Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by Paul

(I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)

In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've taken a quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software.  

I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for printing than if left to the printer software. 

A comparison sample of image files is here:
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg


In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the alternatives, but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives.  The GF image in the sample, above, does look better to me than the bicubic method, which is what I'd guess printer software uses.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by orbancc

I agree -- GF (now version 5) is what I use to take my scans (mostly 10"x13") up to 24"x30" (I'm using an Epson 7800), which are sharper than the original scan.  I go in 1.5" increasing iterations of the larger dimension.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> (I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)
> 
> In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've taken a quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software.  
> 
> I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for printing than if left to the printer software. 
> 
> A comparison sample of image files is here:
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg
> 
> 
> In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the alternatives, but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives.  The GF image in the sample, above, does look better to me than the bicubic method, which is what I'd guess printer software uses.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by Terry Ritz

I've used GF for years, and I quite like it.

Terry.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On 10-10-28 8:15 PM, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> (I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)
> 
> In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've taken a
> quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software.
> 
> I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for printing
> than if left to the printer software.
> 
> A comparison sample of image files is here:
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg
> 
> 
> In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the alternatives,
> but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives.  The GF image in the
> sample, above, does look better to me than the bicubic method, which is what
> I'd guess printer software uses.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by mrjimbo

Hi Paul,
We do a lot of large here and are always checking our options to raise the bar.. Over all it's tough to beat GF ..it's easy fast and typically does the best job..  We add one more step quite often that helps ring the rag out a bit more.. Using channels and the find edges technique build a custom sharpening mask.. It's not always necessary but these two working together, I think, can't be beat. If you haven't tried it give it a go I'm sure you'll be surprised.. Especially if sharp is your thing.

jimbo
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:15 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?


    
  (I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)

  In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've taken a quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software. 

  I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for printing than if left to the printer software. 

  A comparison sample of image files is here:
  http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg

  In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the alternatives, but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives. The GF image in the sample, above, does look better to me than the bicubic method, which is what I'd guess printer software uses.

  Paul
  www.PaulRoark.com 



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by Steve Kale

Benvista can't be beaten


On 29 Oct 2010, at 03:15, Paul wrote:

> (I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)
> 
> In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've taken a quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software. 
> 
> I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for printing than if left to the printer software. 
> 
> A comparison sample of image files is here:
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg
> 
> In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the alternatives, but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives. The GF image in the sample, above, does look better to me than the bicubic method, which is what I'd guess printer software uses.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by kentannenbaum1

For what it's worth, I've used "SI Pro 2" for quite some time with great success from fredmiranda.com.  My work is mostly color and can be seem here:  kentannenbaum.com  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> (I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)
> 
> In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've taken a quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software.  
> 
> I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for printing than if left to the printer software. 
> 
> A comparison sample of image files is here:
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg
> 
> 
> In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the alternatives, but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives.  The GF image in the sample, above, does look better to me than the bicubic method, which is what I'd guess printer software uses.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by Louis de Stoutz

Very interesting subject.

To me, the question is not only what looks sharper, but also what looks 
more natural. In photography, I've come to accept the limits of film and 
optics as looking "natural". What I'm concerned with, looking at the 
output of Genuine Fractals and Benvista, is that they have an edge 
sharpness that does not seem to correspond to the level of details shown 
within surfaces.

Looking at Paul's samples, I do not see significantly more details in GF 
than I do in CS5 bicubic, though in GF the details, and especially the 
shapes, have significantly sharper outlines. This leads to a look 
comparable to "airbrush with masks", where smooth gradients are abruptly 
stopped by the mask. In other words, GF looks less photographic and more 
illustrative than bicubic does.

What I find really unacceptable though is, if you have a look at the 
Benvista samples on

http://www.benvista.com/photozoompro/examples

and check out the shell still-life: look at that narrow vertical 
highlight on the shell-edge in the lower left corner of the picture. In 
bicubic you can see its shading, which gives the edge some 
three-dimensionality. Benvista turns this into an almost uniformly 
white, though very sharp blob, which reminds me of those "artistic" 
watercolor filters in PS.

