Tom Wiggins 
, Sep 05, 2010; 10:30 a.m.
Yesterday, I was speaking with a photographer, at a juried craft-fair, that specialized in macro photography. The prints displayed were simply outstanding. She was kind enough to tell me about "Genuine Fractals" Software. Do you know if this is compatible with PE8 or do I need a CS version of photoshop for the software to function? Thank you Tom
Brad Smith , Sep 05, 2010; 10:33 a.m.
I'm going to be kinder and tell you about Qimage.
Kevin Foster , Sep 05, 2010; 10:36 a.m.
Tom,
Not sure why you didnt just look on the website to see, as I did. However, Genuine Fractals is compatible with PE8.
Tom Wiggins , Sep 05, 2010; 10:46 a.m.
Brad: Thank you for the suggestion.
Kevin: I did look at the website, downloaded a free trial and the software wouldn't load into PE8. So I'm not sure the website is correct. Tom
ann clancy , Sep 05, 2010; 11:01 a.m.
onone is a great company, just get in touch and find out what the problem must be.
I use Qimage and it is a terrific printing RIP
Andrew Rodney 
, Sep 05, 2010; 12:39 p.m.
My suggestion would be to get a demo, test it next to Photoshop’s correct Bicubic interpolation (smoother for upsizing), then print both. I’m pretty sure you’ll see that unless you start with a tiny original going to a huge size, you will be fine with Photoshop. In fact, 200-300% interpolation is easily accomplished with a good quality digital capture if handled correctly (see:http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/the-art-of-the-up-res.html)
You may end up saving yourself considerable time and money just using Photoshop or Elements assuming it uses the same upsizing options.
Brad Smith , Sep 05, 2010; 02:10 p.m.
Remember, unles we're printing really small we're doing plenty of interpolation.
A 10MP camera takes images that are about 4,000 pixels wide. So if we print to an Epson (720dpi) at actual size it's only a 5.5" wide print (4000/720). I print mine at 19" wide - that's 345%, and they're very sharp.
The reason I mention Qimage is that it's Hybrid, Hybrid SE and Pyramid interpolation schemes are superior to anything I've seen when looking close up, which affects the whole image I believe.
Some reviews and recommendations
Also everything's available as a trial, so you can do comparison prints.
Andrew Rodney , Sep 05, 2010; 02:28 p.m.
So if we print to an Epson (720dpi) at actual size it's only a 5.5" wide print (4000/720)
Expect you would never send, nor need to send 720ppi to an Epson! In fact, sending more than 480ppi can actually lower output quality. That the Epson is capable of producing 720 or 1440 dpi in no way means you would send it that. Pick the size of the print you want. IF the output resolution falls between a low of 180ppi, a high of 480ppi, just let the driver do all the work. If the image resolution falls below 180ppi, then you do need to interpolate up to that minimum size. If the resolution falls above 480ppi, you’d want to resample down to the size you want at that resolution.
Brett Cole , Sep 05, 2010; 03:44 p.m.
Yes, what Andrew said. For your 19" print you're sending the file at maybe 240ppi (as opposed to the 720 dpi of the printer that was mentioned, which is a different thing, and not connected to the ppi in the way suggested), so you're basically not upsampling much, if at all. 4,000 pixels / 19 inches = 210ppi
Brad Smith , Sep 05, 2010; 04:35 p.m.
I just meant that if you print a 4,000 pixel wide photo larger than 5.5" (on an Epson), interpolation is occurring. Different programs have different algorithms that produce different results (to accomplish the enlargement). And printers do it themselves quite well.
And yes 210-240 is often used as the minimum (Qimage shows the PPI being sent to the printer), but I printed one at 199ppi through Qimage that looks great.
