Are you still on ADOBES payroll, as a Certified Adobe Photoshop Trainer??????
That doesn't make you just a tad biased?????
Are you still on the OnOne payrole? Seriously. Aside from the asinine comment, the facts are, certified Photoshop trainers are not on Adobe’s payroll. If you did some research on this topic you’d see it is simply a program that asks people to pass a test qualifying them as having a clue about a particular Adobe application. I’m not and have never been on Adobe’s payroll. Normally such a comment would be directed to insult or inflame but like your misunderstanding of proper testing protocol, I wasn’t upset as I understand now that you more often than not, speak as a misinformed individual.
My bias as I told you is based on informed testing and education of a topic. You should try it some time. I asked that you assist my bias in your direction in terms of PR, but you are simply inable to do so. I’ve got an open mind to a degree.
If anyone appears to be on a payroll, it would appear to be the fellow with the signature about a product that he presumably can’t educate others on.
To my eyes, the right images ( viewer's right ) is clearly softer than the left side image, but which came from PS and which from PerfectResize?
Well the key again is the capture sharpening which PR either doesn’t do or doesn’t do well at least at default settings. The sharper image is Photoshop. And viewing the prints really shows a big difference in quality which a capture from a macro, then posted to the web probably doesn’t do justice. If you saw the Photoshop version with no capture sharpening, you’d be hard pressed to tell which was which. The differences (other than time, complexly and expense) is tiny! Hence my bias, at least at this point for using Photoshop or better, Lightroom/ACR.
What you’re seeing is aprox a 2x3 inch shot of an 8x10 print that itself is a very small area of a 5DMII image enlarged 250%.
Thank you, Andrew, for your prompt answer as to which is which. Clearly in your example, the left side image is preferable, which you stated is from Photoshop. Fair enough.
Well the key again is the capture sharpening which PR either doesn’t do or doesn’t do well at least at default settings. The sharper image is Photoshop. And viewing the prints really shows a big difference in quality which a capture from a macro, then posted to the web probably doesn’t do justice. If you saw the Photoshop version with no capture sharpening, you’d be hard pressed to tell which was which. The differences (other than time, complexly and expense) is tiny! Hence my bias, at least at this point for using Photoshop or better, Lightroom/ACR.
What you’re seeing is aprox a 2x3 inch shot of an 8x10 print that itself is a very small area of a 5DMII image enlarged 250%.
Still Andrew you side by side really proves nothing.....really it does not prove a thing...for one thing the last time I read (did you read the white peper on GF/PR or even the instructions or even the "about GF/PR"? ... ... If you did then I apologize for the question.) the info on GF it never said that IT did any type of sharpening ... it is simply an upsizing tool...not a capture sharpening or output sharpening tool of any sort....also the last time I read the instructions it said to do all of your processing in Photoshop EXCEPT FINAL SHARPENING before upsizing in GF ... so if your testing is not done with exactly the same workflow for both software's then it is a moot test... and i do believe you actually state that you did capture sharpening for the "PS" uprez and did not do any capture sharpening for the GF/PR sample.....so not identical work flow...Moot test...in my very humble opinion......
The reason i never have posted comparisons is 2 fold...one as mentioned above i do not keep my comparisons, they are for me and my clients to see make a decision and delete the unneeded file and move on .....Secondly, I always tell people to make their own comparisons for anything i recommend or say i do / use ... each person must make the decision of whether or not a tool is right for them ... .... ... and again....Move on......if it is not right for you so be it.....it is right for a good many GA's and Photogs or it would not be in the position it is today ... ... ... ...
Again.....have a FANTASTIC AND SAFE HOLIDAY....... still
OK, Art, lets keep the comments related to the image processing, not personal comments, please.
i thought the thread needed a bit of levity ... ... it just seemed to be a bit too gravitas for me ... ... ... ... had no clue that anyone would read my questions as anything but a joke / tease on his remarks about Vincents biases....oops ... ... ... my mistake ...
so the OP has his answers and that means my work here is done......
Blessings to one and all....be safe on this day of Independence ...
