Digital BW, The Print

Hello All,

The reason I asked about resizing programs last week is that during my
trip to Death Valley National Park last year I took lots of low res
pics (1.2mp) with a pocket digicam, along with my "serious" pics with
an 8mp camera and tripod.  The intention was to simply document the
trip and perhaps put some on a web page.  Well, wouldn't you know
there are some terrific images in that batch and a few that I want to
print.  

So after all the remarks about Qimage I decided to give it a try (I
have the latest version).  I first upsized an image from 1.2mp to 8.4
mp using Bicubic in PS-CS.  I was surprised to get excellent results
and was able to make a very good 6x8 print.  Then I tried most of the
Qimage choices, starting with Pyramid (supposedly the best).   I did
Print To File and then opened it in PS.  It's a sand dune image with a
large smooth area about Zone III.  I was disappointed to find
strange hatch-mark looking artifacts all through it, and less
sharpness as well.  When I did it again with increased sharpening, it
just made the hatch marks more obvious.  I tried several of the
choices and none were as good as PS/bicubic.

I did a second one, and today a third one, and got equally good
results each time.  I actually printed an 11x14 of one on EEM just to
see what would happen.  It had relatively poor resolution, of course,
but at 8mp there was no pixellation.  It's surprisingly good
considering it began at 1.2mp.  It's a nice landscape and from 3' away
it looks good.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Have your tried the latest Qimage version?  There was a version some months
back that had hatch marks in the pyramid routine, and was improved in later
releases.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Clayton
Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:05 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Upsize Report - Qimage vs PS-CS

Hello All,

The reason I asked about resizing programs last week is that during my
trip to Death Valley National Park last year I took lots of low res
pics (1.2mp) with a pocket digicam, along with my "serious" pics with
an 8mp camera and tripod.  The intention was to simply document the
trip and perhaps put some on a web page.  Well, wouldn't you know
there are some terrific images in that batch and a few that I want to
print.

So after all the remarks about Qimage I decided to give it a try (I
have the latest version).  I first upsized an image from 1.2mp to 8.4
mp using Bicubic in PS-CS.  I was surprised to get excellent results
and was able to make a very good 6x8 print.  Then I tried most of the
Qimage choices, starting with Pyramid (supposedly the best).   I did
Print To File and then opened it in PS.  It's a sand dune image with a
large smooth area about Zone III.  I was disappointed to find
strange hatch-mark looking artifacts all through it, and less
sharpness as well.  When I did it again with increased sharpening, it
just made the hatch marks more obvious.  I tried several of the
choices and none were as good as PS/bicubic.

I did a second one, and today a third one, and got equally good
results each time.  I actually printed an 11x14 of one on EEM just to
see what would happen.  It had relatively poor resolution, of course,
but at 8mp there was no pixellation.  It's surprisingly good
considering it began at 1.2mp.  It's a nice landscape and from 3' away
it looks good.

Regards,
Clayton




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

Hello John,

>Have your tried the latest Qimage version?  There was a version 
>some months back that had hatch marks in the pyramid routine, and 
>was improved in later releases.

Yes, it's the latest, 2006.208.



Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Did you actually print the image or did you just see the hatch marks on the preview screen? 

I have been using Qimage for several years and have never experienced hatch marks in any print under any condition. Nor have I ever heard of this issue anywhere before your reported experience. I asked a friend, who is one of the most knowledgeable Qimage users, and he has never heard or experienced hatch marks on any Qimage print he has made. 

Recently I have been messing with B&W prints with glossy papers using an image taken with Nikon Coolpix 990 (3.5 megapixels) a few years ago. I have Done some minor cropping of the original image and made 12 X 18" prints  on 13 X19" Epson Premium Glossy paper. There are no hatch marks and the print is really quite good. This print was made with an Epson 4800 printer using the Pyramid routine in Qimage.

I also have PS CS2 and only use it for editing and Qimage for sizing, unsharp mask and printing.

Peter

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clayton Jones 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 10:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Upsize Report - Qimage vs PS-CS


  Hello John,

  >Have your tried the latest Qimage version?  There was a version 
  >some months back that had hatch marks in the pyramid routine, and 
  >was improved in later releases.

  Yes, it's the latest, 2006.208.



  Regards,
  Clayton







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

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

Well...  You can read about it in the release notes.
"v2006.203 corrects an anomaly in the pyramid interpolation routine that was
causing "sawtooth" patterns around the edges of rectangles in very rare
cases."

You can see the hatching in the Original Qimage pyramid sample that Mike
provides here.  http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/new-pyr.htm  Some may
not find it significant, but it clearly shows on a sharp monitor or highly
enlarged print.

I think we all agree that Mike has done a great job developing these tools
and providing us with options.  Some images just need different treatment,
and we must do the close inspection to ensure that it suits our needs.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Peter
Palmieri
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:07 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Upsize Report - Qimage vs PS-CS

Did you actually print the image or did you just see the hatch marks on the
preview screen?

I have been using Qimage for several years and have never experienced hatch
marks in any print under any condition. Nor have I ever heard of this issue
anywhere before your reported experience. I asked a friend, who is one of
the most knowledgeable Qimage users, and he has never heard or experienced
hatch marks on any Qimage print he has made.

Recently I have been messing with B&W prints with glossy papers using an
image taken with Nikon Coolpix 990 (3.5 megapixels) a few years ago. I have
Done some minor cropping of the original image and made 12 X 18" prints  on
13 X19" Epson Premium Glossy paper. There are no hatch marks and the print
is really quite good. This print was made with an Epson 4800 printer using
the Pyramid routine in Qimage.

I also have PS CS2 and only use it for editing and Qimage for sizing,
unsharp mask and printing.

Peter




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

Clayton--

Your experience with Qimage, I believe, is unique. Especially so since you are so technologically knowledgeable. But, it is what it is.

I would really like to try the subject image on my machine and print it. Perhaps you could send it to me? I will send you my email address separately.

I thought that all ink jet printers could only print 8 bit images, but I could be mistaken.

The b&w results that I have been getting with the 4800 and Epson's Prem Glossy paper have been better than I could have ever expected. Especially that I see no bronzing whatsoever nor have my friends when asked see any. Several of these friends are die hard PS CS2 users. It was Peter Myers report about his printing B&W using Pictorico Glossy White Film that caused me to give the Prem Glossy a try. What a pleasant surprise. So now I have a whole lot of inventory of large sheets of Premier Art Hot Press, Epson Ultrasmooth (which to me looks exactly like Premier Art Hot Press), Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and cartridges of matte black ink that I won't be using. I have written to Pictorico to ask if they would cut their roll of Glossy White Film from 24" to 17". I have not heard from them yet.

This is the workflow that has worked well for me:

Color Image in QIM>Send image to Photo Editor(PS CS2)>Convert to B&W using The Imaging Factory plug in>Save as>click OK in Qim dialogue box>Set up paper size,media, Advanced B&W, etc. in Printer Driver>Unsharp mask in Qim>Printer ICC off>Center image>Print. Pyramid used to interpolate.

For me PS CS2 is the hassle while Qim is a snap to use. The only images that Qim can't read are RAW images from my Canon d1s ll. These are edited Capture One 3.6 and then saved as Tiffs which Qimage has no trouble reading.

Clayton, with all due respect, I don't think you can judge a print by viewing it on QIM's preview screen.

Regards

Peter

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clayton Jones 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Upsize Report - Qimage vs PS-CS


  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





  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



   



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

Hello Peter,

>Your experience with Qimage, I believe, is unique. 
>I would really like to try the subject image on my machine and 
>print it. 
>I thought that all ink jet printers could only print 8 bit images, 
>but I could be mistaken.
>Clayton, with all due respect, I don't think you can judge a print 
>by viewing it on QIM's preview screen.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to this.  I know many
people like Q very much and get great results with it.  As I mentioned
before, the few times I've gotten it to work ok the results have been
terrific.  However your remarks above make me think that you didn't
read my original message carefully.  I'm not trying to print with Q,
and I'm not judging a print by viewing it on the Qimg screen.

What I'm doing is upsizing a 1.2 mp file to 8mp so that I can make a
larger print.  I'm using Q's "Print To File" simply for upsizing.  I
have already converted the file to 16-bit grayscale and done
much of the work using my normal methods.  I send it to Q for upsizing
and get back an 8-bit RGB file that is less sharp than my PS/bicubic
version plus has the hatch marks and sharpening halos.  So...why bother.

You gave me an idea though, and I just tried upsizing the original RGB
color file before BW conversion.  I thought maybe it would do a better
job with that.  But...the hatch marks are still there.  Perhaps it's
the Print To File that's causing it, or maybe because it's such a
large jump from 1.2 to 8 mp...I don't know.  For whatever reason, the
PS/bic is giving a result I didn't think would be possible (I first
did it just to see what would happen and was stunned at the quality it
produced).  

I have found 8 or 10 of these low-res images that are worth working up
(for some strange reason I didn't take them with the big camera-
-duh!).  I've done four of them so far using this method and I'm
getting very satisfactory 8" prints.  These are now on my
web site if you are interested in seeing why I'm going to the trouble,
I really like the images.  Here's a link

      http://www.cjcom.net/cal05-a.htm

There are five pics here, all but the middle one ("Dune Study #1") are
the low res ones.  The dark one, "Morning On The Dunes", was the
original one I first tried this on.

