Genuine Fractals

2007-05-23 00:02:42

In article <465382c0$>,
Rob wrote:

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

This question comes up periodically in this newsgroup and elsewhere.

Genuine Fractals is a program sold with some rather..remarkable claims. However, the simple fact of the matter is this: For any kind of output, nothing will match the quality of images originally created or scanned at the correct resolution.

The marketing hype with which Genuine Fractals is sold is breathless to near the point of hysteria, but nothing--no program and no technique--can increase the resolution of an image and create detail that does not exist in the original.

For some images, Genuine Fractals produces results moderately better than Photoshop's interpolation--emphasis on "some images" and "moderately." Nothing can compare to working with images that are the correct resolution from the get-go.

Many people who work with large-format pieces want to find shortcuts, because large high-resolution files are awkward to deal with. Fact of the matter is, getting the highest possible quality from your final result means working with large, high-resolution files, no matter how tempting it may seem to cut corners.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

#24

@Grinder

2007-05-23 00:36:00

tacit wrote:

In article <465382c0$>,
Rob wrote:

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

This question comes up periodically in this newsgroup and elsewhere.
Genuine Fractals is a program sold with some rather..remarkable claims. However, the simple fact of the matter is this: For any kind of output, nothing will match the quality of images originally created or scanned at the correct resolution.

The marketing hype with which Genuine Fractals is sold is breathless to near the point of hysteria, but nothing--no program and no technique--can increase the resolution of an image and create detail that does not exist in the original.

What?! You mean when those computer geeks on Law & Order can't really read the VIN off of a truck speeding past an ATM camera?

#25

@Roy G

2007-05-23 08:42:01

"Grinder" wrote in message

tacit wrote:

In article <465382c0$>,
Rob wrote:

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

SNIP>>>>

What?! You mean when those computer geeks on Law & Order can't really read the VIN off of a truck speeding past an ATM camera?

But you have actually seen it done on the Telly, so it must be true.

Roy G

#26

2007-05-23 09:41:16

On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:54:38 +1000, Rob wrote:

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

thanks

I wonder whether Genuine Fractals would work in CS3.
There is reason to think that (only maybe) GF sometimes do better enlargement work than Bicubic, and when doing enlargements, it is of course better to have alternatives in applications. I do quite a lot of work on A1 size, and interpolation is less of a problem to me, because I do digital painting.

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p40012706.html
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p41548031.html

Dave

#27

@br

2007-05-23 15:05:13

"Rob" wrote in message

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

thanks

Here you are, try this, it does the just as good for free.

Open an image you want res up.

Open the Actions palette and select "New Set".

Name it "Creeping Increase" or whatever you like.

Now select New Action and call it "1.5 Increase"

Next go to Image/Size and put a check in "Resample" and "Constrain Proportions"

with Bicubic and change the width drop down to "percent" and enter 110.

Now go to "Image Size" do the same 3 more times.

Then "Stop Recording"

Next "New Action" Name it "2.0 Increase"

Now "Edit/Purge All"

Next select the "1.5 Increase" in the Actions Palette

and press the Play button.

select the "1.5 Increase" again,

press the Play button again.

Stop Recording.

"New Action" Name it 3.0 Increase.

"Edit/Purge All"

Select and play the "2.0 Increase"

Select and play the "1.5 Increase"

Stop Recording.

"New Action" Name it 4.0 Increase.

"Edit/Purge All"

Select and play the "3.0 Increase"

Now "Image Size" 110 percent.

And again "Image Size" 110 percent.

Stop Recording.

Save the Action.

#28

@Rob

2007-05-24 02:42:31

/\BratMan/\ wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

thanks

Here you are, try this, it does the just as good for free.

I was actually doing something like this but thats more in-depth.

I actually couldn't see why GF would be better than whats available in PS.

Thanks

r

Open an image you want res up.

Open the Actions palette and select "New Set".
Name it "Creeping Increase" or whatever you like.
Now select New Action and call it "1.5 Increase"
Next go to Image/Size and put a check in "Resample" and "Constrain Proportions"

with Bicubic and change the width drop down to "percent" and enter 110.
Now go to "Image Size" do the same 3 more times.
Then "Stop Recording"

Next "New Action" Name it "2.0 Increase"
Now "Edit/Purge All"

Next select the "1.5 Increase" in the Actions Palette
and press the Play button.

select the "1.5 Increase" again,

press the Play button again.

Stop Recording.

"New Action" Name it 3.0 Increase.

