Scale two dependent layers (parenting)

[ibclare]

That's because it's clear as mud to the rest of us. This is the last post I can make.

First of all, increasing the canvas size, only increases the amount of BG or transparency. Image size stays the same. Increasing the image size (which is probably what you meant) on the other hand would indeed keep the proportions. So, yes that's a solution if those are the only two layers in the document. What we have been unable to find out is what the OP really wants to do. Since he has not posted again, I assume he found his answer. I wouldn't be surprised if he reread what was already in this post and said, oh, that's right.

 

[bgoodman4]

That's because it's clear as mud to the rest of us. This is the last post I can make.

First of all, increasing the canvas size, only increases the amount of BG or transparency. Image size stays the same. Increasing the image size (which is probably what you meant) on the other hand would indeed keep the proportions. So, yes that's a solution if those are the only two layers in the document. What we have been unable to find out is what the OP really wants to do. Since he has not posted again, I assume he found his answer. I wouldn't be surprised if he reread what was already in this post and said, oh, that's right.

Yes, sorry, I meant image size. Thank you for your reply, much appreciated.

 

[bgoodman4]

Am I missing something? Thanks anyway?

Sorry but I did not get the answer that was provided earlier and your post did not explain what it was I was not getting. As Clare pointed out I did in fact mean image size and thats what I had said in my first post above. If the OP was about making the smaller rectangle larger and keeping it and the larger rectangle in proportion then I did not understand why it seemed to be felt that my solution was not viable. I did not understand the need for guidelines etc as had been suggested by others, so I was asking for clarification.

One thing I have learnt in my years on this planet is that it is better to sound the fool and ask a dumb question than it is to keep silent and remain ignorant,,,,thus I wanted to know what was wrong with my suggestion and how the other suggestions would effect the desired result. I did not intend any offence, I am sorry if you thought I did.

 

[IamSam]

Hey BG4, sorry so late answering you on this one. As Clare said your exactly right! Your method will work. The problem is that the OP wanted to transform the smaller rectangle (on it's own layer) to a known size while maintaining size, proportion, and relationship of the larger rectangle (on it's own layer) simultaneously. He says so in his second post.

iDad had the solution in his first post. What I think happened was that when you select (highlight) both rectangle layers, you loose the ability to judge the proportions of the smaller rectangle because the (measurable) bounding box surrounds both rectangles and the width and height readout will only measure the combined rectangles and not that of the smaller one, which is what the OP wanted to do.

Clare basically solved the problem when she inserted the use of guidelines. The guidelines could be set to the known desired size change of the smaller rectangle and then the transform function (both rectangle layers selected) could be used along with shift + click/drag, to transform both rectangles proportionately, using the guidelines to know how big (or small) to make the smaller rectangle. Easy solution.

Since the OP did not mention an overall image size of the completed project, and, only mentioned the known size of the smaller rectangle, if you use image size, you can only affect the overall image size of the combined layers and it would be difficult to figure what image size would bring the smaller rectangle to a known size. But it could be done this way without un-checking constrain. Also, if you use guidelines, they will move with the image size change so they would be useless.

 

[iDad]

Sorry but I did not get the answer that was provided earlier and your post did not explain what it was I was not getting. As Clare pointed out I did in fact mean image size and thats what I had said in my first post above. If the OP was about making the smaller rectangle larger and keeping it and the larger rectangle in proportion then I did not understand why it seemed to be felt that my solution was not viable. I did not understand the need for guidelines etc as had been suggested by others, so I was asking for clarification.

One thing I have learnt in my years on this planet is that it is better to sound the fool and ask a dumb question than it is to keep silent and remain ignorant,,,,thus I wanted to know what was wrong with my suggestion and how the other suggestions would effect the desired result. I did not intend any offence, I am sorry if you thought I did.

There was no offense taken you may have read too much into what I said, or the way I said it. My punctuation is not up to par but as I said no offense taken.

 

[bgoodman4]

Hey BG4, sorry so late answering you on this one. As Clare said your exactly right! Your method will work. The problem is that the OP wanted to transform the smaller rectangle (on it's own layer) to a known size while maintaining size, proportion, and relationship of the larger rectangle (on it's own layer) simultaneously. He says so in his second post.

iDad had the solution in his first post. What I think happened was that when you select (highlight) both rectangle layers, you loose the ability to judge the proportions of the smaller rectangle because the (measurable) bounding box surrounds both rectangles and the width and height readout will only measure the combined rectangles and not that of the smaller one, which is what the OP wanted to do.

Clare basically solved the problem when she inserted the use of guidelines. The guidelines could be set to the known desired size change of the smaller rectangle and then the transform function (both rectangle layers selected) could be used along with shift + click/drag, to transform both rectangles proportionately, using the guidelines to know how big (or small) to make the smaller rectangle. Easy solution.

Since the OP did not mention an overall image size of the completed project, and, only mentioned the known size of the smaller rectangle, if you use image size, you can only affect the overall image size of the combined layers and it would be difficult to figure what image size would bring the smaller rectangle to a known size. But it could be done this way without un-checking constrain. Also, if you use guidelines, they will move with the image size change so they would be useless.

Ah, got it. As to the difficulty with getting the correct size by using Image Size I would try to do it by calculating the % by which I wanted to make the smaller (known size) rectangle larger, and then make the whole image larger by that %. This would scale both layers at the same time and I THINK would provide for the correct size and relation of the 2 rectangles.

 

[bgoodman4]

There was no offense taken you may have read too much into what I said, or the way I said it. My punctuation is not up to par but as I said no offense taken.

I am glad to hear it, I have had some bad experiences on other forums and would rather make sure there are no misunderstandings and or hurt feelings rather than assume all is well and blissfully meander along. Thanks for letting me know all is well.