I've made at least 300 11 x 17 to 13 x19 prints from *istD images. The only
ones that have proved unsatisfactory seemed to be the product of operator
error, usually camera shake softness or simply missed focus. I generally judge
all my prints under magnification, and I'm reasonably picky. However, I don't
shoot many landscapes. Most of my work is people, cars or table-top studio.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Of course the adequacy of six megapixel images for many types of work is
> > dependent on shooting RAW and converting to high resolution with good
> > tools.
>
> Also dependant on the ultimate output - web, magazine or large print
> (13"X19" & up).
>
> While I've gotten satisfactory results on numerous printed 13"X19" images
> captured with the *istD, there have been some that I can't pull off @ that
> size.
> 8mp would be fine but I'll probably not upgrade til a 10 or 12 mp Pentax
> digital is available. <I may eat these words.
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> >
> >> Given the bitingly sarcastic negativity that typifies many Pentax
> >> critiques posted here, there is a need to be condescending. The post
> >> implied that the Pentax cameras are inadequate photographic tools. Not
> >> only are the 6 megapixel images very acceptable to the stock house and
> >> pubs for which I work, they are more than adequate for every stock house
> >> that I am aware of and every pub I've ever worked with, which includes
> >> some majors. Yet, the post implied that the Pentax digital camera are not
> >> just inadequate for that particular user but inadequate photographic
> >> tools. That is simply not true and requires clarification.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On Feb 17, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rob Studdert
> >>> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> >>> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> >>> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> >>> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
