<x-charset iso-8859-1>> > I did no sharpening on either image, before or after. I talked about the way > the GF image is sharper by nature. I did no manipulation other than upsampling > the same image with ways indicated. > But you could have sharpened it. GF may do a little more sharpening than bicubic. In fact I don't think bicubic sharpens at all. Since in effect your GF has had some sharpening applied to it, you are comparing a partially sharpened image with one that has not been sharpened at all. Sharpen them both to their optimum with the USM. My tests indicate that you do not get more sharpening potentail in the image simply because you did some initially in GF. Both images still have basically the same sharpening potential. Its just that one split the sharpening between GF and the USM, while the other did it all in the USM. My guess is that were you to do this, the difference between your two images would reduce considerably. Neal neals@hcsmail.com - * WIN either one of three Digital Cameras or Free Photoquality Prints! * * http://www.pcphotoreview.com/go.cfm?ref=lebenpr * * Shop smart! Read product reviews of photo printers and digital cameras * </x-charset>