Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 26 May 2012 (Saturday) 08:26
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Rotate a photo without changing aspect ratio

 
jim4065
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Mar 2012
MORE INFO

Hope the term in the title isn't wrong. When I use GIMP or Irfanview or Windows Picture Viewer to rotate a picture that's "lying on it's side", it cuts down the height in relation to the width. I know this sounds extremely basic, but how do I rotate without changing the height to width relationship? ???

May 26, 2012 08:26



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
scotthidley
Senior Member
520 posts
Joined Jul 2006

CT, USA
MORE INFO

Rotating a picture file does not crop or resize it. Check the image properties first, then rotate, and you will see the width and height features have swapped values with each other.

May 26, 2012 08:44



LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Lowner's Avatar
12,922 posts

Joined Jul 2007

Salisbury, UK.
MORE INFO

In Windows live photo gallery at the bottom right are icons for rotating right or left. neither changes the original image in any way other than the rotation.

The same can be done in something like Photoshop and then resave in the new orientation.

May 26, 2012 08:47

Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
sandpiper's Avatar
7,098 posts
GALLERY: 1 photo

Joined Aug 2006

Merseyside, England
MORE INFO

jim4065 wrote in post #14487124external link
Hope the term in the title isn't wrong. When I use GIMP or Irfanview or Windows Picture Viewer to rotate a picture that's "lying on it's side", it cuts down the height in relation to the width. I know this sounds extremely basic, but how do I rotate without changing the height to width relationship? ???

Shoot square photographs. :D

The only other ways to keep an image that is a ratio of 3 wide to 2 tall at 3 wide to 2 tall, after rotating it 90 degrees, is to either crop out a huge amount of the image from the top and/or bottom, add a lot of empty canvas to either/both side(s) or stretch the image to fit the new dimensions, which would be massively distorted.

Your software isn't altering the image it is simply turning it which, as Scot points out, swaps over the height and width values. You cannae fight the laws of physics.

May 26, 2012 08:56



LOG IN TO REPLY
Bad ­ Habit
Goldmember
Bad Habit's Avatar
1,847 posts
GALLERY: 14 photos

Joined Apr 2011

If I'm not here, I must be someplace else
MORE INFO

It is probably just changing the screen size of the image so it will fit on the screen. H/W ratio would stay the same but it appears to be smaller as now the long dimension has to be shorter so it fits (unless you turn your screen to portrait orientation

May 26, 2012 09:02

JR / flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
"Amazingly attractive"
tonylong's Avatar
53,410 posts
GALLERY: 19 photos

Joined Sep 2007

Vancouver, WA USA
MORE INFO

Like Scott says -- in the Windows Picture viewer, right-click on the image and check the Properties. It should give the pixel dimensions. Then, rotate it and check the Properties again. The dimensions should be the same. If they aren't something is amiss and you can update us!

May 26, 2012 10:14

Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
jim4065
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Mar 2012
MORE INFO

You're right. The pixel dimensions are the same, just swapped, So it must be this new monitor. I had a basically square monitor which I just "upgraded" to a wide-screen monitor. So if I want to look at a "true" picture, I have to be looking at a square monitor? It begs the question - how do I look at an "unstretched" picture in a "stretched" monitor? (And also - why do people buy these things?)

I just had GIMP open a new image and set the size at 400 x 400 pixels, A ruler held against the screen revealed a size of maybe 6" wide by 4" tall (hard to see the ruler against the screen). So does that mean that I should set the screen resolution to where height and width are the same? Doesn't that mean that I'm throwing away a lot of real estate? The "lit-up" part of the screen is about 19" wide by 10 3/4" high. How do I get to where I see a square picture again - if you catch my drift?

May 26, 2012 11:32 as a reply to tonylong's post 1 hour earlier.



LOG IN TO REPLY
scotthidley
Senior Member
520 posts
Joined Jul 2006

CT, USA
MORE INFO

If you had a square picture before with images that do not have the same width and height values, then your resolution settings were wrong. You should set the resolution to what best suits the monitor. If you like square pictures afterwards, you should crop them to your taste, but you will be losing picture content. If cropping the pictures, I would suggest saving them under a new name in case you want to go back to the original some day.

May 26, 2012 11:52



LOG IN TO REPLY
jim4065
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Mar 2012
MORE INFO

I scanned this with an MG5320 printer, The sideways one is "as scanned" whereas the "upright" one was rotated 90 degrees in GIMP. I did have to back off the resolution to 1024 on the long side.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
May 26, 2012 12:15



LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
"Amazingly attractive"
tonylong's Avatar
53,410 posts
GALLERY: 19 photos

Joined Sep 2007

Vancouver, WA USA
MORE INFO

My screen resolution is 1920x1080 pixels. So, if I'm viewing an image that "fits" those dimensions, if it is "horizontally" oriented, I can see the image at its "native" resolution. For example, if I size an image for displaying outside of POTN, I can size it to 1080 pixels at the highest, meaning that a horizontal image could be 1620 pixels wide, 1080 pixels tall. So, if my software is designed to display the image at "full size", that's what I would see on my screen.

But if I rotate it, of course, the viewing software would either show me just 1080 pixels of the image in height (if viewing at "full size") or it would "fit to screen", meaning to shrink the 1620 pixels down to 1080 for viewing.

Typically, viewing software gives you the option.

May 26, 2012 12:16

Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
jim4065
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Mar 2012
MORE INFO

AH-HA! I looked at my nVidia screen resolution - it was set at a low number. I moved it to 1920 x 1080 (native) and suddenly it all works. Now - when I look at the two pictures posted above, they look exactly the same. Before, the bottom one was stretched so that the tub appeared MUCH longer. Since ya'll have been looking at an image on a correctly set monitor there was no apparent difference to you. Free at last, Free at last - Thank God I'm Free at Last! (With apologies to MLK, Jr.)

May 26, 2012 13:34



LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
"Amazingly attractive"
tonylong's Avatar
53,410 posts
GALLERY: 19 photos

Joined Sep 2007

Vancouver, WA USA
MORE INFO

jim4065 wrote in post #14488081external link
AH-HA! I looked at my nVidia screen resolution - it was set at a low number. I moved it to 1920 x 1080 (native) and suddenly it all works. Now - when I look at the two pictures posted above, they look exactly the same. Before, the bottom one was stretched so that the tub appeared MUCH longer. Since ya'll have been looking at an image on a correctly set monitor there was no apparent difference to you. Free at last, Free at last - Thank God I'm Free at Last! (With apologies to MLK, Jr.)

Well, good for you!

It's always nice when we can wade through confusing problems and "get it right"!

May 26, 2012 14:12

Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,218 views & 0 likes for this thread
Rotate a photo without changing aspect ratio
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.33version 1.33
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0011 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is Farrakhan1
761 guests, 710 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5175, that happened on Jun 16, 2015