I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. In fact, there's now way you could mathematically conclude that you have come close to tripling the number of pixels via the process you outlined. For that matter, it also stands to reason that you can't make a 10mp image "look like" a 30mp image. It either is or isn't. And I'm willing to bet that if you took your new image and actually put it next to a 30mp image of the same subject, you would notice quite a quality difference. The only way to artificially increase the resolution of an image is through pixel interpolation, which your method does not do.
Your process is neither mathematically nor logically sound. For whatever reason, you seem to enjoy making excuses for why you shoot with a K10D. I'm sure it's a very nice camera. I own several Pentax cameras in different formats and love all of them. But unless you were actually foolish enough to turn down the offer to shoot with a proper digital back, then to be honest I think that you're lying, because the only cameras that MF digital backs are made for are at the very least much better suited to fashion photography, and in most cases they are better cameras on the whole.
If you think that this actually works, then more power to you, but I think that you're kidding yourself. You know as well as I do that everyone who is anyone in the fashion industry worldwide uses MF (usually digital). I'm not saying that you're a nobody, but I am saying that I think your post is rather silly. If you actually have the power to purchase and use a real MF digital camera, but choose not to for whatever reason, then that's perfectly fine. But I think it defies all reasonable explanation why someone who is so in love with their camera that they claim to have turned down the use of a real camera (in the fashion industry), would attempt some process that seeks to mimic those other cameras.
