no way to cut an area
from an image and have the pasted image have the same NATIVE number of
pixels of the original whole image.