*mark

Hi Folks, still in need of some expertise here... Here's why simple image reduction doesn't work - at least not for me... (and TBH, I never had so many problems in the past) - I've resized a 2mb image, unchecked 'resample', made it about (or so I thought) less than half the size, only to find that the file size has increased by around 200%, and the DPI increased to 425 from 180dpi, so I still end up with a bigger document by making it smaller?? Really?? I dislike citing PS, but when creating a smaller document, it's smaller, physically AND the file size - so why can't AP do the same? And although AP image is physically smaller, it doesn't really help to send, or in future create 'thumbnails' from existing images at 425dpi @ 5.4mb... So what am I doing wrong here? I simply want an image to fit on screen, about A4, that is sharp enough to see, but can't be magnified enough to print, but pixelates instead. Is there a simple way to achieve this?? Thanks

Thanks for all the responses @GripsholmLion Yes I want an image you can't print - they're sample images for clients, and if my draft image is good enough to print, they won't bother with coming back for the finished image, or paying me for either. So, yes absolutely, I want something good enough to see, but too small to magnify without pixellation. If they're 'determined to print if they really want to', so be it, but it would be commercial foolishness to simply hand it to them on a plate. As a former PS user, the reduced image looks acceptable - then when it is magnified, the pixellation was really grainy - that's what I need here. As you suggest, I'll probably have to do some screen grabs, as also @Old Bruce suggests, with 'the resample box ticked' - yet doesn't make any difference. Very frustrating. @iconoclast Thanks - that's helpful to know - especially the BTW at the end 👍🏻

I’ve asked this Image Resize question before – but still making a hash of it... Image is 3398 x 2903 x 72dpi (1196 x 1023mm) I want to resize it to 200 x 171mm, making it a smaller low-res image, that someone can’t simply magnify and print. …which I can do, but when I ‘save’, the pixel measurements are virtually the same: 3386 x 2896 and AP has increased the image dpi to 413 – so instead of creating a smaller low-res image, I’m making a fractionally smaller high resolution image – the exact opposite of what I’m trying to achieve.. I’m reducing the image by 993mm, but losing just 12 pixels? I’m expecting pixellation by reducing the image size but it's as sharp as a tack – perfect for magnification and printing... My questions are: How or why, by reducing the image size, does yet AF keep effectively making it bigger? Can someone tell me what I’m doing wrong here?? And how I make it into a smaller, low res image? Thanks

For my pennies worth to this discussion - how about NOT cycling through tools? i.e. When I'm using rectangular marquee tool - and then I'm not because its switched to elliptical, or the paint brush tool and suddenly its switched to background erase instead... (annoying). And how about NOT keep deselecting the layer after an action - and having to continually click back on it? Why? (annoying). Like for example setting the transparency of a selected layer, which effectively deselects it - Really?? (Annoying).

That's it yes, what I hadn't realised, is that the rounded rectangle layer 'compromises' or repositions the perceived edges of the document and that new layer is then required to reinstate the full width and height of the document. Thanks for all your help resolving. Much appreciated.

Thanks - that's very helpful and a good work around to what I'm doing - (and gets me my 2 outlines). Appreciate that - Cheers 'S'

That's not actually correct Mark, since as I tried to explain, if there is no rounded rectangle or shape used, when the outline command is used, it will automatically outline the edge of the document (that's why it has to be flattened first - my editorial advantage? although of course there are many ways, to do many things). Therefore, adding a square rectangle then isn't necessary to get an outline on an already (flattened) rectangular document. If it's not flattened, it outlines anything and everything.

Try the document menu at the bottom - it's all there...

That sort of answers it Mark - Thanks. The actuality being, if there isn't a rounded rectangle or shape, and I flatten, I can outline the whole area. By introducing the rounded rectangle, it then assumes that to be my new boundary, and disregards anything outside the rounded rectangle, flattened or not. However, if I flatten and save 'as it is' - it will save the outlined rounded rectangle and the area outside of it. Then I have to drag it back in and outline the edge of the whole thing, so they've both got the outline - if that makes any sense. Which I was trying to do simultaneously in the AP file, not on the jpeg. But it appears 2 outlines in the same document isn't possible. Thanks again for the help

This is a joke right? 😂 I said the 'extremity' of the document - the 'edge' of which, it is not OUTSIDE of it, and since you ask, yes you can outline the extremity. So that when it's on the white background of a website for example, it's outlined with a colour to separate the image from the white background of the webpage.

Thanks for your input people - much appreciated. In short, what I'm trying to achieve/expecting to happen. 1: is an outline around the whole rectangular extremity of the document. In addition to this, 2: I also want an outline around the rounded rectangle... That's all. As I'm interpreting it, (from the examples of others) - I can have the existing outline around the rounded rectangle, but consequently, I can't 'flatten' the document and add an outline to the whole document? Is that right? And therefore - does the rounded rectangle/shape stay 'live', irrespective of using the flatten or merge commands? (NB. Regarding my interpretation of 'hidden', if the document is 'flattened', but the rounded rectangle isn't, that's still a layer (as such) that I can't see ('hidden' by any other suitable description). I can't think of how else to best describe it. Thanks

Thanks for your input Garry - Yes its a PNG - I tried to reduce the size - but in doing that (for reasons I haven't yet got my head round) Affinity pixelates the document - whereas in PSD's it simply shrinks everything and maintains picture sharpness. So here's the full size attached - no pixel layer - simply type layers and the rounded rectangle... the rounded rectangle remaining a hidden layer when flattened - the only way so far to get an outline, is to save first as a jpeg, then bring the document back into Affinity to add the stroke to the jpeg. Why I cannot do that in one, with a supposedly flat document, I can't work out... Thanks SERIFcopy.afphoto

Thanks Garry, it really isn't that complex - that's why I'm baffled that the rounded rectangle can't be flattened, yet doesn't show as a separate layer, until using the outline tool. Here's my image: 1 layer with text, a rounded rectangle around the text - my intention, flatten and add outline to the outer edge. Job done.

It all seems so simple - Flatten document command - except it doesn't. I've flattened my document, merged and flattened again (just to be doubly sure) and still when I add outline to the overall image, it won't - because I have used a 'rounded rectangle' in my design. As a result, no matter how many times I flatten, AF keeps the rounded rectangle as an 'unflattened layer', so when I try to add an outline to my overall design, I simply get an outline around my rounded rectangle... smh.. At what point is a flattened document actually flattened and not retaining hidden layers I don't want, cannot detect or remove?? Any advice greatly received thank you.

Thanks Garry That was exactly it. Added a background layer and done. 👍🏻