Technique and subject matter both mean a lot to the finished product. I've found that crisp scenes with strong diagonals, like architecture, show their limitations far sooner than photographs of people or flowers.
I've seen bad 8x10s from 6MP; I've made great 16x20s from 6MP. The skill and knowledge of the person making the print, as well as the software and hardware available, are very important. -Aaron On Jun 25, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I've seen a few 16x20 prints made from a Pentax DSLR. I don't know > exactly > how it was upsized-uprezzed, but I found it unacceptable - too soft and > lacking in detail. However, a few other people saw it at the same > time, > one or two found it OK, but all agreed it looks best if viewed from an > appropriate distance - some multiple of print size or dimension. > Unfortunately, one doesn't always have such viewing options when a > print is > on the wall in a gallery or up for viewing somewhere. Unfortunate, > also, > is that talking about what looks good on a mailing list is useless > ...what's good or acceptable to one person is crap to someone else. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
