Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 8/11/2005 3:48:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

You'll  get top-notch results in both these areas with BO.  The only
thing is  the graininess, as I'm sure you're aware.  You either like it
or you  don't.


Regards,
Clayton



Without a loupe, I don't detect any "graininess" on my BO prints from the  
4000.
 
I know that we can buy $99 printers, use MIS monochrome inksets, apply  Roark 
curves and do some amazing B&W. It has truly become available and  affordable 
for the old oxymoron: the "discerning masses."
 
In the old darkroom days, you could get a used, beat up, condenser enlarger  
with a cheap lens and trays for about $200. However,  a really  good darkroom 
setup for the perfectionist usually involved a good Beseler  enlarger, six 
element lenses, and a cold light source which would be in the  range of 
$1,000-2,000.
 
So why do we have a double standard with all this cheap stuff if the people  
here are such "discerning artists."
 
Every newbie that comes to town seems to want museum quality results with  
gread Dmax, etc. etc. for practically no money.
 
They can, therefore they do.
 
BUT you do get what you pay for and I find that an Epson 4000, with it's  
extremely tight and fast DX-3 heads, hassle free big cartridges, etc. to be a  
minimum requirement for someone who is truly "serious" about quality work.
 
With current rebates, you can get one of these fine beasts for about $1,300  
in 2005 dollars. That represents about 1/3 of the price in 1980 dollars (IOW  
about $4,000 in comparative 2005 dollars vs. the old serious darkroom  price).
 
The Epson  4000 represents a true bargain for the "serious" digital  printer 
for color or B&W who wants a solid platform that won't break or  drift in the 
next several years. I have tried screwing around with all these  cheap plastic 
desktop units with their "$1.20/milliliter" cartridges that you  have to baby 
sit. They represent false economy for sure. As for me, I like  to cue up a 
bunch of images in QImage and go to bed. They will all be done in  the morning. 
You can't do that with a $99 printer.
 
You can't buy real "quality products" at a dollar store.
 
Claude


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... 
wrote:
>  
> The Epson  4000 represents a true bargain for the "serious" 
digital  printer 
> for color or B&W who wants a solid platform that won't break or  
drift in the 
> next several years. I have tried screwing around with all these  
cheap plastic 
> desktop units with their "$1.20/milliliter" cartridges that you  
have to baby 
> sit. They represent false economy for sure. As for me, I like  to 
cue up a 
> bunch of images in QImage and go to bed. They will all be done in  
the morning. 
> You can't do that with a $99 printer.
>  
> You can't buy real "quality products" at a dollar store.
>  
> Claude
> 
> 


If you really want to take things to the highest level, you should 
buy a high quality RIP and get the other proprietary dithers that are 
available from places like Wasatch, or Onyx, or Ergosoft... How about 
profiled BO through a CMYK profile? You are only scratching the 
surface with Qimage.

Good point about the RIPs.  I tried to get better results from my 2200 by
use of a RIP.  I learned a lot in the process; mostly that the 2200 does not
have the features of the 4000 such as hardware microweaving.  I abandoned
the 2200 RIP pursuit, and back to using the Epson driver with custom
profiles.
The available dither algorithms is dependent on the RIP and its driver.  I
also found that using the highest printing resolution can disable the
variable-dot-size, which prevents using the newer 2-bit dither algorithms.
I was not able to compare the difference as the 2200 was not supported for
that feature using the RIPs I tried, StudioPrint and Evolution.

I print very low quantities, and fear that I would have ink problems with
stationary cartridges like the 4000 has.  Any thoughts on that?  I really
enjoy printing my own work, and would consider a 4000 if there was a way to
keep it functioning properly at low usage.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
dfaprinting
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:07 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: BO "graininess"

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a...
wrote:
>
> The Epson  4000 represents a true bargain for the "serious"
digital  printer
> for color or B&W who wants a solid platform that won't break or
drift in the
> next several years. I have tried screwing around with all these
cheap plastic
> desktop units with their "$1.20/milliliter" cartridges that you
have to baby
> sit. They represent false economy for sure. As for me, I like  to
cue up a
> bunch of images in QImage and go to bed. They will all be done in
the morning.
> You can't do that with a $99 printer.
>
> You can't buy real "quality products" at a dollar store.
>
> Claude
>
>


If you really want to take things to the highest level, you should
buy a high quality RIP and get the other proprietary dithers that are
available from places like Wasatch, or Onyx, or Ergosoft... How about
profiled BO through a CMYK profile? You are only scratching the
surface with Qimage.






