Hello guys, I am trying to cut an image so it will be in a specific demension, For example, if the image is 1920:1020, i would like it to be 1920:800. I tried to achieved my desired demension by cutting the image with mspaint, and i found out that i can't cut the image from top, only from the bottom. So i came to the conclusion i need some advanced program to achive what i want. I looked over the internet and cound not find a tool that fits to me, Do you have some recommands? Thanks!
Possibly because it costs a lot and is designed primarily for print. Gimp is written from the ground up for imaging on a monitor. Another choice is ImageMagick, a command-line suite of tools. The latter is my preference for most things. For example, from the command line: $ convert orig.jpg -crop 1920x800+0+110 +repage cropped.jpg Code (markup): In other words, crop to 1920x800 with the crop being offset 110px down from the top. cheers, gary
A good middle-ground between the free and ridiculously overpriced paid tools is "Paint Shop Pro" from Corel. Does most of what Photoshop can do, works with a lot of the same filter plugins, and is a fraction the price. I like it for the save-time optimizer which is one of the better ones out there; Adobe wouldn't know file optimization from the hole in their product DVD's. Though my preferred version is the old JASC Paint Shop Pro Version 7 from long before Corel bought it as it's leaner, faster, and does everything I need an image software to do. But there are lots of good free or cheap tools to do this with. I suggest trying as many as you can and picking the one that best fits you.
Why would you think that? Have you compared that expensive, print oriented bloatware (at least for web development) to The GIMP (web oriented and free), or Paint Shop [Pro], (fully as functional as PS, and moderately priced), or, as I like, ImageMagick (extremely high level image math and free). It may well be that PS meets your needs, but you give no evidence to support your assertion. At least tell us why you think PS is best and why we "… must use this utility." If you can't, you're doing nothing more than waving your hands about. cheers, gary
Damn Gary, I think you're ALMOST as sensitive to "me too" posts as I am. Saved me the effort... as I go and make a "me too" post. I think what rubs me about posts like that is it was already mentioned, and really at this point if you haven't heard of Photoshop you must have been living under a rock for a decade and half. Sadly, I rarely hear any legitimate reasons as to why it's better -- it's just common and "what everyone else uses". Seems like it plods on more by coasting on reputation and "bandwagon" mob mentality than legitimate advantages.
Photoshop is the "de facto" standard, and what everyone has heard about (and, if you've taken any type of class in photo-manipulation, Adobe's programs are usually on the roster). There are plenty of free, lightweight programs that does optimization a lot better than photoshop does - you do NOT need photoshop unless you're actually manipulating actual photos - and by manipulating, I'm not talking about resizing or tuning colors - I'm talking actually changing what is in the picture. If that's your job, then Photoshop is the better alternative (at least in my opinion). Not only because it's usually simple to learn and get started, but also for its easy relationship with other Adobe-products. Gimp, I've never understood this - it's horrible. Not the output, but getting to actually having something to output. This goes to show that geeks might be smart and create fantastic programs, but usually have no clue about useability and visual design. PaintShop Pro I haven't used since before they became made by Corel - so I'm gonna skip that one. I usually just use simple tools for the job - I don't like programs that uses more time starting up than doing what I need them to do.
I'm not a graphics guy, but I contracted graphics people when needed. The most experienced of these was primarily a print designer* who lived in PS, Illustrator and one DTP app or another, primarily Quark, IIRC. From the first time she saw GIMP, when working at my Gnu/Linux machine, her comment regarding GIMP was that it was very easy to use and the results were a bit superior to PS's when viewed on a monitor. She said if GIMP had the print features she needed, she would switch. So, this is moot and personal. She did surprise me with the comment that Inkscape was clearly superior to Illustrator if lacking some features she'd like but didn't have to have. I think you're looking at it wrongly. Open source programmers are trying to solve a problem they have by writing an application that does what they want. Really big applications get done because a lot of people want to solve that problem. Usually, a pretty interface is not that important, though there will be people who like the app, but want to prettify it. Usability is mostly good. It will not have the same level of ease of use as the usual Win or Mac because making it easy means restricting the user's options. Your average code hacker does not like his choices limited. The average Win/Mac user, otoh, does not want to be buried in choices. :Shrug: cheers, gary * Managing all print marketing media for a major sports wear co., national and international sports events, e.g. U.S. Figure Skating Championships, the Dallas Cup int'l youth soccer tournament &al..