alt.graphics.photoshop
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop?hl=en
alt.graphics.photoshop@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Program to make low-res image files look sharper - 12 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/4d659d5c4667f372?hl=en
* Gucci Belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/128ec96ed3567cb9?hl=en
* Extract Filter - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/f83dd76e9ae2d51b?hl=en
* High res files to print posters? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/1028bac29bccb8ff?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Program to make low-res image files look sharper
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/4d659d5c4667f372?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 8:51 pm
From: Robert Montgomery
John J wrote:
> Robert Montgomery wrote:
>> Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
>>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> found these unused
>>> words:
>>>
>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>>> - The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and
>>>>> I think
>>>>> CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose
>>>>> Percentage and other option instead.
>>>> I own Photoshop CS3 and I can't fine "Image Resize" in the program
>>>> and I can't find where I would change the image size by percentage.
>>>> Robert
>>>
>>> I believe it's "Image Size" in the "Image" menu drop down and for the
>>> rest
>>> Press "F1" for instructions on the tool.
>>
>> Thanks, John and F. A.
>>
>> I tried enlarging an image file by percentage and saved it. I also
>> tried enlarging the original image file by pixels and saved it.
>>
>> I printed both files, which ended up being the same size (118
>> megabytes) and the same resolution (300 dpi).
>>
>> I printed the images. I couldn't tell any difference between the
>> printed results.
>
> The results would be the same. It's all about the actual pixels, the
> pixel count (area formula).
But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop
by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and
do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I
misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:
> - The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think
> CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose
> Percentage and other option instead.
>
> - It will help to improve a larger print but not making the blurry image
> looks sharper which is part of Sharpen and similar.
Robert
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:17 am
From: "Fred"
> But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop
> by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do
> the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood,
> though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:
>
>
> Robert
You can try enlarging the image in small percentages (10%) till you reach
the desired size.
This should keep the edges a bit sharper.
You can also make an action to do that.
Fred
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 9:10 am
From: Joel
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > The results would be the same. It's all about the actual pixels, the
> > pixel count (area formula).
>
> But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop
> by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and
> do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I
> misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:
You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK about the
whole thing.
- You can't not nee the difference between the difference is so little so
human eye can see
- You can see a BIG difference if there is a BIG difference for you too see.
IOW, if you start with a poor image then you may be able to see the
difference.
- You may even see BIGGER difference if you have to work on the very poor
image (more than just resizing), and with combination of 16-bit etc. then
you should see the difference.
IOW, if someone here try to teach you English then you may not see much
improvement, but if you are smart enough to teach me English then I may see
a HUGE improvement. Get it? or what I am trying to say it depends on
different situation, different technique.
Or a little more hint.
- If you print the same image before/after Enlargement size 4x6" then you
should not tell the difference from a much lower quality. This is normal
- If you print a good image size 8x10 then you may not be able to tell the
difference. This is normal and the limitation of human eyes
- Now, if you do everything correctly then print the before/after to size
40x510 then you should be able to see the difference.
If you don't want to print that large then test on a very very poor image,
or ZOOM IN to study the difference. But you will have to stare at the same
PIXELS (area) to see the difference.
And you can always GOOGLE for more detail information, and many may have
PICTURES to tell the differences between the original and others programs,
techniques too.
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 9:15 am
From: Joel
"Fred" <jabba@dabba.doo> wrote:
> > But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop
> > by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and do
> > the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I misunderstood,
> > though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:
> >
> >
> > Robert
>
> You can try enlarging the image in small percentages (10%) till you reach
> the desired size.
> This should keep the edges a bit sharper.
> You can also make an action to do that.
>
> Fred
Here, I don't do on good normal quality photo, but I sometime have to
create a DVD label from a small 50-300K image from internet, so I don't do
10% but quite often 200-400%.
Just by looking at the percentage, you can tell how small and poor the
image may be. Besides the Percentage I also have to switch to 16-bit mode,
then back to 8-bit (to save or combine with other photo) after done all the
editing.
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 2:30 pm
From: Joel
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> Joel wrote:
> > "Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Montgomery wrote:
> >>> A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files
> >>> look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp
> >>> when printed at a large size.
> >>>
> >>> Does anybody know the name of program?
> >> Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced
> >> algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a
> >> specialist printing program.
> >>
> >> None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from
> >> existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of
> >> the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.
> >>
> >> Colin D.
> >
> > I don't have the original message and hope you won't mind me quoting
> > yours.
> >
> > - The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think
> > CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose
> > Percentage and other option instead.
>
> I own Photoshop CS3 and I can't fine "Image Resize" in the program and I
> can't find where I would change the image size by percentage.
