Digital BW, The Print

Bruce,

I also have come to similar conclusions - I'm on Macs so don't use 
Qimage or Shortcut Photozoomm but have Genuine Fractals (haven't used 
it for years) but use Photokit Sharpener all the time.

I do follow the recommended workflow, do the Pre sharpening, the 
Creative sharpening (after I've done all the other corrections I deem 
necessary) and then after upsizing in Photoshop as the last step I use 
the Output sharpener. For those of you not familiar with Photokit 
Sharpener - the Output sharpener is applied as the last step before 
printing and it applies sharpening depending on what kind of printer 
you output to, matte or glossy paper and what resolution the file is 
at.

I can't recommend this program enough - it is great - I've had, like 
Scott Jones described in another post,  photographers and collectors 
standing in front of my prints, begging me to tell them which ones of 
the prints were film or digital - or if they were either... They simply 
couldn't tell...

Christer


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
		  	   3.7 million visitors to date..


On Aug 21, 2005, at 1:19 AM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>    From: "btvarner" <bthomasv@...>
> Subject: Re: Genuine Fractals
>
> I have been following this thread with great interest & decided to do
> a little test myself.  I must say that the results seem to be the
> opposite of what most here seem to have found.
>
> I down loaded & installed the latest demo versions for both Qimage &
> Shortcut Photozoom Pro then did a comparison of prints from the same
> image.  Unless someone can tell me what I might have done wrong, my
> results indicate that neither product produces a better image what I
> am already doing.  Follow and see:
>
> Test images produced by all three products (Qimage, Photozoom,
> Photoshop) were printed in color (I did not want to introduce another
> variable into the mix, aka QTR) using my Epson 2200 and OEM inks.
> Also note that the Raw image I picked was from a Canon 10D & 12x18 is
> about the absolute maximum size from this camera on my Epson 2200.
>
> My current workflow in Photoshop CS2:
> Canon Raw to Tiff,
> Applied initial Capture sharpening using Photokit Sharpener Pro Plug-
> in,
> Crop as desired,
> Create adjustment layers or layer masks as required,
> Adjustments to Levels, Curves, Hue/Saturation, Color Balance, etc�
> [At this point I saved the image to four files, one for each products
> print]
> Re-sampled 1st image to 12x18 at a resolution of 360 in Photoshop
> using bicubic,
> Applied creative sharpening using Photokit Sharpener Pro,
> Printed using "SP220 EnhancedMatt 2880PK.icc" printer profile,
> All print driver corrections turned off
>
> Qimage workflow:
> Opened 2nd image from above in Qimage,
> Re-sampled image to 12x18 apparently at 720 resolution using Pyramid,
> Saved to another file & closed Qimage,
> Opened this Pyramid re-sampled image in Photoshop,
> Applied Creative Sharpening using Photokit Sharpener Pro,
> Saved file & again opened in Qimage,
> Selected this image & printed,
> took nearly 1 hour for Qimage to do its thing & for the data to
> spool!!!!!!
> Sharpening in Qimage appeared to be off,
> This print was wayyyyyy over sharpened, so��.
> Picked the 3rd image in Qimage and just resized as above & printed.
>
> Photozoom workflow:
> Opened 4th image from above I Photozoom,
> Re-sampled image to 12x18 apparently at 720 resolution using S-spine,
> Left Photozoom Unsharp Mask on as re-sampled image appeared to be way
> to blurry,
> Printed.
>
> Results of the four 12x18 prints:
> Photoshop print � Best by far.  Sharp & clear.  Admittedly could
> be sharper in some areas of the image but normally I can go back into
> Photoshop and re-apply Creative Sharpening using Photokit Sharpener
> Pro to just that area & improve image.
>
> Qimage print � 1st Qimage print looked absolutely phony because
> of over sharpening.  Apparently you cannot apply your own sharpening
> in another tool and then go back & print in Qimage and obtain the
> correct sharpening.  2nd Qimage print.  Sharper in certain areas of
> the image, but still over sharp in others.  Enough that the image did
> not look real.
>
> Photozoom � Image was not nearly as sharp as either of the other
> two.  I attempted to sharpen based on the products previews of my
> image but no mater how sharp I attempted to make the image on screen,
> it did not look sharp.  I settled on about half way up for the
> sharpening settings in Photozoom.
>
> So, am I way off base here?  Just not using Qimage & Photozoom
> correctly?  I know I am new to both products but I do not see even a
> savings in time from using these tools.
>
> Puzzled,
> Bruce Varner
> http://brucevarner.com/

