Just call me respectful of the guy who invents something totally new.
But my respect for PW Pro comes from years of using it including the
layout and resizing tools. No, I'm not aware of any formal tests
placing PWP at or near the top of anything let alone resizing. But I'm
also not aware of the opposite. Just a happy user who still usually
goes to PWP for my own 8x10 or smaller prints. I've been trying to
transition to CS3 but I generally do better with PWP.
I don't have Qimage and don't have a printer that can make big prints.
But I definitely do recognize the quality and detail that Qimage can
produce. I've seen it produce many 24x30 images on large Epson printers
at my photo mentor's studio. One in particular that I had a hand in
shooting is the Boston Classical Orchestra in Fanueil Hall. It's the
entire orchestra and a very significant part of the hall including the
gigantic mural opposite the front entrance and over the stage. The
detail in the image is incredible (5D film). If I had a large printer
it would be the first thing on my shopping list.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Your mention of PW Pro and its fine layout and resizing tools reminds me
>> of an email I once sent to Jonathan Sachs (the author of PWP and
>> co-creator of Lotus 1-2-3) asking about the advisability of stepwise
>> methods to resize a file. His response was something to the effect that
>> any software resizing tool that required that to be done was poorly written.
>>
> You've posted this before, and I've resisted....
>
> What makes him the expert? I used Lotus extensively at one time. An
> extraordinary step forward in its time. Also useful for meditation while
> waiting for it to print something simple, like " I wonder WHAT it can be
> doing that takes so long?"
>
> But I digress. I don't recall Lotus ever doing image up-sizing. Nor do I
> recall any comparison of upsizing apps placing PWP at or near the top.
>
> So, when he comes out with an app that it as good as the best, and does
> it without internally stepping, I'll believe him. Until then, he's just
> another guy blowing smoke.
>
> In my tests, pixel peeping, not prints, for good or ill, FM's SI Pro
> came in second to FM's version of the same process optimized for a
> specific camera's files. Sl setp interpolation is still in the running
> as far as I am concerned. On the other hand, for small, very low rez
> files, Qimage stomped SI in prints.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|