Just select the "Image Resize" then instead of selecting the Width/Height
etc. you just hi-lite the PIXEL selection then you will see the Percentage
option available.
OK, here is one of the links I just found so you can see the PHOTO
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-resizing.php
Then there should be few Percentage options these you may have to play
with them to pick the one you like best. Since the photos I use to make DVD
labels are not important so I just use whatever default setting
> > - It will help to improve a larger print but not making the blurry image
> > looks sharper which is part of Sharpen and similar. I don't do sharpen
> > besides messing to gain little experience to know much about it.
> >
> > - And to deal with low-rez image you often need more than making it look
> > sharper (often make it looks worse), like you may want to edit in 16-bit
> > mode instead of 8-bit.
>
> So in other words the programs like Alien Skin's Blow-Up and On One's
> Genuine Fractals are unnecessary for blowing up images while minimizing
> the dark outlines and halo effect that are produced by blowing up?
I don't know much about Alien Skin Blow-Up to have anything to say, I
don't own the Genuine Fractals but have read several talks about it, and
comparing it with Adobe built-in Enlargement (Percentage) feature so I think
both (and other too) work pretty similar to each other, and some may be a
hair better than other.
Enlargement doesn't work like Sharpen which darken some pixels to make it
look sharper (in some case it may look worse). The Percentage/Enlargement
using some trick (calculation) to multiply the pixel by size and pixel, so
you will have MORE pixel that make a larger print looks better.
> > And I hope this won't be another suicide letter <bg>
>
> Huh?
Hahaha I have run into so many folks who drops a question then vanish, and
we don't know if they read the answer, if the answer helps or not. And
that's why I call them suicide letter just like many people who write a
suicide note before killing themselves.
> Robert
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 3:30 pm
From: Robert Montgomery
Joel wrote:
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> The results would be the same. It's all about the actual pixels, the
>>> pixel count (area formula).
>> But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop
>> by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and
>> do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I
>> misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:
>
> You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK about the
> whole thing.
No; I should not blame myself. Thinking about the whole thing is useless
without experimenting, because thinking is merely academic and nebulous
due to variable, whereas experimenting produces tangible results and
proof. You implied that same thought in the same letter as the criticism
that you wrote above:
> what I am trying to say it depends on
> different situation, different technique.
That's why I was smart not to believe whatever I read without testing
the scenario myself.
Robert
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:06 pm
From: Robert Montgomery
Robert Montgomery wrote:
> Joel wrote:
>> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>> The results would be the same. It's all about the actual pixels, the
>>>> pixel count (area formula).
>>> But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in
>>> Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by
>>> pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals.
>>> Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas
>>> unclear:
>>
>> You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK
>> about the
>> whole thing.
>
> No; I should not blame myself. Thinking about the whole thing is useless
> without experimenting, because thinking is merely academic and nebulous
> due to variables, whereas experimenting produces tangible results and
> proof. You implied that same thought in the same letter as the criticism
> that you wrote above:
>
>> what I am trying to say it depends on
>> different situation, different technique.
>
> That's why I was smart not to believe whatever I read without testing
> the scenario myself.
>
> Robert
So it is YOU – not me – who is not smart enough.
Robert
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:30 pm
From: Joel
Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
>
> > Joel wrote:
> > > "Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Robert Montgomery wrote:
> > >>> A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files
> > >>> look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp
> > >>> when printed at a large size.
> > >>>
> > >>> Does anybody know the name of program?
> > >> Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced
> > >> algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a
> > >> specialist printing program.
> > >>
> > >> None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from
> > >> existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of
> > >> the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.
> > >>
> > >> Colin D.
> > >
> > > I don't have the original message and hope you won't mind me quoting
> > > yours.
> > >
> > > - The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think
> > > CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose
> > > Percentage and other option instead.
> >
> > I own Photoshop CS3 and I can't fine "Image Resize" in the program and I
> > can't find where I would change the image size by percentage.
>
> Just select the "Image Resize" then instead of selecting the Width/Height
> etc. you just hi-lite the PIXEL selection then you will see the Percentage
> option available.
>
> OK, here is one of the links I just found so you can see the PHOTO
> http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-resizing.php
BTW, the link above I try to point to you WHERE to locate the Percentage
option *not* the technique the author tries to do and to say. Remember that
the idea is trying to *enlarge* the image for better print *not* to compare
the original with the enlarged those are 2 different beats have nothing to
compare.
Or if you want to compare then compare the PRINTS one with the original
and one with the enlargement, and also up to much larger size where you can
easily be able to tell the difference. Or do not print to 4x6 or 8x10 cuz
you may not even be able to tell the difference if you decrease the quality.
