Cause like rubber hitting the road, you have to print out the differences (there's no reason to upsize files to this size just to view them).
OK, but can you consider the following? (Please -- I know this may be less scientific and more subjective and narrative, but bear with me). Thanks.
My workflow is to take my file and uprez with each method (with PS CS3 (bicubic or bicubic sharper), Blow up, and GF) and then use PK Sharpener as I usually would on the uprezzed files. I then examined them alongside each other (using PS CS3 Match & Zoom) at 100%, and especially examine any area of importance vital to the success image.
I did this work in the same "spirit" as soft proofing, knowing that the soft proof is not perfect, but looking for the "pop." With soft proofing it's usually subtle color effects. With this uprez/sharpening comparison, I am looking for the image that has more, for lack of a better word "life."
Because we are dealing with rather large images 36x30 inches or larger, and to print out all these versions to arrive at a conclusion would be very costly in time consuming and materials, we thought we had a good solution to this problem.
Are you saying, I really have a faulty workflow, and have made poor choices that really aren't valid because until the "rubber hits the road" you cannot really know what's happening by looking at the screen at 100%?
(ASIDE: Over the past 9 years, I have witnessed that the "uprez" solutions evolve and change. There have been times at which different solutions work better than others, but I have been comparing these on the screen at 100%, and thought that was a safe way to go. I fully understand that at different magnifications Photoshop is aliasing the files in ways that would negate such an approach. But I thought 100% was the real deal. Am I wrong about that?
Thanks, and so long for now, TOM