Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

triceratops · Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 7875 Location: The other Nevada

I think you are confusing everyone by using the word "paint." No one knows what you are talking about.

I think I followed what you are doing. I took a screen print (shift/print screen) of the grub you posted and pasted it on a large blank BG in PS. I then cropped out all surrounding stuff so that only the grub image remained. I then expanded it to 100% and checked the number of pixels. It's still exactly what you originally cropped it to (as close as my ham-handed cropping allowed). So what am I missing?

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:35 pm

triceratops · Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 7875 Location: The other Nevada

If I look at the images you posted, I see three different size images. There's the one in your first post. Then in the side-by-side post you have one that is smaller than the original and one larger than the original. When I did my screen capture, from the first post, the resulting full size image matched the one you originally posted.

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:03 pm

There are only two size images.

Russ take and decrease the screen magnification till you are able to save the screen shot at a true size of 498x479 and then save it as whatever. You may have to try it a few time to get it small enough so it comes up the true size

Then bring the magnification back up to where you were or higher and then take another screen shot and just save it like it is and dont worry about it.

Now take the two and put them side by side.

They are both 100% crops at 498x479 and each one was viewed at a different screen size but you can see the difference in the two.

If this doesnt explain it send me a PM with your phone number and i will explain it to you.

Are you using Firefox or IE so i can tell you what to do?

dhogan · Joined: 08 May 2009 Posts: 203 Location: Utah

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:33 pm

triceratops · Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 7875 Location: The other Nevada

I'll have to ponder this a while longer, but when I said you posted three different size images, what I meant was if you physically measure them on your monitor screen, they each have different dimensions. The original image measured 15.5cm wide. The small side-by-side measured 11.75cm wide while the larger image measured 19.8cm wide.

I also tried a comparison by both copying the original image to file and by making a screen print of the page and then cropping out all extraneous stuff. I never had an instance of having to resize anything. They all appeared identical, all measured the same and all matched your original post in physical dimensions (15.5cm wide).

I've got some other things I need to attend to so don't have time to pursue this more this evening. BTW, I use Firefox and the monitor is an HP2710m.

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:50 pm

That's just it you dont have to re-size anything you just hit re-size and show pixels so you can see the image dimensions that are at 498x479.

They are the same size until you magnify your screen which is when you change the dimensions of the original image when you do a screenshot at a magnified view.

Which in turn means if you are using a magnified view more then true image size you are seeing a soft image that may actually be in focus.

As Laurin has said many times if i was with you i could tell you what to do and you would see it.

dhogan · Joined: 08 May 2009 Posts: 203 Location: Utah

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:27 pm

dhogan · Joined: 08 May 2009 Posts: 203 Location: Utah

Forgive me, but I dare say you are over-analyzing this. It's all pretty straightforward stuff. Maybe your findings are correct, but posting an image at 100% for viewing shouldn't be that difficult.

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:12 am

ch4x4 · Joined: 02 Jun 2011 Posts: 729 Location: Montreal, Canada

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:21 am

ch4x4 · Joined: 02 Jun 2011 Posts: 729 Location: Montreal, Canada