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

A while back I remember reading a comparison of
Genuine Fractals and Extensis Pixel Smart Scale. If I
recall correctly, the conclusion was that Smart Scale
was every bit as good as GF without all the issues of
proprietary save format.

Does anyone here have experience with SmartScale?

Woody Spedden

--- Christer Rosewelll <christerart@...> wrote:

>

I think you're referring to a magazine review where Smart Scale seemed to do the best job - may have been Popular Photography.  Anyway, I've used SS to upsize my D70 shots to 20x30, and they printed flawlessly.
 
Bill

Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
A while back I remember reading a comparison of
Genuine Fractals and Extensis Pixel Smart Scale. If I
recall correctly, the conclusion was that Smart Scale
was every bit as good as GF without all the issues of
proprietary save format.

Does anyone here have experience with SmartScale?

Woody Spedden

--- Christer Rosewelll <christerart@...> wrote:

>


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.




SPONSORED LINKS 
Digital photography technique Digital photography Photography school Professional digital photography Stock photography 

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 


    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
  
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


---------------------------------




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

Thanks Christer, Peter, Bruce, and the others who have responded!  At 
the moment I have to stay with the fact that for me, Photoshop CS2 & 
Photokit Sharpener Pro seem to produce the best results for the size 
& type of printing I have been doing.  Having said that, I did get up 
this morning with a fresh outlook and set down to give Qimage another 
try.

I changed the "Interp" settings in Qimage from Pyramid-5 and 
experimented with the other settings.  For this same image I finally 
settled on Vector with a default (5) setting.  This produced an image 
that was better then my "Photoshop CS2 & Photokit Sharpener
Pro" 
method on parts of the image and not as good on other portions of the 
image.

It looks like the large number of setting options are something that 
I will have to do further experimenting with.  Some of the other 
abilities that Qimage has involving multiple images on a page and the 
ability to bypass Epson's limit of 44" print length are
things I 
could use if the sharpening issues can be resolved.

The one thing that I love about Photokit Sharpener Pro is its ability 
to selectively sharpen edges in only that part of the image that 
requires the enhancement.  I guess I will try an experiment to only 
sharpening in Photoshop/Photokit Sharpener the parts of an image that 
require the very most attention and do absolutely no other sharpening 
on the image.  Then open in Qimage to size and print.

I guess I am so used to having the ability to sharpen exact parts of 
an image to different degrees, I can't do with out it.

If someone out there uses Qimage regularly, can you tell me if Qimage 
has the ability to only apply sharpening to parts of an image or at 
least different levels of sharpening to different areas??  Thanks!

You know, I guess I am getting lazy in my old age but it sure seems 
that there should be a better way to learn a new piece of software 
then having to re-invent the wheel all over again.  I know I am not 
the first one to attempt this.

