ACR2 and CS2..resampling?

[tomstorey]

Using a 20D I normally develop my RAWs with ACR2 to 3504x2336 (8.2MP) 300ppi 16 bits and send the PSD file to an on-line printer for 18"x12" prints.

Question is......to get a 30"x20" print....... if I use ACR2 to develop my 20D RAW to 4096x2731 (11.2MP) 300ppi 16 bits......would I be gaining anything over a CS2 Bicubic Upsampling to 4096x2731 or is it just doing the same thing........or is Upsampling a waste of time anyway?
Thanks
Tom

[In2Photos]

I have never seen any proof but supposedly it is better to upsample in ACR. If I were going to upsample I would use ACR. My philosophy is to use as much in ACR as possible.

[ssim]

I'm the first to admit that my photoshop skills aren't what I'd like them to be. Maybe I have just been dumb lucky in making my very large prints.

I've done allot of 20X30 and recently pushed that to 24X36, all from either the 20/30D or my 1DMKII. I use C1 Pro for my RAW conversion and process them out at 300DPI. When it comes time to make a larger print I use the crop tool inside of CS2, inputting the desired size in the crop tool dimension areas. I assume that CS2 is doing the upsampling for me. What I can say is that these prints are are excellent, even within a foot of it, which is a distance you would never view them at.

Don't be afraid to try these large prints, if you have nailed your exposure in the first place so that you don't attract additional noise in PP they work very well.

I've had enlargements done by the Costco's and Walmart's of the world, they just didn't stand up. I went through a rather lengthy process to find the right pro lab to use and it has paid off in spades. It does make a world of difference. The cost savings between the low end printers and the pro labs is money well spent in my estimation.

[tomstorey]

Thanks Mike and Sheldon,
I'll have a go at resampling in ACR2 then save as a PSD and then send to BonusPrint an on-line printer here in the UK.
They did a marvelous job producing my 18"x12" prints so I'm going to have a try at at a 30"x 20"..... when I have the right landscape which requires minimal PP!
Thanks for your prompt and helpful replies.
Tom

[RgB]

I do as little as possible in ACR. CS2 has many more options and fine controls.

But with re-sampling I couldn't say for sure. I'd use CS2

[René Damkot]

Originally Posted by tomstorey

Using a 20D I normally develop my RAWs with ACR2 to 3504x2336 (8.2MP) 300ppi 16 bits and send the PSD file to an on-line printer for 18"x12" prints.

Let me get this straight: You are sending an 8MP psd file @ 16 bits to an online printer?
That's a 50Mb file....

On the quality difference: Why not give it a try and decide for yourself? I tried once using dpp, when I had to produce a 2,8x1,2 meter print, and found the difference to be marginal at best. Things like decent noise surpression and sharpening are more important IMHO.

[jfrancho]

Originally Posted by ssim

I'm the first to admit that my photoshop skills aren't what I'd like them to be. Maybe I have just been dumb lucky in making my very large prints.

I've done allot of 20X30 and recently pushed that to 24X36, all from either the 20/30D or my 1DMKII. I use C1 Pro for my RAW conversion and process them out at 300DPI. When it comes time to make a larger print I use the crop tool inside of CS2, inputting the desired size in the crop tool dimension areas. I assume that CS2 is doing the upsampling for me. What I can say is that these prints are are excellent, even within a foot of it, which is a distance you would never view them at.

Don't be afraid to try these large prints, if you have nailed your exposure in the first place so that you don't attract additional noise in PP they work very well.

I've had enlargements done by the Costco's and Walmart's of the world, they just didn't stand up. I went through a rather lengthy process to find the right pro lab to use and it has paid off in spades. It does make a world of difference. The cost savings between the low end printers and the pro labs is money well spent in my estimation.

I'm curious. What is your default resampling method set to? You'll find it in the Edit > Preferences dialog. Bicubic Interpolation is what it's set at by default at install, and depending on the picture, sharper or smoother can give better results.

[tomstorey]

Originally Posted by René Damkot

Let me get this straight: You are sending an 8MP psd file @ 16 bits to an online printer?
That's a 50Mb file....

On the quality difference: Why not give it a try and decide for yourself? I tried once using dpp, when I had to produce a 2,8x1,2 meter print, and found the difference to be marginal at best. Things like decent noise surpression and sharpening are more important IMHO.

U Oh!...Thanks for the heads up Rene!......I hadn't thought of that!....it will have to be a little ol' jpg!!...and I take your point about noise suppression and sharpening but I'll be careful to use a picture which does not have any noise and does not require exposure correction. That may take a while, but I hope to achieve it one day.
Happy Snappin'
Tom