Sorry about the misspelling!

MikeG

Unfortunately, the present owner of GF has decided that they will only support the new Photoshop SDK which limits it to PS CS, CSII, and Elements 4. Those of us with programs such as Paintshop Pro and Corel's Photopaint are left out in the cold. However, older versions, if you can find them, i.e. GF 3.51 are usable in all Paintshop Pro

versions and Corel's Photopaint up to PP11.

It is an excellent plugin. The present owner of GF does not answer any Emails and they appear disinterested in adapting any of their programs/plugins for any apps other than the Current Adobe applications, i.e. Extensis.

I have been the user of both GF and Extensis plugins ever since the very first version in the mid 90's.

Quote:
Forum

Your thoughts on this software?

Thank You

MikeG

And now for some unpopular inputs! I'm sorry to say, but every review of this plug-in with clear and ample examples has not convinced me at all that Genuine Fractals shows any significant improvement over interpolation with for instance Photoshop Bicubic resizing. I've tried hard to see an advantage to GF, but I can't see it for the life of me. Depending on the detail that you look at, you can see that GF does something differently than PS Bicubic, but I can't say it is better, just different.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Quote:

Quote:
Forum

Your thoughts on this software?

Thank You

MikeG

And now for some unpopular inputs! I'm sorry to say, but every review of this plug-in with clear and ample examples has not convinced me at all that Genuine Fractals shows any significant improvement over interpolation with for instance Photoshop Bicubic resizing. I've tried hard to see an advantage to GF, but I can't see it for the life of me. Depending on the detail that you look at, you can see that GF does something differently than PS Bicubic, but I can't say it is better, just different.

Frans Waterlander

pixographer

Hi Frans,

You mention reviews, but have you ever actually used the plugin? I think you would find that with actual use, you might have a different opinion. One other point is that it is not only good for increasing the file size, it is great for reducing file size for web use. It reduces the jaggies one usually sees in blades of grass as an example. This is especially true in large reductions such as a file size of 30 to 40 megs to a 700 x 525 pixel web image. When I talked to the original developer back in the early '90's, he explained it was more like the expansion or contraction of a rubber band rather then filling in pixels since it is not pixel dependent.

I have 12 x 17" prints on my wall which were enlarged with GF from a 1.6 MP Kodak DC 260 (1/2"chip) which most people

consider "film photographic quality".

See attached from my darkroom wall.

I might add at this point that I had a custom pro lab for about 20 years prior to retiring so I do have a reference point for comparison sake.

See attachment from my darkroom wall.

Dave,

No I haven't actually tried it because the results for up-sampling shown in the in-depth reviews were very discouraging in that I personally didn't see an improvement over Photoshop Bicubic (I don't think I'll ever need to down-sample). If you know of quality reviews that prove the opposite, I would be very interested to read those.

As far as your experiences are concerned, you apparently are happy with the results. But (don't you hate those buts) did you compare those results with straightforward bicubic up-sampling of the same image printed on the same printer at the same size?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Quote:
Dave,

No I haven't actually tried it because the results for up-sampling shown in the in-depth reviews were very discouraging in that I personally didn't see an improvement over Photoshop Bicubic (I don't think I'll ever need to down-sample). If you know of quality reviews that prove the opposite, I would be very interested to read those.

As far as your experiences are concerned, you apparently are happy with the results. But (don't you hate those buts) did you compare those results with straightforward bicubic up-sampling of the same image printed on the same printer at the same size?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Yes, I have done several comparisons, rather extensive ones
each time there was an upgrade.The only gripe prior to the present version generally would be that one would have to save in the stn format. My present gripe, as I mentioned earlier, was that they no longer support anything but the present Adobe SDK plug-in format. I do have PS CS which I use sparingly when beta testing for Corel/PSP for comparisons, etc.
I just noticed in the image I posted a folder is shown that
housed my beta testing in Ilford MG IV Fiber Base back in
Feb '97. I did a lot of beta testing for Ilford for over 17 years till I closed my wet darkroom in March '97. My computer room used to be dark room and I have never taken the folder files off the wall.
I also beta tested XTOL and other chemistry/papers/films.
for Kodak and Jobo. I beta tested the Tmax films starting in 1983, using both Jobo and manual processing.

My custom lab work was for fashion photographers and
several of the electronic/industrial companies in Silicon Valley such as FMC and HP as well as the San Jose Mercury (even though they all had their own labs).I also did a bit of small product photography in my studio in San Jose.

Dave, in the free-trial version I recently downloaded, saving in STN format is no longer required. I've tried a couple of conversions, saving them in TIFF format, and it works. The downside, for me, is the huge increase in file size that results from just a mild increase in resolution (from original 69mb file to over 500mb for a 35mm image!) The result is only a slight increase in sharpness in an 11X14 print. In fact, after a couple of weeks, I really have to stare to see the difference between the original control print and the test print. If I'm doing something wrong, I have 12 more freebie attempts on the free trial to figure it out. But, since I rarely print anything larger than 16X20, I'm wondering if it's worth the effort?

