Digital BW, The Print

Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals vs. Extenses TrueScale(?) and do you
think these work better than upsampling? Thanks!

Sorry, make that Genuine Fractals vs. Smart Scale

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "darryll48"
<darryll@s...> wrote:
> 
> Sorry, make that Genuine Fractals vs. Smart Scale

With Photoshop CS bicubic smoother resampling, the need for third
party software is less evident.

I would second that!

James

On Nov 5, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Andre wrote:

>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "darryll48"
> <darryll@s...> wrote:
>
> With Photoshop CS bicubic smoother resampling, the need for third
> party software is less evident.
>

Andre writes:
> With Photoshop CS bicubic smoother resampling, the need for third
> party software is less evident. 
 

So is CS equivilent to something like Genuine Fractals or is there still 
some advantage? I havent used it but i've been shooting with a Canon 300D 
recently and would need to figure soemthing out if i want to print 16x20s 

 -scott 

www.Lanes.com
www.ScottLanes.com

To get larger files from a DSLR, shoot RAW and upres in the Adobe RAW 
Converter to 16 bits/pixel. That will give you a good starting point to 
work from.

Colin

scott@... wrote:

> Andre writes:
> 
>>With Photoshop CS bicubic smoother resampling, the need for third
>>party software is less evident. 
> 
>  
> 
> So is CS equivilent to something like Genuine Fractals or is there still 
> some advantage? I havent used it but i've been shooting with a Canon 300D 
> recently and would need to figure soemthing out if i want to print 16x20s 
> 
>  -scott 
> 
> www.Lanes.com
> www.ScottLanes.com 
>

Just to clarify, I meant increase the pixel dimensions AND output as 
16bits/pixel.

Colin

Colin & Linda McKie wrote:

> To get larger files from a DSLR, shoot RAW and upres in the Adobe RAW 
> Converter to 16 bits/pixel. That will give you a good starting point to 
> work from.
> 
> Colin
> 
> scott@... wrote:
> 
>>Andre writes:
>>
>>
>>>With Photoshop CS bicubic smoother resampling, the need for third
>>>party software is less evident. 
>>

> From: scott@... [mailto:scott@...]
>
> So is CS equivilent to something like Genuine Fractals or is there still
> some advantage? I havent used it but i've been shooting with a Canon 300D
> recently and would need to figure soemthing out if i want to print 16x20s

GF does a somewhat better job of preserving edge sharpness if you upsize by
a large ratio, but only if you have sharp edges to begin with. If you zoom
way in on it, the result looks slightly artificial--because it is--but under
normal viewing conditions it works quite well. I think it's useful for some
images, but not for all or even most.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Scott;

If your concern is printing only, you might test-drive Qimage; It 
has some very sophisticated upsampling and sharpenning options, and 
does a great job of printing both color and B&W. It has its quirks 
but well worth getting used to, and quite reasonably priced. It co-
incidentally gives you a good way (actually it was designed for this)
to print multiple images on one piece of paper.

www.ddisoftware.com/qimage

Steve Karafyllakis
> So is CS equivilent to something like Genuine Fractals or is there 
still 
> some advantage? I havent used it but i've been shooting with a 
Canon 300D 
> recently and would need to figure soemthing out if i want to print 
16x20s 

> 
>  -scott 
> 
> www.Lanes.com
> www.ScottLanes.com