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:31 pm
From: Joel
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> Joel wrote:
> > Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>> The results would be the same. It's all about the actual pixels, the
> >>> pixel count (area formula).
> >> But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in Photoshop
> >> by percentage would be better than increasing image size by pixels, and
> >> do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals. Perhaps I
> >> misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas unclear:
> >
> > You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK about the
> > whole thing.
>
> No; I should not blame myself. Thinking about the whole thing is useless
> without experimenting, because thinking is merely academic and nebulous
> due to variable, whereas experimenting produces tangible results and
> proof. You implied that same thought in the same letter as the criticism
> that you wrote above:
>
> > what I am trying to say it depends on
> > different situation, different technique.
>
> That's why I was smart not to believe whatever I read without testing
> the scenario myself.
>
> Robert
Hmmm what do you think if I am telling you that you have too much water in
your head? <bg>
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:32 pm
From: Joel
Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> Robert Montgomery wrote:
> > Joel wrote:
> >> Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>>> The results would be the same. It's all about the actual pixels, the
> >>>> pixel count (area formula).
> >>> But I thought that Joel wrote that increasing an image size in
> >>> Photoshop by percentage would be better than increasing image size by
> >>> pixels, and do the same thing as enlarging by Genuine Fractals.
> >>> Perhaps I misunderstood, though, because his writing (below) wasas
> >>> unclear:
> >>
> >> You should learn to blame yourself for not smart enough to THINK
> >> about the
> >> whole thing.
> >
> > No; I should not blame myself. Thinking about the whole thing is useless
> > without experimenting, because thinking is merely academic and nebulous
> > due to variables, whereas experimenting produces tangible results and
> > proof. You implied that same thought in the same letter as the criticism
> > that you wrote above:
> >
> >> what I am trying to say it depends on
> >> different situation, different technique.
> >
> > That's why I was smart not to believe whatever I read without testing
> > the scenario myself.
> >
> > Robert
>
> So it is YOU – not me – who is not smart enough.
>
> Robert
Of course I'm not smart to teach you English! and of course you ain't
smart enough to understand what you should understand <bg>
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:15 pm
From: John J
Joel gave his solution to up-sizing and it was dead wrong.
Such advise happens all the time.
Joel is wrong.
So be it.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:21 pm
From: Joel
Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Montgomery <info-block@northern-data-tech.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Joel wrote:
> > > > "Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Robert Montgomery wrote:
> > > >>> A number years I heard about a program that makes low-res image files
> > > >>> look sharper, by simulating pixels, so that the files can look sharp
> > > >>> when printed at a large size.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Does anybody know the name of program?
> > > >> Genuine Fractals is reputed to be able to do this, also some advanced
> > > >> algorithms like Lanczos, and resampling as incorporated in Qimage, a
> > > >> specialist printing program.
> > > >>
> > > >> None of them increase detail, the manufactured pixels are derived from
> > > >> existing pixels, but the way they are derived can influence the look of
> > > >> the finished image to some extent. Best is to retake the image if possible.
> > > >>
> > > >> Colin D.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have the original message and hope you won't mind me quoting
> > > > yours.
> > > >
> > > > - The name of the program is called Photoshop either CS2, CS3, and I think
> > > > CS4 can do it too. You can find under Image Resize option but chose
> > > > Percentage and other option instead.
> > >
> > > I own Photoshop CS3 and I can't fine "Image Resize" in the program and I
> > > can't find where I would change the image size by percentage.
> >
> > Just select the "Image Resize" then instead of selecting the Width/Height
> > etc. you just hi-lite the PIXEL selection then you will see the Percentage
> > option available.
> >
> > OK, here is one of the links I just found so you can see the PHOTO
> > http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-resizing.php
>
> BTW, the link above I try to point to you WHERE to locate the Percentage
> option *not* the technique the author tries to do and to say. Remember that
> the idea is trying to *enlarge* the image for better print *not* to compare
> the original with the enlarged those are 2 different beats have nothing to
> compare.
>
> Or if you want to compare then compare the PRINTS one with the original
> and one with the enlargement, and also up to much larger size where you can
> easily be able to tell the difference. Or do not print to 4x6 or 8x10 cuz
> you may not even be able to tell the difference if you decrease the quality.
Here is another link about Genuine Fractals vs CS3, and remember that the
images are 200% larger than the original. Or if you want to compare the
original with the ones create by Genuine Fractals and Photoshop then you
will have to use regular Image Resize (not Percentage) or ZOOM IN the
original 200% to see the difference.
http://ronmart.blogspot.com/2008/12/review-onone-software-genuine-fractals.html
The link above isn't the good one comparing to other I saw long time ago,
and I will try to locate it or the similar.
