Genuine Fractals in Photoshop; Where?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I had no problem putting an Olympus raw file
plugin into Photoshop, it works. But I'm wondering where
Genuine Fractals ends up showing up? It's
installed according to directions but how
do you "call it up?"
Thanks
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> I had no problem putting an Olympus raw file
> plugin into Photoshop, it works. But I'm wondering where
> Genuine Fractals ends up showing up? It's
> installed according to directions but how
> do you "call it up?"
> Thanks
> -Rich
>

You have to do a 'Save As' into their proprietary .stn format and then
reopen it in order to resize. It's a real pain in the butt and their
interface is one of the worst I've used.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:50:33 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> I had no problem putting an Olympus raw file
>> plugin into Photoshop, it works. But I'm wondering where
>> Genuine Fractals ends up showing up? It's
>> installed according to directions but how
>> do you "call it up?"
>
>Not sure, but I would expect when resizing an image you can select it as
>opposed to bicubic, linear or whatever in the resize dialog opposite the
>"Resample Image" checkbox.

You expected wrong, Alan.

> If not that, then in the Filters.

Nope, any more guesses? What's the point in answering a
question if you have no idea what the answer actually is -
especially when it's already been answered correctly by
others?


--
Regards

John Bean

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Bean wrote:

> Nope, any more guesses? What's the point in answering a
> question if you have no idea what the answer actually is -
> especially when it's already been answered correctly by
> others?

I didn't peek a the other replies. However, the two ways I mentioned
(as expectations), esp. the first, would be good ways to do it, so
reasonable suggestions to try.

Those are the ways that would fit the PS paradigm in a user useful and
friendly way. Color me naive for expecting G.F. to do something the
right way.

The other replies seem to indicate that the interface is rather kludgy
and inconvenient.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Not sure, but I would expect when resizing an image you can select it as
> opposed to bicubic, linear or whatever in the resize dialog opposite the
> "Resample Image" checkbox. If not that, then in the Filters.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

Nope. Not that easy or logical.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 16:08:44 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:aoo091tajpdvbsecsog8ac7ggnscg8i2hd@4ax.com...
>>I had no problem putting an Olympus raw file
>> plugin into Photoshop, it works. But I'm wondering where
>> Genuine Fractals ends up showing up? It's
>> installed according to directions but how
>> do you "call it up?"
>
>You save a file in their proprietary format, and then upon opening it
>you have to decide on the size you need. FWIW, there seems to be a
>compatibility issue with CS2
>(http://www.genuinefractals.com/support/gf/compatibility.php) for the
>time being.
>
>Bart

Thanks to all. Somehow, I've screwed the installation and will have
to try again.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4291bc0a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
SNIP
> No friends... The thing is under 'Automation' .

That's only valid for version 4.x, which allows to scale the active
image in Photoshop, without the need to create an STN first ().
Prior versions only operate by saving an STN file and scale when
opening.

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia@home wrote:


> Well if any of you had a clue in the first place it might be different. The
> "others" haven't got a ghost of a clue either.
> The stn format isn't used in the current version. All this bullshit you are
> offering is history. Gone. Never to be used again.
>
> No friends... The thing is under 'Automation' . So that makes seven bored
> losers with nothing better to do than answer questions with the wrong
> answers... God I love this group!. None of you even comprehend the concept
> of enlarging digital images, much less have a clue about doing it.

Feeling better now Dougie? The issue wasn't about enlargement
(directly), but about how it is integrated into PS. And the answer
appears to be: "very badly".

