----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:55 AM
Just to qualify, I shoot RAW and when I knew the image was going to DPS,
converted to 16 bit tiff and up-ressed before any other
processing. I would
use PS7 bicubic in 20 percent increments.
Going RAW never hurts, as we all know it gives you the absolute most
versatility and allows you the most amount of details to start working
from.
As for up-resolution, I would suggest a smaller increments to minimize the
big jumps, perhaps 5% which is what I use, if you set up an action
associated to an F-key in Photoshop then you can up convert to the final
resolution required very quickly, a couple of the Photoshop books and
courses I've been to all suggested applying many successive small
increments
rather than large increments to the final resolution.
Ken,
I found that with some subject matter increments of less than 10 percent
created unpleasant artefacts, mainly with people pictures.
E.g head shots would have hair and eyelashes with what looked like knots,
catchlights in eyes would change shape as would moles on skin. However,
other subject matter might benefit from the smaller steps, (landscapes?). I
settled on 20 percent as an easy, relatively swift, compromise and did have
actions set up for "resize to...A2, A3, A4".
As I said, with the 1Ds MkII I don't, routinely, interpolate.
I've routinely print a file from the 1D Mk 2 to 24x30 size prints without
apparent loss of details, so a two page spread shouldn't be that much of
an
issue, that is unless you start to crop heavily from the original file,
even
resizing technique and the best interpolation software can't create
something from nothing.
Making a 24x30 inkjet or laser print is very different to CMYK litho. The
screen size determines the detail and is nowhere near as efficient. Most
Epsons, for example, have a head resolution of 360 dpi, feed them any
resolution image and the RIP or driver will interpolate, not so with litho.
I think your words "without apparent loss of details" are very telling. With
some subject matter without the actual detail for comparison what clues
would there be as to what, if anything, was missing?
The software is simply inventing pixels, if it were "super clever" and could
actually create the pixels that would have been created by the camera then
there would be absolutely no difference.
Having said all that, I agree with you, that in practical terms, a DPS from
the 1D MkII would not be a problem in many cases.
CraigZ
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