If you did then I apologize for the question.) the info on GF it never said that IT did any type of sharpening ... it is simply an upsizing tool...not a capture sharpening or output sharpening tool of any sort....
I’ve come the conclusion Art that you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about.
Page 17 of the PR manual states:
Two new sharpening methods have been added. One targets out-of-focus images. The second method adapts the sharpening amount automatically to the size of image details. This allows it to sharpen small details greatly without causing halos on larger, distinct edges.
Further:
The sharpening pane contains the controls to add additional sharpness to your image. Perfect Resize features three different sharpening methods:
Unsharp Mask: Good for general sharpening. Similar to Photoshop's unsharp mask function except it is only applied to the luminance of the image to prevent color artifacts.
Highpass: Highpass sharpening is helpful when the original image is not sharp.
Progressive: Similar to the unsharp mask except it sharpens different amounts depending on the size of the details in the image. small details are enhanced more than large ones.
Using the Sharpening controls can save you the workflow step of adding additional Sharpening before printing and can help compensate for loss of sharpness due to dot gain from your printer. Sharpening should only be applied at the end of your workflow just before printing. If you plan to do additional retouching or compositing work after resizing your image you should disable the Sharpening controls.
And then:
When Should I Use Perfect Resize
Perfect Resize should be used as one of the last steps in your workflow before printing. The power of Perfect Resize is in the concept of resolution on demand. You can work with a modest size file, which makes your editing faster and takes less hard drive space and memory. Then when you are ready to output your file you resize it with Perfect Resize to the desired size and sharpen it for output. This also means that you don’t have to keep multiple versions of a file at different print sizes, you just create what you need on-the-fly. Perfect Resize now supports layered Photoshop files so you can maintain all of your layers, of any type, throughout the entire process.
You sure about that comment, it is simply an upsizing tool...not a capture sharpening or output sharpening tool of any sort?
Please study up before you post. Like your nonsense about the Certified Adobe Photoshop Trainer program (when called out you ignore), you’re making it progressivly more difficult to take you at all seriously. Do you even read the manual or look at the products you promote?
PR sharpens. It may not capture sharpen which again is key to producing a good uprez based on my testing and the work of Jeff Schewe (page 4). ALL the images I printed were output sharpened the same! Because that’s how output sharpening works; based on the final output size to a specific type of printer. As I stated before, without proper capture sharpening (which SHOULD be done at the master resolution and hence after upsizing), the Photoshop and PR images look shockingly similar ON THE PRINT. I don’t care squat how they look on the display (and they DO look different, so what?). ON print, without any capture sharpening, they look about the same on the 8x10. The big difference is the time and money to do the same thing with PR that you get through a product you already own (Photoshop).
The fact that OnOne seems to confuse capture and output sharpening is interesting. Capture sharpening should be done at the master resolution, meaning you’d upsize then capture sharpen just as Jeff illustrated. OnOne treats this within the plug-in (obvious to those who’ve read the manual and looked at the options). So they upsize then sharpen (which is fine if their capture sharpening worked well, at default it sure doesn’t). For output sharpening, you have to be at output size and the sharpening should be done based on the device in conjunction with capture sharpening. Ink jet, vs. Contone vs. Halfone tone all need a different treatment. Yet OnOne nowhere provides this level of control or output options. So whether they are calling this output sharpening (when it really isn’t) or captures sharpening (which it should be), is the question. IF it is output sharpening as they seem to imply above, well it is piss poor and not targeted to any printing technology.
Bottom line in terms of your misunderstanding (well flat out ignorance on the PR’s sharpening), they either provide capture or output sharpening but not both and not well implemented, certainly for output sharpening. If it is truly capture sharpening, that lets them off the hook in terms of ignoring sharpening based on an output device, they just need to fix their manual. And do a much better job. If it is output sharpening, where’s the capture sharpening and why is there no provisions for the printer technology? Either way you slice it, their sharpening workflow is half baked. But sharpen as it upszies, it does provide. And the PS image captured sharpened after upsizing, output sharpened to the Epson looks significantly better and sharper on the print and even in the screen capture above. No matter how you slice it, Photoshop did a superior job.