"Edit/Purge All"

Select and play the "2.0 Increase"

Select and play the "1.5 Increase"

Stop Recording.

"New Action" Name it 4.0 Increase.

"Edit/Purge All"

Select and play the "3.0 Increase"

Now "Image Size" 110 percent.

And again "Image Size" 110 percent.

Stop Recording.

Save the Action.

#29

2007-05-24 14:51:41

Rob found these unused words:

/\BratMan/\ wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

thanks

Here you are, try this, it does the just as good for free.

I was actually doing something like this but thats more in-depth.
I actually couldn't see why GF would be better than whats available in PS.

It' different because of the way it analyzes the image and then applies an algorythm for sizing

Most image will show some or little diference, others quite a bit, especially those with high transition rates.
..

#30

@Cryptopix

2007-06-05 06:42:10

"Rob" wrote in message

/\BratMan/\ wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

thanks

Here you are, try this, it does the just as good for free.

I was actually doing something like this but thats more in-depth.
I actually couldn't see why GF would be better than whats available in PS.
Thanks

r

Open an image you want res up.

Open the Actions palette and select "New Set".
Name it "Creeping Increase" or whatever you like.
Now select New Action and call it "1.5 Increase"
Next go to Image/Size and put a check in "Resample" and "Constrain Proportions"

with Bicubic and change the width drop down to "percent" and enter 110.
Now go to "Image Size" do the same 3 more times.
Then "Stop Recording"

Next "New Action" Name it "2.0 Increase"
Now "Edit/Purge All"

Next select the "1.5 Increase" in the Actions Palette
and press the Play button.

select the "1.5 Increase" again,

press the Play button again.

Stop Recording.

"New Action" Name it 3.0 Increase.

"Edit/Purge All"

Select and play the "2.0 Increase"

Select and play the "1.5 Increase"

Stop Recording.

"New Action" Name it 4.0 Increase.

"Edit/Purge All"

Select and play the "3.0 Increase"

Now "Image Size" 110 percent.

And again "Image Size" 110 percent.

Stop Recording.

Save the Action.

After the hysteria dies down...
GF is now at version 5 and very, very sophisticated. You can download a copy for evaluation and decide for yourself. The digital canvas print business would not exist if it were not for applications like Genuine Fractals. Photoshop's bicubic and stair interpolation routines are OK for small enlargements. When you run a business enlarging digital images is when you discover what works and what doesn't.

Tacit is right. Tacit is inflexible. Tacit has a closed mind on the topic. Variations exist.

Few available wide format printers are capable of using all the detail in an original file in the first place so degrading it by a few % is not going to result in a visibly different image. GF degrades images far less than Photoshop does.

#31

2007-06-08 09:51:13

"Cryptopix"

After the hysteria dies down...
GF is now at version 5 and very, very sophisticated. You can download a copy for evaluation and decide for yourself. The digital canvas print business would not exist if it were not for applications like Genuine Fractals. Photoshop's bicubic and stair interpolation routines are OK for small enlargements. When you run a business enlarging digital images is when you discover what works and what doesn't.

Tacit is right. Tacit is inflexible. Tacit has a closed mind on the topic. Variations exist.

Few available wide format printers are capable of using all the detail in an original file in the first place so degrading it by a few % is not going to result in a visibly different image. GF degrades images far less than Photoshop does.

Lots of truth is what's said here -

The digital canvas print business
would not exist if it were not for applications like Genuine Fractals.

and I like the way you put your case. Also totally in agreement with it, so much that I am surprised that there is not more reactions to this post.

I am using 6 and 9 megapixel cameras. If it was not for facilities like GF, how on earth would I have been able to do this
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p42079897.html

Dave

#32

2007-06-09 01:26:13

In article ,
Dave wrote:

I am using 6 and 9 megapixel cameras. If it was not for facilities like GF, how on earth would I have been able to do this
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p42079897.html

Impossible to tell. We can't see the detail in that print.

Nevertheless, the indisputable fact still remains: Nothing can enlarge an image and create detail that does not exist in the origina. Nothing. Not Photoshop, not Genuine Fractals, nothing.

Do you dispute that statement?

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

#33

2007-06-09 05:04:01

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:26:13 -0400, tacit wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:

I am using 6 and 9 megapixel cameras. If it was not for facilities like GF, how on earth would I have been able to do this
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p42079897.html

Impossible to tell. We can't see the detail in that print.
Nevertheless, the indisputable fact still remains: Nothing can enlarge an image and create detail that does not exist in the origina. Nothing. Not Photoshop, not Genuine Fractals, nothing.