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

Can you still buy a 4000?

> From: John Moody <moodymz3@...>

> 
> Good point about the RIPs.  I tried to get better results from my 2200 by
> use of a RIP.  I learned a lot in the process; mostly that the 2200 does not
> have the features of the 4000 such as hardware microweaving.  I abandoned
> the 2200 RIP pursuit, and back to using the Epson driver with custom
> profiles.
> The available dither algorithms is dependent on the RIP and its driver.  I
> also found that using the highest printing resolution can disable the
> variable-dot-size, which prevents using the newer 2-bit dither algorithms.
> I was not able to compare the difference as the 2200 was not supported for
> that feature using the RIPs I tried, StudioPrint and Evolution.
> 
> I print very low quantities, and fear that I would have ink problems with
> stationary cartridges like the 4000 has.  Any thoughts on that?  I really
> enjoy printing my own work, and would consider a 4000 if there was a way to
> keep it functioning properly at low usage.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody

One recently sold on ebay locally to me, with the original cartridges still
installed, 7 new ones, and a stand for $1200US.  The buyer rated it A+
condition.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:53 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: BO "graininess"

Can you still buy a 4000?


> From: John Moody <moodymz3@...>

>
> Good point about the RIPs.  I tried to get better results from my 2200 by
> use of a RIP.  I learned a lot in the process; mostly that the 2200 does
not
> have the features of the 4000 such as hardware microweaving.  I abandoned
> the 2200 RIP pursuit, and back to using the Epson driver with custom
> profiles.
> The available dither algorithms is dependent on the RIP and its driver.  I
> also found that using the highest printing resolution can disable the
> variable-dot-size, which prevents using the newer 2-bit dither algorithms.
> I was not able to compare the difference as the 2200 was not supported for
> that feature using the RIPs I tried, StudioPrint and Evolution.
>
> I print very low quantities, and fear that I would have ink problems with
> stationary cartridges like the 4000 has.  Any thoughts on that?  I really
> enjoy printing my own work, and would consider a 4000 if there was a way
to
> keep it functioning properly at low usage.
>
> Best regards,
> John Moody




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 Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines 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 OWNER AND
MODERATORS 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  OWNER AND
MODERATORS 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

*          Visit your group " DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> " on the web.

*          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
ubscribe>

*          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

  _____



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

Certainly, with a little hunting. Here in Toronto I've seen New (usually 
open box) 4000's in stock at vistek and Henry's in the last month.

-Adam



Steve Kale wrote:

> Can you still buy a 4000?
> 
> 
>  > From: John Moody <moodymz3@...>
> 
>  >
>  > Good point about the RIPs.  I tried to get better results from my 2200 by
>  > use of a RIP.  I learned a lot in the process; mostly that the 2200 
> does not
>  > have the features of the 4000 such as hardware microweaving.  I abandoned
>  > the 2200 RIP pursuit, and back to using the Epson driver with custom
>  > profiles.
>  > The available dither algorithms is dependent on the RIP and its 
> driver.  I
>  > also found that using the highest printing resolution can disable the
>  > variable-dot-size, which prevents using the newer 2-bit dither 
> algorithms.
>  > I was not able to compare the difference as the 2200 was not 
> supported for
>  > that feature using the RIPs I tried, StudioPrint and Evolution.
>  >
>  > I print very low quantities, and fear that I would have ink problems with
>  > stationary cartridges like the 4000 has.  Any thoughts on that?  I really
>  > enjoy printing my own work, and would consider a 4000 if there was a 
> way to
>  > keep it functioning properly at low usage.
>  >
>  > Best regards,
>  > John Moody
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>     *  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>        
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> I was not able to compare the difference as the 2200 was not 
supported for
> that feature using the RIPs I tried, StudioPrint and Evolution.
>

Yes that is sad, too bad so few companies consider the smaller 
printers when writing the drivers.

 
> I print very low quantities, and fear that I would have ink 
problems with
> stationary cartridges like the 4000 has.  Any thoughts on that?  I 
really
> enjoy printing my own work, and would consider a 4000 if there was 
a way to
> keep it functioning properly at low usage.
> 


If you keep after it, you can prevent problems, but it will take 
work. You would need to put cleaning fluid on the capping station 
every day or two helps, and maybe print at least the head check every 
week to keep it operating smoothly. Setting the default cleaning to 
the heavier setting would also help. You can get away with only 
putting the cleaning fluid on the capping station every week or so if 
you give it enough time to do it's thing before you try to use the 
printer, that can be hours or a day. With the price of used 4000s 
dropping down below $1000, kind of makes sense to move up.

