At the last NorCal get together that I attended, Bruce showed one of his photos made with the istD blown up to 16x20, or some other such large size. Larger than the 13x19 or so which a lot of people print at. The print was soft, and Bruce admitted so. It didn't look bad from a distance, but it was not as sharp as the smaller prints. IMO, 6mp was not "good enough" for that sized print.
Good enough takes many forms, and is, of course, at times, subjective. IMO 6mp is enough for magazines and most print work. It's not good enough for some large, exhibition-sized prints. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 2/17/2006 4:34:22 AM > Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment. > > > fra: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On 17 Feb 2006 at 6:23, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > > Gosh, someone better tell the magazines I shoot for and the stock house > > > that sels my pics that six megapixels isn't good enough. They have > > > hundreds of my images that are working just fine for them. How could > > > that be? > > > > There's no need to be condescending, if 6MP images are good enough for you and > > your stock house/magazine publishers that's great, you've got just the tool to > > do the job but it doesn't mean that it's good enough for everyone. > > My stock house had some limitationswhich in practice set the lower limited to 8MP a couple of years ago, but they've got some new software that make this less important. The lady who runs the stock house is a former photo editor from one of Norways largest publishers, so I think she knows something about what is regarded as "good enough" for the costumers. > > DagT