Do you dispute that statement?

LOL... you must be joking by asking whether I dispute it:-) Do I dispute that rain is made of water - of course not, but you can still ride your bike - simply wear a rain coat and the discomfort will be less. If you have to get there while it's raining.

***
Quoted from
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Int erpolation_01.htm Fractal interpolation
Fractal interpolation is mainly useful for extreme enlargements (for large prints) as it retains the shape of things more accurately with cleaner, sharper edges and less halos and blurring around the edges than bicubic interpolation would do. An example is Genuine Fractals Pro from The Altamira Group.
***

Not even for one moment do I say that any enlargement program can create info not existing in the original. I simply agree with the OP's following words:

The digital canvas print business
would not exist if it were not for applications like Genuine Fractals.

In fact, I should not have used my examples as samples, reason therefore is, interpolation is no factor for me in a work like this because this is a digital painting being cloned from a photo, and I first enlarge the photo to the size I want it at, (A1 in this case of course) and then do the paint work.

This is where the fact comes is that, if I can do this work originally on a smaller scale, and afterwards enlarge it, it will be hours less work.

Do you dispute the OP's quoted statement that digital canvas printing businesses keep on being in existence simply because of applications like Genuine Fractals?

Dave

#34

2007-06-09 16:24:12

tacit found these unused words:

In article ,
Dave wrote:

I am using 6 and 9 megapixel cameras. If it was not for facilities like GF, how on earth would I have been able to do this
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p42079897.html

Impossible to tell. We can't see the detail in that print.
Nevertheless, the indisputable fact still remains: Nothing can enlarge an image and create detail that does not exist in the origina. Nothing. Not Photoshop, not Genuine Fractals, nothing.

Do you dispute that statement?

Ever run a mandelbrot image?

#35

2007-06-09 16:37:37

In article ,
Dave wrote:

LOL... you must be joking by asking whether I dispute it:-) Do I dispute that rain is made of water - of course not, but you can still ride your bike - simply wear a rain coat and the discomfort will be less. If you have to get there while it's raining.

So what we're talking about, then, is not whether programs like Genuine Fractals produce results that are as good as having a high-resolution image to begin with, but whether or not the results are "good enough."

That leads back to my original two assertions: that no program, technique, or algorithm--not Genuine Fractals, nothing--can enlarge a raster (pixel) image and create detail that was not in the original; and that no program, technique, or algorithm will ever produce results as good as using an image of the proper size and resolution to begin with. Genuine Fractals is not a magic bullet, hysterical and breathless marketing hype aside.

It produces results moderately better than Photoshop's interpolation for some images, emphasis on "moderately" and "some images." Fractal interpolation produces better results on images with lots of high-frequency information that is not unified and is highly organic; bicubic interpolation produces better results on images with regular patterns and simpler shapes. For every image that Lizard Tech puts in a brochure showing better results with GF, I can find an image that shows better results with bicubic interpolation. And neither is, or ever will be, as good as starting with a high-resolution image to begin with.

There are many people who want to believe in the magic bullet, who want to believe they can blow up an image from their two-megapixel digital camera to wall size ad get great results. They can't. They may get good enough results, depending on how critical they are, but those results will never meet the results one would see if one starts with a high resolution image to begin with.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

#36

2007-06-09 16:39:28

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Ever run a mandelbrot image?

A Mandelbrot set is a mathematical equation, not a raster image. If you start with a raster image of a Mandelbrot and then run Genuine Fractals on it, you will not be able to zoom in indefinitely.

A raster image--any raster image--contains a finite amount of information. Any technique for enlarging such an image merely spreads the same amount of information over a larger area. Nothing--no technique, no algorithm, no program--can enlarge a raster image and produce detail that did not exist in the original. Not Genuine Fractals, not Photoshop, nothing.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

#37

2007-06-09 17:23:46

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:37:37 -0400, tacit wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:

LOL... you must be joking by asking whether I dispute it:-) Do I dispute that rain is made of water - of course not, but you can still ride your bike - simply wear a rain coat and the discomfort will be less. If you have to get there while it's raining.

So what we're talking about, then, is not whether programs like Genuine Fractals produce results that are as good as having a high-resolution image to begin with, but whether or not the results are "good enough."

But then, there is absolute no difference in what we are saying. I have not even once seen somebody asserting that the quality of a enlargement keeps the same value as the original. Everybody defending GF and colleagues, only holds that the end result is passable.

