Digital BW, The Print

Clayton,

You obviously missed the SizeFixer image which is there - you need to 
make sure you allow the popup that contains the main illustrations to 
the page. You need to click on the image that is labelled 'Click for 
more pictures'!

 This has a set of 3 that allow a very ready comparison (the link is at 
the right of the first page near the top), labelled 'simple', photoshop 
bicubic and sizefixer. They make the difference very plain as they fade 
into each other when you click the <next> link. Pity I didn't line them 
up a bit better, but I think they are good enough. However the template 
only allows me to use 3 rather than the 6 I actually wanted.

The images are all actually the same size and you can see all but the 
QImage one at 250x170 pixels (the max size for the template) . If you 
want to see that the same just right click on the image to find 
properties and enter the URL 
(http://z.about.com/d/photography/1/0/-/7/qimage01.jpg) in your browser 
address line.

As I say
-----------
"If you are a professional who regularly needs to use severely cropped 
digital images, or are asked by designers to produce miracles from your 
files, SizeFixer will come into its own and could soon justify its cost. 
At $185, the casual user will find SizeFixer too expensive, but its high 
quality will justify the price for others.

I'll continue to use QImage (see test image at right) for routine 
upsizing, simply on account of it's speed and convenience with easy 
batch processing. It also resizes output automatically to optimum size 
for any print size from your stored image which saves a great deal of 
work. SizeFixer does give a marginally better result, but the difference 
will seldom be noticeable enough to justify its the lack of batch 
processing, time and cost."
---------
I used it yesterday when I had a request from a magazine for a press 
print of an image by another artist that I only had as a relatively 
small jpeg. I couldn't have got a larger image by the deadline without 
it. I could have used QImage, but SizeFixer gave a better result. That 
kind of thing probably happens often enough round here for me to think 
it is worth the money.

I don't review things I don't think are useful to some photographers, 
but I've no interest in actually selling them. If you read it and decide 
it isn't for you, that's just as good an outcome for me as if you read 
it and rush and and buy.

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...   
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Clayton Jones wrote:

>Hello Peter,
>
>  
>
>>I've just today posted a little review of SizeFixer, in which 
>>there are some minute images comparing extreme resizing by this, 
>>Photozoom Pro, QImage and PS7 bicubic (not the more recent 
>>versions.)
>>    
>>
>
>I read your review with interest, but was disappointed not to see a
>photo of the Sizefixer result (one would think that an example of the
>product that is the subject of the review would be included).  In
>addition, the two photos that were included were on different pages
>and were different sizes.  That makes it rather difficult to do a side
>by side comparison. 
>
>
>
>
>  
>