Digital BW, The Print

Joe writes:

> So far, my own conclusion is that I cannot seem
> much if any difference between blowing up
> 1600 per cent with photoshop and with extensis.

Upsampling programs are mostly hype.  At least Photoshop doesn't claim to do
the impossible, whereas most other programs that specialize in upsampling
do.

You can't add detail that isn't in the original photo.  "Intelligent"
upsampling programs like Genuine Fractals or SmartScale _invent_ details
based on certain assumptions they make about the original photo.  The more
accurately these assumptions match the characteristics of the original
scene, the more convincing the upsampling will be (although it still won't
match the original scene).  No set of assumptions is valid for all photos,
however, so for every photo that looks better when upsampled using these
programs, there will be another photo that looks worse.  And since most
photos will not match the program assumptions in most cases, most of the
time you won't see much difference at all.

The ONLY way to get more detail in a large image is to shoot a large image
to begin with.  Nothing can substitute for real, original pixels.  If you
want a wall-sized enlargement, you'll need to shoot a zillion pixels right
from the beginning.  You won't be able to shoot with a 2-megapixel camera
and then produce a ten-by-ten-foot enlargement therefrom without blurring,
no matter what magic program you use.

I can't believe that anyone is charging prices like $200 for such simple and
useless tools.  I guess as long as photographers are na\ufffdve enough about
digital photography to think that they can do the impossible (by creating
detail where none originally existed), there will be a market for such
trinkets.  When and if photographers learn as much about digital
technologies as they already know about traditional film, tools like this
are all going to end up in the wastebasket.