RE: filmscanners: Re: File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

But it's only better if you are resampling?

> From my experience I find the prints are far superior than what 
> PS produces.
> You have full color management (ICC) support. The algorithms used 
> in QP are
> better than the resampling in PS. In PS or PSP you have to 
> manually resample
> prior to printing. In QP when setup the don't have to resample , 
> if required
> it is done by QP. You have a choice of 7 different types of 
> interpolation to
> choose from. The default is Lanczos, and if you take the time to try the
> program you will find it to be better than the algorithm used in PS.  For
> $30.00 you might say it can't be much of a program at that price, 
> it is well
> worth much more. Many Pro Photographers who used PS for printing 
> now use QP.
> There are close to 900 people on the e-list and many are Pro 
> Photographers.
> Since getting QP I  very seldom use PS and never use it for printing.
> 
> Dale
> 
> > What, exactly, do you mean by "The print results are far 
> superior"?  What
> is
> > the workflow you are claiming this is true for?
> >
> > If you are claiming this is true when your resultant resolution falls
> below,
> > say, 240...and you need to resample I could believe it is 
> better than the
> PS
> > resampling algorithms...but I'm not quite clear what claim you 
> are making
> > here...
> 
>