Back to Q, I agree that it does a superior job of printing whenever it
can read the file.  But often it cannot.  It's usually files that have
had lots of layers and selections, which is most of the time on my
serious work.  It's weird because some of those files it can read,
while others it can't.  I haven't detected a pattern yet as to what
might be causing it.  Bottom line for me unfortunately is it's not a
tool I can count on.  I wish that weren't the case and I hope someday
it will be better.  That's why I keep going back to it now and then.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Back to Q, I agree that it does a superior job of printing whenever it
> can read the file.  But often it cannot.  It's usually files that have
> had lots of layers and selections, which is most of the time on my
> serious work.  It's weird because some of those files it can read,
> while others it can't.  I haven't detected a pattern yet as to what
> might be causing it.  Bottom line for me unfortunately is it's not a
> tool I can count on.  I wish that weren't the case and I hope someday
> it will be better.  That's why I keep going back to it now and then.
> 
>

Are you flattenning all layers before you send it to Qimage?

Don't know if you have thought of trying size fixer, but it might be 
interesting to see what they could do:
http://www.fixerlabs.com/New_Website/pages/sizefixerservice.htm

I've never used it, but it seems interesting.

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
>

Size fixer also says that they have a free trial upres, but the link 
didn't work, so it might be worth an email.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Well...  You can read about it in the release notes.
> "v2006.203 corrects an anomaly in the pyramid interpolation routine
that was
> causing "sawtooth" patterns around the edges of rectangles in very rare
> cases."

That's a big step in the wrong direction.

Adding a pattern around the edge of a rectangle helps reduce the
effects of the QTR bug that causes banding. I use a pattern of 1 pixel
"teeth".

Qimage needs an "add tiny, jagged border" option.

Hello Greg,

>Are you flattenning all layers before you send it to Qimage?

Layers doesn't seem to be the key.  Some files with saved layers it
has no trouble with.  Others without layers it can't read.  Q also
reports three kinds of errors:  

1) Red text saying "Image Read Error" instead of an image

2) an image that is just a bunch of hash noise

3) a partially shown image that may be either hash or strangely colored

Tif or Psd, doesn't seem to matter.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello William,

>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.

Good to know, thanks for the tip.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton Jones wrote:
> Hello Greg,
> 
>> Are you flattenning all layers before you send it to Qimage?
> 
> Layers doesn't seem to be the key.  Some files with saved layers it
> has no trouble with.  Others without layers it can't read.  Q also
> reports three kinds of errors:  
> 
> 1) Red text saying "Image Read Error" instead of an image
> 
> 2) an image that is just a bunch of hash noise
> 
> 3) a partially shown image that may be either hash or strangely colored
> 
> Tif or Psd, doesn't seem to matter.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton

I never have problems with RGB TIFFs at 8 bit without layers 
but with LZW compression. That's what I use. I never have 
problems with greyscale files in a similar shape either.

The interpolation is never showing artifacts either but the 
upsampling I use seldom gets over 80 %. Smart print sharpening 
is the main thing I am careful with. Usually I do not get 
above 2% and sometimes I do not use any sharpening.

Ernst
                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Very nice, Clayton, and remarkable given the amount of enlargement.
--
Sam


At 5:00 PM +0000 1/3/06, Clayton Jones wrote:

>[snip]
>
>I have found 8 or 10 of these low-res images that are worth working up
>(for some strange reason I didn't take them with the big camera-
>-duh!).  I've done four of them so far using this method and I'm
>getting very satisfactory 8" prints.  These are now on my
>web site if you are interested in seeing why I'm going to the trouble,
>I really like the images.  Here's a link
>
>       http://www.cjcom.net/cal05-a.htm
>
>[snip]

Hello Sam,

>Very nice, Clayton, and remarkable given the amount of enlargement.

It really is amazing what can be done.  I was surprised it could be
enlarged that much.  Upsizing to 8mp allows room to crop and still
print without jaggies on diagonals, but it doesn't create more detail.
Going bigger than about 8" or so the lack of resolution starts
hurting.  

Just to see what would happen, I printed "Winter Storm Over Sierras"
at 14".  From a few feet away it looks pretty good, but up close of
course the lack of resolution kills it.

But 8" is a very pleasing portfolio size print and I'm really happy to
be able to make something out of these little guys.  There are some
excellent images in the bunch.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton, I keep meaning to reply to you but keep forgeting... I've not read the whole thread 
real carefully. But you have been mentioning PSCS bicubic. When resing up, be sure and use 
the newer bicubic smoother option. For the first time I can see it doing a slightly better job 
than my RIP when scaling.
I just completed another test, I resed up way more than I needed with Bicubic smoother, then 
ran Noise Ninja (use carefully) which smooths and sharpens, then resed back down to exact 
print size @ 360dpi using bicubic sharper.
Considering the quality of the original, I was extremely impressed with the result on paper.

Try those smoother and sharper options with bicubic, some impressive options. Also, I'm told 
the smoother option renders the old stairstep procedures obselete.

Tyler

That has been my experience. I was very surprised when I did a
comparison test of an extreme upsampling between the Stairstep Pro 2
which I have always liked, and PSCS2 bicubic smoother. In my
comparisons the PS looked a little better with less obvious artifacts
around the edges of pixels. But sharpening is always an important
factor in the end. I always fade the sharpening 50% in the luminosity
channel and that helps, especially in the highlights.




> Try those smoother and sharper options with bicubic, some impressive
options. Also, I'm told 

> the smoother option renders the old stairstep procedures obselete.
> 
> Tyler
>

Hello Tyler,

>Clayton, I keep meaning to reply to you but keep forgeting... I've 
>not read the whole thread real carefully. But you have been 
>mentioning PSCS bicubic. When resing up, be sure and use 
>the newer bicubic smoother option. For the first time I can see it
>doing a slightly better job than my RIP when scaling.
>Also, I'm told the smoother option renders the old stairstep 
>procedures obselete.

Ok, thanks for the tip.  I have several more of these to do so I'll
try it and do a comparison.


>I just completed another test, I resed up way more than I needed
>with Bicubic smoother, then ran Noise Ninja (use carefully) which 
>smooths and sharpens, then resed back down to exact print size @ 
>360dpi using bicubic sharper. Considering the quality of the 
>original, I was extremely impressed with the result on paper.

Very interesting.  I've been thinking about getting one of the noise
apps but can't make up my mind between Ninja and Neat.  What are your
thoughts on that?  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

John,

>I always fade the sharpening 50% in the luminosity
>channel and that helps, especially in the highlights.

Can you explain how you do this?


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Clayton,

First you sharpen as desired using unsharp mask. I often give the
Amount 500% - the Radius between .2 - .7 (usually .2 for "normal"
image)  and the Threshold at 0. Sometimes I use .3 if .2 isn't enough
and reduce the Amount down to say the 200-300 range judging visually
at 100% on the area that is the sharpest in the file.

Then immediately after sharpening (you can not do another step in
between) go to Edit>Fade>Unsharp Mask, set to about 50%. If you are
working with an rgb file you can do it in the luminosity channel to
effect tonality only, if you are working in greyscale you of course do
not have this option of using a luminoisity channel. In the case of
greyscale you just fade at the same 50% rate overall.

This is the approach that I've been using for a long time. When you
sharpen a pixel this increases the contrast along the edge of the
pixel, the fading softens the transitions of this contrast. I have
found it most useful when things are not as sharp as I would like.
This gives one the ability to do more than one sharpening on the same
file while having some control over the highlight clipping that all
sharpening produces. I find it is useful when doing really large
upsampling (which I hate to do, but you know digital cameras) that
softens resolution so much.

I am still learning to work with the smart sharpening tools in PS CS2.
They are interesting. There are lots of different stragegies to
sharpen. I find this one useful.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:

>
> John,
> 
> >I always fade the sharpening 50% in the luminosity
> >channel and that helps, especially in the highlights.
> 
> Can you explain how you do this?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

I just talked to someone here who is using Ninja and she likes it a
lot.  What is the big difference in using it and using the Noise
Reduction menu in PS CS2? I know one thing, we are going to see a lot
of noise in the shadows from digital slr's for awhile.

john 

> Very interesting.  I've been thinking about getting one of the noise
> apps but can't make up my mind between Ninja and Neat.  What are your
> thoughts on that?  
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
...
> Very interesting.  I've been thinking about getting one of the noise
> apps but can't make up my mind between Ninja and Neat.  What are your
> thoughts on that?  

We downloaded and tested every one of them we could find in demo mode.
Personally I liked the Noiseware filter best, Ninja came in second but
I suspect with settings you could make them identical. We finally
decided on Noise Ninja because it seemed less confusing to learn. Neat
was at one time in the lead, but I think these others are doing a bit
better now.
John, these filters are pretty complex, very different from the D&S PS
filter. The analyze the image first, and procced accordingly.
I don't really like them, but used very carefully they help reduce
drum scanner grain accentuation with neg films. I have used it with
success on higher iso cannon captures as well.
Tyler

Thanks Tyler,

There is always something new to buy isn't there.

Were you refering to the Reduce Noise filter menu in PS CS2 when you
said D&S PS filter? ( dust and scratches? is a totally different
mechanism ,right? )

> John, these filters are pretty complex, very different from the D&S PS
> filter. The analyze the image first, and procced accordingly.
> I don't really like them, but used very carefully they help reduce
> drum scanner grain accentuation with neg films. I have used it with
> success on higher iso cannon captures as well.
> Tyler
>

Sorry, yes, you are right. Between OS updates, the 9800, more storage,
new cannons, etc., I have not sprung for PSCS2. So I'm not familiar
with that new filter.
Perhaps someone else here can report on how well these 3rd party
filters work compared to it.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

>
> Thanks Tyler,
> 
> There is always something new to buy isn't there.
> 
> Were you refering to the Reduce Noise filter menu in PS CS2 when you
> said D&S PS filter? ( dust and scratches? is a totally different
> mechanism ,right? )
> 
> 
> 
> > John, these filters are pretty complex, very different from the D&S PS
> > filter. The analyze the image first, and procced accordingly.
> > I don't really like them, but used very carefully they help reduce
> > drum scanner grain accentuation with neg films. I have used it with
> > success on higher iso cannon captures as well.
> > Tyler
> >
>

From my limited experimenting with the Noise Ninja demo version, I think it
can do a better job than the new Reduce Noise filter in CS2, but I don't
think I care enough, or need it often enough, to make it worthwhile. The new
filter gets me 80%, and I am not very willing to invest the time and money
to squeeze out the last 20%. I think the new filter is a big improvement
over the noise reduction in ACR, although it does take a little time to
learn how to use it properly. 