Of course, all of this is being viewed highly magnified on screen, and 
what really counts is what it looks like in the print, so any valid 
comparison should be done there.


Just my 2 centimes,
Louis
Zurich, Switzerland

(P.S. Paul, let me take the opportunity to warmly thank you for your 
many and always very valuable contributions to this list!)
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On 29.10.2010 04:15, Paul wrote:
> (I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)
>
> In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've taken a quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software.
>
> I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for printing than if left to the printer software.
>
> A comparison sample of image files is here:
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg
>
>
> In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the alternatives, but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives.  The GF image in the sample, above, does look better to me than the bicubic method, which is what I'd guess printer software uses.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by michaeldsji

OnOne Software just announced the next version of Genuine Fractals. It will be called "Perfect Resize 7" and will be released sometime in December. A nice upgrade deal is available. 

Check it out at www.ononesoftware.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by Ernst Dinkla

Op 29-10-2010 14:33, michaeldsji schreef:
> OnOne Software just announced the next version of Genuine Fractals. It will be called "Perfect Resize 7" and will be released sometime in December. A nice upgrade deal is available.


The Qimage Ultimate deals are nice too. And a choice of extrapolation 
algorithms, up and down, with adjustable anti-aliasing on the last. All 
on the fly at print time so no need to save the extrapolated file. Not 
to forget the smart print sharpening.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Re: Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by Paul

I'm finding with the old photo restorations that I'm working on for a local museum show that only the best, sharpest of them really benefit from Genuine Fractals.  Those with no really sharp edges look no different with GF than with bicubic.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


>... a quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software.  
> 
> I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for printing than if left to the printer software. 
> 
> A comparison sample of image files is here:
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg

...

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by Joe Dempsey

Ditto me. I started using it when it first hit the streets back in 19??. 
With each new permutation, it just seems to get better. I also use it to 
reduce for web and it works better than bicubic sharper for that as well.
Joe


On 10/28/2010 10:34 PM, Terry Ritz wrote:
>
> I've used GF for years, and I quite like it.
>
> Terry.
>
> On 10-10-28 8:15 PM, "Paul" <roark.paul@gmail.com 
> <mailto:roark.paul%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > (I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)
> >
> > In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've 
> taken a
> > quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software.
> >
> > I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for 
> printing
> > than if left to the printer software.
> >
> > A comparison sample of image files is here:
> > http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg
> >
> >
> > In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the 
> alternatives,
> > but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives. The GF 
> image in the
> > sample, above, does look better to me than the bicubic method, which 
> is what
> > I'd guess printer software uses.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as
> > they are often being updated.
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same
> > page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
> to keep
> > them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
> membership
> > without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed 
> from the
> > membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and
> > Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files 
> section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> > ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU
> > FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
> EXEMPLARY
> > DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
> GOODWILL,
> > USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE ³OWNER² AND 
> ³MODERATORS² OF
> > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> > DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE 
> DIGITAL BW,
> > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> > TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE
> > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING 
> TO THE
> > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by mrjimbo

Louis,
I feel I'd like to thank you for your contribution.. Your point is very well 
spoken an also perfectly illustrated to get your point across. Which also 
brings us to what  we as artists are after when "we" ...."tweak" our 
images.. artificially adding perceived sharpness is usually at a price.. 
added contrast.  So I think what is missing in this series of posts is what 
we as photographers and artists must do with these fancy tools that are now 
available.. and to me that means not just letting the tool  decide the 
image.. but rather use the adjustments inside the tool not the default 
setting to obtain the very look we are after.  Your highlight example in the 
shell image is perfect...... it went to far and the price was too high. Yet 
I found the angular portion of shell in the lower right third an example of 
being right on the edge maybe. Almost as if the edge were honed.. LOL.. 
Anyway.. I think regarding focusing to much on perceived sharpness is very 
well taken .. It's the image and it's feel as a whole that matters.. 
Sometimes we as artists get to caught up in a technical area of the craft 
such as sharpness and then measure the image's success using just that.. bad 
move.. In my post I suggested a sharpening mask using the find edges 
technique.. As far as obtaining sharpness goes I feel that is the best 
technique for me.. each of the steps is adjustable by the user to obtain the 
effect their after.. One of which is applying a bit of Gaussian blur to the 
mask to prevent the example you brought forth.. Anyway here I like using  GF 
and this technique if necessary to get the look I'm after.. but I am going 
to download Ben Vista to play with it ...why not?

jimbo
----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Louis de Stoutz" <loudest@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?