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> "John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fil191ll0do9rheva2jsc3fac8s85tibcd@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:50:33 -0400, Alan Browne
>
>>
>> Nope, any more guesses? What's the point in answering a
>> question if you have no idea what the answer actually is -
>> especially when it's already been answered correctly by
>> others?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> John Bean
> ---------------------------
>
> Well if any of you had a clue in the first place it might be
> different. The "others" haven't got a ghost of a clue either.
> The stn format isn't used in the current version. All this bullshit
> you are offering is history. Gone. Never to be used again.
>
> No friends... The thing is under 'Automation' . So that makes seven
> bored losers with nothing better to do than answer questions with the
> wrong answers... God I love this group!. None of you even comprehend
> the concept of enlarging digital images, much less have a clue about
> doing it.
>
> Douglas
>
>

What a putz. It's the bozo bin for you, Dougie. Plonk.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:

> What a putz. It's the bozo bin for you, Dougie. Plonk.

No!! keep him out of the killfile. You'll see the humor after another
dozen posts or so...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Bubbabob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Reread my post. I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing. Yes, that would
>>>be the natural place for it. No, that's not where they put it.
>>
>>"Nope. Not that easy or logical." does not sound like agreement.
>>
>
>
>
> Try rereading it one more time. The key phrase is "Not that easy or
> logical"....
>
You waste your time Stacey... He is on record as saying he has no need
to enlarge his photos so I guess that means he has no need to know how
either.

Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Zed Pobre wrote:
> Douglas <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps the overiding reason these wankers don't have the
>>software is because they would actually have to buy it! God... What a
>>concept, actually pay for something instead of put up with the free
>>stuff's antique, sub standard results.
>
>
> As a side note, Fred Miranda has a stair interpolation plugin that is
> supposed to give results roughly equivalent to Genuine Fractals, but
> costs only US$20. I've played with it, and it's certainly better than
> bicubic, but I've never used GF.
>

The Fred Miranda action is not a plugin.
Anyone who can read a few lines of instructions and click a few buttons
could create an action. All this one does is use Photoshop's bicubic
interpolation in small increments to make an image larger. You get what
you pay for at Fred's and that particular action is close to being a rip
off, even at $20.

How about this? Make yourself a macro of say, 250 key strokes and then
call it an "Action" and sell it to those who don't know how to use
Photoshop as an "enlargement" addon and pick up 10 or 20 grand. Not bad
if you can get away with it.

Stair interpolation describes the process of using Photoshop's own
interpolation routine in ever increasing stairs of 5 or 10% each until
you either get the size you want or distort the image beyond recognition.

A cleaner and much more elegant process would be to create a droplet of
the routine and simply drop a file or whole directory onto the icon and
go shoot some more photos. When you come back, the file or files will
all be sitting in a new directory, enlarged to the size you determined
at the beginning.

Never has RTFM been more relevant than with Photoshop. A whole industry
has sprung up making millions a year just telling people how to do
things and giving them glorified macros to do them with when the process
is described in the manual in the first place.

The real tragedy of today's society is the gottahave syndrome. Why on
earth would a home photographer need the facilities of Photoshop CS or
CS2, just to print their pics? Where on earth will they get the
experience only years of daily use of the program can produce? Nothing
wrong with PS Elements but do we hear anything about it?

Nahh. That would require admitting you have less than the absolute best
available. Well, that's my rant for the day!


Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "Ryadia@Home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:429395e9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> SNIP
>
>> I'd really like to know which "cheaper than $299 alternatives" there
>> are. Care to list them?
>
>
> Sure, besides Qimage (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/),
> <http://www.general-cathexis.com/projects.html> and
> <http://www.trulyphotomagic.com/shortcut/site/content.php?page=ourproducts§ion=product_serie_info&cat=3>,
> amongst others, may apply.
>
> Bart

Not very good alternatives Bart.
Qimage is a good program but it's purpose in not principally digital
enlargement or archival storage, it is a printer interpolation program.
Something which all printers carry out with their 'drivers'. Some better
than others.

Cathexis has been bandied about these groups before but it is crude and
unrefined, based on Genuine fractal reverse engineering. Hardly a worthy
alternative, more like a poor cousin copy.

I'm afraid Bart, none of these offerings except maybe Qimage in some
areas, is anywhere near Genuine Fractals.

Douglas