My experience is that I get a pretty good print from anything over 240-ppi. If the size print I want is below that I resample it to an appropriate size, preferably with the raw converter. But tools in PS-CS2 seem to do real well. Either "*Bicubic/Smoother" or the crop tool work OK.
My 5mp 4:3 camera image does give a nice 7.5x10-inch 256-bit uncropped print that fits a standard 8x10 matte quite well. If I up-sample I usually go to a 300-ppi image, unless I need a great deal of enlargement in which case I use 200-ppi. At 200-ppi there is a slightly noticeable deterioration of quality compared to 240-ppi and above *I use Bicubic/Sharper to downsize images. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- 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 > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