> Very interesting subject.
>
> To me, the question is not only what looks sharper, but also what looks
> more natural. In photography, I've come to accept the limits of film and
> optics as looking "natural". What I'm concerned with, looking at the
> output of Genuine Fractals and Benvista, is that they have an edge
> sharpness that does not seem to correspond to the level of details shown
> within surfaces.
>
> Looking at Paul's samples, I do not see significantly more details in GF
> than I do in CS5 bicubic, though in GF the details, and especially the
> shapes, have significantly sharper outlines. This leads to a look
> comparable to "airbrush with masks", where smooth gradients are abruptly
> stopped by the mask. In other words, GF looks less photographic and more
> illustrative than bicubic does.
>
> What I find really unacceptable though is, if you have a look at the
> Benvista samples on
>
> http://www.benvista.com/photozoompro/examples
>
> and check out the shell still-life: look at that narrow vertical
> highlight on the shell-edge in the lower left corner of the picture. In
> bicubic you can see its shading, which gives the edge some
> three-dimensionality. Benvista turns this into an almost uniformly
> white, though very sharp blob, which reminds me of those "artistic"
> watercolor filters in PS.
>
> Of course, all of this is being viewed highly magnified on screen, and
> what really counts is what it looks like in the print, so any valid
> comparison should be done there.
>
>
> Just my 2 centimes,
> Louis
> Zurich, Switzerland
>
> (P.S. Paul, let me take the opportunity to warmly thank you for your
> many and always very valuable contributions to this list!)
>
>
>
> On 29.10.2010 04:15, Paul wrote:
>> (I hope this is not too far off the forum's scope.)
>>
>> In searching for the best way to make the sharpest print I can, I've 
>> taken a quick look at Genuine Fractals re-sizing software.
>>
>> I think it may do a better job of up-sizing images to 720 dpi for 
>> printing than if left to the printer software.
>>
>> A comparison sample of image files is here:
>> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GF.jpg
>>
>>
>> In the past I've thought that GF preserves edges better than the 
>> alternatives, but I have not done a recent survey of the alternatives. 
>> The GF image in the sample, above, does look better to me than the 
>> bicubic method, which is what I'd guess printer software uses.
>>
>> Paul
>> www.PaulRoark.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources 
>> as they are often being updated.
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this 
>> same page.
>>
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
>> keep them short.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
>> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
>> membership without notice.
>> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
>> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
>> the membership.
>> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
>> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner 
>> and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files 
>> section:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>>
>> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND 
>> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
>> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
>> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
>> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>> \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN 
>> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE 
>> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
>> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
>> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
>> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
> they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
> page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner 
> and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files 
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND 
> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN 
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE 
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by Paul

>... 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.

In fact, my experiments with color images and GF have not been encouraging.  It seems to be best with B&W, and then only with a minority of files.

My original interest in GF was really to remove what I see as artificial digital pixelization "artifacts" that I do not think look natural. 

I think most of our digital files can benefit from some careful sharpening.  But, that also usually sharpens the noise in the image, and I'm usually interested in the best signal to noise ratio.  GF appears to sometimes help improve that s/n ratio better than the normal tools in Photoshop.

With respect the edge sharpness difference, it's interesting that some have done work that suggests that we see much higher effective resolutions at edges than, for example, we can separate in lp/mm charts.  There is, for example, a look to some old 8x10 contact prints that we may never be able to replicate with either enlarger or inkjet technology.  In think this sometimes comes from a sharpness that never gets through a second lens or inkjet printer.  Contact prints may be one example of where our mental edge detection algorithms show themselves, and this is with a strictly "photographic" print in one of its purest forms.  So, I'm not sure that a tool that sharpens edges more than the rest of the image is necessarily a negative.


