Digital BW, The Print

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:35:37 -0700, Paul <roark.paul@...> wrote:

>> ... the question is not only what looks sharper, but also what looks
>> more natural. ...
>
> I agree, and like any tool we use, any change in the original image can  
> "overcook" the file if not carefully used.
>

I looked at GF and the Ben Vista Photo Zoom several years ago and chose  
Photo Zoom. I can't speak for GF at this time because I have not kept up  
with it. Photo Zoom, however, has multiple controls and can be adjusted to  
your heart's content. There are 12 different resize methods included in  
the program including their S-Spline (three variations), Bicubic,  
Bilinear, Nearest Neighour, and others. Of course, it does not have  
fractals. There are also nine different sharpening presets plus a custom  
setting and a film grain simulation. I have been very happy with my  
results when I have needed to use it. In the rare case where it does  
something I don't like in one part of an image, such as the vertical edge  
below the shell sample image mentioned in an earlier post, it is easy to  
clone back in that portion from a second image that was not processed as  
heavily and leave the rest of it as is. I just don't think anyone should  
jump to conclusions about these program based on one image and one choice  
of program settings. You really have to try them out on your own images.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/