 

On the other hand, one thing I really like about Noise Ninja is that its
camera-model-dependant and ISO-dependant noise filtering can be run
automatically on a batch of images. The batch file reads the image ISO and
camera model from each image's meta data and adjusts the noise processing
accordingly. If I shot an event, with 100s of high ISO images, the batch
processing might really pay off. Hand tweaking each image might give better
results, but I can't see myself doing it.

 

Steve

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 11:45 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Upsize Report - Clayton and John

 

Sorry, yes, you are right. Between OS updates, the 9800, more storage,
new cannons, etc., I have not sprung for PSCS2. So I'm not familiar
with that new filter.
Perhaps someone else here can report on how well these 3rd party
filters work compared to it.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Tyler,
> 
> There is always something new to buy isn't there.
> 
> Were you refering to the Reduce Noise filter menu in PS CS2 when you
> said D&S PS filter? ( dust and scratches? is a totally different
> mechanism ,right? )
> 
> 
> 
> > John, these filters are pretty complex, very different from the D&S PS
> > filter. The analyze the image first, and procced accordingly.
> > I don't really like them, but used very carefully they help reduce
> > drum scanner grain accentuation with neg films. I have used it with
> > success on higher iso cannon captures as well.
> > Tyler
> >
>






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!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 

 

  _____  



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Bye" 
<steve_bye@c...> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, one thing I really like about Noise Ninja is 
that its
> camera-model-dependant and ISO-dependant noise filtering can be run
> automatically on a batch of images. The batch file reads the image 
ISO and
> camera model from each image's meta data and adjusts the noise 
processing
> accordingly. If I shot an event, with 100s of high ISO images, the 
batch
> processing might really pay off. Hand tweaking each image might 
give better
> results, but I can't see myself doing it.
> 
>  


Couldn't you also set up a Photoshop action to go through an entire 
folder and process the images? It might not be able to apply 
different "levels" of reduction if you changed ISO in the middle of 
the shoot, but it might work for a batch.

Thanks for that Steve,

That was very helpful.

I have been working with that Reduce Noise filter in CS2 and find it
very useful but I have't compared it with an additional plug in like
you have. What you said about the need for batch processing after
doing other adjustments in Camera Raw for a particular iso and camera
type does seem appealing. I was thinking what Greg was thinking though
about simply doing the tweaking in ps and then setting up an action
for a particular job type and film type and saving that. If or when I
have tons of these kinds of files to process I will test out the Ninja. 

I'm getting more and more calls asking me if I do this kind of
processing for ad photographers and design firms. The nature of the
photographers work flow and image management is changing fast and it
is certainly swamping a lot of people. This kind of job could be a
specialty in itself, especially for someone just out of school who
could do it on location for hire. I'm not sure how much time I want to
devote to it though. I'm more interesed in ink on prints.

John  


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Bye"
<steve_bye@c...> wrote:
>
> From my limited experimenting with the Noise Ninja demo version, I
think it
> can do a better job than the new Reduce Noise filter in CS2, but I don't
> think I care enough, or need it often enough, to make it worthwhile.
The new
> filter gets me 80%, and I am not very willing to invest the time and
money
> to squeeze out the last 20%. I think the new filter is a big improvement
> over the noise reduction in ACR, although it does take a little time to
> learn how to use it properly. 
> 
>  
> 
> On the other hand, one thing I really like about Noise Ninja is that its
> camera-model-dependant and ISO-dependant noise filtering can be run
> automatically on a batch of images. The batch file reads the image
ISO and
> camera model from each image's meta data and adjusts the noise
processing
> accordingly. If I shot an event, with 100s of high ISO images, the batch
> processing might really pay off. Hand tweaking each image might give
better
> results, but I can't see myself doing it.
> 
>  
> 
> Steve
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
> Boley
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 11:45 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Upsize Report - Clayton and John
> 
>  
> 
> Sorry, yes, you are right. Between OS updates, the 9800, more storage,
> new cannons, etc., I have not sprung for PSCS2. So I'm not familiar
> with that new filter.
> Perhaps someone else here can report on how well these 3rd party
> filters work compared to it.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Tyler,
> > 
> > There is always something new to buy isn't there.
> > 
> > Were you refering to the Reduce Noise filter menu in PS CS2 when you
> > said D&S PS filter? ( dust and scratches? is a totally different
> > mechanism ,right? )
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > John, these filters are pretty complex, very different from the
D&S PS
> > > filter. The analyze the image first, and procced accordingly.
> > > I don't really like them, but used very carefully they help reduce
> > > drum scanner grain accentuation with neg films. I have used it with
> > > success on higher iso cannon captures as well.
> > > Tyler
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In a semi related discussion, has anyone tried Noise Fixer from 
Fixerlabs? I'm thinking of grabbing the Size Fixer XL plus the other 
bundled parts, and was wondering if anyone had opinions. FYI, they 
have their software on Holiday special for a little while longer, and 
the markdown is pretty heavy if you buy the entire bundle!
http://www.fixerlabs.com/New_Website/pages/index.htm

Hi,

I've just today posted a little review of SizeFixer, in which there are 
some minute images comparing extreme resizing by this, Photozoom Pro, 
QImage and PS7 bicubic (not the more recent versions.)

SizeFixer does a nice job, and Photozoom is more or less the same. 
QImage (I used pyramid) is very close, closer still with more reasonable 
upsizing, and considerably faster than either.

Its at http://photography.about.com/od/imageprocessing/fr/fixerlabs.htm

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...    
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



john dean wrote:

>That has been my experience. I was very surprised when I did a
>comparison test of an extreme upsampling between the Stairstep Pro 2
>which I have always liked, and PSCS2 bicubic smoother. In my
>comparisons the PS looked a little better with less obvious artifacts
>around the edges of pixels. But sharpening is always an important
>factor in the end. I always fade the sharpening 50% in the luminosity
>channel and that helps, especially in the highlights.
>
>
>
>  
>
>  
>

Ninja and Neat are not the only games now, though I've reviewed both in 
the past. Some of the raw software has quite decent filtering built in, 
and  I'd also consider both  Imagenomic Noiseware (I'm about to try out  
version 4.0) and also the FixerLabs NoiseFixer (available also as a part 
of their FixerBundle.)  There is a site with a lot of noise removal 
compared, but last I looked it was rather out of date.

I think you would be quite likely to find different software more suited 
to film scans and digital capture.

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Tyler Boley wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
><cj@c...> wrote:
>...
>  
>
>>Very interesting.  I've been thinking about getting one of the noise
>>apps but can't make up my mind between Ninja and Neat.  What are your
>>thoughts on that?  
>>    
>>
>
>We downloaded and tested every one of them we could find in demo mode.
>Personally I liked the Noiseware filter best, Ninja came in second but
>I suspect with settings you could make them identical. We finally
>decided on Noise Ninja because it seemed less confusing to learn. Neat
>was at one time in the lead, but I think these others are doing a bit
>better now.
>John, these filters are pretty complex, very different from the D&S PS
>filter. The analyze the image first, and procced accordingly.
>I don't really like them, but used very carefully they help reduce
>drum scanner grain accentuation with neg films. I have used it with
>success on higher iso cannon captures as well.
>Tyler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Welcome to the wonderful world of noise.

Hello Peter,

>I've just today posted a little review of SizeFixer, in which 
>there are some minute images comparing extreme resizing by this, 
>Photozoom Pro, QImage and PS7 bicubic (not the more recent 
>versions.)

I read your review with interest, but was disappointed not to see a
photo of the Sizefixer result (one would think that an example of the
product that is the subject of the review would be included).  In
addition, the two photos that were included were on different pages
and were different sizes.  That makes it rather difficult to do a side
by side comparison. 

I then went to their web site and found that they have no demo
program, and want $59 to do a sample image for me so I can see what
the program can do.  I don't know how they expect to sell much with
marketing policies like that.

Unfortunately, between your review and their web site, I've learned
nothing that would make me willing to spend $185.  However, I am
interested if the product can actually do what it claims.  But I need
to see what it can do to one of my pics so I can compare to my PS
results.  Since you have the program, would you be willing to upsize
an image for me so I can see how well it works?  If so, please email
me and I can upload it to my web site and send you a link.  Thanks
very much.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton,

You obviously missed the SizeFixer image which is there - you need to 
make sure you allow the popup that contains the main illustrations to 
the page. You need to click on the image that is labelled 'Click for 
more pictures'!

 This has a set of 3 that allow a very ready comparison (the link is at 
the right of the first page near the top), labelled 'simple', photoshop 
bicubic and sizefixer. They make the difference very plain as they fade 
into each other when you click the <next> link. Pity I didn't line them 
up a bit better, but I think they are good enough. However the template 
only allows me to use 3 rather than the 6 I actually wanted.