Time will tell whether I'll actually find the tool worth much in my printing. 

At any rate, it's just another interesting tool to consider.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-29 by john

I used the SI and for years. Everytime I tested Fractals I found it lacking. Found new versions of Photoshop bi cubic smoother to actually work better. The best thing I've found and what I use now is Blow-Up. Much more control there.

j

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> >... 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.
> 
> In fact, my experiments with color images and GF have not been encouraging.  It seems to be best with B&W, and then only with a minority of files.
> 
> My original interest in GF was really to remove what I see as artificial digital pixelization "artifacts" that I do not think look natural. 
> 
> I think most of our digital files can benefit from some careful sharpening.  But, that also usually sharpens the noise in the image, and I'm usually interested in the best signal to noise ratio.  GF appears to sometimes help improve that s/n ratio better than the normal tools in Photoshop.
> 
> With respect the edge sharpness difference, it's interesting that some have done work that suggests that we see much higher effective resolutions at edges than, for example, we can separate in lp/mm charts.  There is, for example, a look to some old 8x10 contact prints that we may never be able to replicate with either enlarger or inkjet technology.  In think this sometimes comes from a sharpness that never gets through a second lens or inkjet printer.  Contact prints may be one example of where our mental edge detection algorithms show themselves, and this is with a strictly "photographic" print in one of its purest forms.  So, I'm not sure that a tool that sharpens edges more than the rest of the image is necessarily a negative.
> 
> 
> Time will tell whether I'll actually find the tool worth much in my printing. 
> 
> At any rate, it's just another interesting tool to consider.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-30 by tboleyyh

my testing resulted in purchasing Blow-Up as well. The ability to add grain and the other controls seem to make it possible to break up that plastic look resulting from many of these tools. Unfortunately I think it may be the priciest. I believe the last GF demo I tested was v5, and it has been updated. I also find I have to do a variety of edge or non-edge sharpening depending on the file, using complex masks. The worst artifacts come from digital files sharpened at processing that someone then wants to make unwise large print sizes from, more USM for the large print tends to bring out the halos in their initial process sharpening to a nasty degree while still not enhancing other image areas enough.
I still find over upresing with Bicubic Smoother, then some USM, then down resing back to the native printer dpi with Bicubic Sharper can work well too.
Bottom line is, when this stuff becomes necessary we're usually considering making the best of a bad situation and picking tools accordingly...
Tyler



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I used the SI and for years. Everytime I tested Fractals I found it lacking. Found new versions of Photoshop bi cubic smoother to actually work better. The best thing I've found and what I use now is Blow-Up. Much more control there.
> 
> j
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "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.
> > 
> > In fact, my experiments with color images and GF have not been encouraging.  It seems to be best with B&W, and then only with a minority of files.
> > 
> > My original interest in GF was really to remove what I see as artificial digital pixelization "artifacts" that I do not think look natural. 
> > 
> > I think most of our digital files can benefit from some careful sharpening.  But, that also usually sharpens the noise in the image, and I'm usually interested in the best signal to noise ratio.  GF appears to sometimes help improve that s/n ratio better than the normal tools in Photoshop.
> > 
> > With respect the edge sharpness difference, it's interesting that some have done work that suggests that we see much higher effective resolutions at edges than, for example, we can separate in lp/mm charts.  There is, for example, a look to some old 8x10 contact prints that we may never be able to replicate with either enlarger or inkjet technology.  In think this sometimes comes from a sharpness that never gets through a second lens or inkjet printer.  Contact prints may be one example of where our mental edge detection algorithms show themselves, and this is with a strictly "photographic" print in one of its purest forms.  So, I'm not sure that a tool that sharpens edges more than the rest of the image is necessarily a negative.
> > 
> > 
> > Time will tell whether I'll actually find the tool worth much in my printing. 
> > 
> > At any rate, it's just another interesting tool to consider.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>

Re: [Digital BW] Genuine Fractals Resizing for printing?

2010-10-30 by Steven and Ann Taylor

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/

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.