Genuine Fractals Print Pro

Now called Perfect Resize 7 ? Is that correct?

Does anyone use this to upsize photos rather than the built-in image resizers in PS?

Is it worth $350? I've seen several sites to download from, including Amazon at $369. Which to use?

What's the latest version number? Does it work with Win 7 64bit and PS CS5?

I don't have the software, but yes it is the "update" of Genuine Fractals. It's put out by onOne software. You can see a freeware version of some of their stuff and more info here:

http://www.ononesoftwa​re.com/products/photot​ools-free/

I used it to uprez a couple of files last year. I was happy with the results but I'm not convinced that the results were better than what I got from uprezzing in Photoshop. The files were about 200ppi as 16x20 and I uprezzed them to be 300ppi at 32x40. Maybe I would have noticed more of a differnce if I were doing a greater enlargement.

Back in the days of Photoshop 5.5, 7, CS & CS2, PS's resizer left a few things to be desired. We also had Canon 1D Mk II & IIN cameras that would yield 8MB file sizes. Good enough specs for 8x10's, 11x14's but stretching it a bit for 16x20's & up.

At that point we purchased PhotoZoom Professional to get better looking wall portraits & used it on anything that was 16x20 & bigger.

It worked fine for us for years. Set the parameters, hit resize & let it run in the background while you worked on something else.

Now we have Mk IV's & 16MB files & the PS resizer is much better than it used to be. We still use PZP occasionally for 24x30's & up but we also use the built in version in PS. It's paid for itself but I haven't upgraded to the newest version as I see no issues with the one we're using.

Long story longer, can you get a return on the investment and do you really need it for the sizes you are enlarging to. Address those questions & you've got the answer.

krb wrote in post #11740581
I used it to uprez a couple of files last year. I was happy with the results but I'm not convinced that the results were better than what I got from uprezzing in Photoshop. The files were about 200ppi as 16x20 and I uprezzed them to be 300ppi at 32x40. Maybe I would have noticed more of a differnce if I were doing a greater enlargement.

That is a 3x upsize. I remember a video about printing prepared for the Luminous Landscape a few years ago in which Jeff Schewe expresses the opinion that for anything up to 2x the interpolation method doesn't make much difference. At 3x you may have seen differences, but I think it may have needed a very close and critical examination and would have been influenced by image content. Probably you would have needed to exceed 4x for GF to really shine.

FeXL - I also have Photozoom which I purchased about about 8 years ago, when I was using a 5 MP camera, from the original designers at a very cheap price. After it was bought by Benvista they upgraded it once but then the price went way up and I haven't shelled out. Like you I now find little use for it since my usual prints from the 5D2 are 343 ppi, only a small way from the 360 ppi for Epson and easily handled by Lightroom. For the occasional larger prints I still compare results from Photozoom and LR, using with PZ a technique derived from this article:
http://www.outbackphot​o.com/workflow/wf_60/e​ssay.html
which in itself can give excellent results to those who use PSCS.

tzalman wrote in post #11741220
That is a 3x upsize. I remember a video about printing prepared for the Luminous Landscape a few years ago in which Jeff Schewe expresses the opinion that for anything up to 2x the interpolation method doesn't make much difference. At 3x you may have seen differences, but I think it may have needed a very close and critical examination and would have been influenced by image content. Probably you would have needed to exceed 4x for GF to really shine.

FeXL - I also have Photozoom which I purchased about about 8 years ago, when I was using a 5 MP camera, from the original designers at a very cheap price. After it was bought by Benvista they upgraded it once but then the price went way up and I haven't shelled out. Like you I now find little use for it since my usual prints from the 5D2 are 343 ppi, only a small way from the 360 ppi for Epson and easily handled by Lightroom. For the occasional larger prints I still compare results from Photozoom and LR, using with PZ a technique derived from this article:
http://www.outbackphot​o.com/workflow/wf_60/e​ssay.html
which in itself can give excellent results to those who use PSCS.

Thanks to all, and thanks very much for this link. Some good information there.

tzalman wrote in post #11741220
FeXL - I also have Photozoom which I purchased about about 8 years ago, when I was using a 5 MP camera, from the original designers at a very cheap price. After it was bought by Benvista they upgraded it once but then the price went way up and I haven't shelled out. Like you I now find little use for it since my usual prints from the 5D2 are 343 ppi, only a small way from the 360 ppi for Epson and easily handled by Lightroom. For the occasional larger prints I still compare results from Photozoom and LR, using with PZ a technique derived from this article:
http://www.outbackphot​o.com/workflow/wf_60/e​ssay.html
which in itself can give excellent results to those who use PSCS.

Good info, thx for the link.

I used PZP for years, then I bought Fractals 6.. it blew it out of the water, and made me wish I'd had that for years instead of PZP. I still have shots on my wall that I wish I had used Fractals on, it pains me everytime I see them..

Anyway, yes CS5 does a decent job, but I still use Fractals 6 when going really big. Haven't tried the new version yet, but I'm an OnOne fan.. they make great stuff.

For less than $100, you can get Qimage Pro (PC only). It will do as good a job or better than Genuine Fractals/Perfect Reesizer 7. I've been using it for years.

I actually never have the need to enlarge my own images, but have used it many times on photos taken by friends and family. It does an incredibly good job.

I looked at Genuine Fractals a long time ago, but didn't buy it. I couldn't justify the cost. Unless you need to upsize photos for paid gigs often, then I'd pass.

I just bought Perfect Resize 7 after downloading it free and testing it. The results are visibly sharper than the Image/Image Size resizing in Photoshop done on the same photo. Not much, but visibly sharper.

Thanks for the input.

tvphotog wrote in post #11756499
I just bought Perfect Resize 7 after downloading it free and testing it. The results are visibly sharper than the Image/Image Size resizing in Photoshop done on the same photo. Not much, but visibly sharper.

Jeez... I can't believe you spent that kind of money for that software! Did you even look at Qimage?

Why wouldn't one just use the completely free fractal based resize software that's available? =p
Edit: Also with Qimage....same pointless to pay for it for resizing. Completely free software (the same one, actually) has the same resize algorithms Qimage uses..and more... :P

FeXL wrote in post #11740860
Back in the days of Photoshop 5.5, 7, CS & CS2, PS's resizer left a few things to be desired. We also had Canon 1D Mk II & IIN cameras that would yield 8MB file sizes. ...

Agree with this, I used to use Genuine fractals up until I think Photoshop 7.
After CS (PS*) came out,. it did such a good job on it's own that genuine fractals hardly seemed necessary.

If you have very low res images,. it might be worth experimenting with, but I'd not drop $300.00 on it.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #11757465
Agree with this, I used to use Genuine fractals up until I think Photoshop 7.
After CS (PS*) came out,. it did such a good job on it's own that genuine fractals hardly seemed necessary.

If you have very low res images,. it might be worth experimenting with, but I'd not drop $300.00 on it.

The price was $159, a sale until Feb 2. From my comparisons to CS 5, as I said, it's worth it. I want the best program that I can get, as I'm getting some traction from my photos. I wouldn't have bought it if that were not the case.

No, I didn't experiment with Qimage, but I appreciate the suggestion. The price difference is not that great, and upgrades are $20 per year for Qimage.