The images are all actually the same size and you can see all but the 
QImage one at 250x170 pixels (the max size for the template) . If you 
want to see that the same just right click on the image to find 
properties and enter the URL 
(http://z.about.com/d/photography/1/0/-/7/qimage01.jpg) in your browser 
address line.

As I say
-----------
"If you are a professional who regularly needs to use severely cropped 
digital images, or are asked by designers to produce miracles from your 
files, SizeFixer will come into its own and could soon justify its cost. 
At $185, the casual user will find SizeFixer too expensive, but its high 
quality will justify the price for others.

I'll continue to use QImage (see test image at right) for routine 
upsizing, simply on account of it's speed and convenience with easy 
batch processing. It also resizes output automatically to optimum size 
for any print size from your stored image which saves a great deal of 
work. SizeFixer does give a marginally better result, but the difference 
will seldom be noticeable enough to justify its the lack of batch 
processing, time and cost."
---------
I used it yesterday when I had a request from a magazine for a press 
print of an image by another artist that I only had as a relatively 
small jpeg. I couldn't have got a larger image by the deadline without 
it. I could have used QImage, but SizeFixer gave a better result. That 
kind of thing probably happens often enough round here for me to think 
it is worth the money.

I don't review things I don't think are useful to some photographers, 
but I've no interest in actually selling them. If you read it and decide 
it isn't for you, that's just as good an outcome for me as if you read 
it and rush and and buy.

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...   
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Clayton Jones wrote:

>Hello Peter,
>
>  
>
>>I've just today posted a little review of SizeFixer, in which 
>>there are some minute images comparing extreme resizing by this, 
>>Photozoom Pro, QImage and PS7 bicubic (not the more recent 
>>versions.)
>>    
>>
>
>I read your review with interest, but was disappointed not to see a
>photo of the Sizefixer result (one would think that an example of the
>product that is the subject of the review would be included).  In
>addition, the two photos that were included were on different pages
>and were different sizes.  That makes it rather difficult to do a side
>by side comparison. 
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Hello Peter,

>You obviously missed the SizeFixer image which is there - you 
>need to make sure you allow the popup that contains the main 
>illustrations to the page. You need to click on the image that is 
>labelled 'Click for  more pictures'!

Yes I did miss it, but see it now thanks.  It does look very
impressive compared to the bicubic.  But I would still like to see
what it will do on one of my images before I spend that much money, so
I'm still wondering if you would be willing to upsize one of my small
1.2 mp jpegs for me so I can see the actual results.  $185 is a lot of
money to plunk down.  I need to be able to see and print a real world
example before I can decide.  Thanks very much.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Peter,

>I'm still wondering if you would be willing to upsize one of my small
>1.2 mp jpegs for me so I can see the actual results.  

Never mind, someone else offered to do it, and found that my camera is
not in its database.  I'm not going to pursue it any further.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Right, just read your earlier message. This is what the SizeFixer Faq 
says about the problem:
----------------------


      I know my images have EXIF data but the Super Resolution will
      still not activate. Why?

This is probably one of two reasons.

a) The source camera has incorrectly saved the parameters and 
*Size*Fixer can not validate the information provided. We know of a 
couple of leading cameras where the F Number details are completely 
incorrect and this fails the *Size*Fixer internal validation. The only 
work around we have at this time is to use an external EXIF editor to 
correct the information. A future upgrade will include an EXIF editor 
within the *Size*Fixer control panel.

b) The source image has been preprocessed or perhaps converted from RAW 
and this external programme has removed the EXIF information. Our only 
recommendation in this case is to avoid all image processing before 
using *Size*Fixer and in our experience Adobe Photoshop retains the EXIF 
data when converting from RAW.

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

I tried files from 3 cameras (2 Nikon and 1 Canon) and they all worked, 
so I didn't look into this.

You might find it worth downloading the trial version of Photozoom Pro 
in that case as it seems almost as good. But if you already have QImage 
its probably not worth bothering.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Clayton Jones wrote:

>Hello Peter,
>
>  
>
>>I'm still wondering if you would be willing to upsize one of my small
>>1.2 mp jpegs for me so I can see the actual results.  
>>    
>>
>
>Never mind, someone else offered to do it, and found that my camera is
>not in its database.  I'm not going to pursue it any further.
>
>Regards,
>Clayton
>
>
>Info on black and white digital printing at    
>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
>
>
>  
>

Perhaps I should also add that SizeFixer does support a pretty wide 
range of cameras - including over 20 models from each of Canon and Nikon 
for example..

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474
31 Budebury Rd, STAINES, Middx, TW18 2AZ, UK
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Peter Marshall wrote:

>Right, just read your earlier message. This is what the SizeFixer Faq 
>says about the problem:
>----------------------
>  
>
>  
>

Peter, I like the fact that you didn't claim Size Fixer to work 
absolute miracles, and that you suggest that some people will never 
need what it can give. Your review seemed very unbiased, which is far 
different from a lot of other reviews (especially when a new printer 
comes out). The thing that is holding me back right now is that the 
XL version isn't available for Windows yet. The email I received 
about that seems to point towards a Microsoft problem and that when 
this is resolved, the XL version should be good for a 2 Giga Pixel 
size limit for current TIFF formated images. They also told me that 
they will give a full credit for the SLR to XL upgrade. So I'm still 
thinking about a purchase while their Christmas discount applies.

Another, more flexible approach, that will work with grayscale:

1. Apply the sharpening to a duplicate layer.

2. Reduce any overall over sharpening by lowering the layer opacity.

3. Add a layer mask, with "reveal all'.

4. Paint black on the layer mask to remove some sharpening in a particular area, with an 
opacity for your Wacom brush set to allow reasonable control. Try 25% as a start.

4a. Or, paint some shade of gray on the layer mask with your mouse.

5. Don't like it? Delete the layer mask and try again. Or delete the duplicate layer and try 
again.

Hope that helps.

Michael

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Clayton,
> 
> First you sharpen as desired using unsharp mask. I often give the
> Amount 500% - the Radius between .2 - .7 (usually .2 for "normal"
> image)  and the Threshold at 0. Sometimes I use .3 if .2 isn't enough
> and reduce the Amount down to say the 200-300 range judging visually
> at 100% on the area that is the sharpest in the file.
> 
> Then immediately after sharpening (you can not do another step in
> between) go to Edit>Fade>Unsharp Mask, set to about 50%. If you are
> working with an rgb file you can do it in the luminosity channel to
> effect tonality only, if you are working in greyscale you of course do
> not have this option of using a luminoisity channel. In the case of
> greyscale you just fade at the same 50% rate overall.
> 
***** snip ******

>Peter said: You might find it worth downloading the trial version 
>of Photozoom Pro in that case as it seems almost as good. But if 
>you already have QImage its probably not worth bothering.

I just downloaded and tried the Photozoom demo. Results are below in
the list.  Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.

The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were shot with a Casio
Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.

What I've tried:

1) PS-CS/bicubic - surprisingly good results, way beyond my
expectations.  Everything else is compared to this.

2) PS-CS/bicubic Smooth - not bad but compared to 1) is too soft to
recover w/ more USM.

3) PS-CS/bicubic Sharper - increased contrast too much & compressed
shadows, plus halos.

4) Qimage/Pyramid Print-To-file, at various sharpen settings - lots of
patterned atrifacts and halos.  Not even close to 1). 

5) Qimage/most other algorithms - various degrees of artifacts and
halos.  Nothing anywhere near 1) above.

6) SizeFixer (someone did it for me) at normal setting (because it
can't read the Casio exif for advanced mode)- very much like 1), but
with worse jaggies on diagonals.

7) Photozoom Pro - Ran demo with S-Spline (supposedly the best) at
default settings.  Result: Terrible.  Looks horribly overprocessed and
cartoonish.  I didn't try any of the other algorithms.

8) Jack Flesher's PS-CS/bicubic workflow, as described at this link
(thanks to Carl Schofield for the tip):

  http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html

It goes like this:
a) do all work to get the image ready to print, including sharpening,
 at native resolution
b) upsize with bicubic smoother to 20% past target resolution
c) add more sharpening
d) downsize with bicubic sharper to target resolution

The result was much better than my straight bicubic workflow, in these
ways:
- sharper, with fewer sharpening artifacts
- better shadow separation and low end contrast
- over all look was sharper & contrastier with better shadow detail

I could not match the results with my normal methods.  My workflow has
been this:
- convert to grayscale
- then upsize with bicubic
- then do the work

Then I did some experiments, and found that the real difference is in
doing the work, including sharpening, before upsizing.  When I changed
my workflow to this:
- convert to grayscale
- do the work, including sharpening
- then upsize with bicubic
- add a bit more sharpening

...the result was nearly identical to the Flesher workflow.  That
print was still a tiny bit better.  I did some tests with the workflow
and the crucial step seems to be in the sharpening added between the
two resizings.  But it's real easy to add too much and it starts
looking overprocessed.  Too little and it doesn't look any better than
the straight bicubic step.  So it's playing right on the edge, looking
for the sweet spot.

Seems like the really big difference comes from doing all the resizing
after the work is done, rather than before it.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton:

Fascinating evaluations, thanks for sharing them.

Did you make your image evaluations on-screen or in prints?  That 
makes a world of difference in the extrapolation game.

Thanks.... Jack Winberg

At 10:22 AM 1/8/2006, you wrote:
>Message: 9
>    Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 05:03:41 -0000
>    From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>
>Subject: Upsize Report
>
> >Peter said: You might find it worth downloading the trial version
> >of Photozoom Pro in that case as it seems almost as good. But if
> >you already have QImage its probably not worth bothering.
>
>I just downloaded and tried the Photozoom demo. Results are below in
>the list.  Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.... (SNIP)


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

Clayton,
Thanks for letting us know your results!  Were all the comparisons 
done using the SAME image?  It might be good now to do the 
experiments over again using a totally different image (different 
type contrast, subject matter, focal length) just to see if the 
results hold true in general & not just for that one image.  I plan 
on doing some comparisons myself but thought it would be valid only 
if done by the same person using the exact same process & hardware.
Thanks for passing along your results!