Dave,

Isn't it a small world? Before retirement I worked for HP. I worked in the Microwave Semiconductor Division in San Jose and the Santa Clara Divison, now both part of Agilent Technology after the split-up, the Systems Technology Division in Cupertino and the Vancouver Division (inkjet printers) in Vancouver, Washington.

On the subject of GF, can you point me to reviews that show superior performance over Photoshop's bicubic resampling? I would be very interested!

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Quote:
Dave,

Isn't it a small world? Before retirement I worked for HP. I worked in the Microwave Semiconductor Division in San Jose and the Santa Clara Divison, now both part of Agilent Technology after the split-up, the Systems Technology Division in Cupertino and the Vancouver Division (inkjet printers) in Vancouver, Washington.

On the subject of GF, can you point me to reviews that show superior performance over Photoshop's bicubic resampling? I would be very interested!

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

HP had their own lab in the Page Mill campus. I received processing work for B/W directly from some of the engineers when either their own lab couldn't handle it, or for security reasons they didn't wish anyone to see it in house.
A lot of it was electron microscope work of circuits (I guess because I have no idea what I was developing and printing). The last 5 years prior to retiring, I also was in sales at Keeble and Shuchat in Palo Also--specializing in commercial darkroom to business and schools and some
large format stuff.I still did HP's work on the side part time.

I became quite friendly with HP's photolab manager at the time. I switched all their enlarger lenses to Rodenstock after he saw my work for them. I can't remember his name, but he retired about the same time that I did. In my lab I had 3 Chromega D5 XL's, plus 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 Elwoods,
All with Rodensocks on turrets, except for the 8 x 10.

Are you still living in the Santa Clara Valley? I will be down for Easter at our daughter's in San Jose if you are around.

I know that the current GF can use any format, but I am not about to upgrade unless they make it available to programs other than Adobe's, even though I have PSCS.

The write up in SB was pretty positive.I suggest that you correspond directly with George S. for his own opinion, since he was the most recent one to test it.

Dave,

I live nowadays in Battle Ground, Washington, about a half hour north of Portland, Oregon.

I'll try the on-line trial version of GF so I can see for myself the difference between GF and Photoshop bicubic.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans

Please post your thoughts/findings on the difference between GF and Photoshop bicubic.

Thanks

MikeG

Quote:
Frans

Please post your thoughts/findings on the difference between GF and Photoshop bicubic.

Thanks

MikeG

Mike,

I would love to, but there is a problem getting the 30 day trial for Genuine Fractals. When I make the request, the automated system gets me the Print Pro program, not Genuine Fractals. I've emailed their support; let's see what transpires.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans, I think that's it. I seem to remember that name popping up when I downloaded it, but it's GF....

Bill,

It's really Print Pro that gets downloaded, not GF.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer and printer

That's weird. Sorry, Frans....

Hey Frans, I just looked at the ZIP files that downloaded for GF, and there are files for both Print Pro and GF there. So maybe you get both?

Hi Bill,

Yeah, I also looked more and it looks like ononesoftware sends you the link to the more capable and more expensive version called Genuine Fractals Printer Pro. I'll try it out and report back here how it works compared to Photoshop Bicubic resampling.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer and printer

After spending many hours working with the trial version of Genuine Fractals I have to come to the conclusion that it doesn't offer much better performance than the free of charge bicubic resampling in Photoshop. The following are the results for three different applications of images used as is and upsampled 600% with Photoshop Bicubic and Genuine Fractals:

6MP image viewed and printed at 13x19"

No differences observable with the naked eye between the the three versions of images

6MP image viewed and printed at 20x30"

Visibel loss of detail because of a lack of sufficient pixels in the original image for both unmodified and upsampled images. Less jaggies when resampled. Barely visible sharpness improvement with Genuine Fractals over Photoshop Bicubic

6MP image viewed and printed at 40x60"

Even more visibel loss of detail because of a lack of sufficient pixels in the original image for both unmodified and upsampled images. Less jaggies when resampled. Barely visible sharpness improvement with Genuine Fractals over Photoshop Bicubic.

My conclusion: Genuine Fractals shows a marginal improvement in sharpness over Photoshop Bicubic when viewing or printing an image at such a large size compared to the original image's megapixel count that a significant lack of detail overshadows any sharpness improvements. Glowing reviews for Genuine Fractals like George Schaub's in the March issue of Shutterbug make unsubstantiated and unrealistic claims. You cannot create detail out of missing information.

Frans Waterlander

pixographer and printer