You want I send you prints? I doubt it is worthwhile even if the proof is in the print.
Maybe you should spend some of this lovely holiday RTFM?
Thank you Andrew... as soon as I am in need of upgrading either Photoshop or GF i will re-evaluate the softwares... .........as I am one that does not take ads or marketing hype or for that matter anything at face value........it has been fun..........i will apologize for causing your blood pressure to rise and for goading you into lashing out ,...but it was fun for me.........this discussion was over a long time ago for me.....as I said previously but I was truly bored and knew you would not stop all I had to do was poke a little fun some where (at your being a certified adobe trainer ) and you would go ballistic ... ... and you did ....
hope your Independence Day is a Safe and Fantastically Fun one........thumb
as soon as I am in need of upgrading either Photoshop or GF i will re-evaluate the softwares... ...
How is what worries me (a tad...). Your methodology, if that word can be used to your process, leaves a lot to be desired.
i will apologize for causing your blood pressure to rise and for goading you into lashing out ,...but it was fun for me.........this discussion was over a long time ago for me.....as I said previously but I was truly bored and knew you would not stop all I had to do was poke a little fun some where (at your being a certified adobe trainer ) and you would go ballistic ... ... and you did ....
Art, stop before you embarrass yourself even more! You were wrong about the Adobe program and wrong about the functionality of the product discussed here in terms of sharpening. You’re wrong about my blood pressure which I can assure you is at ideal levels. The more you post, the more asinine you show yourself to the group here. Let it go. You don’t appear to have the ability to comprehend the numerous erroneous posts you’ve made just in this one set of posts. I’m not ballistic and of course you have no way to gauge that. I’m actually pleased you continue to make yourself look so foolish. But go no further, please. It is beginning to look like a car crash in terms of your impressions about image processor, Adobe programs or my state of mind while I and others find it difficult to take our eyes away from the gore. I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for you.
Let’s close this part of the post, assuming the OP now has some reason to do serious testing of PR, of which you clearly haven’t taken the time to do.
Should I decide to uprez an image's dpi/ppi from 180 to 300, I can do that in Photoshop (resample off) or in Perfect Resize 7 (<--while changing the document size in the same window)
Is there any difference in the results between utilizing these two methods?
TIA
drcarl
Yes, there would be a difference.
Resample off in Photoshop would not interpolate or create any new pixels, the image would not be uprezzed... all it would have is a metadata entry nominating that the was 300 ppi rather than 180 ppi. It would still have the same amount of pixels as it originally did.
You would have to resize from 180 to 300 in Photoshop with resampling turned ON. Then you would have the same final amount of pixels as the PR7 interpolation.
Then the question would be how much better are the new pixels from each program and how do these pixels look in the final output/use?
Resample off in Photoshop would not interpolate or create any new pixels, the image would not be uprezzed... all it would have is a metadata entry nominating that the was 300 ppi rather than 180 ppi. It would still have the same amount of pixels as it originally did.
Yes indeed (missed that too). However, IF you print and let the driver handle this sizing (as I suggested), then there would be a difference at this point. At least for Epson printers, just set the size you wish for the print, leave the resample off of course. IF the values fall within 180-480ppi, let the Epson driver print at that size (in this case letting it ‘resample’). I would not go below 180ppi and above 480, the image quality can sometimes degrade depending on where you are doing the printing (Lightroom is a difference case). But if the print size is what you want, and the PPI is 181, 187, 203, any value, just leave it as such, let the driver give you the print size you asked for.
The metadata that Stephen talks about is detected by the print driver which can resample to the size one asks for.
Resample off in Photoshop would not interpolate or create any new pixels, the image would not be uprezzed... all it would have is a metadata entry nominating that the was 300 ppi rather than 180 ppi. It would still have the same amount of pixels as it originally did.
You would have to resize from 180 to 300 in Photoshop with resampling turned ON. Then you would have the same final amount of pixels as the PR7 interpolation.
Then the question would be how much better are the new pixels from each program and how do these pixels look in the final output/use?
Regards,
Stephen Marsh
Thanks Stephen!