That leads back to my original two assertions: that no program, technique, or algorithm--not Genuine Fractals, nothing--can enlarge a raster (pixel) image and create detail that was not in the original; and that no program, technique, or algorithm will ever produce results as good as using an image of the proper size and resolution to begin with. Genuine Fractals is not a magic bullet, hysterical and breathless marketing hype aside.

And this again, leads back to the assertion that digital canvas printing businesses only exists because of enlargement applications.

Remember what I said - I am using 6 & 9 megapixel cameras, which is either the standard or even a bit higher than those of many users. If it was not for enlargement facilities, we would have been tied to 300 ppi A4's. We do not let us tie down.

What do you use for a A1 or even poster size pic?

It produces results moderately better than Photoshop's interpolation for some images, emphasis on "moderately" and "some images." Fractal interpolation produces better results on images with lots of high-frequency information that is not unified and is highly organic; bicubic interpolation produces better results on images with regular patterns and simpler shapes. For every image that Lizard Tech puts in a brochure showing better results with GF, I can find an image that shows better results with bicubic interpolation. And neither is, or ever will be, as good as starting with a high-resolution image to begin with.

I recall seeing you saying the same formerly, and most of us are in total agreement with it.
Never mind all this, this confirms we are talking the same language, only using different words.

Dave

#38

2007-06-10 18:49:21

In article ,
Dave wrote:

But then, there is absolute no difference in what we are saying. I have not even once seen somebody asserting that the quality of a enlargement keeps the same value as the original. Everybody defending GF and colleagues, only holds that the end result is passable.

Actually, I have heard people assert that GF can produce results "indistinguishable" from a high-resolution image, which is an assertion I flatly reject.

And this again, leads back to the assertion that digital canvas printing businesses only exists because of enlargement applications.
Remember what I said - I am using 6 & 9 megapixel cameras, which is either the standard or even a bit higher than those of many users. If it was not for enlargement facilities, we would have been tied to 300 ppi A4's. We do not let us tie down.

Yep. And for many people, good enough is, indeed, good enough.

Personally, when I've made large-format giclees, I've started from images that are high resolution--often, for example, images shot on 35mm or 120 format transparencies and then drum-scanned. One of my previous clients is an artist (he does oil paintings), and I prodiced a set of giclee and poster files for him.

The person who owns the shop that makes his giclee prints, which are typically 30x40" on canvas, is a huge fan of Genuine Fractals, and swore up and down that he could use a digital camera picture of the paintings and enlarge them using GF and get results "every bit as good" as a 200MB drum-scanned image. We humored him and tried it both ways, and put the results side by side next to each other. I'm sure you can guess what those results were. :)

What do you use for a A1 or even poster size pic?

I use a Canon AE-1 film camera with transparency film, or have it jobbed out to a photographer I work with who uses 120 format cameras.

I recall seeing you saying the same formerly, and most of us are in total agreement with it.
Never mind all this, this confirms we are talking the same language, only using different words.

Yep.

I have no problem with GF, as long as the people using it have realistic ideas about what it can or cannot do. What I don't like is the rather over-the-top marketing hype I've seen used to advertise GF, the advertising techniques I've seen that I believe border on outright dishonesty, and the people who do in fact believe it is capable of doing things that it can't do.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

#39

2007-06-17 15:53:05

On 2007-05-22 20:54:38 -0300, Rob said:

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

thanks

I use photoshop and genuine fractals, both are pretty close with fractals taking the lead if you stare at both for a very long time...

Better yet, let's try and teach the original photographer or client to purchase and use Raw files at 16 bit.
Why do they all send the agencies the 8 bit JPG versions. If the prepress dept had the raw files ..we could blow it up to kingdom come! --
Welcome to Papa Joe's

#40

2007-06-17 19:21:07

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:53:05 -0300, Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

Better yet, let's try and teach the original photographer or client to purchase and use Raw files at 16 bit.
Why do they all send the agencies the 8 bit JPG versions. If the prepress dept had the raw files ..we could blow it up to kingdom come!

You make it sound as if you can blow raw files up unlimited. I click raw only if it is a planned and really valuable photo, and then, save it as tiff.

You should also keep in mind that some Printing Deps have either not got the facilities or the knowledge to do raw.

