I've also seen a portrait printed as an inexpensive poster of 18x24"
made from a 3MP Canon D30 image. Standing back a couple feet it looked
very good. So why do we have groundrules of 300 dpi for small prints
and 240 or thereabouts for large prints which I also believe to be
roughly consistent with measures for CoC which are supposedly based on
resolving power of the human eye.
Is this old wives tales from film? Has digital and the lack of grain
radically changed the rules?
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/8/2010 3:04 PM, Paul Laughlin wrote:
> On 9/8/2010 10:51 AM, Bill Pearce wrote:
>> My friend that owns a lab showed a print he made from a file from a 6mp
>> canon several years ago. It was a good four feet tall, and looked quite
>> good. It was printed to photo paper with his Durst system, and absolutely no
>> GF, just upresed in Durst's software. Looked quite good, even at a foot or
>> so.
>>
> I have printed this image at 12 x 18 inches and 180 ppi from Photoshop
> and it came out quite nice. As you say, even at a foot or so.
> <http://www.pbase.com/pelaughlin/image/119937848>
> Taken with a 2 MP camera. The Olympus C2100 UZ.
> Paul in Portland OR
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|