Digital BW, The Print

Hi Mark,

I have used both GF and Fred's SI (the latest plugin version) for some time and have tested one against the other. My testing lead me to conclude that SI was ever so slightly "better" than GF 2.0. So, I used SI for most of my interpolation needs. But, then, when GF 3.0 came out I retested--using the same images as before--and found that I liked GF's results a little better. I switched back to GF...for now.

Of course, these are all very subjective interpretations. What it really comes down to is what satisfies YOU. I will freely switch around various software products as I find those that I feel better meet my needs.

BTW, everyone keeps pounding on the fact that GF is $300...that's for the Print Pro version which, unless your involved with CMYK prepress, etc., is unnecessary. I had the Print Pro version and "downgraded" to standard GF 3.0 when it came out. The standard version is fine for inkjet work.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...>
> Date: 2004/04/07 Wed PM 10:40:31 EDT
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Genuine Fractals question
> 
> I did a fair amount of testing with GF and frankly was disappointed.  
> I felt that I could easily do better in PS going in small steps with 
> variable sharpening along the way.  I friend of mine is currently 
> working with a top name person in digital printing who has said that 
> he prefers Fred Miranda's stair interpolation routine to GF.

Sure, I don't have anything against GF; it's just another 
interpolation scheme and may work better on some images than 
others... if I had to interpolate images all the time I would 
probably spend the $150 on GF just to have another "big button" 
option.  

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
<Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I have used both GF and Fred's SI (the latest plugin version) for 
some time and have tested one against the other. My testing lead me 
to conclude that SI was ever so slightly "better" than GF 2.0. So, I 
used SI for most of my interpolation needs. But, then, when GF 3.0 
came out I retested--using the same images as before--and found that 
I liked GF's results a little better. I switched back to GF...for now.
> 
> Of course, these are all very subjective interpretations. What it 
really comes down to is what satisfies YOU. I will freely switch 
around various software products as I find those that I feel better 
meet my needs.
> 
> BTW, everyone keeps pounding on the fact that GF is $300...that's 
for the Print Pro version which, unless your involved with CMYK 
prepress, etc., is unnecessary. I had the Print Pro version 
and "downgraded" to standard GF 3.0 when it came out. The standard 
version is fine for inkjet work.
> 
> Alan Huntley
...

Mark,

Agreed. I originally bought GF several years ago when there really wasn't a lot of options available for interpolation. And, I didn't know any better, anyway. IMO, GF is better than some of the competition out there--like pxlSmartScale--but, if I were buying today I would probably go with Fred's SI or simply use Bicubic in PS. I also have PWP which allows up to an 8x8 Lanczos interpolation which is pretty nice.

I guess the point is that there are many more options available nowadays.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...>
> Date: 2004/04/08 Thu PM 03:39:37 EDT
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Genuine Fractals question
> 
> Sure, I don't have anything against GF; it's just another 
> interpolation scheme and may work better on some images than 
> others... if I had to interpolate images all the time I would 
> probably spend the $150 on GF just to have another "big button" 
> option.