dfaprinting wrote:

>
>If you really want to take things to the highest level, you should 
>buy a high quality RIP and get the other proprietary dithers that are 
>available from places like Wasatch, or Onyx, or Ergosoft... How about 
>profiled BO through a CMYK profile? You are only scratching the 
>surface with Qimage.
>
Usually the Epson driver dithering is the one to beat on quality. I have 
used the Wasatch SoftRip dithering (on quad inks as well) and wasn't 
very impressed. That type of RIP often is more directed to speed, 
consistency, economic ink use  (many prebaked CMYK settings for CcMmYK 
printers ! ) than on really good photo quality dithering. If I remember 
it correctly Ergosoft's Studioprint uses Epson dithering for the UC 
models 2100, 7600, 9600, so it can't be bad.  QTR (Gimp-print) dither is 
close to the Epson dither quality though.

Qimage's extrapolation + sharpening is the step before the dithering by 
the driver starts, the quality of Qimage is in the better algorithms for 
extrapolation + the print sharpening adapted to the native printer 
resolution. The driver then doesn't touch the bitmap loaded but only to 
dither that bitmap on the channels.

Ernst

> Qimage's extrapolation + sharpening is the step before the 
dithering by 
> the driver starts, the quality of Qimage is in the better 
algorithms for 
> extrapolation + the print sharpening adapted to the native printer 
> resolution. The driver then doesn't touch the bitmap loaded but 
only to 
> dither that bitmap on the channels.
> 
> Ernst


FWIW, IMO, QImage is the best printing program you can get, 
concerning print quality.

It's the Vector and Pyramid interpolation that make it so great. Not 
to mention, the smart sharpening feature.

I've used nothing but QImage to print with since early on went I 
went "digital" and made a comparison betweem QI, PS7, Windows and 
printing through the Epson software.

QImage won hands down. Wasn't even close. I could tell the QI prints 
was a better print before it was fully ejected from the printer.

I highly recommend QImage.

I agree that it is a great program, and I’m glad to own it, for many reasons
other than image quality.
I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to say the quality was not even close.
If you attempt to do a good job up-rezzing and sharpening in PS7 to the same
PPI as Qimage, you can get very close to the same results.  Of course Qimage
makes it so easy, why would you, but it can be done.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
scott_now_coming
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:36 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] QImage (was:Re: BO "graininess")

> Qimage's extrapolation + sharpening is the step before the
dithering by
> the driver starts, the quality of Qimage is in the better
algorithms for
> extrapolation + the print sharpening adapted to the native printer
> resolution. The driver then doesn't touch the bitmap loaded but
only to
> dither that bitmap on the channels.
>
> Ernst


FWIW, IMO, QImage is the best printing program you can get,
concerning print quality.

It's the Vector and Pyramid interpolation that make it so great. Not
to mention, the smart sharpening feature.

I've used nothing but QImage to print with since early on went I
went "digital" and made a comparison betweem QI, PS7, Windows and
printing through the Epson software.

QImage won hands down. Wasn't even close. I could tell the QI prints
was a better print before it was fully ejected from the printer.

I highly recommend QImage.





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

Did you guys say Photoshop 7? That was so long ago I don't even
remember it. The smart bi cubic resampling improvements in CS has made
that ancient history.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> I agree that it is a great program, and I'm glad to own it, for many
reasons
> other than image quality.
> I do think it's a bit of a stretch to say the quality was not even
close.
> If you attempt to do a good job up-rezzing and sharpening in PS7 to
the same
> PPI as Qimage, you can get very close to the same results.  Of
course Qimage

> makes it so easy, why would you, but it can be done.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> scott_now_coming
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 12:36 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] QImage (was:Re: BO "graininess")
> 
> > Qimage's extrapolation + sharpening is the step before the
> dithering by
> > the driver starts, the quality of Qimage is in the better
> algorithms for
> > extrapolation + the print sharpening adapted to the native printer
> > resolution. The driver then doesn't touch the bitmap loaded but
> only to
> > dither that bitmap on the channels.
> >
> > Ernst
> 
> 
> FWIW, IMO, QImage is the best printing program you can get,
> concerning print quality.
> 
> It's the Vector and Pyramid interpolation that make it so great. Not
> to mention, the smart sharpening feature.
> 
> I've used nothing but QImage to print with since early on went I
> went "digital" and made a comparison betweem QI, PS7, Windows and
> printing through the Epson software.
> 
> QImage won hands down. Wasn't even close. I could tell the QI prints
> was a better print before it was fully ejected from the printer.
> 
> I highly recommend QImage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Also, look on the Qimage web site for the comparison of their 'new' sharpening compared to PS.  Whil Qimage appears to be better, it isn't a great degree better.
 
