Simon said:
I'm not actually anti-digital at all (though I appreciate it may come
across that way), but I think what I'm struggling to get my head around
is how on earth a 2850x2238 image could survive being blown up to 24" by
18" when the resulting resolution would be only 120 dpi.
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't profess to understand it either Simon except that I know it's
true. We somehow have to shake our old notions that it takes 300 dpi to
make a good print. How about 68 dpi?
I have just been reviewing an image that is the basis of a 30"x40" print
produced by Miller's Professional Imaging (millerslab.com). The
original was shot on a C*non D*60 (3072x2048)using a C*non 28-135 image
stabilized zoom set at 35mm. The shot is a stunning family portrait of
a 14 person family group shot on the beach at Cape Cod.
True, Miller's has seriously "res'ed-up" the image to be able to make a
30"x40" print. And it's a family portrait and not an architectural
detail shot. So, we're not expecting or even wanting exquisite detail.
However, the man on the far end has a wrist watch on and, despite the
fact that the shot was taken from a distance of 11 meters one can
clearly see (from the position of the hands) that the time is 3:30. I
also have a 2048x1360 version of this shot and one can still clearly see
the time on the watch.
Forget what you *think* is required and try the real thing. You will be
astonished.
Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|