Phil Robinson 1,142 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Many years ago I read that image resizing in Photoshop was not great and a program like Genuine Fractals gave much better results. Since then I have always used GF for resizing my images, largely out of habit, but I have just updated my Photoshop Elements and was wondering if it is really necessary. I'm sure PS has been greatly improved over its many incarnations since then. Does anyone else use GF for resizing or is it not worth the bother? Link to post Share on other sites
Martin Carlsson 433 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) I've not used Genuine Fractals for probably 7-10 years? Not sure what you are going to do, as one don't really have to upscale for Alamy anymore. Regardless, I'm sure that PS is quite capable, but for the "outmost", plugins such GF can perhaps manage to do it slightly better - I presume, as they are still around and charge $69-$99 for it (my simple logic). Good luck! Edited September 1, 2017 by Martin Carlsson Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Robinson 1,142 Posted September 1, 2017 Author Share Posted September 1, 2017 I still have the GF disc I got years ago and could reinstall it if I wanted to (I suppose) but I don't think it's worth it. Most resizing now is downwards anyway. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Martin P Wilson 1,140 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) When GF was in vogue (in the days of 4-8Mpixel cameras) I recall several magazines and others running tests comparing its results with PS (including the iterative upsizing and single step methods). They generally came to the conclusion that PS in a single step using bicubic interpolation gave as good results as any. That was what I used when I had to upsize for Alamy, from Canon 1D or the like, and had no QC problems. As has been said there is no longer really much need for upsizing now that 16-24Mpixels or more is the norm. Edited September 1, 2017 by Martin P Wilson Link to post Share on other sites
Jansos 684 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 16 hours ago, Martin P Wilson said: When GF was in vogue (in the days of 4-8Mpixel cameras) I recall several magazines and others running tests comparing its results with PS (including the iterative upsizing and single step methods). They generally came to the conclusion that PS in a single step using bicubic interpolation gave as good results as any. That was what I used when I had to upsize for Alamy, from Canon 1D or the like, and had no QC problems. As has been said there is no longer really much need for upsizing now that 16-24Mpixels or more is the norm. Showing my ignorance here. Does that mean it is possible to upsize 4-5Mb photos so that they meet the Alamy QC standard? Thx. John Link to post Share on other sites
Martin P Wilson 1,140 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 47 minutes ago, Jansos said: Showing my ignorance here. Does that mean it is possible to upsize 4-5Mb photos so that they meet the Alamy QC standard? Thx. John It used to be possible but whether they would pass QC now is questionable. The QC threshold has steadily risen with technology improvements. I don't think I would even try now to get 4-5Mpixeel images accepted, even from a pro camera of the time. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
spacecadet 3,816 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 31 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said: It used to be possible but whether they would pass QC now is questionable. The QC threshold has steadily risen with technology improvements. I don't think I would even try now to get 4-5Mpixeel images accepted, even from a pro camera of the time. But now you only have to upsize to 6. Even some of my, quite frankly, evil-looking 14MP/400ISOs from 2009-13 would probably survive downsizing to that. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Jansos 684 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 7 hours ago, Martin P Wilson said: It used to be possible but whether they would pass QC now is questionable. The QC threshold has steadily risen with technology improvements. I don't think I would even try now to get 4-5Mpixeel images accepted, even from a pro camera of the time. OK, seems sensible and will save me a ton of conversion work. Thx! :-) Link to post Share on other sites
alphaomega 23 Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 Never actually seen Alamy stating that their quality requirements have been raised. On the contrary, they have reduced size requirements from 48Mb TIFF to Jpeg, to 24Mb Jpeg and then finally to 17Mb Jpeg. I would assume that If I reduced all the TIFF 48Mb images I had passed by Alamy then to 17Mb and re-submitted they would pass. I unconsiously think they have and probably make my submissions better than the minimum now, but then the better they are the better it will be. Provide the customer with the best you can do will probably enhance sales opportunities - everything else being equal. Link to post Share on other sites
Rick Lewis 157 Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 Genuine Fractals is now On1 Perfect Resize. I bought it a couple of years ago because I was shooting a lot of family portraits to be printed on canvas and was using a 12MP Nikon D3. Some of my canvas orders were for very large sizes. Since then I just use PS CC to upres if needed and cannot tell the difference in quality. I think Adobe upped their game. Or, my eyesight is getting worse. :-) Link to post Share on other sites
vpics 660 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Haven't used GF for a long time. It's Photoshop bicubic all the way. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now