re-sizing in CS2

Thanks to all the folks who responded re: resizing.
I want to test, PhotoZoom, Genuine Fractals and CS2.
To resize in CS2..is it the same as PS7?...go to image size, change sizes, check BICUBIC and print..or do I need to go in 10% increments as suggested. OR, have I been doing it incorrectly for a year and should do it differently.
.. Any additonal tricks will be greatly appreciated. I have gaps in my knowledge as I am self taught thru trial and error and online tutorials..BTW....myjanee.com is terrific..thanks for that info. also Frank

On 8 Mar 2006 10:39:46 -0800, "frank" wrote:

Thanks to all the folks who responded re: resizing.
I want to test, PhotoZoom, Genuine Fractals and CS2.
To resize in CS2..is it the same as PS7?...go to image size, change sizes, check BICUBIC

Bicubic Smoother; already said (sharper when downsizing) and I already mentioned my view on doing it in steps.

I am self taught as well, (as from version six) and I quess that is the case with most if the users here.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message

On 8 Mar 2006 10:39:46 -0800, "frank" wrote:

Thanks to all the folks who responded re: resizing.
I want to test, PhotoZoom, Genuine Fractals and CS2.
To resize in CS2..is it the same as PS7?...go to image size, change sizes, check BICUBIC

Bicubic Smoother; already said (sharper when downsizing) and I already mentioned my view on doing it in steps.

I am self taught as well, (as from version six) and I quess that is the case with most if the users here.

Dave

to make the PS sharpened one look more like the photozoom plugin you will have to use unsharp mask filter after zooming, a 2 step process.

thanks again for the resizing answers.
I think I am doing something wrong. I am using a converted 8meg raw file to a 35mb tiff file but when I make the incremental "enlargements" it just gets blurrier and blurrier. I went from 5x17 to 20x24 and by the time I got to 11x14 it blurred out. I used the increments of 10% as suggested and bicubic smoother. I used a crisp well focused image of rope so to have detail so to compare upsize resolution. If someone has the time could they spell out the steps for resizing in CS2 please. thanks a lot
Frank

In article ,
"frank" wrote:

I think I am doing something wrong. I am using a converted 8meg raw file to a 35mb tiff file but when I make the incremental "enlargements" it just gets blurrier and blurrier. I went from 5x17 to 20x24 and by the time I got to 11x14 it blurred out.

Yes, that is correct.

It is not possible to increase the number of pixels in a pixel-based image and create detail that did not exist in the original. It cannot be done. Every program, every technique, every plug-in will do the same thing--produce an enlargement that looks softer than the original, because nothing can create detail that is not in the original.

You can try using Unsharp Mask to sharpen the result after it has been scaled up, but no matter what you do, the results can never be as good as if you had started with a larger image to begin with.

Sorry...

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

In article ,
"frank" wrote:

I think I am doing something wrong. I am using a converted 8meg raw file to a 35mb tiff file but when I make the incremental "enlargements" it just gets blurrier and blurrier. I went from 5x17 to 20x24 and by the time I got to 11x14 it blurred out.

Yes, that is correct.

It is not possible to increase the number of pixels in a pixel-based image and create detail that did not exist in the original. It cannot be done. Every program, every technique, every plug-in will do the same thing--produce an enlargement that looks softer than the original, because nothing can create detail that is not in the original.
You can try using Unsharp Mask to sharpen the result after it has been scaled up, but no matter what you do, the results can never be as good as if you had started with a larger image to begin with.
Sorry...

What you can do is get a print from a Lambda printer, they are very sharp and are 100dpi

frank wrote:

thanks again for the resizing answers.
I think I am doing something wrong. I am using a converted 8meg raw file to a 35mb tiff file but when I make the incremental "enlargements" it just gets blurrier and blurrier. I went from 5x17 to 20x24 and by the time I got to 11x14 it blurred out. I used the increments of 10% as suggested and bicubic smoother. I used a crisp well focused image of rope so to have detail so to compare upsize resolution. If someone has the time could they spell out the steps for resizing in CS2 please. thanks a lot

You are probably not doing anything wrong, except that you believe in miracles. You cannot uprez a 4x7 photo to 20x24 and expect it to be still sharp. If you could, how could a company like Canon ever sell any EOS 1DsMkII (17 Mpixels) camera or Hasselblad a 39 Mpixel camera? Everyone would be using a cheap 6 Mpixel camera and simply uprez to any size they want.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

oops..I took an article from Rangefinder mag, followed the steps in the article and CS2 crapped out. I used the downloaded trial from Genuine Fractals and it looked great. So contrary to popular belief, upsizing does work. I have a beautiful 16x20 on my wall from Genuine Fractals up sizing program and several prints in the trash using CS2.

someone wrote this
<<<<<<It is not possible to increase the number of pixels in a pixel-based
image and create detail that did not exist in the original. It cannot be
done. Every program, every technique, every plug-in will do the same thing--produce an enlargement that looks softer than the original, because nothing can create detail that is not in the original.>>>>>

Upsizing adds pixels by interpolating the surrounding pixels. If it didnt, why would an image upsized from 8x10 be more Mb's than the original 8x10. Correct me if I am wrong...I love learning where I am in error.

And of course, upsizing as with film enlargement, which I did for 30 or so years, breeds a softer image. But, with up sizing software the softness is supposed to be less than with not using the software. And no one expects to create sharpness where none exists, but it is the illusion of sharpness, as in using USM, sharpening and even blurring contiguous areas so the main area appears sharper. I mentioned no where in my post that I had no detail..it has super detail..it is rope and every fiber shows.
thanks for the help
Frank

"Unspam" wrote in message

In article ,
"frank" wrote:

I think I am doing something wrong. I am using a converted 8meg raw file to a 35mb tiff file but when I make the incremental "enlargements" it just gets blurrier and blurrier. I went from 5x17 to 20x24 and by the time I got to 11x14 it blurred out.

Yes, that is correct.

It is not possible to increase the number of pixels in a pixel-based image and create detail that did not exist in the original. It cannot be done. Every program, every technique, every plug-in will do the same thing--produce an enlargement that looks softer than the original, because nothing can create detail that is not in the original.
You can try using Unsharp Mask to sharpen the result after it has been scaled up, but no matter what you do, the results can never be as good as if you had started with a larger image to begin with.
Sorry...

What you can do is get a print from a Lambda printer, they are very sharp and are 100dpi

Lambda prints at 254ppi but off course you could send in at 100ppi as it will be resampled.