If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
Eric Stevens writes:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:42:37 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Eric Stevens writes: What is the effect of changing the size of the image on it's appearance? Basically, it looks better; at least up to 24x36, the biggest I've printed it. (That's paper size, and there are margins.) At pixel-peeping distances, I can definitely see how more resolution would look even better at the larger sizes, but this has detail in the edges of the footprints in the snow, and twigs all over the place, and so forth; huge amounts of detail. I expect that with the original 6.2 MP image you would be able to look at this for hours and still keep on finding new details. Its great even in the reduced 428,000 pixel file you have shown. (Figures fron EXIF data). I try to remember to leave that in, though some workflows, especially some I use for snapshots, seem to take it out and I haven't been motivated enough to figure out the problem yet. I want that information to be avilable. 6.2MP confirms my memory that that was shot with my Fuji S2, my first DSLR, back when. As I recall there was some CA to correct, but not horrible, and I had the HUGE advantage that Ctein was working with me preparing the file for printing (I got to play that big because he had a new printer about the same week I was out in the Bay Area for work for the week). And thanks! |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
Eric Stevens writes:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:42:37 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Eric Stevens writes: What is the effect of changing the size of the image on it's appearance? Basically, it looks better; at least up to 24x36, the biggest I've printed it. (That's paper size, and there are margins.) At pixel-peeping distances, I can definitely see how more resolution would look even better at the larger sizes, but this has detail in the edges of the footprints in the snow, and twigs all over the place, and so forth; huge amounts of detail. I expect that with the original 6.2 MP image you would be able to look at this for hours and still keep on finding new details. Its great even in the reduced 428,000 pixel file you have shown. (Figures fron EXIF data). I try to remember to leave that in, though some workflows, especially some I use for snapshots, seem to take it out and I haven't been motivated enough to figure out the problem yet. I want that information to be avilable. 6.2MP confirms my memory that that was shot with my Fuji S2, my first DSLR, back when. As I recall there was some CA to correct, but not horrible, and I had the HUGE advantage that Ctein was working with me preparing the file for printing (I got to play that big because he had a new printer about the same week I was out in the Bay Area for work for the week). And thanks! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Relationship between image, paper, and frame sizes | Don Tuttle[_2_] | Digital Photography | 4 | October 27th 09 05:31 PM |
Help!!! Image sizes. | Petaman | Digital Photography | 12 | January 2nd 07 06:47 PM |