Bruce Varner
http://brucevarner.com/




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
>
> >Peter said: You might find it worth downloading the trial version 
> >of Photozoom Pro in that case as it seems almost as good. But if 
> >you already have QImage its probably not worth bothering.
> 
> I just downloaded and tried the Photozoom demo. Results are below in
> the list.  Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so 
far...........

Hello Bruce,

>Thanks for letting us know your results!  Were all the comparisons 
>done using the SAME image?  

Yes, it's on the web site now, here's a link.  It's the 2nd one down,
called "Panamint Range" 

   http://www.cjcom.net/cal05-a.htm

It's a mass of tiny detail with a bit of sky at the top.


>It might be good now to do the experiments over again using a 
>totally different image (different type contrast, subject matter, 
>focal length) just to see if the results hold true in general & 
>not just for that one image.  

That occurred to me last night.  I probably won't do as exhaustive a
test as this again, but probably over time I'll get some sense of
whether it holds true.  I'm all tested out for now, and I used a whole
bunch of paper and ink on it, so I'll let some other adventurous soul
take it to the next step.  It really would be good to hear from others
who try it.  This was one person's result from one test.  Best to have
a range of reports, I hope others will try it.


>I plan on doing some comparisons myself but thought it would be 
>valid only if done by the same person using the exact same process 
>& hardware.

Well, seems to me that if this is going to be a general principle then
it should hold true in all cases.  It might be more valuable for
others to try to repeat it.  It may not hold true in all situations. 
Let's hope some other reports will come in.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Jack,

>Did you make your image evaluations on-screen or in prints?  That 
>makes a world of difference in the extrapolation game.

Of course I looked at them on screen, but the final conclusions were
drawn from the prints.  I made 8" prints, which is about as large is
these images will go and still look good.  And that's an important
point in all this.

I originally chose 8mp as the target resolution because that's what my
bigger camera gives and I'm used to working with it.  I was hoping for
larger prints.  But upsizing can't invent detail that isn't there to
begin with, it can only reproduce what's already there.  8 inches is
about all these will stand (I actually made a 14" print from one just
to see what would happen [8mp will give a print that big without
pixellation], and it looks pretty good from 5' away, but of course up
close it's not so great).

So the point is it's not necessary to upsize so much to get an 8"
print.  1.2 to 8 is a pretty radical jump.  Perhaps the upsizing
quality would be even better with a smaller jump.  My next test will
be to see if a smaller jump, say to 5mp, will produce a better 8"
print.  Maybe there's a sweet spot.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

> >It might be good now to do the experiments over again using a 
> >totally different image (different type contrast, subject matter, 
> >focal length) just to see if the results hold true in general & 
> >not just for that one image.  

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

Well that's just it. All this stuff is file and image dependent in my
experience. I personally am much more interested in what happens when
I take a 4000 or 8000dpi drum scan of a 35mm neg and take that up very
large. And for something like that I find the new CS2 Bicubic Smoother
to be quite good. The degree of contrast in your original file is also
very important. Cheap digital cameras are crude in that regard.

I don't think Adobe would have gone to all the trouble they did to
release the new Sharpening tools if they were not a significant
improvement over traditional Bicubic interpolation. It's all relative
to the file you start with. 

John

I went back to the Photozoom demo and tried running it _after_ all the
image work, including sharpening, was completed (all tests had the
same operations applied to the image).

This time the results were much better than before.  Compared to the
best PS/bicubic print:

- not quite as sharp.  When I added some USM to try to match the
bicubic, it began looking overprocessed.

- It does has slightly more open shadows, a plus in its favor.


So this at least adds some weight to the idea that doing upsizing at
the end makes a big difference.

It seems that the PS-CS bicubic approach is about as good as anything
else although I'm still curious about the SizeFixer advanced mode. 
But I think it would have to be awfully good to warrant that kind of
price.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello John,

>Well that's just it. All this stuff is file and image dependent 
>in my experience. I personally am much more interested in what 
>happens when I take a 4000 or 8000dpi drum scan of a 35mm neg and 
>take that up very large. And for something like that I find the new 
>CS2 Bicubic Smoother to be quite good. The degree of contrast in your 
>original file is also very important. Cheap digital cameras are crude 
>in that regard.

Exactly.  The most interesting thing to come out of my test is the
difference between resizing before and after the work.  I'm curious to
know if that principle also applies to your scans, or to high quality
DSLR images.  Can you do some tests to verify that?



>I don't think Adobe would have gone to all the trouble they did to
>release the new Sharpening tools if they were not a significant
>improvement over traditional Bicubic interpolation. It's all relative
>to the file you start with. 

I've had the impression, probably from the advertising hype, that PS
tools aren't as good as the independent specialty tools.  But for
upsizing at least, the PS stuff seems pretty hard to beat.  But again,
that's for these cheapo digicam files.  Does it hold true with higher
quality images?  Have you compared your results with the Photozoom
demo, or others?


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Clayton,

The only tests I have done are between  Cs2 Bicubic,CS2 Bicubic
Smoother and Stairstep Interpolation Pro 2. My tests were with
moderate and extreme interpolations of 35mm and 2 1/4 drum scans from
film and transparencies. I also did one from a Cannon 1D Mark 2 file,
doubling its size.

No I haven't tried the demo of Photozoom and I have't tried Q Image at
all. 

Right now I'm trying to set up a Piezzo printer and my testing time is
limited but I will try to do the Photo Zoom vs the others test
sometime this week and get back to you. 

The more people that test different types of files with different
types of software the more we will know. 

One interesting note. The Stairstep Interpolation Pro has a setting
that allows you to sharpen or not sharepen. This sharpening apparently
occurs between each sequence of the operation. The CS2 Bicubic
Smoother apparenty doesn't do that and is a much faster operaton. How
that occurs, I have no idea. 

John

John



------

> I've had the impression, probably from the advertising hype, that PS
> tools aren't as good as the independent specialty tools.  But for
> upsizing at least, the PS stuff seems pretty hard to beat.  But again,
> that's for these cheapo digicam files.  Does it hold true with higher
> quality images?  Have you compared your results with the Photozoom
> demo, or others?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
>

Clayton,

I have been using the correction/sharpen/Bicubic
smoother to 120%/Bicubic sharper to 100%/print
workflow with images from the 1DsMKII for some time
with great success. 

I generally do all of the correction work at native
size, then sharpen using Fred Miranda's CSpro
(maximum/fine-detail/no-halo/reduce color noise) and
save as my master. I then resize to print size and
save as tiff as needed (pc qtr user). 

Fred Miranda also has two upsizing tools camera
independent SIPro (for those who like to sharpen
first) and the camera specific Resize Pro (for those
who like to sharpen after sharpening) Both are under
$30. I have Resize Pro and like the results but didn't
like the change in workflow. I should probably try
SIPro given how I work.

I have no connection to Fred Miranda Software other
than being a happy user.

Guy




		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL \ufffd Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com

At 5:03 AM +0000 1/8/06, Clayton Jones wrote:

>Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
>
>The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were shot with a Casio
>Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.


Clayton,

I'm sure you've already thought of this, and I admit that, from 
reading this and later posts, I don't _fully_ understand your 
methodology, but:

Did you ensure that your target file-size produced an image whose dpi 
at your target print-size was an integral fraction of the 
printer/printer-driver's native resolution?

The reason I ask this is that driver/printer-firmware resampling of 
an image _might_ highlight the anomalies produced by different 
up-sizing algorithms in different ways, perhaps emphasizing the 
failings of an essentially superior method while effectively 
suppressing the failings of an inferior one.

Having said that, I haven't found anything that produces better 
results for me than CS/CS2 bicubic.

I really appreciate you doing these tests and introducing me to Jack 
Flesher's workflow. It looks like a major implication of your tests 
is that the most important thing is to do all the work, including 
initial sharpening, at native resolution before resizing.


Best wishes,

-=-Dennis






















.

Hello Dennis,

>Did you ensure that your target file-size produced an image whose 
>dpi at your target print-size was an integral fraction of the 
>printer/printer-driver's native resolution?
> 
>The reason I ask this is that driver/printer-firmware resampling of 
>an image _might_ highlight the anomalies produced by different 
>up-sizing algorithms in different ways, perhaps emphasizing the 
>failings of an essentially superior method while effectively 
>suppressing the failings of an inferior one.

It's a good point, and no I didn't aim for a paticular resolution. 
I've seen many references to that over the years, with widely varying
opinions as to how important it is.  My own experiments showed that it
made no discernable difference in print quality, so I've never
bothered with it.  But it's very possible that in the case of resizing
it may play an important role.  I can say that in the case of the over
processed look of the Photozoom test it looked overprocessed on screen
before sending it to the printer.

But I think this is an excellent point and when I do the next one I'm
going to try it both ways and see if I can see any difference.  Thanks
very much.


 
>I really appreciate you doing these tests and introducing me to Jack 
>Flesher's workflow. It looks like a major implication of your tests 
>is that the most important thing is to do all the work, including 
>initial sharpening, at native resolution before resizing.

