Digital BW, The Print

Clayton,

Since PS 8.0, I've been using the PS bicubic's to do my 
interpolation - while owning GF PrintPro.

I don't recall where I first read this procedure, but I upsize by 
about +20% using bicubic smoother, then downsize to the final 
desired size using bicubic sharper. Give that a try, you may find it 
works even better than the straight bicubic interpolation you're 
doing now.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
>
> Hello Peter,
> 
> >Did you actually print the image 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >or did you just see the hatch marks on the preview screen? 
> 
> Yes.  
> 
> They didn't show up on the prints, but they were small prints.  On
> large prints it might show up.  The image was of sand dunes, and 
the
> hatch marks were bigger than the small details.  I just now ran it
> again to be sure.  In the PS pic the pebbles and sand textures are
> clearly visible.  In the Q pic those details are obliterated.  It 
sort
> of resembles noise reduction artifacts.  It's also noticeably less
> sharp than the PS/bicubic version, and there are some obvious
> sharpening halos around some branches of bushes which aren't on the
> PS/bic version - it just doesn't look as good.  I played and fussed
> and fiddled for most of an evening with a variety of different
> settings (interpolation types, sharpening levels) and could not
> produce a better result.  That, along with the fact that it 
converts
> my 16-bit grayscale to 8-bit/RGB...it's just not worth the hassle.
> 
>  
> >I have been using Qimage for several years and have never 
> >experienced hatch marks 
> 
> I'm not sure what sort of mental image the term "hatch marks" 
evokes.
>  It's the best I could think of at the time.  It resembles the
> reticulation I got once on a neg that went into too cold fixer.  
Sort
> of like tiny patterned flower petals.
> 
> I have had Qimage on my PC for about three years, have always kept 
it
> updated, and have continually tried using it, off and on, for a
> variety of things.  But I have to say it has produced more 
frustration
> than anything else.  Lots of my images it can't read (and I can't
> detect any pattern to it).  The few that I've been able to get it 
to
> print ok have been exceptionally good.  But it's so erratic as to 
what
> it can and can't deal with that it's more often a waste of precious
> time than anything else.  I'd say that about 90% of the time I try
> something with it I come away dissatisfied.  The bottom line for 
me is
> that it has been a waste of time and money.  But I keep fiddling 
with
> it now and then in hopes it will do something to earn its keep.  
Maybe
> it will someday.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>