Crop part of an image to a specific pixel size

[Adriano101]

I have a bunch of images (let's say 3120x1440) and I need to crop a section within them.

In some of them need to crop more than one "part" (let's say 480x680px) and save as individual file, and sometimes these "parts" are in different sizes (let's say 320x890, 240x60, etc.).

I tried to use the Preset in the crop tool but what it does is create a crop-box in the correct shape and correct aspect-ratio but not the correct pixel size.

 

Is there a way I can load a shape in the exact size I need so that I simply need to position it onto the current image rather than having to manually enter the pixel size all the time?

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Adriano101 said:

Is there a way I can load a shape in the exact size I need so that I simply need to position it onto the current image rather than having to manually enter the pixel size all the time?

Welcome to the Serif Affinity forums.

You can create a Shape and save it in the Assets panel, and reuse it from there.

You might also try Resample mode in Photo's Crop Tool.

[Adriano101]

These are my Crop Tool settings before I save the crop-box in the presets.

When I load the crop-box from the presets into the next image the crop-box is huge. It retains the aspect-ratio but the size is not 480x680.

I need to crop a section of the image always in the same pixel size.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Adriano101 said:

These are my Crop Tool settings before I save the crop-box in the presets.

When I load the crop-box from the presets into the next image the crop-box is huge. It retains the aspect-ratio but the size is not 480x680.

I need to crop a section of the image always in the same pixel size.

The way Resample works, the input aspect ratio is fixed, and you can adjust the crop to cover whatever part of the image you want, as long as it has that aspect ratio. 

The output size will always be the size you specified. So, you can just drag the crop handles to compare the image you want, knowing that in the end it will be your specified size.

 

[loukash]

16 minutes ago, Bit Arts said:

I believe it is a bug.

It's not a bug, it's a conceptual flaw.

You can save presets at a defined pixel size, but only in the Resample mode.
I wish I could save a preset in the Unconstrained mode, but no such option available.
Which is why I've never had any use for crop presets whatsoever, even though I'm cropping images all the time, retyping the same pixel values all over and over again.  

[Adriano101]

I have a big image that contains many smaller elements.

I need to save each of those elements individually, so I manually crop them one by one.

It is tedious. Prone to errors. Slow.

How can I do this in a more efficient way?
I thought I could create a crop-box and save it, so whenever I need to crop the same element from another image I can simply load the crop-box and reposition it. This would save a lot of time and will give me the confidence that all the output images are the same size.

How do I do that?
(I'm open to follow a different workflow, this was the first thing that came to my mind and I'm happy to explore other routes)

Edited December 2, 2023 by Adriano101

[Bit Disappointed]

Ah, what is missing in Photo is something similar to how selections (can) work in Photoshops selection tool.

Photoshop: In selection mode, enter desired pixel size, move the selection around the image until satisfied and then select Image -> Crop

No resamling.

I don't think Photo can do this as easily in any way.

[Bit Disappointed]

8 minutes ago, Adriano101 said:

I thought I could create a crop-box and save it, so whenever I need to crop the same element from another image I can simply load the crop-box and reposition it. This would save a lot of time and will give me the confidence that all the output images are the same size.

How do I do that?

You can save a selection to a file and load it:

• Select -> Save Selection -> To File ...
• Select -> Load selection from File
• Then with the selection tool active in the toolbar move the selection
• Then select crop tool and hit enter

So if you can make a selection to match the pixel size you need, this could work... Not fast by any standard, but safer. 

[loukash]

8 minutes ago, Bit Arts said:

Photoshop: In selection mode, enter desired pixel size, move the selection around the image until satisfied and then select Image -> Crop
I don't think Photo can do this as easily in any way.

The Unconstrained mode actually works like this. This is not an issue at all especially because the crop is non-destructive.

1. apply your first crop at the desired size
2. export
3. press C to reveal the crop
4. move the already existing crop box to the next location in your image
5. apply 
6. export
7. rinse and repeat until done

Been there done that a zillion times and it's pretty easy and straightforward.

My own issue with the current functionality – as outlined in my previous post above – concerns situations where you have to load many unique images and crop each to a specific size without resampling.

[Adriano101]

25 minutes ago, Bit Arts said:

You can save a selection to a file and load it:

• Select -> Save Selection -> To File ...
• Select -> Load selection from File
• Then with the selection tool active in the toolbar move the selection
• Then select crop tool and hit enter

So if you can make a selection to match the pixel size you need, this could work... Not fast by any standard, but safer. 

I've done my selection of 480x680 within the 3120x1440 image. When I select the crop tool and hit Enter the size of the cropped area is not the same as the selection.

Is there a way to resize the crop-box to the selected area?

[Adriano101]

25 minutes ago, loukash said:

The Unconstrained mode actually works like this. This is not an issue at all especially because the crop is non-destructive.

1. apply your first crop at the desired size
2. export
3. press C to reveal the crop
4. move the already existing crop box to the next location in your image
5. apply 
6. export
7. rinse and repeat until done

Been there done that a zillion times and it's pretty easy and straightforward.

My own issue with the current functionality – as outlined in my previous post above – concerns situations where you have to load many unique images and crop each to a specific size without resampling.

Yes, I like this one already.
We're basically creating a cropped area and then moving the image underneath to reveal different portions of it. Good stuff.

I have the same problem as yours, that I have to re-create the cropped area for every single image. And I have many!

 

[loukash]

7 minutes ago, Adriano101 said:

Is there a way to resize the crop-box to the selected area?

A crop box does snap to marquee selections, guides, grid.
For some unknown reasons it doesn't snap to object bounds and geometry but you can always create a marquee selection from an object by cmd-clicking it in the Layers panel.

[loukash]

1 hour ago, Adriano101 said:

I have many!

Yeah, currently I'm scanning a lot of vinyl record and CD labels and sleeves which I have for sale or plan to sell, so it's mostly cropping to the same size at 200 ppi: LP sleeve ± 2440×2440 (from 4-pass scans stitched in the Panorama persona), LP labels 800×800 px, etc. Right now there's almost 1400 "raw" JPEGs in my "Scans" folder to be cropped, and given my vast record collection, it will be thousands more, pedantic as I tend to be…  

[Adriano101]

I feel you, man!

I currently have 189 images to process, and this is only roughly 1/10th of the total. And some of the images have multiple smaller elements I need to crop.

This is going to be a long, long, project

[loukash]

1 hour ago, Adriano101 said:

This is going to be a long, long, project  

Hehe, my personal project of scanning my record collection for my offline FileMaker database started about 20 years ago, initially just by quickly photographing them with my first digital camera. Eventually I noticed that Photoshop has a panorama function, and I also got a faster scanner, so I realized that scanning LPs in multiple passes is faster than fiddling around with poorly illuminated low-res photos of record covers. 
But a "final crop" is necessary in any scenario.
It took me also quite some time to understand the difference in cropping workflows APh vs PS. Overall, I wouldn't want to go back to PS at all. (I stopped at Adobe CS5.5, so on the new Mac I can't anyway.) But the APh crop still has some room for… improvement.

[Oufti]

It's perhaps not politically correct to suggest here the use of another software but, if you have a Mac, why not use the batch process capacities of Graphic Converter for this?

[loukash]

6 hours ago, Oufti said:

why not use the batch process capacities of Graphic Converter for this?

In my case, each scan needs to be straightened and aligned manually. 
Also, in my extensive test with various JPEG export options and algorithms, with APh I got better overall results in terms of compression, artifacts, sharpness and file size.

In APh I also have a few macros and adjustment presets to compensate for minor color shift coming from my scanner. Besides, APh also can do some batch processing, although I might have only used it a few times so far. In my experience it's only worth to set up batch processing if you have dozens if not hundreds of images to process at once.

But GC is in fact also part of my workflows, as I often use its browser mode to inspect or (batch) manipulate XMP and filesystem metadata.

[Bit Disappointed]

I'm beginning to think that Serif as a company is simply too deeply introverted to make the next steps forward. 

Affinity Photo and their iPad apps suffer from The GIMP syndrome. Lots of algorithms and functionality, but the understanding of customer workflows and usability is often severely limited. So close and so far away.

It's great that Serif takes a bit of feedback from the forum, but it can in no way dominate their feedback chain, and only to a modest extent supplement genuine networking, user labs and direct collaboration and involvement of customers and partners.

The lengthy and clumsy development processes, such as crop to selection (requested for years), which still haven't been properly finalised as we see here, are a gigantic testimony to this. It could have been a lot further and smarter with real life human contact with customers and professionals in product development years ago. This is where real knowledge and deep understanding is made and gathered and old company bastions crumble.

For example, you've seen how brilliantly politics and empathy have evolved on the web... Not. I don't know how far we have to go to the edge and over it before it is rediscovered that a person's "second birth" (self-development) is in the physical company of other people. That's where we mould ourselves and also good products. Not from behind walls and wifi.

[loukash]

39 minutes ago, Bit Arts said:

I'm beginning to think […]

Please don't overthink it while you're at it.  
Simply reporting issues and facts that are on respective topic will usually suffice. thanks  

[R C-R]

4 hours ago, Bit Arts said:

Lots of algorithms and functionality, but the understanding of customer workflows and usability is often severely limited.

Personally, I think it is at least as much that a lot of users simply do not want to make the effort to learn new ways of doing things, even when they are equally effective.

[Adriano101]

2 hours ago, R C-R said:

Personally, I think it is at least as much that a lot of users simply do not want to make the effort to learn new ways of doing things, even when they are equally effective.

Yes to that.
Especially when students are taught to use Adobe's products in school, then switching to a different software seems like a daunting experience and users simply refuse to even try to make it work.

I'm sure there is a whole lot of other reasons why things are this way and I am just glad that Affinity exists and brought into existence a suit of products that actually works!

[loukash]

1 hour ago, Adriano101 said:

Especially when students are taught to use Adobe's products in school, then switching to a different software seems like a daunting experience and users simply refuse to even try to make it work.

Hey, when I was in the art school, I learned how to draw layouts using my own Faber-Castell technical pen set, so now don't you come with your Rotring Rapidographs I won't work with those no friggin' way! 

 

(I still have my Faber-Castell set somewhere. I wonder if it still works…? Haven't touched it since at least 25 years…)

[Adriano101]

8 hours ago, loukash said:

Hey, when I was in the art school, I learned how to draw layouts using my own Faber-Castell technical pen set, so now don't you come with your Rotring Rapidographs I won't work with those no friggin' way! 

 

(I still have my Faber-Castell set somewhere. I wonder if it still works…? Haven't touched it since at least 25 years…)

Yeah. Me too.
I learned Graphic Design before the Web was even a thing. I know about drawing with compass and set squares