Dave

#41

2007-06-17 22:18:53

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

On 2007-05-22 20:54:38 -0300, Rob said:

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

thanks

I use photoshop and genuine fractals, both are pretty close with fractals taking the lead if you stare at both for a very long time...
Better yet, let's try and teach the original photographer or client to purchase and use Raw files at 16 bit.
Why do they all send the agencies the 8 bit JPG versions. If the prepress dept had the raw files ..we could blow it up to kingdom come!

I make money (not for living as I am a retired man) with image, and my DSLR camera can do RAW as well as I am pretty good with RAW etc. but I never care much for RAW (it's ok but nothing to sing about).

And if you want to teach someone about RAW, how about teaching yourself not to blow the color channel of 8-bit JPEG else you shouldn't have much or any problem (like most of us have been using JPEG years before RAW was born).

#42

2007-06-18 01:29:30

Dave found these unused words:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:53:05 -0300, Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

Better yet, let's try and teach the original photographer or client to purchase and use Raw files at 16 bit.
Why do they all send the agencies the 8 bit JPG versions. If the prepress dept had the raw files ..we could blow it up to kingdom come!

You make it sound as if you can blow raw files up unlimited. I click raw only if it is a planned and really valuable photo, and then, save it as tiff.

You should also keep in mind that some Printing Deps have either not got the facilities or the knowledge to do raw.

Dave

IME a 6MB RAW is equal to or better than a 10 MB jpg 'original' ... take your 'enlarging from there!

If a 'printing dept' can't handle RAW, then they're headed for obsolescence!

#43

2007-06-18 10:17:21

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:29:30 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

Dave found these unused words:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:53:05 -0300, Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

Better yet, let's try and teach the original photographer or client to purchase and use Raw files at 16 bit.
Why do they all send the agencies the 8 bit JPG versions. If the prepress dept had the raw files ..we could blow it up to kingdom come!

You make it sound as if you can blow raw files up unlimited. I click raw only if it is a planned and really valuable photo, and then, save it as tiff.

You should also keep in mind that some Printing Deps have either not got the facilities or the knowledge to do raw.

Dave

IME a 6MB RAW is equal to or better than a 10 MB jpg 'original' ... take your 'enlarging from there!

Very interesting statement. I am using a 9MPX camera (Fuji Finepix s9600), so what size do you think can the raw's been enlarged to?

If a 'printing dept' can't handle RAW, then they're headed for obsolescence!

Not necessarily, it simply depend on what their priorities is. I am dealing with to different printing co's, both with the same franchise, but in different cities, some 17ks apart. The first do A4's for half the price the second do, but they can not do TIF, and nothing bigger than A4. The 2nd do any size, and that is where I take the tiff's to be printed on A1 size canvas. Because I have quite often work done there, I do get 25% discount.

The first is where I bought my last camera, and all accessories, polarizing filter, other filters, card readers etc. because they have more knowledge on cameras. The second know obviously more about printing.

*Complete off-topic*
I washed my hands and touched, with not completely dried hands, an A1 size print of a painting, and it messed up the paint on two different places. Small, lets say 1½ inc sq.
I had it reprinted, but want to recover the first as well, and bought (in a art shop) quite expensive kind of painting pens with brushes both sides. (don't know what is called) I need more colors and after all, it can be as expensive as having it printed again.

I asked the printer whether he can print only those portions again, and he said I must take it in, so we can have a look. The portions to be printed over is rough areas, sea and clouds.

You think those small portions can be reprinted?

Dave

#44

2007-06-18 12:01:32

Dave wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:29:30 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

Dave found these unused words:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:53:05 -0300, Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

Better yet, let's try and teach the original photographer or client to purchase and use Raw files at 16 bit.
Why do they all send the agencies the 8 bit JPG versions. If the prepress dept had the raw files ..we could blow it up to kingdom come!

You make it sound as if you can blow raw files up unlimited. I click raw only if it is a planned and really valuable photo, and then, save it as tiff.

You should also keep in mind that some Printing Deps have either not got the facilities or the knowledge to do raw.

Dave

IME a 6MB RAW is equal to or better than a 10 MB jpg 'original' ... take your 'enlarging from there!

Very interesting statement. I am using a 9MPX camera (Fuji Finepix s9600), so what size do you think can the raw's been enlarged to?

Hahaha I don't dream like that, but base on that statement

6R/10MP = 9R/x = 15MP

So you get 15MP camera for the price of 9MP <bg>

#45

2007-06-18 13:23:45

Joel wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien

IME a 6MB RAW is equal to or better than a 10 MB jpg 'original' ... take your 'enlarging from there!

