Of the new CS resampling methods, "Bicubic sharper" is better for downsampling and "Bicubic smoother" is better for upsampling. We should have put some indication of that in the Image Size dialog.
I'm picky but not ultra-critical, and I need a loupe to see things that Chris Cox can see with his naked eyes (he wrote the new resampling algorithms). For printing to Epsons, I was never able to see a significant difference (even with a loupe) between using bicubic resampling in Photoshop to some magic resolution like 240, 300, 360, or 720 vs. just printing my 180-300 dpi images directly to the printer at 257.5 dpi or whatever they were once I'd set the physical dimensions. Certainly any difference I thought I could see was wiped out by minor tweaking to the sharpening parameters I applied (I don't use global USM, either). So I believe that this is one of those things that is subtle enough that you should try it yourself on a few images to see what you prefer or if you can see a difference at all. I've seen tests suggesting that with text or certain kinds of high contrast detail there would be a more visible difference. But I convinced myself that it didn't make enough difference *for me* to spend the time worrying about it. I just crop the image at the most visually appropriate location, sharpen it, set the physical dimensions to the size I want, and print it at that resolution. Russell Williams =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