More info
http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/jennifer/bicubic.html
Some sample of the results from a BETTER original to begin with. As I
said, the original is very important, and it often be much worse if you
screw up the original then applying sharpen or upscaling to it.
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00QlJy
More info and sample. It isn't the same one I read long time ago, and I
didn't read the link below but a quick browse through the zoom in samples
http://www.photomigrations.com/articles/0605200.htm
http://www.butzi.net/articles/resample.htm
http://www.llvj.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t28857.html
I still can't find the one with lot of closeup samples of many different
plug-ins and technique. But after reading some of the above then you may
have figured out that the author of the first link doesn't seem to get the
idea of unscaling. Or s/he knows how to find and apply to command, but
doesn't understand what it's for.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gucci Belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/128ec96ed3567cb9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 1:20 am
From: paypaljod9@163.com
Fashionable Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler
(paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Ladies' Belt Leather Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap
wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
PU Belt Men's Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap
wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Genuine Leather Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap
wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Waist Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler
(paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Women's Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler
(paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Ladies' Fashion Belt Canvas Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)
( cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) ) Lady
Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler (paypal
payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Conveyors Belting Cotton Belt Costume Belt Fabric Belts cheap
wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)
( www.niketrade08.cn ) ) Knitted Belt Brand Belt V Belts cheap
wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)
( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler (paypal
payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) ) Buckles Woven Belts cheap wholesaler
(paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)
( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Belt
Armani Belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler
(paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
D&G Belt
ED hardy Belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler
(paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Gucci Belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler (paypal
payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
LV Belt
Other brands belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( cheap wholesaler
(paypal payment)( www.niketrade08.cn ) )
Fashionable Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Ladies' Belt Leather Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)
( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
PU Belt Men's Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Genuine Leather Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Waist Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Women's Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Ladies' Fashion Belt Canvas Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)
( www.sneaker-shop08.com ) Lady Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal
payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Conveyors Belting Cotton Belt Costume Belt Fabric Belts cheap
wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com ) Knitted Belt
Brand Belt V Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Buckles Woven Belts cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Belt
Armani Belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
D&G Belt
ED hardy Belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Gucci Belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
LV Belt
Other brands belt cheap wholesaler (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extract Filter
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/f83dd76e9ae2d51b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 2:45 am
From: "Mirco Bottèr"
this might be a silly question, but its driving me crazy. I installed CS4
and now i canzt find the extract filter. I read that it has to be loaded
separately as a plug-in, but I dont know how to load a plug-in. any hints?
Thanx
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:22 am
From: "Fred"
> this might be a silly question, but its driving me crazy. I installed CS4
> and now i canzt find the extract filter. I read that it has to be loaded
> separately as a plug-in, but I dont know how to load a plug-in. any hints?
> Thanx
>
>
All info is here:
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb404900&sliceId=1
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 11:34 pm
From: "Mirco Bottèr"
"Fred" <jabba@dabba.doo> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:xzgJl.96908$ce5.76057@newsfe21.ams2...
>> this might be a silly question, but its driving me crazy. I installed CS4
>> and now i canzt find the extract filter. I read that it has to be loaded
>> separately as a plug-in, but I dont know how to load a plug-in. any
>> hints? Thanx
>>
>>
>
> All info is here:
> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb404900&sliceId=1
>
>
Thank you Fred, it worked
I'm glad I have the extract filter again.
Greetings from Switzerland
Mirco
==============================================================================
TOPIC: High res files to print posters?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/1028bac29bccb8ff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 9:32 am
From: Joel
[mfk] <mafarka@TOGLIMIemail.it> wrote:
> Hi,
> does exist any tool that elaborates a file(photo) of good quality to be
> printed in a poster size like 50x70cm or 70x100 cm?
>
> Any tips?
1. Get a good photo, ready for whatever print size you wish
2. Send to a photolab then you have it.
And the larger the print the larger/cleaner the photo should be.
And what I mean by ready.
1. Load the photo to Photoshop and be very careful with whatever command you
may apply to the photo.
2. ZOOM IN as closest as you can be able to spot the ugly spot (200-300 -
400% ?), and the larger you print the more you may need to review the area
you touch.
3. If you can spot something and most likely the PRINTER should be able to
see, and often print that area (spot whatever you see) darker then you may
see on monitor. And as I mention, usually only the area you edit.
So yes, you can print 70x100cm or even larger and it can turn out stunning
too, but you must be prepared, and may want to READ the thread others are
talking about Enlargement which you may need.
> Thanks,
> Alan
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.graphics.photoshop"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.graphics.photoshop+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment