Relative scaling macro

[MatzeBob]

I tried to record a macro for scaling the canvas size by 200% along the X-Axis (width) based on the import file. In the recording I deliberately entered 200% unlinked as a scaling factor with the anchor point to the left side, hoping for a relative effect. It seems that the recorded macro took the present file resolution as absolut values, so my Macro will always generate the very same canvas size. Can we have the option for relative scaling?

Thanks!

[carl123]

I am assuming you just want to double the canvas width of opened pixel files (jpg, png, etc) to 200% to the right

If so, the attached macro should do that (add it in the library panel)

Should work on pixel images up to 20,000px in width

Tested also in batch mode, to create  APhoto and JPG files

If it's not what you are trying to do, let us know in more depth what you require

 

Double width of the canvas to the right.afmacros

[MatzeBob]

Indeed, and your macro seems to work perfectly, but why do you have 11 steps, what did I miss? My workflow was cmd+opt+c | Set anchor point | Unlink dimensions | Type 200% in Width | Apply. Starting and ending the recording respecttively before and after this. It worked for the then present sample file, but all future attempts were limited to the original resolution values of my sample, where did I go wrong? Thank you very much in any case, and happy new year :)

[carl123]

14 hours ago, MatzeBob said:

but all future attempts were limited to the original resolution values of my sample,

That's one of the biggest problems with the macros; they only work-with/record absolute values. So, operations on several image of the same size will be fine but whenever you have images of different sizes you can't rely on the simple way of doing things, so you have to find workarounds

Since you only wanted to double the width of the canvas, this was relatively easy. All you needed to do was...

Duplicate the image
Align it to the left of the original image
Clip canvas
Delete the duplicated image 

 

Turns out I could have done it in 6 steps rather that the eleven I used but I missed a simpler way of doing it at the time