Digital BW, The Print

I just did a test of raw plugin enlargement compared to ps 10% steps.
And the bicubic 10% looked very much identical to the raw plugin
method. Though bicubic smoother was a bit softer. If you use the
photoshop 10% method you can work with a smaller file and only enlarge
it when you're set to print. The raw way, you don't have to worry
about enlarging later but you have a bigger file and you only have 3
sizes to work with, any thing larger and you have to enlarge again anyway.

Oh, and just set the plugin to whatever printing resolution you are
going to be using. Going from 600 to 300 without interpolating does
nothing to the actual pixel dimensions it's just an extra step. It
does not double the file size just the print size that the printer sees.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Dempsey"
<jdempsey@c...> wrote:
> Steve: The raw file is like an electronic negative. Take those
suckers as
> big as you can with the raw plug-in @ 600 dpi. After they are, then
convert
> to 300 dpi WITHOUT bicubic on and they will double in size. If you
need to
> go very-very-very big, Genuine Fractals plug in will do the trick.
This is
> my humble opinion.
> Joe
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Hans Van Rafelghem [mailto:hvr@a...]
>   Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 2:25 PM
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 10% Bicubic verses Camera Raw plug-in
> interpolation
> 
> 
>   Steve Schaefer wrote:
> 
>   >I was wondering if anyone has done an A-B comparison between
>   >Photoshops 10% Bicubic
>   >interpolation verses Photoshops Camera Raw plug-in. I am about to
>   >print several digital
>   >files large and am curious about the best way to do the
interpolation.
>   >
>   >Also if there is a third party product out there that you think does
>   >a better job than
>   >photoshop I am interested in hearing about that also, especially if
>   >you have done a side by
>   >side comparison of all three methods.
>   >
>   >Thanks
>   >
>   >Steve
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   Qimage maybe?
>   The Pyramid interpolation is said to be very good.
>   --
> 
>   Hans Van Rafelghem
>   http://www.vanrafelghem.com/
>   http://www.pbase.com/hvr_oosterzele
>