Hm mm... Depends on the processes chosen. In my experience, digital prints define more detail than do optical prints. I'm referring to skillfully printed large files from professionally scanned negs/positives compared to wet prints of like linage. If I fully understand your point. The "smooth" look of minimal grain notwithstanding.
Jack --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So obviously the quality isn't as high as they think it is... > Heck, most digital prints lack a certain amount of detail when > compared > to wet prints of a similar size. However when viewed from a distance > > they look smoother which people tend to prefer. > > Bob W wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I've been doing some calculations of print sizes and megapixels, and > >found something I don't understand. > > > >If we assume the correct viewing distance for a print hanging on the > >wall is about 90cm, and we accept that the maximum size of the > >diagonal of the print should be half the viewing distance, then for > >the 4:3rds system the print should be 36x27cm, giving a diagonal of > >45cm. This fits comfortably on A3 paper (29.7x42.0cm, about 11x16" > in > >American). > > > >Printers generally seem to print at about 300 dots per inch, which > is > >118 dots per cm, as near as makes no difference. > > > >So for the printed area we need (27x118)x(36x118) = 13,534,128 > pixels. > > > >Yet I'm sure I read about people making high quality 20x16" prints > >from 6 - 10 megapixel cameras. > > > >What gives? > > > >Thanks, > >Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