That makes tons of sense and is a direct answer!
You're right...it does beg the question: "how much better are the new pixels from each program and how do these pixels look in the final output/use?"
Comments
Are you still on the OnOne payrole? Seriously. Aside from the asinine comment, the facts are, certified Photoshop trainers are not on Adobe’s payroll. If you did some research on this topic you’d see it is simply a program that asks people to pass a test qualifying them as having a clue about a particular Adobe application. I’m not and have never been on Adobe’s payroll. Normally such a comment would be directed to insult or inflame but like your misunderstanding of proper testing protocol, I wasn’t upset as I understand now that you more often than not, speak as a misinformed individual.
My bias as I told you is based on informed testing and education of a topic. You should try it some time. I asked that you assist my bias in your direction in terms of PR, but you are simply inable to do so. I’ve got an open mind to a degree.
If anyone appears to be on a payroll, it would appear to be the fellow with the signature about a product that he presumably can’t educate others on.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Well the key again is the capture sharpening which PR either doesn’t do or doesn’t do well at least at default settings. The sharper image is Photoshop. And viewing the prints really shows a big difference in quality which a capture from a macro, then posted to the web probably doesn’t do justice. If you saw the Photoshop version with no capture sharpening, you’d be hard pressed to tell which was which. The differences (other than time, complexly and expense) is tiny! Hence my bias, at least at this point for using Photoshop or better, Lightroom/ACR.
What you’re seeing is aprox a 2x3 inch shot of an 8x10 print that itself is a very small area of a 5DMII image enlarged 250%.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Still Andrew you side by side really proves nothing.....really it does not prove a thing...for one thing the last time I read (did you read the white peper on GF/PR or even the instructions or even the "about GF/PR"? ... ... If you did then I apologize for the question.) the info on GF it never said that IT did any type of sharpening ... it is simply an upsizing tool...not a capture sharpening or output sharpening tool of any sort....also the last time I read the instructions it said to do all of your processing in Photoshop EXCEPT FINAL SHARPENING before upsizing in GF ... so if your testing is not done with exactly the same workflow for both software's then it is a moot test... and i do believe you actually state that you did capture sharpening for the "PS" uprez and did not do any capture sharpening for the GF/PR sample.....so not identical work flow...Moot test...in my very humble opinion......
The reason i never have posted comparisons is 2 fold...one as mentioned above i do not keep my comparisons, they are for me and my clients to see make a decision and delete the unneeded file and move on .....Secondly, I always tell people to make their own comparisons for anything i recommend or say i do / use ... each person must make the decision of whether or not a tool is right for them ... .... ... and again....Move on......if it is not right for you so be it.....it is right for a good many GA's and Photogs or it would not be in the position it is today ... ... ... ...
Again.....have a FANTASTIC AND SAFE HOLIDAY....... still
i thought the thread needed a bit of levity ... ... it just seemed to be a bit too gravitas for me ... ... ... ... had no clue that anyone would read my questions as anything but a joke / tease on his remarks about Vincents biases....oops ... ... ... my mistake ...
so the OP has his answers and that means my work here is done......
Blessings to one and all....be safe on this day of Independence ...
Namaste.
I’ve come the conclusion Art that you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about.
Page 17 of the PR manual states:
Further:
And then:
You sure about that comment, it is simply an upsizing tool...not a capture sharpening or output sharpening tool of any sort?
Please study up before you post. Like your nonsense about the Certified Adobe Photoshop Trainer program (when called out you ignore), you’re making it progressivly more difficult to take you at all seriously. Do you even read the manual or look at the products you promote?
PR sharpens. It may not capture sharpen which again is key to producing a good uprez based on my testing and the work of Jeff Schewe (page 4). ALL the images I printed were output sharpened the same! Because that’s how output sharpening works; based on the final output size to a specific type of printer. As I stated before, without proper capture sharpening (which SHOULD be done at the master resolution and hence after upsizing), the Photoshop and PR images look shockingly similar ON THE PRINT. I don’t care squat how they look on the display (and they DO look different, so what?). ON print, without any capture sharpening, they look about the same on the 8x10. The big difference is the time and money to do the same thing with PR that you get through a product you already own (Photoshop).
