I don't normally have a problem re-sizing...

[StuartR]

... but I think I have today.

I use CS2 and re-size using Image Size with all the boxes ticked and Bicubic selected. I've been using this method for years without any real issues.

The image below is one taken today using my 40D and I'm not entirely happy with the wires \ cable \ rigging coming down from the mast on the right - a touch of the jagglies IMHO?

I've also posted a 100% crop and they look reasonably clean in that?





The only variation on my normal processing regime is that I'm using Canon's Raw Image Task software rather than my normal RAW converter.

In case it makes a difference, my polarising filter made a rare trip out of the bag for this shot (all shots taken with the filter exhibited more noise than I would expect but that's a question for another day perhaps).

I'd appreciate some views on this.

[Patrick]

Re: I don't normally have a problem re-sizing...

... but I think I have today.

I use CS2 and re-size using Image Size with all the boxes ticked and Bicubic selected. I've been using this method for years without any real issues.

The image below is one taken today using my 40D and I'm not entirely happy with the wires cable rigging coming down from the mast on the right - a touch of the jagglies IMHO?

I've also posted a 100% crop and they look reasonably clean in that?





The only variation on my normal processing regime is that I'm using Canon's Raw Image Task software rather than my normal RAW converter.

In case it makes a difference, my polarising filter made a rare trip out of the bag for this shot (all shots taken with the filter exhibited more noise than I would expect but that's a question for another day perhaps).

I'd appreciate some views on this.

[StuartR]

Re: I don't normally have a problem re-sizing...

Now this is odd.

I've just re-sized another image from the same shoot to 800 pixels wide and the jagglies are there.

If I re-size the original to 1024 pixels wide - no jagglies

If I re-size the 1024 pixel image to 800 pixels wide - no jagglies!!

I've done it 3 times now just to make sure I'm not going mad - and I'm not!

Answers on a postcard please!

[StuartR]

Re: I don't normally have a problem re-sizing...

See what I mean - look at the wires coming down from the right hand side of the mast thingy (nautical terms are not my forte ) and compare with the first image.

This image was resized first to 1024 pixels high and then re-sized again to 800 pixels.

I'm not seeing things am I ?

[StuartR]

Re: I don't normally have a problem re-sizing...

I'll try the RAW method Patrick and see if it works. I did happen to notice earlier that my raw converter shows smooth cables in its image preview whatever the magnification.

Still waiting for DxO and good ol' Adobe - the new RAW Image Task that handles the 40D will not be compatible with CS2 - CS3 only I'm told. If they think that's going to make me upgrade they can think again

[Patrick]

Re: I don't normally have a problem re-sizing...

I'll try the RAW method Patrick and see if it works. I did happen to notice earlier that my raw converter shows smooth cables in its image preview whatever the magnification.

Still waiting for DxO and good ol' Adobe - the new RAW Image Task that handles the 40D will not be compatible with CS2 - CS3 only I'm told. If they think that's going to make me upgrade they can think again

[StuartR]

Re: I don't normally have a problem re-sizing...

Quote from Adobe's web site:

"Raw 4.0 and greater is not compatible with PhotoShop CS2"

You need v 4.2 for the 40D it appears so, based on the above, it's an upgrade to CS3 OR use another piece of software to convert the files to DNG first

I'll wait for DxO anyway - I prefer it to Adobe Raw.