Uprezzing imaging software.

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

I have a shoot coming up where the client wants 400-500mg images.

So I am looking for the best uprezzing software on the market.

I am impressed with Alien Skin Blow Up 3 software but are there any other ones better?

Cheers

Simon

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hello,

I have a shoot coming up where the client wants 400-500mg images.

So I am looking for the best uprezzing software on the market.

I am impressed with Alien Skin Blow Up 3 software but are there any other ones better?

Hi Simon,

Photozoom Pro by Benvista uses a similar approach (as far as algorithms involved) but my past comparisons showed that Blowup has a tendency to round-of acute/sharp corners. Photozoom Pro seemed to handle those better, but perhaps your image subjects have less critical structures.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Just use Photoshop and apply the correct processes (capture sharpening etc).

This piece will walk you though it (and you'll save some money and time):

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/the-art-of-the-up-res.html?start=1

[Brian Hirschfeld]

I am a big fan of Genuine Fractals (now Perfect Resize) I cannot comment on the Algorithms, but I can say it has allowed me to print BIG from small photos.

I'm sorry, I know I point to this review a lot but it covers a bunch of different things which seem applicable to this forum at times;
http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2011/12/07/hasselblad-300mm-f4-5-hc-lens-review-2/

You can see that it has some serious power to make things bigger, with quality results. But as always, garbage in garbage out (in terms of file quality)...

[Dustbak]

+1 for Onone Perfect Resize. Works nicely, OTOH PS also does a pretty good job, add a bit of grain/noise and the results come close to that of Onone.

[KevinA]

I have never done side by sides, but in the past I've owned a few magic bullet upsizing programs. Now I just use Photoshop, there might be a difference but if you don't go out determined to find it you will probably never see it. It's quick too, some programs I've had with all the quality settings maxed out have taken hours to complete.
 They all look rubbish on screen at 100%, thank goodness 100% on screen is not the real world.
I tink that they all do what can be done with the information supplied, photography being the roundabout and swings thing it is, means that when one gains in one area it loses in another. I suspect each program just adjusts it's idea of which is best more time on the swing or more on the roundabout.

[digitaldog]

They all look rubbish on screen at 100%, thank goodness 100% on screen is not the real world.

Exactly! Plus without printing a small sample of the two options and viewing them side by side, forget about 'evaluations' of such applications. I've done some of the work recently (Photoshop versus Lightroom versus Perfect Resize for a Webinar) and on an 8x10 print of a sample of the full image, PR didn't bring anything useful to the party, took a lot more time and after a demo times out, money. With proper capture sharpening, LR did the best job with Photoshop pretty close behind.

ANY review of these kinds of products that try to convince you which is better, based on what they show on screen is a review to ignore. You have to print the various samples at size and look at them.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Exactly! Plus without printing a small sample of the two options and viewing them side by side, forget about 'evaluations' of such applications. I've done some of the work recently (Photoshop versus Lightroom versus Perfect Resize for a Webinar) and on an 8x10 print of a sample of the full image, PR didn't bring anything useful to the party, took a lot more time and after a demo times out, money. With proper capture sharpening, LR did the best job with Photoshop pretty close behind.

Hi Andrew,

If your judgement was based on PR resize vs Bicubic smoother, and the magnification was relatively small, I can understand. However, the OP is looking for some serious upsampling amounts. He also expressed a favorable opinion on Blow-up, which means he has used and compared that to form an opinion for the intended goal, which is huge image sizes. Genuine Fractals, or Perfect Resize as they call it nowadays, used to advertise 4x enlargements as giving good results. My opinion, based on print comparisons, was that it tended to posterize the image data too much, thereby losing the smooth organic gradients (e.g. OOF blur), compared to e.g. Photozoom Pro.

An up to date comparison between the two (and Photozoom Pro) could be interesting, but Perfect Resize crashes on my computer so somebody else will have to give it a try. I could do the Photozoom Pro resample if needed, it's running just fine, and can do much larger enlargements (e.g. 10x or more, it's limited at 1 million by 1 million pixels).

ANY review of these kinds of products that try to convince you which is better, based on what they show on screen is a review to ignore. You have to print the various samples at size and look at them.

While I agree that an actual print is the best comparison, anybody with a bit of experience can judge the expected output difference based on a crop on display just fine.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

If your judgement was based on PR resize vs Bicubic smoother, and the magnification was relatively small, I can understand.

I believe the enlargement I used was 400%.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I believe the enlargement I used was 400%.

I understand. It's pretty big already, but 'nothing' compared to what constitutes a real challenge, as the OP is confronted with.

Cheers,
Bart