Photo: Cut out an image

[Pyanepsion]

Hello,
That's an image of 2832 × 4256 px.
I need to get the image in 800 × 1200.
So I use the Document/Resize document tool.
I get 800 × 1202.3 px.

How to cut the image to 1200 px (remove the 2.3 px in excess)?

[Joachim_L]

Document -> Resize Canvas

[firstdefence]

@Pyanepsion Click on the gold padlock, this unlocks aspect ratio lock so that you can change width and height independently.

 

[Joachim_L]

4 minutes ago, firstdefence said:

 Click on the gold padlock, this unlocks aspect ratio lock so that you can change width and height independently.

But this would destroy the aspect ratio and distort the image?

[Pyanepsion]

@Firstdefence. It would distort the image.
@Joachim_L. Thanks. When I do this and select the image, I see that the 2.3 pixels still appear. How to proceed ?

[firstdefence]

What it shows is the size you want does not fit the aspect ratio of the image so the only course would be to use the crop tool to maintain the original sizes aspect ratio.

You have to make a choice between the size you want or the aspect ratio you wish to retain, you can't have both without some loss of the image.

 

[Pyanepsion]

 It's about getting an image of 800 × 1200, not deforming it. Affinity Photo does not use the procedure I see in the Photofiltre and GIMP softwares.

I'm bored with the 2.3 pixels that overflow.

[Joachim_L]

Normally you get the image trimmed with Document -> Clip Canvas, when I understand the help document correctly. But in my case Clip Canvas and Unclip Canvas are both reverting the image to the original size. But when you export the image with the -2.3px overflow and open the image again the overflow is gone.

Edit: Tried with an image that has a lot of transparent room around the main motif and Clip Canvas removed the transparent space. Nothing I would expect reading the help document.

[Joachim_L]

8 minutes ago, Pyanepsion said:

Affinity Photo does not use the procedure I see in the Photofiltre and GIMP softwares.

At first sight this seems irritating, but on the other hand it can be useful, if you want to reposition the image on the canvas and the "cut off" data is still at hand.

[Pyanepsion]

With Photofiltre and GIMP, you get what you pay for, that is, not much.

[firstdefence]

Just for future ref

The ratio of 2832 × 4256 px is 177:266

The ratio of 800 x1200 ratio is 2:3

The only options you really have if you want the 800 x1200 is to crop the 2.3px or distort the image.

 

[Joachim_L]

I have to apologize. Reading help first in English I did not understand the real meaning of Clip Canvas. I should go to a refresh course for English.

Anyway: The German help says Leinwand zuschneiden or Leinwandzuschnitt aufheben, whereas the menu items say Leinwand begrenzen und Leinwandbegrenzung aufheben.

[Pyanepsion]

(Firstdefence. It's about getting an image of 800 × 1200, not deforming it, but thank you for these clarifications always useful.)

I see. We must in fact forget the habits of the two aforementioned software.
If I understand correctly, it's still a little longer than a simple "Redecut Image" function, but we do not screw up the original image and that is appreciable.
1. Resize the document from the Document / Resize Document menu.
2. Resize the canvas from the Document / Resize Canvas menu after removing the gold padlock and adjusting to the desired dimensions.

[John Rostron]

33 minutes ago, Pyanepsion said:

2. Resize the canvas from the Document / Resize Canvas menu after removing the gold padlock and adjusting to the desired dimensions.

Yes, but you need to use the positioning grid (of nine squares) to ensure the 2.3px is cut off the edge you want. If you want to lose them at the bottom, click on the top centre square in the grid.

John

[Old Bruce]

7 hours ago, firstdefence said:

Just for future ref

The ratio of 2832 × 4256 px is 177:266

The ratio of 800 x1200 ratio is 2:3

The only options you really have if you want the 800 x1200 is to crop the 2.3px or distort the image.

 

<Nitpick on> the ratios are better expressed as 1:1.5028248587570621 and 1:1.5 <Nitpick off> I am continually frustrated by the current trend of using whole numbers which don't really help you figure out if 177:266 is wider or taller than 2:3.

[Alfred]

47 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

<Nitpick on> the ratios are better expressed as 1:1.5028248587570621 and 1:1.5 <Nitpick off> I am continually frustrated by the current trend of using whole numbers which don't really help you figure out if 177:266 is wider or taller than 2:3.

I experience a similar frustration with statistics quoted as “x out of y think this but n% think that”.

[Pyanepsion]

Each method has its disadvantages and advantages!
Natural integers allow you to multiply and divide more quickly, because there is little number, but you can’t really perceive the difference between two ratios.
The relative numbers lead to an imprecision accentuated by the number of figures available on the calculator, and it takes longer to type on the calculator but we immediately detect which is the largest ratio.

[R C-R]

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that any time an image is resampled to a size different from its original pixel dimensions, it is to some extent almost always being distorted -- even if that can be done while maintaining exactly the same aspect ratio.

For example, consider only the width of the OP's document (2832 px) & the desired width (800 px). There is no way to fit all the color information in a row of 2832 pixels into a row of just 800 pixels -- a pixel can only be one color.