[pct-l] Does size matter???

[pctl at ilja.ws (Ilja Friedel)]

Hi Monte,

this is an old discussion.

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Monte Dodge wrote:
> You divide the height and width of your megapixels by 200 to see what
> size you can blow up your prints.

Usually one assumes 300 dpi - but it depends on the viewing distance. 
Going down to 150 dpi might be acceptable.

Now where are you going to store 6 megapixel images? Its best to store
them RAW, isn't it. Let me think, that makes 9 megabytes per shot at 12
bits color depth and no compression. Mhh. Or are you going to use jpegs
and their artifacts? Lets face it: I'm deleting 70-90 percent of digital
images at the end of the trip. Not to save memory, but because they don't
tell me anything anymore and it is too tiring to look at them.  I'm also
not going to print the remainder - at most one or two (maybe if I
stitch panoramics). Digital images go into my online album. The php script
"gallery" is a good choice.  (But technology might change.)

> Anything larger than 11 X 14 is where your old 35mm starts
> breaking out ahead.

Haha! I like that. I personally am ok with 11x14 enlargements from medium 
format - but like the tonality of 8x10 much better. No reason to enlarge 
too much!

>      Other item I noted from mag. is sensor size. It's not all about
> megapixels. Sensor size comes into play as Digital SLR's have larger
> sensors than point and shoot.

You don't mention the consequences: smaller sensors are more noisy. Or 
"grainy" if you wish.

> I have an older Canon QL III from 1972 

Lovely camera.

Ilja.