The fact that OnOne seems to confuse capture and output sharpening is interesting. Capture sharpening should be done at the master resolution, meaning you’d upsize then capture sharpen just as Jeff illustrated. OnOne treats this within the plug-in (obvious to those who’ve read the manual and looked at the options). So they upsize then sharpen (which is fine if their capture sharpening worked well, at default it sure doesn’t). For output sharpening, you have to be at output size and the sharpening should be done based on the device in conjunction with capture sharpening. Ink jet, vs. Contone vs. Halfone tone all need a different treatment. Yet OnOne nowhere provides this level of control or output options. So whether they are calling this output sharpening (when it really isn’t) or captures sharpening (which it should be), is the question. IF it is output sharpening as they seem to imply above, well it is piss poor and not targeted to any printing technology.
Bottom line in terms of your misunderstanding (well flat out ignorance on the PR’s sharpening), they either provide capture or output sharpening but not both and not well implemented, certainly for output sharpening. If it is truly capture sharpening, that lets them off the hook in terms of ignoring sharpening based on an output device, they just need to fix their manual. And do a much better job. If it is output sharpening, where’s the capture sharpening and why is there no provisions for the printer technology? Either way you slice it, their sharpening workflow is half baked. But sharpen as it upszies, it does provide. And the PS image captured sharpened after upsizing, output sharpened to the Epson looks significantly better and sharper on the print and even in the screen capture above. No matter how you slice it, Photoshop did a superior job.
You want I send you prints? I doubt it is worthwhile even if the proof is in the print.
Maybe you should spend some of this lovely holiday RTFM?
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
hope your Independence Day is a Safe and Fantastically Fun one........
You are most welcome!
How is what worries me (a tad...). Your methodology, if that word can be used to your process, leaves a lot to be desired.
Art, stop before you embarrass yourself even more! You were wrong about the Adobe program and wrong about the functionality of the product discussed here in terms of sharpening. You’re wrong about my blood pressure which I can assure you is at ideal levels. The more you post, the more asinine you show yourself to the group here. Let it go. You don’t appear to have the ability to comprehend the numerous erroneous posts you’ve made just in this one set of posts. I’m not ballistic and of course you have no way to gauge that. I’m actually pleased you continue to make yourself look so foolish. But go no further, please. It is beginning to look like a car crash in terms of your impressions about image processor, Adobe programs or my state of mind while I and others find it difficult to take our eyes away from the gore. I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for you.
Let’s close this part of the post, assuming the OP now has some reason to do serious testing of PR, of which you clearly haven’t taken the time to do.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Yes, there would be a difference.
Resample off in Photoshop would not interpolate or create any new pixels, the image would not be uprezzed... all it would have is a metadata entry nominating that the was 300 ppi rather than 180 ppi. It would still have the same amount of pixels as it originally did.
You would have to resize from 180 to 300 in Photoshop with resampling turned ON. Then you would have the same final amount of pixels as the PR7 interpolation.
Then the question would be how much better are the new pixels from each program and how do these pixels look in the final output/use?
Regards,
Stephen Marsh
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
I am embarrassed that I missed this obvious point.
Touche' Stephen and thank you for this correction.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Yes indeed (missed that too). However, IF you print and let the driver handle this sizing (as I suggested), then there would be a difference at this point. At least for Epson printers, just set the size you wish for the print, leave the resample off of course. IF the values fall within 180-480ppi, let the Epson driver print at that size (in this case letting it ‘resample’). I would not go below 180ppi and above 480, the image quality can sometimes degrade depending on where you are doing the printing (Lightroom is a difference case). But if the print size is what you want, and the PPI is 181, 187, 203, any value, just leave it as such, let the driver give you the print size you asked for.
The metadata that Stephen talks about is detected by the print driver which can resample to the size one asks for.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Thanks Stephen!
That makes tons of sense and is a direct answer!
You're right...it does beg the question: "how much better are the new pixels from each program and how do these pixels look in the final output/use?"
Best,
drcarl
deja vu!
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/