Resize... LR vs CS3

I Shoot with a 1DMKII, (8.2 mp), and there are times that I need to print larger like 11x17 and I have been using the PS CS3 bi-cubic resizing technique at 10% at a time to get to my required size then printing from LR. I never paid attention till now but if you crop to aspect and print in LR it re-sizes automatically to the proper dimensions. How is LR resizing and is there any difference in the final product? To be honest, I haven't scrutinized that closely.

IMO, it's not worth the bother:
I've printed 13x19 from a 1D (ISO 1600), 1D2(ISO 1600 and 3200) and 1D3 (ISO 2500 - 6400). All looked fine.
Biggest visible difference was the ISO performance.

The "resize in 10% steps" might be a bit better, but I've yet to see a real life significant difference.
Tried it once for this 1D2 image that got printed 3 meters wide: https://photography-on-the.net …ight=backdrop#p​ost5154116
My conclusions at that time:

René Damkot wrote in post #1819190
Thanks!
Tried a few different ways of upscaling in PS; from the original 1D2 file to 300cm at 100dpi:
in 1 step using Bicubic Smoother, in 10% increments, using bicubic Smoother, and finally, after searchin these forums, I tried 10% increments, twice bicubic Smoother, once bicubic sharper (repeated as often as needed). The '3 step method' gave marginally better results.
Still, starting off with a 9999x6666 pixels file was best. That's kind of a large file in 16bpc

Some more reading: http://www.outbackphot​o.com/workflow/wf_60/e​ssay.html

Here's an example using PSCS: https://photography-on-the.net …151&highlight=i​nterpolate

Some more threads:
https://photography-on-the.net …696&highlight=i​nterpolate
https://photography-on-the.net …986&highlight=i​nterpolate

Thank you for the response and the information, it's very helpful.

The 10% upsize method was from back in the days of Photoshop 3. Modern algorithms work well, just do a single step upsize using the algorithm photoshop recommends. You don't need to buy anything. LR is fine too, doesn't matter, it's much the same under the hood.

René Damkot wrote in post #12305991
The "resize in 10% steps" might be a bit better, but I've yet to see a real life significant difference.

It is no better - LINK.

Quoted from a post by Jeff Schewe (author of Real World Camera Raw) on the Luminous Landscape forum:

hollis_f wrote in post #12308397
It is no better - LINK.

I'd say "it depends": https://photography-on-the.net …151&highlight=i​nterpolate

Then again, I'd also say "don't bother"