Need help resizing image in PhotoShop 6.0

I had to remove and then re-install my 6.0 version of PhotoShop.

Now I can't resize an image using pixels as the unit for resizing. "Pixels" is not a resizing option in the drop-down menu -- Image > Resize > Image Size > Document Size. The only options are: percent, inches, cm, mm, points, picas and columns.

I tried looking in Edit > Preferences, but that didn't help me.

I am at a loss. I tried "Help" but the Help feature doesn't work.

I want to resize images so that I can post them here on POTN. I used to resize images to 800 pixels on the long side, and then "save them for the web."

I'd appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks in advance.

Did you try typing 800 px in the size fields?

Wow! How did you reinstall? Do you still have the original disc from 12 years ago? Are you still running Windows 98?

I suggest you just do the math yourself. Set any ppi, 100 may be most convenient. Then divide the desired pixel size by the ppi to get the document size. For example, 800 pixels / 100 ppi = 8 inches.

What does show up in your Image Size dialog? Can you post a screen shot?

I guess you don't have the "Resample Image" box ticked.

Tzalman - Win 98? Not necessarily - the OP might be somewhat like me - has an earlier version of Photoshop, that does what they need it to.... Or, they have the original legit CD - so they use it instead of "borrowing" a non-affordable later version, to be honest.

I was able to buy Photoshop 7, about 10 years ago, when I was still in the Windows teching game - at "trade discount", from the Adobe rep who called regularly at the shop where I was a tech.

Not long after that, I began my move into Linux, but until about 2005, was still working a dual-install, Windows and Linux, Gimp in Linux, and Photoshop 7 in Win2k.

From 2006 on, no dual-install - but I still like some features of PS-7 over Gimp - particularly the fine-precision tool-tips, when doing photo-restoration, that until very recent versions, Gimp wasn't doing as well....

So I'm still running PS-7 in Wine, in Linux - where it's faster and more responsive than in Win2k or XP-Pro classic mode, the last Windows I used it in.

Being on disability pension now, I couldn't possibly afford Photoshop CS-5 - I'm in Australia, so the full version costs around AUD$1,400.00 - and I wouldn't steal it - whether it ran well in Linux or not.

So - folk can have quite valid reasons for using older versions of Photoshop...

Screenshot is PS-7 running in Wine, KDE4 environment in PCLinuxOS, 32-bit, on AMD 2.8 / 6-core, 8GB Corsair DDR3, RAM extender PAE kernel installed.

Regards, Dave.

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

Heh! exwintech, I'll be singing a similar tune over time -- maybe not about Linux/Gimp, but my Photoshop CS3 is going to be "showing its age" and, at this juncture in life I can't be shelling out money on software upgrades or camera gear upgrades as well -- I just have to keep squeezing out the "good stuff" for as long as I can!

exwintech wrote in post #13714545
Tzalman - Win 98? Not necessarily - the OP might be somewhat like me - has an earlier version of Photoshop, that does what they need it to.... Or, they have the original legit CD - so they use it instead of "borrowing" a non-affordable later version, to be honest.

I was able to buy Photoshop 7, about 10 years ago, when I was still in the Windows teching game - at "trade discount", from the Adobe rep who called regularly at the shop where I was a tech.

Not long after that, I began my move into Linux, but until about 2005, was still working a dual-install, Windows and Linux, Gimp in Linux, and Photoshop 7 in Win2k.

From 2006 on, no dual-install - but I still like some features of PS-7 over Gimp - particularly the fine-precision tool-tips, when doing photo-restoration, that until very recent versions, Gimp wasn't doing as well....

So I'm still running PS-7 in Wine, in Linux - where it's faster and more responsive than in Win2k or XP-Pro classic mode, the last Windows I used it in.

Being on disability pension now, I couldn't possibly afford Photoshop CS-5 - I'm in Australia, so the full version costs around AUD$1,400.00 - and I wouldn't steal it - whether it ran well in Linux or not.

So - folk can have quite valid reasons for using older versions of Photoshop...

Screenshot is PS-7 running in Wine, KDE4 environment in PCLinuxOS, 32-bit, on AMD 2.8 / 6-core, 8GB Corsair DDR3, RAM extender PAE kernel installed.

Regards, Dave.

Dave,
I fear you have misunderstood me. I was not belittling the OP nor questioning her use of PS6, merely surprised and wondering if it could be run on a later OS than Win 98. I don't think my surprise was unfounded, I would imagine that the number of computers still running it is quite small. I remember sometime around 2005 being forced to upgrade to XP because software was ceasing to support 98/ME. Aside from its very limited support for 16 bit, PS6 was a very good product (I worked for years with PS5.5 at work, but when it came time to buy an application for home use I couldn't afford PS6) and would probably be more than adequate for a very large number of photographers.
As to her having the disc or not, we frequently see here people who have lost the disc bundled with the camera they bought six months ago, so I asked how she installed it. I did once read that Adobe maintains a "heritage" site where old software can be downloaded, but not everybody knows this and if it were any other program, finding a 12 year old version could be very difficult.

Thanks for the comments. Because of them I found a way around the Photoshop problem, which I never did solve. I still can't successfully re-size in PSE 6.0. but I found another way to accomplish that task.

Tony -- You asked for a screen shot. Well, I must admit that I have no idea how to do that except with a camera. So here is my screen shot of what PSE gives me when I hit image re-size:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

As René said, check the Resample box. Resampling means changing the number of pixels, throwing some away or adding new ones.

