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!

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!