Seems that way.  If you do some testing please report your results
here.  There is still the question of whether the principle will apply
to all images.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
At 5:03 AM +0000 1/8/06, Clayton Jones wrote:
Clayton et al

I just did an initial experiement comparing PS Bicubic
and Photozoom. The image was shot with my wife's Canon
S40 (4 MPX). I did all the process work in PS and when
finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with Photozoom.
Finally I printed the images at 20X26.

The one major difference between the two from a
workflow standpoint is that the PS CS upsize took
about 20 seconds. The Photozoom took almost five
minutes! This is on a Windows machine that is running
the Intel dual core processor with 2GB Ram.

My results show a slight improvement with Photozoom
over PS CS, but not improvement that I would either
pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to wait. I
think I will repeat the test going from the S40 to
something really large like 30X40 to see if the
differences are more marked.

My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has provided
us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is what
I will continue to use until I find a better reason to
buy Photozoom

Woody Spedden
>Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
>
>The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were shot
with a Casio
>Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.


Clayton,

I'm sure you've already thought of this, and I admit
that, from 
reading this and later posts, I don't _fully_
understand your 
methodology, but:

Hello Woody,

>I just did an initial experiement comparing PS Bicubic
>and Photozoom...I did all the process work in PS and when
>finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
>Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with Photozoom.
>My results show a slight improvement with Photozoom
>over PS CS...

If you are doing the upsize in a single step I hope you will also try
it with CS/bicubic.  In my report I found that for a single step
upsize I got better results with Bicubic compared to Bicubic Smoother.
 The use of Bicubic Smoother was prominent in the double-step Flesher
technique.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm















but not improvement that I would either

> pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to wait. I
> think I will repeat the test going from the S40 to
> something really large like 30X40 to see if the
> differences are more marked.



> 
> My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has provided
> us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is what
> I will continue to use until I find a better reason to
> buy Photozoom
> 
> Woody Spedden
> >Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
> >
> >The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were shot
> with a Casio
> >Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.
> 
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> I'm sure you've already thought of this, and I admit
> that, from 
> reading this and later posts, I don't _fully_
> understand your 
> methodology, but:
>

Clayton

Will do. I did my second experiment using a 100Kb jpeg
file of my grandson which my daughter recently sent
me. I used the same two methods as before and got much
the same results. I upsized to 12X16 (yes it is an
extreme upsizing but I wanted to stress the software)
and printed at 8X10. Although this was a bit extreme
it showed me that a 5X7 would be perfectly usable and
from this small file that is an accomplishment.

What was different was that Photozoom now showed some
artifacts that Bicubic smoother did not.

I will keep experimenting to determine the best
workflow and results but Photozoom at $125 does not
offer anything I could use to justify it. I will now
move on to your suggestions re: bicubic and the
Flesher workflow to be sure I find a consisent
methodology.

As always, thanks for the time you take to make us all
better imagemakers.

Sincerely
Woody Spedden

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Hello Woody,

>I just did an initial experiement comparing PS
Bicubic
>and Photozoom...I did all the process work in PS and
when
>finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
>Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with Photozoom.
>My results show a slight improvement with Photozoom
>over PS CS...

If you are doing the upsize in a single step I hope
you will also try
it with CS/bicubic.  In my report I found that for a
single step
upsize I got better results with Bicubic compared to
Bicubic Smoother.
 The use of Bicubic Smoother was prominent in the
double-step Flesher
technique.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm















but not improvement that I would either
> pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to wait. I
> think I will repeat the test going from the S40 to
> something really large like 30X40 to see if the
> differences are more marked.



> 
> My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has provided
> us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is
what
> I will continue to use until I find a better reason
to
> buy Photozoom
> 
> Woody Spedden
> >Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
> >
> >The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were
shot
> with a Casio
> >Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.
> 
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> I'm sure you've already thought of this, and I admit
> that, from 
> reading this and later posts, I don't _fully_
> understand your 
> methodology, but:
>





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" 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.

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

Clayton,

Your results are not necessarily much different to mine. The kind of 
thing you did corresponds more to the upsizing in the second part of my 
feature where I basically found very little difference between any of 
the programs and methods for a fairly moderate upsizing. I don't think I 
could tell the prints apart if I evened out the contrast, although on 
screen there were slight differences, though PS7 bicubic was definitely 
not quite up with the others (I don't have CS.) On screen I'm working at 
100 pixels per inch, while I printed at 300.

My experience over quite a while tells me there are few problems in 
upsizing from 17Mb to 50Mb with almost any software and I think I say 
that in the feature. These files have gone off to some quite picky 
people who have always been happy with the quality. Usually I've used 
Qimage.

Where I did find a difference was in the extreme upsizing. I actually 
took a 0.25Mp image and produced a roughly 17 Mp image. It was certainly 
a much larger amount than SizeFixer claimed to work but I chose to do 
this because I thought it would exaggerate the differences between the 
various methods and also because I was interested to see what I could do 
with a web image. Slightly more than I expected, but not a quality print!

With the extreme case I've just tried the PS7 bicubic with upsizing to 
20% beyond taget, then down and it doesn't make any difference with that.

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Clayton Jones wrote:

>>Peter said: You might find it worth downloading the trial version 
>>of Photozoom Pro in that case as it seems almost as good. But if 
>>you already have QImage its probably not worth bothering.
>>    
>>
>
>I just downloaded and tried the Photozoom demo. Results are below in
>the list.  Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
>
>The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were shot with a Casio
>Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.
>
>What I've tried:
>
>1) PS-CS/bicubic - surprisingly good results, way beyond my
>expectations.  Everything else is compared to this.
>
>2) PS-CS/bicubic Smooth - not bad but compared to 1) is too soft to
>recover w/ more USM.
>
>3) PS-CS/bicubic Sharper - increased contrast too much & compressed
>shadows, plus halos.
>
>4) Qimage/Pyramid Print-To-file, at various sharpen settings - lots of
>patterned atrifacts and halos.  Not even close to 1). 
>
>5) Qimage/most other algorithms - various degrees of artifacts and
>halos.  Nothing anywhere near 1) above.
>
>6) SizeFixer (someone did it for me) at normal setting (because it
>can't read the Casio exif for advanced mode)- very much like 1), but
>with worse jaggies on diagonals.
>
>7) Photozoom Pro - Ran demo with S-Spline (supposedly the best) at
>default settings.  Result: Terrible.  Looks horribly overprocessed and
>cartoonish.  I didn't try any of the other algorithms.
>
>8) Jack Flesher's PS-CS/bicubic workflow, as described at this link
>(thanks to Carl Schofield for the tip):
>
>  http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html
>
>It goes like this:
>a) do all work to get the image ready to print, including sharpening,
> at native resolution
>b) upsize with bicubic smoother to 20% past target resolution
>c) add more sharpening
>d) downsize with bicubic sharper to target resolution
>
>The result was much better than my straight bicubic workflow, in these
>ways:
>- sharper, with fewer sharpening artifacts
>- better shadow separation and low end contrast
>- over all look was sharper & contrastier with better shadow detail
>
>I could not match the results with my normal methods.  My workflow has
>been this:
>- convert to grayscale
>- then upsize with bicubic
>- then do the work
>
>Then I did some experiments, and found that the real difference is in
>doing the work, including sharpening, before upsizing.  When I changed
>my workflow to this:
>- convert to grayscale
>- do the work, including sharpening
>- then upsize with bicubic
>- add a bit more sharpening
>
>...the result was nearly identical to the Flesher workflow.  That
>print was still a tiny bit better.  I did some tests with the workflow
>and the crucial step seems to be in the sharpening added between the
>two resizings.  But it's real easy to add too much and it starts
>looking overprocessed.  Too little and it doesn't look any better than
>the straight bicubic step.  So it's playing right on the edge, looking
>for the sweet spot.
>
>Seems like the really big difference comes from doing all the resizing
>after the work is done, rather than before it.
>
>
>Regards,
>Clayton
>
>
>Info on black and white digital printing at    
>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Sounds like just the product needed to print jpegs
ripped off web sites. Or am I mixing topics...

Guy

--- Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:

> Clayton
> 
> Will do. I did my second experiment using a 100Kb
> jpeg
> file of my grandson which my daughter recently sent
> me. I used the same two methods as before and got
> much
> the same results. I upsized to 12X16 (yes it is an
> extreme upsizing but I wanted to stress the
> software)
> and printed at 8X10. Although this was a bit extreme
> it showed me that a 5X7 would be perfectly usable
> and
> from this small file that is an accomplishment.
> 
> What was different was that Photozoom now showed
> some
> artifacts that Bicubic smoother did not.
> 
> I will keep experimenting to determine the best
> workflow and results but Photozoom at $125 does not
> offer anything I could use to justify it. I will now
> move on to your suggestions re: bicubic and the
> Flesher workflow to be sure I find a consisent
> methodology.
> 
> As always, thanks for the time you take to make us
> all
> better imagemakers.
> 
> Sincerely
> Woody Spedden
> 
> --- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Hello Woody,
> 
> >I just did an initial experiement comparing PS
> Bicubic
> >and Photozoom...I did all the process work in PS
> and
> when
> >finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
> >Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with Photozoom.
> >My results show a slight improvement with Photozoom
> >over PS CS...
> 
> If you are doing the upsize in a single step I hope
> you will also try
> it with CS/bicubic.  In my report I found that for a
> single step
> upsize I got better results with Bicubic compared to
> Bicubic Smoother.
>  The use of Bicubic Smoother was prominent in the
> double-step Flesher
> technique.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not improvement that I would either
> > pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to wait.
> I
> > think I will repeat the test going from the S40 to
> > something really large like 30X40 to see if the
> > differences are more marked.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has
> provided
> > us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is
> what
> > I will continue to use until I find a better
> reason
> to
> > buy Photozoom
> > 
> > Woody Spedden
> > >Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
> > >
> > >The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were
> shot
> > with a Casio
> > >Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.
> > 
> > 
> > Clayton,
> > 
> > I'm sure you've already thought of this, and I
> admit
> > that, from 
> > reading this and later posts, I don't _fully_
> > understand your 
> > methodology, but:
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 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.
> 
>   
> ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL \ufffd Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com

Guy

There is always someone looking for the sinister. No
it isn't about ripping anything off from anyone. I get
small jpegs from my children all the time showing they
and my grandchildren. I like to make at least 4X6 or
5X7 photos from these small jpegs and it takes a good
upsizing algorithm to do that.