Tom Baker

John Moody <moodymz3@...> wrote:
I agree that it is a great program, and I’m glad to own it, for many reasons
other than image quality.
I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to say the quality was not even close.
If you attempt to do a good job up-rezzing and sharpening in PS7 to the same
PPI as Qimage, you can get very close to the same results. Of course Qimage
makes it so easy, why would you, but it can be done.

Best regards,
John Moody


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

True.
I repeated PS7 to avoid the potential “but I don’t have CS2” comment.
BTW, Fred Miranda has a new Resize Pro plugin that works with PS6 and up, as
well as Elements.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of john dean
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:15 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] QImage (was:Re: BO "graininess")

Did you guys say Photoshop 7? That was so long ago I don't even
remember it. The smart bi cubic resampling improvements in CS has made
that ancient history.






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

John Moody wrote:

>True.
>I repeated PS7 to avoid the potential \ufffdbut I don\ufffdt have CS2\ufffd comment.
>BTW, Fred Miranda has a new Resize Pro plugin that works with PS6 and up, as
>well as Elements.
>
>Best regards,
>John Moody
>  
>
Correct and it was compared with Qimage on

http://www.tommyblogs.com/FredMirandasResizeProFirstImpressions.aspx

and could according to the author be a bit better but he adds the 
question whether that is worth the trouble when Qimage takes that work 
out of your hands at print time. So even without the intelligent print 
sharpening Qimage already is big competition for dedicated 
interpolation-sharpening software. Add to that the quite recent work 
done on better down-sampling (Mike in discussion with Bart van der Wolf) 
and you get on the fly, interpolation + intelligent sharpening for 
different images and different up and down scale factors in one 
printrun, nested as well. Imagine the work to do that as nice in 
Photoshop CS or with dedicated plug-in tools. On down-sampling PS shows 
problems anyway:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm

To get this on topic again for Digital B&W: Mike Chaney changed features 
in Qimage to make the workflow between Qimage and QTR easier. I wonder 
where you will get that cooperation as easily. Not from Adobe and most 
likely not from one of the plug-in developers.

Ernst

John,

I have used the Stair Step Interpolation by Miranda for years and
actually used it on some dig camera files today. I noticed he had a
new version with a new name. Usually when people give things new names
it means there is a significant difference.. Do you know if this new
version does a better job? In other words, is it time for me to upgrade? 

John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> True.
> I repeated PS7 to avoid the potential "but I don't have CS2" comment.
> BTW, Fred Miranda has a new Resize Pro plugin that works with PS6
and up, as
> well as Elements.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
john dean

> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:15 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] QImage (was:Re: BO "graininess")
> 
> Did you guys say Photoshop 7? That was so long ago I don't even
> remember it. The smart bi cubic resampling improvements in CS has made
> that ancient history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Ernst,

That was helpful.

Hey Ernest!

You forgot FREE LIFETIME UPGRADES, too!

You're not going to get that from Adobe. : > )


Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> John Moody wrote:
> 
> >True.
> >I repeated PS7 to avoid the potential "but I don't have CS2" 
comment.
> >BTW, Fred Miranda has a new Resize Pro plugin that works with PS6 
and up, as
> >well as Elements.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >John Moody
> >  
> >
> Correct and it was compared with Qimage on
> 
> http://www.tommyblogs.com/FredMirandasResizeProFirstImpressions.aspx
> 
> and could according to the author be a bit better but he adds the 
> question whether that is worth the trouble when Qimage takes that 
work 
> out of your hands at print time. So even without the intelligent 
print 
> sharpening Qimage already is big competition for dedicated 
> interpolation-sharpening software. Add to that the quite recent 
work 
> done on better down-sampling (Mike in discussion with Bart van der 
Wolf) 
> and you get on the fly, interpolation + intelligent sharpening for 
> different images and different up and down scale factors in one 
> printrun, nested as well. Imagine the work to do that as nice in 
> Photoshop CS or with dedicated plug-in tools. On down-sampling PS 
shows 
> problems anyway:
> 
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm
> 
> To get this on topic again for Digital B&W: Mike Chaney changed 
features 
> in Qimage to make the workflow between Qimage and QTR easier. I 
wonder 
> where you will get that cooperation as easily. Not from Adobe and 
most 

> likely not from one of the plug-in developers.
> 
> Ernst