On Wed, May 20, 2009 11:13, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > The bigger you push the print size though the more likely its > going to become a problem. Yep, that's absolutely true. For noise, which was the subject under discussion immediately, and for all the other ills that images are heir to as well. As I said originally, I've done some 20x30" (image area, not including borders) prints from 6mp and 10mp DSLR images (Fuji S2 and Nikon D200) which I find very satisfactory. The low resolution is detectable to an experienced eye, but noise didn't seem to be a problem at that size. Of course, on the printer we printed that on we could have made it twice the (linear) size, at which point even more problems would be visible :-). These were better than I could get from film, though to be fair I didn't try to print that big in the 90s era of rather better negative films. I do use Noise Ninja when needed (though I find it works much less well on high-ISO D700 shots than on anything previous I've tried it on, even though I have in-camera NR set to not do much). I haven't used any of the up-res products; I do big prints so rarely, and too many articles suggest that which one works best and whether any of them are better than Photoshop varies wildly with image content. And, agreeing once again, the quality of the original image is certainly the primary thing that determines the quality of the big print. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