Dave

Very interesting statement. I am using a 9MPX camera (Fuji Finepix s9600), so what size do you think can the raw's been enlarged to?

Joel
Hahaha I don't dream like that, but base on that statement
6R/10MP = 9R/x = 15MP

So you get 15MP camera for the price of 9MP <bg>

That is exactly what it comes to, Joel :-)
What a motivation for raw...!

Dave

#46

2007-06-18 15:35:46

Dave found these unused words:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:29:30 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

Dave found these unused words:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:53:05 -0300, Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

Better yet, let's try and teach the original photographer or client to purchase and use Raw files at 16 bit.
Why do they all send the agencies the 8 bit JPG versions. If the prepress dept had the raw files ..we could blow it up to kingdom come!

You make it sound as if you can blow raw files up unlimited. I click raw only if it is a planned and really valuable photo, and then, save it as tiff.

You should also keep in mind that some Printing Deps have either not got the facilities or the knowledge to do raw.

Dave

IME a 6MB RAW is equal to or better than a 10 MB jpg 'original' ... take your 'enlarging from there!

Very interesting statement. I am using a 9MPX camera (Fuji Finepix s9600), so what size do you think can the raw's been enlarged to?

Dunno ... it's your camera and your work! Some may what you've done at 16x20 others accept 20x30. It all depends uipon the use and distance viewed, doesn't it?

If a 'printing dept' can't handle RAW, then they're headed for obsolescence!

Not necessarily, it simply depend on what their priorities is. I am dealing with to different printing co's, both with the same franchise, but in different cities, some 17ks apart. The first do A4's for half the price the second do, but they can not do TIF, and nothing bigger than A4. The 2nd do any size, and that is where I take the tiff's to be printed on A1 size canvas. Because I have quite often work done there, I do get 25% discount.

Necessarily and you've 'proved' my point by going to the second shop !!!

The first is where I bought my last camera, and all accessories, polarizing filter, other filters, card readers etc. because they have more knowledge on cameras. The second know obviously more about printing.

BINGO!

*Complete off-topic*
I washed my hands and touched, with not completely dried hands, an A1 size print of a painting, and it messed up the paint on two different places. Small, lets say 1½ inc sq.
I had it reprinted, but want to recover the first as well, and bought (in a art shop) quite expensive kind of painting pens with brushes both sides. (don't know what is called) I need more colors and after all, it can be as expensive as having it printed again.

I asked the printer whether he can print only those portions again, and he said I must take it in, so we can have a look. The portions to be printed over is rough areas, sea and clouds.

You think those small portions can be reprinted?

Dave

That's for the printer to say. I print solely on laser exposed photo paper and don't have a 'wet' problem.

#47

2007-06-18 15:37:44

Dave found these unused words:

Joel wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien

IME a 6MB RAW is equal to or better than a 10 MB jpg 'original' ... take your 'enlarging from there!

Dave

Very interesting statement. I am using a 9MPX camera (Fuji Finepix s9600), so what size do you think can the raw's been enlarged to?

Joel
Hahaha I don't dream like that, but base on that statement
6R/10MP = 9R/x = 15MP

So you get 15MP camera for the price of 9MP <bg>

That is exactly what it comes to, Joel :-)
What a motivation for raw...!

Dave

Guess "Joel" hasn't ever bothered to 'enlarge' with two images taken nearly same time and same exposure, one RAW, one JPG ... eh?

Love these clueless unexperienced 'hex spurts'.

#48

2007-06-18 20:25:45

On 2007-06-17 19:18:53 -0300, Joel said:

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

On 2007-05-22 20:54:38 -0300, Rob said:

Does anyone use Genuine Fractals in there output process.
What difference does it make?

I ask, as its been suggested as it may benefit some large ouput files which are in progress of being prepared.

thanks

I use photoshop and genuine fractals, both are pretty close with fractals taking the lead if you stare at both for a very long time...
Better yet, let's try and teach the original photographer or client to purchase and use Raw files at 16 bit.
Why do they all send the agencies the 8 bit JPG versions. If the prepress dept had the raw files ..we could blow it up to kingdom come!

I make money (not for living as I am a retired man) with image, and my DSLR camera can do RAW as well as I am pretty good with RAW etc. but I never care much for RAW (it's ok but nothing to sing about).

And if you want to teach someone about RAW, how about teaching yourself not to blow the color channel of 8-bit JPEG else you shouldn't have much or any problem (like most of us have been using JPEG years before RAW was born).

