PS Cs2- cropping to a specific size

I need to to crop a picute to a specific size to submit to a printer. 540x360

Is there a way to use the crop tool to do that. If I try to adjust the image size, it distorts.

thanks.

That's a 3:2 aspect ratio. If, in Photoshop, you enter 3 in the width box and 2 in the height box, you can crop in that aspect ratio.

When you're done cropping, resample (using Image -> Image Size...) to 540 x 360 pixels, then sharpen the results to taste, making sure you're at 100% zoom to observe the results properly.

David

Here's a tutorial on Cropping and will explain exactly what you want, and a bit more: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=34567

Select the crop tool. In the tool bar at the top enter the size you want in the boxes provided - 540 width - 360 height. You don't need to insert the resolution unless you need to.

This will give you the exact crop

I'm confused

What printer wants a specific number of pixels instead of "all the pixels that the image has"?

I would never enable re-sampling when all I need is a specific aspect ratio in the crop.

What am I missing here?

Both DavidW and EOS_JD gave instructions that give the desired aspect ratio, but why, oh why would anyone throw away pixels that you do not need to throw away?

I would like to hear from the OP as to why it has to be exactly 540 x 360 pixels and not 2700 x 1800, for example.

Sorry Robert you are right. My mistake!! I let fly without thinking.:o

I am one to throw away pixels if the printer doesn't need them. Absolutely.

For instance I had a 20D, 8 megapixel 3500x2300 image (whatever it is) image. I wanted a 5x7 @ 254 DPI. I resampled the image to 1270 pixels by 1778 pixels (bicubic in 10% increments) and then - the main reason I do this - I sharpened for the output printer at the output resolution.

So I have 3 reasons to resample to a smaller image size:
1) Smaller file
2) I trust PS's resample algorithms more than a printers unknow algorithms.
3) To sharpen for the specific output. Again, this is by far the most important reason.

If you are sending the printer the image at it's original size then I'd say you're doing it wrong, whether you have a 2 MP camera or a 17 MP camera, whether printing a 5x7 @ 254 DPI or 20x30 @ 300 DPI. Always sharpen for the output device at the output resolution.

Essentially you are avoiding having the printer clobber all your careful sharpening. Hmmm, you're presenting a strong argument to print my own images.

Exactly!!

I really don't believe in printing my own. The print costs are too high for inkjet quality. Not to slam them, but they can't compare to continuous tone. Home dye-subs only go to like 8x10 (correct me if I'm wrong, please!) and I can't afford a LightJet. With places like Elco Color offering 20x30 LightJet-style continuous tone prints for $10 it just doesn't make sense to me to print at home.

Test with various printers, find one - just one - and you'll get better prints than you can at home.

The keys are to know what you're doing and don't let the printer out-guess you. (That is, tell them to print as-is and don't touch your image in any way!) An easy way to get to know what you're doing is to test. A single 20x30 full of 10x10 crops will give you 6 different sharpening strengths and 6 different saturation levels to play with. For $99 a year you can get Dry Creek Photo to profile a printer for you once a month. $300 for a calibration unit and you're set for years to come. All for less than the price of a printer - let alone ink and paper.

Now if they'll make a $1000 13x19 dye-sub which will do 300 DPI, well, I may just start printing at home.


Edit: I have to add that this is my current thought. I am planning some print tests to various places, getting the same print done at 254 DPI contone, 300 DPI contone, 300 DPI inkjet, and 300 DPI "fine art" inkjet. I'd love to get an 8x10 done by one of these super home-printers too. When I compare them all I'll have a much better idea. A while ago I had some prints done by West Coast Imaging, 300 DPI LightJet-style Chromira. The last batch was Elco on their 254 DPI LightJet-style Durst Epsilon 30. Next is MPix - gotta try the price and that metallic paper. And I'll try a local Epson 9000 on some fine art paper, too. When I'm all done (June?) I'll be armed with knowledge, and thus even more dangerous than I am.

Normally I would not throw away pixels. I lioke having the best quality as I print at home using the R2400. But if I just need a pic for the web I do reduce my pixel size as they are not required for web sized images.

If you need to print keep as much information that you can.