Yeah, click Resample Image and the dialog should change to give you "boxes" to enter new pixel dimensions. And, since you have Constrain Proportions clicked, you can fill in one dimension and the other will automatically fill in.

Tzalman - Heavens, no...! I wasn't suggesting anything like that - I though you were having a dig at dear old Win-98 - or 98SE - the best "Windows" Redmond ever did...!

I was a Windows tech for 11 years - from Win-3.x to NT-5.1... I had Microsoft gear from 1983 on - DOS from 'Micro-Soft', the Software Company - on a "Genuine IBM" Twin Slotter - no HDD, no TSR programs...

Through the 1990s, we were taught (kept doing tech Courses, ended up as 5-Certed, plus original and 2 uppies on the CompTIA A+) - never to put NT on a home-user PC... The hardware wouldn't wear it...

So then, of course, with NT-5.1, XP (the home-user downgrade of NT-5.0 / Windows 2000, didn't make it to release - it was revamped and became XP-Home) - Redmond itself put NT on the home-user boxes. With the "floommpp" XP Desktop, with more overheads than an avalanche...

The start of XP was also the start of my migration to Linux. So the excellent for home PCs, Win-98SE was really the end of "Windows" for me.

I really think of "Windows" going from Win-2.0/1-286, in 1988 - to May 2000, the end of Win-98SE2.... Anything after, is "NT".

So - you'll see where I assumed somebody was "having a dig" at good-ol'-Win98....

PS:- Some folk wonder why Windows 2000, the retail release of NT-5.0, was called "Windows 2000 Pro" - while XP-Pro has a related "XP-Home" version. Actually, Win2k did have a "home-user" stripped of networking, etc, version, but they couldn't make it work in time for release. It surfaced later as the somewhat sad XP-Home....

PPS: - I have a Microsoft presentation CD of Windows-98SE2 - it includes every improvement and update for the SE version, since that was released after 98-std, and the upgrade CD. Given to the class the last time I updated the A+ Cert. We also received a CD of the "Corporate" version of XP-Pro /1 - no Activation, and not to be used commercially. That's the base of the XP-Pro I run in Virtual-Box in Linux - updated to SP-2.)

Regards, Dave.

I worked for about 15 years in a factory/environment as a software developer and a factory support person for the computer systems. It was a Unix "world" for a long time but over time PCs took over most of the "tasks".

I don't remember when Windows finally adopted "networking" -- for a long time we used the Novell "service" for connecting to the 'Net. Unix had it built in (of course the Internet was at the time still a Unix "creation").

But, as far as I was concerned, Win2k was a good, stable OS, although we had been satisfied using NT. And I'd call XP a good OS as well. And, once Win7 came out and made a 64-bit Windows "common" well, it seems to work fine on my laptop.

I've never used Linux, although I "lived and breathed" Unix for a long time! It was a programmer's paradise!

Tony - I sort-of recall that Win-3.x did have a version - Win-3.11E (E for Extensions) - with Novell's - or somebody's - cross networking built-in. I think it had to be 2+ backbone arrays running DOS 6.22 - and the "end" box of one array connected to the "end" box of another - no pass-through. The "controls" on those end boxes had to relay data from the connected array to the others on their array.

Win2k was "okay for NT". Turning NT-5.0 into NT-5.1, XP, by dropping XP's huge "PC Desktop" onto it, didn't improve it any.

You might have picked-up above that I'm running XP in Virtual-Box in Linux - and know that XP's EULA usually says it shouldn't be run in a Virtual-Machine. The CD I use is very early XP, the non-activation Corporate version we were given, and doesn't have that exclusion. I just install and update to SP2 - it's not at all happy with SP3 - why, I don't know...

But that install works okay to test "freebies" and such for friends - 8 lots, 6 families and 2 singles, all still using XP-Pro, SP3. I sorta keep a hand-in with Windows - I get invited over to dinner-etc, quite often - and "Oh - while you're here - could you just have a look at our PC...?"

They're usually pretty clean - I talked them all into spending a few bucks on a router / hardware firewall some years back. Blocked the 1-way XP firewall and added a third-party software firewall 'just-in-case' - and they have Avast for sweeps and checking downloads, so on. XP if "looked after properly" is quite well-behaved.

When I'm at their places using their Windows - which they're very happy with - I'm frustrated with the slowness and "Are you sures?" - and smothered by trying to do everything on just 1 Desktop - at home, I spread my tasks and workloads over 6 Desktops (you can have up to 20 with the KDE Linux enviro) - which lets you leave things running - downloads, or Avidemux converting videos, or KdenLive rendering finished videos, so on...

Example - it's 7am here - so I'm "doing my Forums" on 3, 1 has a "news" site, 2 is on a YT download, 4 has Avidemux - just finished converting H264/MOV camera clips to Xvid4 - 5 has an OpenOffice job running - and 6 has Pidgin Messenger waiting for my friend in Ireland to come online, Ding-Dong...

All a lot of fun - and you tend to get a lot done by setting things up on their own Desktops, and "leaving them to it", while doing other things.

However - as with my happy XP-ing friends - the "best" O/S for anyone - no Windows-Mac-BSD-Linux arguments - is the one that easily does all the things they need to do - in the way they feel comfortable doing them... They're all "best" - for those who are used to them and like them...

Regards, Dave.

Well, Dave, it sounds like you're happy being "in the middle" of it all!

I myself have gotten away from "low level" computing over the past few years -- once in a while I'll glance at something about programming or whatnot, but it's all become like a foreign language you used to converse in every day but now never speak it! And even computer "system stuff" has gone over my head, oh well!