Bruce Varner
http://brucevarner.com/ 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer 
Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
> Bruce,
> 
> I also have come to similar conclusions - I'm on Macs so don't use 
> Qimage or Shortcut Photozoomm but have Genuine Fractals (haven't 
used 
> it for years) but use Photokit Sharpener all the time.
> 
> I do follow the recommended workflow, do the Pre sharpening, the 
> Creative sharpening (after I've done all the other corrections I 
deem 
> necessary) and then after upsizing in Photoshop as the last step I 
use 
> the Output sharpener. For those of you not familiar with Photokit 
> Sharpener - the Output sharpener is applied as the last step before 
> printing and it applies sharpening depending on what kind of 
printer 
> you output to, matte or glossy paper and what resolution the file 
is 
> at.
> 
> I can't recommend this program enough - it is great - I've had, 
like 
> Scott Jones described in another post,  photographers and 
collectors 
> standing in front of my prints, begging me to tell them which ones 
of 
> the prints were film or digital - or if they were either... They 
simply 

> couldn't tell...
> 
> Christer

btvarner wrote:

>
>
>The one thing that I love about Photokit Sharpener Pro is its ability 
>to selectively sharpen edges in only that part of the image that 
>requires the enhancement.  I guess I will try an experiment to only 
>sharpening in Photoshop/Photokit Sharpener the parts of an image that 
>require the very most attention and do absolutely no other sharpening 
>on the image.  Then open in Qimage to size and print.
>  
>

That would be the way to do selective sharpening. Qimage can't as far as 
I know and being essentialy a printer program it isn't intended for that 
work either. If you sharpen the image selectively or entirely so it 
looks sharp on the screen then I wouldn't take the default (5) print 
sharpening of Qimage but the 2 at most.

Ernst

>The one thing that I love about Photokit Sharpener Pro is its ability
>to selectively sharpen edges in only that part of the image that
>requires the enhancement.

There's a sharpening method described in the tutorial section of Luminous 
Landscape that does the same thing and is free. It may not be as good in 
other respects as Photokit but it does do that. It also doesn't require 
converting to rgb, which Photokit did when I tried it a year or so ago. Does 
it still require that conversion?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Genuine Fractals (and Photokit Sharpener 
workflow)


btvarner wrote:

>
>
>The one thing that I love about Photokit Sharpener Pro is its ability
>to selectively sharpen edges in only that part of the image that
>requires the enhancement.  I guess I will try an experiment to only
>sharpening in Photoshop/Photokit Sharpener the parts of an image that
>require the very most attention and do absolutely no other sharpening
>on the image.  Then open in Qimage to size and print.
>
>

That would be the way to do selective sharpening. Qimage can't as far as
I know and being essentialy a printer program it isn't intended for that
work either. If you sharpen the image selectively or entirely so it
looks sharp on the screen then I wouldn't take the default (5) print
sharpening of Qimage but the 2 at most.

Ernst




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

Still rgb only as far as I know.  PK folks said they were working on  
a 16 bit B&W version, but guess it is still on the back burner.  I  
use the deadman sharpening actions for B&W.

On Aug 21, 2005, at 7:37 PM, Brian Ellis wrote:

>> The one thing that I love about Photokit Sharpener Pro is its ability
>> to selectively sharpen edges in only that part of the image that
>> requires the enhancement.
>>
>
> There's a sharpening method described in the tutorial section of  
> Luminous
> Landscape that does the same thing and is free. It may not be as  
> good in
> other respects as Photokit but it does do that. It also doesn't  
> require
> converting to rgb, which Photokit did when I tried it a year or so  
> ago. Does
> it still require that conversion?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Genuine Fractals (and Photokit Sharpener
> workflow)
>
>
> btvarner wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> The one thing that I love about Photokit Sharpener Pro is its ability
>> to selectively sharpen edges in only that part of the image that
>> requires the enhancement.  I guess I will try an experiment to only
>> sharpening in Photoshop/Photokit Sharpener the parts of an image that
>> require the very most attention and do absolutely no other sharpening
>> on the image.  Then open in Qimage to size and print.
>>
>>
>>
>
> That would be the way to do selective sharpening. Qimage can't as  
> far as
> I know and being essentialy a printer program it isn't intended for  
> that
> work either. If you sharpen the image selectively or entirely so it
> looks sharp on the screen then I wouldn't take the default (5) print
> sharpening of Qimage but the 2 at most.
>
> Ernst



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