08-05-2020, 01:32 PM
Thanks for those responses.
@ Rich2005 Yes it was the Feathered Edges wot done it
I've just recreated the scenario.
The likely reason why the 22 pixels only appeared on the width is because I first scaled up the original landscape image to 4500 height.
This was to define the scale 35 / 45 (I was happy with the height content)
Consequently, I selected the height at 0 & 4500
Then the width was centred around the subject @ 3500
The selection editor showed image size as 3500 x 4500.
Copy Visible - Paste as New Image = 3522 x 4500
This test was repeated with feathering OFF and 3500 x 4500 was correctly pasted.
Another Test
The test was repeated at 3500 x 4400
Ie. all the selection was within the original image.
Interestingly enough, I learned a funny quirk.
With feathered Edges off it pasted as 3500 x 4400
Last test was to switch ON Feathered Edges, so I clicked the box, and the x appeared.
Copy and pasted but NO CHANGE?
I returned to feathered edges, changed the radius then copy and pasted = 3526 x 4413
From this, it appears that simply clicking the box doesn't make the switch.
It's rather like changing a dimension, without hitting enter, or clicking in another box.
Debate
I can see both arguments -
Feather edges but don't lose data
Or
Select to create an image to dimensional specification
Of course, once you know how it works, then you can do the maths to achieve the final image (subtracting feathering radius).
Overall though, I'd side with pasting the stated dimensions, because very often one is creating an image to dimensional specs.
Rarely if ever, is one concerned with a few pixels loss to feathering and hence why feathering might be chosen.
What do you think?
@ Rich2005 Yes it was the Feathered Edges wot done it
I've just recreated the scenario.
The likely reason why the 22 pixels only appeared on the width is because I first scaled up the original landscape image to 4500 height.
This was to define the scale 35 / 45 (I was happy with the height content)
Consequently, I selected the height at 0 & 4500
Then the width was centred around the subject @ 3500
The selection editor showed image size as 3500 x 4500.
Copy Visible - Paste as New Image = 3522 x 4500
This test was repeated with feathering OFF and 3500 x 4500 was correctly pasted.
Another Test
The test was repeated at 3500 x 4400
Ie. all the selection was within the original image.
Interestingly enough, I learned a funny quirk.
With feathered Edges off it pasted as 3500 x 4400
Last test was to switch ON Feathered Edges, so I clicked the box, and the x appeared.
Copy and pasted but NO CHANGE?
I returned to feathered edges, changed the radius then copy and pasted = 3526 x 4413
From this, it appears that simply clicking the box doesn't make the switch.
It's rather like changing a dimension, without hitting enter, or clicking in another box.
Debate
I can see both arguments -
Feather edges but don't lose data
Or
Select to create an image to dimensional specification
Of course, once you know how it works, then you can do the maths to achieve the final image (subtracting feathering radius).
Overall though, I'd side with pasting the stated dimensions, because very often one is creating an image to dimensional specs.
Rarely if ever, is one concerned with a few pixels loss to feathering and hence why feathering might be chosen.
What do you think?