Raw beats JPG on everything except file size.
If you're going to edit an image in photoshop or enlarge it , Next time you're using JPG ( or a converted JPG to PSD) take a look at your histogram while you modify it. It's going to comb like a bastard because there is juts not enough data to work with.

Now go to a 8 bit tiff and you've got something with some more data... Now try a raw file and modify it to hell and back... you'll see with your histogram that there's way more information throughout the tonal range.
--
Welcome to Papa Joe's

#49

2007-06-18 21:54:21

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Dave found these unused words:

Joel wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien

IME a 6MB RAW is equal to or better than a 10 MB jpg 'original' .... take your 'enlarging from there!

Dave

Very interesting statement. I am using a 9MPX camera (Fuji Finepix s9600), so what size do you think can the raw's been enlarged to?

Joel
Hahaha I don't dream like that, but base on that statement
6R/10MP = 9R/x = 15MP

So you get 15MP camera for the price of 9MP <bg>

That is exactly what it comes to, Joel :-)
What a motivation for raw...!

Dave

Guess "Joel" hasn't ever bothered to 'enlarge' with two images taken nearly same time and same exposure, one RAW, one JPG ... eh?

Love these clueless unexperienced 'hex spurts'.

JPEG has been feeding Joel with $$$$ for ages ... way before RAW makes 9GP to 15GP <bg>. Joel has heard many RAW users said they stop using Photoshop because RAW is more than Photoshop etc..

#50

2007-06-18 21:59:18

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

<snip>

I make money (not for living as I am a retired man) with image, and my DSLR camera can do RAW as well as I am pretty good with RAW etc. but I never care much for RAW (it's ok but nothing to sing about).

And if you want to teach someone about RAW, how about teaching yourself not to blow the color channel of 8-bit JPEG else you shouldn't have much or any problem (like most of us have been using JPEG years before RAW was born).

Raw beats JPG on everything except file size.
If you're going to edit an image in photoshop or enlarge it , Next time you're using JPG ( or a converted JPG to PSD) take a look at your histogram while you modify it. It's going to comb like a bastard because there is juts not enough data to work with.

Now go to a 8 bit tiff and you've got something with some more data... Now try a raw file and modify it to hell and back... you'll see with your histogram that there's way more information throughout the tonal range.

Yup! I have been seeing newbie stapping JPEG with RAW <bg>. I have been using JPEG for age and never care for TIFF.

And yes, I may use RAW converter more than most RAW worshippers, but RAW or COOKED all detailed work have to go through Photoshop before I start collecting $$$$. JPEG? I may have gone through hundreds of thousands, and probably 30-40K of RAW (just to learn more about RAW).

#51

2007-06-19 12:49:52

On 2007-06-18 18:59:18 -0300, Joel said:

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

<snip>

I make money (not for living as I am a retired man) with image, and
my

DSLR camera can do RAW as well as I am pretty good with RAW etc. but
I never

care much for RAW (it's ok but nothing to sing about).

And if you want to teach someone about RAW, how about teaching
yourself

not to blow the color channel of 8-bit JPEG else you shouldn't have
much or

any problem (like most of us have been using JPEG years before RAW
was

born).

Raw beats JPG on everything except file size.
If you're going to edit an image in photoshop or enlarge it , Next time

you're using JPG ( or a converted JPG to PSD) take a look at your histogram while you modify it. It's going to comb like a bastard because there is juts not enough data to work with.

Now go to a 8 bit tiff and you've got something with some more data... Now try a raw file and modify it to hell and back... you'll see with your histogram that there's way more information throughout the tonal range.

Yup! I have been seeing newbie stapping JPEG with RAW <bg>. I have been
using JPEG for age and never care for TIFF.

And yes, I may use RAW converter more than most RAW worshippers, but RAW or COOKED all detailed work have to go through Photoshop before I start collecting $$$$. JPEG? I may have gone through hundreds of thousands, and
probably 30-40K of RAW (just to learn more about RAW).

I didn't understand a word you said "(
--
Welcome to Papa Joe's

#52

2007-06-19 14:53:00

Papa Joe <Sorry> found these unused words:

On 2007-06-18 18:59:18 -0300, Joel said:

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

<snip>

I make money (not for living as I am a retired man) with image, and
my

DSLR camera can do RAW as well as I am pretty good with RAW etc. but
I never

care much for RAW (it's ok but nothing to sing about).

