up-scaling by 150% not such a great idea. Blurry grasshopper head

[JBW]

[Dave Humphries]

Yeah - may be, but we can't wait until you get your macro lens

Anyways; I thought I showed you that 'size isn't everything' in a previous thread!
(i.e. better smaller and sharper looking)

[JBW]

Yeah - may be, but we can't wait until you get your macro lens

Anyways; I thought I showed you that 'size isn't everything' in a previous thread!
(i.e. better smaller and sharper looking)

yes you did and shot two will show that i paid attention

[Shadowman]

Brian,

Did you upscale in one increment or in smaller increments? I saw a tutorial where the presenter did so in 10% increments.

[JBW]

Brian,

Did you upscale in one increment or in smaller increments? I saw a tutorial where the presenter did so in 10% increments.

in one.

[Manfred M]

Brian,

Did you upscale in one increment or in smaller increments? I saw a tutorial where the presenter did so in 10% increments.

John - this technique comes as a work around with issues in the scaling functionality of some of the older versions of Photoshop. Adobe fixed that issue by the time CS4 or CS5 came out. Even then, you could probably upsample only some 3 or perhaps 4 times before quality would really suffer. I initially bought OnOne to work around that issue (and the product was superior to Adobe's approach at the time), but that has not been the case for several generations of Photoshop releases. Unfortunately, some people continue to use this technique without understanding the background of why it was used.

In Brian's case, he uses totally different software, so the effectiveness of this approach is not something I would guess at. Looking at the shot, my initial view would be that this image is soft due to a slight missed focus, rather than an upsampling problem with the software

[JBW]

John - this technique comes as a work around with issues in the scaling functionality of some of the older versions of Photoshop. Adobe fixed that issue by the time CS4 or CS5 came out. Even then, you could probably upsample only some 3 or perhaps 4 times before quality would really suffer. I initially bought OnOne to work around that issue (and the product was superior to Adobe's approach at the time), but that has not been the case for several generations of Photoshop releases. Unfortunately, some people continue to use this technique without understanding the background of why it was used.

In Brian's case, he uses totally different software, so the effectiveness of this approach is not something I would guess at. Looking at the shot, my initial view would be that this image is soft due to a slight missed focus, rather than an upsampling problem with the software

Me? Miss a focus? NEVER!

[Manfred M]

me? Miss a focus? Never!

Whatever you say Brian