Also with my own work I print up to 24X60" images and
the same requirements are at play.

Hope you get a life
Woody

--- guy washburn <guido02474@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Sounds like just the product needed to print jpegs
ripped off web sites. Or am I mixing topics...

Guy

--- Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:

> Clayton
> 
> Will do. I did my second experiment using a 100Kb
> jpeg
> file of my grandson which my daughter recently sent
> me. I used the same two methods as before and got
> much
> the same results. I upsized to 12X16 (yes it is an
> extreme upsizing but I wanted to stress the
> software)
> and printed at 8X10. Although this was a bit extreme
> it showed me that a 5X7 would be perfectly usable
> and
> from this small file that is an accomplishment.
> 
> What was different was that Photozoom now showed
> some
> artifacts that Bicubic smoother did not.
> 
> I will keep experimenting to determine the best
> workflow and results but Photozoom at $125 does not
> offer anything I could use to justify it. I will now
> move on to your suggestions re: bicubic and the
> Flesher workflow to be sure I find a consisent
> methodology.
> 
> As always, thanks for the time you take to make us
> all
> better imagemakers.
> 
> Sincerely
> Woody Spedden
> 
> --- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Hello Woody,
> 
> >I just did an initial experiement comparing PS
> Bicubic
> >and Photozoom...I did all the process work in PS
> and
> when
> >finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
> >Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with Photozoom.
> >My results show a slight improvement with Photozoom
> >over PS CS...
> 
> If you are doing the upsize in a single step I hope
> you will also try
> it with CS/bicubic.  In my report I found that for a
> single step
> upsize I got better results with Bicubic compared to
> Bicubic Smoother.
>  The use of Bicubic Smoother was prominent in the
> double-step Flesher
> technique.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not improvement that I would either
> > pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to wait.
> I
> > think I will repeat the test going from the S40 to
> > something really large like 30X40 to see if the
> > differences are more marked.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has
> provided
> > us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is
> what
> > I will continue to use until I find a better
> reason
> to
> > buy Photozoom
> > 
> > Woody Spedden
> > >Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
> > >
> > >The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were
> shot
> > with a Casio
> > >Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.
> > 
> > 
> > Clayton,
> > 
> > I'm sure you've already thought of this, and I
> admit
> > that, from 
> > reading this and later posts, I don't _fully_
> > understand your 
> > methodology, but:
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 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.
> 
>   
> ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and 
=== message truncated ===



            
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL \ufffd Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com 



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" 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.

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

I think if you try it you will see both the possibilities and the 
problems, and it well illustrates why I've never believed that this is a 
serious problem. If you really want to rip images off, you will 
generally get much better results from print than from the web.

Of course anyone is welcome to print any of the several thousand images 
I have on various web sites to pin up on their walls etc. The quality 
they will get - even with the best software - will not be any kind of 
competition to the prints that I'm making from the 20-50Mb or so files I 
typically print from. I actually feel gratified that some people find 
the pictures interesting enough that they want to possess them even in 
such a limited way. Even better was coming across one on a T-Shirt!

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



guy washburn wrote:

>Sounds like just the product needed to print jpegs
>ripped off web sites. Or am I mixing topics...
>
>Guy
>
>--- Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Clayton
>>
>>Will do. I did my second experiment using a 100Kb
>>jpeg
>>file of my grandson which my daughter recently sent
>>me. I used the same two methods as before and got
>>much
>>the same results. I upsized to 12X16 (yes it is an
>>extreme upsizing but I wanted to stress the
>>software)
>>and printed at 8X10. Although this was a bit extreme
>>it showed me that a 5X7 would be perfectly usable
>>and
>>from this small file that is an accomplishment.
>>
>>What was different was that Photozoom now showed
>>some
>>artifacts that Bicubic smoother did not.
>>
>>I will keep experimenting to determine the best
>>workflow and results but Photozoom at $125 does not
>>offer anything I could use to justify it. I will now
>>move on to your suggestions re: bicubic and the
>>Flesher workflow to be sure I find a consisent
>>methodology.
>>
>>As always, thanks for the time you take to make us
>>all
>>better imagemakers.
>>
>>Sincerely
>>Woody Spedden
>>
>>--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Hello Woody,
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I just did an initial experiement comparing PS
>>>      
>>>
>>Bicubic
>>    
>>
>>>and Photozoom...I did all the process work in PS
>>>      
>>>
>>and
>>when
>>    
>>
>>>finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
>>>Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with Photozoom.
>>>My results show a slight improvement with Photozoom
>>>over PS CS...
>>>      
>>>
>>If you are doing the upsize in a single step I hope
>>you will also try
>>it with CS/bicubic.  In my report I found that for a
>>single step
>>upsize I got better results with Bicubic compared to
>>Bicubic Smoother.
>> The use of Bicubic Smoother was prominent in the
>>double-step Flesher
>>technique.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Clayton
>>
>>
>>Info on black and white digital printing at    
>>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>but not improvement that I would either
>>    
>>
>>>pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to wait.
>>>      
>>>
>>I
>>    
>>
>>>think I will repeat the test going from the S40 to
>>>something really large like 30X40 to see if the
>>>differences are more marked.
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has
>>>      
>>>
>>provided
>>    
>>
>>>us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is
>>>      
>>>
>>what
>>    
>>
>>>I will continue to use until I find a better
>>>      
>>>
>>reason
>>to
>>    
>>
>>>buy Photozoom
>>>
>>>Woody Spedden
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
>>>>
>>>>The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were
>>>>        
>>>>
>>shot
>>    
>>
>>>with a Casio
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam.  Upsize to 8mp.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Clayton,
>>>
>>>I'm sure you've already thought of this, and I
>>>      
>>>
>>admit
>>    
>>
>>>that, from 
>>>reading this and later posts, I don't _fully_
>>>understand your 
>>>methodology, but:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>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"
>>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.
>>
>>  
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
>>and 
>>    
>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>
>		
>__________________________________________ 
>Yahoo! DSL \ufffd Something to write home about. 
>Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
>dsl.yahoo.com 
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Peter,

I agree that putting ones photographs on a web site is
not real far from placing them in the public domain. 

I also agree that while there is little that can be
done to a 72dpi jpg that will allow it to be printed
with anything near reasonable quality (at least by the
fine standards set by the members of this group),
upsizeing tools are an important part of the workflow
of any serious digital printer interested in big
prints (unless you own a Phase One P45).

My comment was made because I enjoyed the irony of
concurrent threads of Steve worrying about protecting
the images on his website and the upsizing example of
a very web sized image. If folks felt uncomfortable,
oh well...

I hope to see one of my images on a t-shirt too.

Guy
--- Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...> wrote:

> I think if you try it you will see both the
> possibilities and the 
> problems, and it well illustrates why I've never
> believed that this is a 
> serious problem. If you really want to rip images
> off, you will 
> generally get much better results from print than
> from the web.
> 
> Of course anyone is welcome to print any of the
> several thousand images 
> I have on various web sites to pin up on their walls
> etc. The quality 
> they will get - even with the best software - will
> not be any kind of 
> competition to the prints that I'm making from the
> 20-50Mb or so files I 
> typically print from. I actually feel gratified that
> some people find 
> the pictures interesting enough that they want to
> possess them even in 
> such a limited way. Even better was coming across
> one on a T-Shirt!
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...     
>
_________________________________________________________________
> My London Diary	             
> http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
> London's Industrial Heritage:
> http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
> The Buildings of London etc: 
> http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
> and elsewhere......
> 
> 
> 
> guy washburn wrote:
> 
> >Sounds like just the product needed to print jpegs
> >ripped off web sites. Or am I mixing topics...
> >
> >Guy
> >
> >--- Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Clayton
> >>
> >>Will do. I did my second experiment using a 100Kb
> >>jpeg
> >>file of my grandson which my daughter recently
> sent
> >>me. I used the same two methods as before and got
> >>much
> >>the same results. I upsized to 12X16 (yes it is an
> >>extreme upsizing but I wanted to stress the
> >>software)
> >>and printed at 8X10. Although this was a bit
> extreme
> >>it showed me that a 5X7 would be perfectly usable
> >>and
> >>from this small file that is an accomplishment.
> >>
> >>What was different was that Photozoom now showed
> >>some
> >>artifacts that Bicubic smoother did not.
> >>
> >>I will keep experimenting to determine the best
> >>workflow and results but Photozoom at $125 does
> not
> >>offer anything I could use to justify it. I will
> now
> >>move on to your suggestions re: bicubic and the
> >>Flesher workflow to be sure I find a consisent
> >>methodology.
> >>
> >>As always, thanks for the time you take to make us
> >>all
> >>better imagemakers.
> >>
> >>Sincerely
> >>Woody Spedden
> >>
> >>--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------
> >>Hello Woody,
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>I just did an initial experiement comparing PS
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Bicubic
> >>    
> >>
> >>>and Photozoom...I did all the process work in PS
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>and
> >>when
> >>    
> >>
> >>>finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
> >>>Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with
> Photozoom.
> >>>My results show a slight improvement with
> Photozoom
> >>>over PS CS...
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>If you are doing the upsize in a single step I
> hope
> >>you will also try
> >>it with CS/bicubic.  In my report I found that for
> a
> >>single step
> >>upsize I got better results with Bicubic compared
> to
> >>Bicubic Smoother.
> >> The use of Bicubic Smoother was prominent in the
> >>double-step Flesher
> >>technique.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Clayton
> >>
> >>
> >>Info on black and white digital printing at    
> >>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>but not improvement that I would either
> >>    
> >>
> >>>pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to
> wait.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I
> >>    
> >>
> >>>think I will repeat the test going from the S40
> to
> >>>something really large like 30X40 to see if the
> >>>differences are more marked.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>provided
> >>    
> >>
> >>>us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>what
> >>    
> >>
> >>>I will continue to use until I find a better
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>reason
> >>to
> >>    
> >>
> >>>buy Photozoom
> >>>
> >>>Woody Spedden
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so
> far.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>shot
> >>    
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

After reading the various posts, I decided to make another (and final 
for me)  test of the various methods using an image of similar size

I took an original 8,230KB tiff file (produced by Capture One from a 
larger raw image) as my starting point, and used PS7 to produce a 
version that was 1,320KB to be used as my test file.