And if you want to teach someone about RAW, how about teaching
yourself

not to blow the color channel of 8-bit JPEG else you shouldn't have
much or

any problem (like most of us have been using JPEG years before RAW
was

born).

Raw beats JPG on everything except file size.
If you're going to edit an image in photoshop or enlarge it , Next time

you're using JPG ( or a converted JPG to PSD) take a look at your histogram while you modify it. It's going to comb like a bastard because there is juts not enough data to work with.

Now go to a 8 bit tiff and you've got something with some more data... Now try a raw file and modify it to hell and back... you'll see with your histogram that there's way more information throughout the tonal range.

Yup! I have been seeing newbie stapping JPEG with RAW <bg>. I have been
using JPEG for age and never care for TIFF.

And yes, I may use RAW converter more than most RAW worshippers, but RAW or COOKED all detailed work have to go through Photoshop before I start collecting $$$$. JPEG? I may have gone through hundreds of thousands, and
probably 30-40K of RAW (just to learn more about RAW).

I didn't understand a word you said "(

He was making a joke of RAW vs COOKED (processed), but also shows that he's learned very lilttle about file formats.

Dave: The point of RAW is that PS will work with the full range, then save in a LOSSLESS file format. From there you can export to whatever the customer wants and will 'suffer' the degredation of HIS/HER choice.

Ya dinna convert RAW to JPG !!!

#53

2007-06-19 16:55:36

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

<snip>

Yup! I have been seeing newbie stapping JPEG with RAW <bg>. I have been
using JPEG for age and never care for TIFF.

And yes, I may use RAW converter more than most RAW worshippers, but RAW or COOKED all detailed work have to go through Photoshop before I start collecting $$$$. JPEG? I may have gone through hundreds of thousands, and
probably 30-40K of RAW (just to learn more about RAW).

I didn't understand a word you said "(

Then don't agree or disagree with whatever you don't understand. <bg>

#54

2007-06-20 00:28:42

On 2007-06-19 13:55:36 -0300, Joel said:

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

<snip>

Yup! I have been seeing newbie stapping JPEG with RAW <bg>. I have been
using JPEG for age and never care for TIFF.

And yes, I may use RAW converter more than most RAW worshippers, but
RAW

or COOKED all detailed work have to go through Photoshop before I
start

collecting $$$$. JPEG? I may have gone through hundreds of
thousands,

and
probably 30-40K of RAW (just to learn more about RAW).

I didn't understand a word you said "(

Then don't agree or disagree with whatever you don't understand. <bg>

I understood up to your post.
I didn't get what your opinion was, so how could I critique it.

--
Welcome to Papa Joe's

#55

2007-06-20 01:14:23

Papa Joe <Sorry> found these unused words:

On 2007-06-19 13:55:36 -0300, Joel said:

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

<snip>

Yup! I have been seeing newbie stapping JPEG with RAW <bg>. I have been
using JPEG for age and never care for TIFF.

And yes, I may use RAW converter more than most RAW worshippers, but
RAW

or COOKED all detailed work have to go through Photoshop before I
start

collecting $$$$. JPEG? I may have gone through hundreds of
thousands,

and
probably 30-40K of RAW (just to learn more about RAW).

I didn't understand a word you said "(

Then don't agree or disagree with whatever you don't understand. <bg>

I understood up to your post.
I didn't get what your opinion was, so how could I critique it.

Hey Papa, guess you're not supposed to comment of GIGO 'speech'. eh?

It's the old saw ... "Person convinced against his will,"

#56

2007-06-20 14:41:50

On 2007-06-19 22:14:23 -0300, Sir F. A. Rien said:

Papa Joe <Sorry> found these unused words:

On 2007-06-19 13:55:36 -0300, Joel said:

Papa Joe <Sorry> wrote:

<snip>

Yup! I have been seeing newbie stapping JPEG with RAW <bg>. I have been
using JPEG for age and never care for TIFF.

And yes, I may use RAW converter more than most RAW worshippers, but
RAW

or COOKED all detailed work have to go through Photoshop before I
start

collecting $$$$. JPEG? I may have gone through hundreds of
thousands,

and
probably 30-40K of RAW (just to learn more about RAW).

I didn't understand a word you said "(

Then don't agree or disagree with whatever you don't understand. <bg>

I understood up to your post.
I didn't get what your opinion was, so how could I critique it.

Hey Papa, guess you're not supposed to comment of GIGO 'speech'. eh?
It's the old saw ... "Person convinced against his will,"

:)
--
Welcome to Papa Joe's

#57