I then upsized this test file back to the original size so I could 
compare it with the original, both on screen and as a print (of a detail.)

SizeFixer (55s) produced what was probably the best print. On screen it 
showed crisper detail but also some more obvious sharpening edges, and I 
think the sharpening is really what made the print look better. I had 
USM off and it still seemed to sharpen considerably. There were several 
areas of the screen image where it seemed to have slightly better detail 
than the others, but the differences were slight.
My second preference was for ACDSee8, using its Lanczos algorithm. This 
image was possibly the one that looked best (just) on screen. Slight 
sharpening would probably have given a better print, but the resize 
didn't give an option.
PS7 bicubic also gave a good result, and was a close third. I tried 
upsizing to 120% and then sizing down using PS7 bicubic and the result 
was identical..
QImage was also good, but softer than the other results. When a small 
amount of 'deblur' was used it was as good as the rest on screen. Too 
much deblur produced obvious artifacts.
The methods other than SizeFixer were all faster, I think all under 10s. 
All too short for me to accurately time. The deblur filter (from 
SizeFixer) I used on the QImage result was slow - perhaps again around a 
minute, but I didn't time it.

The results conform to the conclusion in my feature - if you already 
have decent graphics software it will do the job reasonably and you 
don't need SizeFixer for such moderate enlargements, though it does do a 
decent job for making prints. I'd prefer to apply the sharpening myself 
though..

All of these results seemed pretty usable to me, and quite difficult to 
distinguish. On screen none was quite as good as the original, as the 
detail lost on sizing down can't be recovered. Because of the 
sharpening, some people might have preferred the upsized print from 
Sizefixer - the loss of detail is hardly perceptible in the print. But 
really this is all at the level where it is difficult to tell if you can 
really see the difference so far as prints are concerned. I suspect if I 
had applied different levels of sharpening to each result I could well 
have given different ratings too. Really too close to call. So the good 
new is save your money, use what you have. Almost everything is good, 
and there are no miracles.

Regards,

Peter.

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Clayton Jones wrote:

>Hello Bruce,
>
>  
>
>>Thanks for letting us know your results!  Were all the comparisons 
>>done using the SAME image?  
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, it's on the web site now, here's a link.  It's the 2nd one down,
>called "Panamint Range" 
>
>   http://www.cjcom.net/cal05-a.htm
>
>It's a mass of tiny detail with a bit of sky at the top.
>
>
>  
>
>>It might be good now to do the experiments over again using a 
>>totally different image (different type contrast, subject matter, 
>>focal length) just to see if the results hold true in general & 
>>not just for that one image.  
>>    
>>
>  
>

Guy,

There is a fundamental difference between wanting to share images with 
people through the web and putting them in the public domain. However if 
you put images on the web, then you presumably want and expect people to 
view them - which entails copying them to their computers etc. So we are 
encouraging non-commercial use in this respect, and it seems to me 
contradictory not to encourage other non-commercial use. But in no way 
is this putting them in the public domain. Copyright is essentially 
about the right to publish rather than the right to make a personal copy 
of something, which at least in some countries, is covered by the idea 
of 'fair use'.

I share your perception of the irony, and I think I referred in an 
earlier post to the paranoia of some photographers. I used a web image 
to test SizeFixer precisely because of these kind of largely unfounded 
fears.

Incidentally web browsers take no account of the resolution setting in 
the file for displaying on screen (or for printing), and relatively few 
web images are 72dpi (and my screen is around 100dpi.) Most of my web 
images are 300dpi, and some are 4800dpi, which may lead to rather 
disappointingly small results when printed by some other software!

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...  
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



guy washburn wrote:

>Peter,
>
>I agree that putting ones photographs on a web site is
>not real far from placing them in the public domain. 
>
>I also agree that while there is little that can be
>done to a 72dpi jpg that will allow it to be printed
>with anything near reasonable quality (at least by the
>fine standards set by the members of this group),
>upsizeing tools are an important part of the workflow
>of any serious digital printer interested in big
>prints (unless you own a Phase One P45).
>
>My comment was made because I enjoyed the irony of
>concurrent threads of Steve worrying about protecting
>the images on his website and the upsizing example of
>a very web sized image. If folks felt uncomfortable,
>oh well...
>
>I hope to see one of my images on a t-shirt too.
>
>Guy
>--- Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I think if you try it you will see both the
>>possibilities and the 
>>problems, and it well illustrates why I've never
>>believed that this is a 
>>serious problem. If you really want to rip images
>>off, you will 
>>generally get much better results from print than
>>from the web.
>>
>>Of course anyone is welcome to print any of the
>>several thousand images 
>>I have on various web sites to pin up on their walls
>>etc. The quality 
>>they will get - even with the best software - will
>>not be any kind of 
>>competition to the prints that I'm making from the
>>20-50Mb or so files I 
>>typically print from. I actually feel gratified that
>>some people find 
>>the pictures interesting enough that they want to
>>possess them even in 
>>such a limited way. Even better was coming across
>>one on a T-Shirt!
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Peter Marshall
>>petermarshall@...     
>>
>>    
>>
>_________________________________________________________________
>  
>
>>My London Diary	             
>>http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
>>London's Industrial Heritage:
>>http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
>>The Buildings of London etc: 
>>http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
>>and elsewhere......
>>
>>
>>
>>guy washburn wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Sounds like just the product needed to print jpegs
>>>ripped off web sites. Or am I mixing topics...
>>>
>>>Guy
>>>
>>>--- Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Clayton
>>>>
>>>>Will do. I did my second experiment using a 100Kb
>>>>jpeg
>>>>file of my grandson which my daughter recently
>>>>        
>>>>
>>sent
>>    
>>
>>>>me. I used the same two methods as before and got
>>>>much
>>>>the same results. I upsized to 12X16 (yes it is an
>>>>extreme upsizing but I wanted to stress the
>>>>software)
>>>>and printed at 8X10. Although this was a bit
>>>>        
>>>>
>>extreme
>>    
>>
>>>>it showed me that a 5X7 would be perfectly usable
>>>>and
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>from this small file that is an accomplishment.
>>>      
>>>
>>>>What was different was that Photozoom now showed
>>>>some
>>>>artifacts that Bicubic smoother did not.
>>>>
>>>>I will keep experimenting to determine the best
>>>>workflow and results but Photozoom at $125 does
>>>>        
>>>>
>>not
>>    
>>
>>>>offer anything I could use to justify it. I will
>>>>        
>>>>
>>now
>>    
>>
>>>>move on to your suggestions re: bicubic and the
>>>>Flesher workflow to be sure I find a consisent
>>>>methodology.
>>>>
>>>>As always, thanks for the time you take to make us
>>>>all
>>>>better imagemakers.
>>>>
>>>>Sincerely
>>>>Woody Spedden
>>>>
>>>>--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>Hello Woody,
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I just did an initial experiement comparing PS
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Bicubic
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>and Photozoom...I did all the process work in PS
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>and
>>>>when
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
>>>>>Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>Photozoom.
>>    
>>
>>>>>My results show a slight improvement with
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>Photozoom
>>    
>>
>>>>>over PS CS...
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>If you are doing the upsize in a single step I
>>>>        
>>>>
>>hope
>>    
>>
>>>>you will also try
>>>>it with CS/bicubic.  In my report I found that for
>>>>        
>>>>
>>a
>>    
>>
>>>>single step
>>>>upsize I got better results with Bicubic compared
>>>>        
>>>>
>>to
>>    
>>
>>>>Bicubic Smoother.
>>>>The use of Bicubic Smoother was prominent in the
>>>>double-step Flesher
>>>>technique.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Clayton
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Info on black and white digital printing at    
>>>>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>but not improvement that I would either
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>wait.
>>    
>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>I
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>think I will repeat the test going from the S40
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>to
>>    
>>
>>>>>something really large like 30X40 to see if the
>>>>>differences are more marked.
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>provided
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>what
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I will continue to use until I find a better
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>reason
>>>>to
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>buy Photozoom
>>>>>
>>>>>Woody Spedden
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>far.
>>    
>>
>>>>>>The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>shot
>>>>   
>>>>        
>>>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

I have Stair Pro, which has since been updated. I can't remember what the latest version is called, but if anyone has tried the new version I'd be interested to hear what they think.

thanks,
Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com


   "Being on the tightrope is living; everything else is waiting. " 
   --Karl Wallenda