<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Q and A: Can you make 59&#215;37-inch prints from a 12 megapixel image?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.photocrati.com/q-and-a-can-you-make-59x37-inch-prints-from-a-12-megapixel-image/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.photocrati.com/q-and-a-can-you-make-59x37-inch-prints-from-a-12-megapixel-image/</link>
	<description>Photo Wordpress Themes</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:45:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: PeterKBurian</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/q-and-a-can-you-make-59x37-inch-prints-from-a-12-megapixel-image/comment-page-1/#comment-3647</link>
		<dc:creator>PeterKBurian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=4030#comment-3647</guid>
		<description>Well, yes, the further a person is from a print when viewing it, the less concern re: maximum image quality and resolution. 

AND the better the camera (like the D300, which is fabulous) and the sharper the photo (without blurring from camera shake (and the better the lens you use) .... the larger the print you can make of fine quality,.

But not 59x37 inches unless people would view them from a hundred feet away ... maybe. 72 pixels per inch is simply not enough for good resolution. Not based on my definition of good. 

Peter</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, yes, the further a person is from a print when viewing it, the less concern re: maximum image quality and resolution. </p>
<p>AND the better the camera (like the D300, which is fabulous) and the sharper the photo (without blurring from camera shake (and the better the lens you use) &#8230;. the larger the print you can make of fine quality,.</p>
<p>But not 59&#215;37 inches unless people would view them from a hundred feet away &#8230; maybe. 72 pixels per inch is simply not enough for good resolution. Not based on my definition of good. </p>
<p>Peter</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sloah</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/q-and-a-can-you-make-59x37-inch-prints-from-a-12-megapixel-image/comment-page-1/#comment-3628</link>
		<dc:creator>Sloah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=4030#comment-3628</guid>
		<description>I recently held a photography exhibition, in which I had several photos printed at A2 (16.5 x 23.4 in) from my D300 (12.3mp). I had them uprezzed using Genuine Fractals, and they came out very well. However, I wouldn&#039;t have wanted to push the files much beyond what that - I know that it would have looked much better had I used a LF camera. Having said that, I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to have printed them at A1 (23.4 x 33.1 in) for the average viewer, if you were not to look at them too closely. This is, however, after using Genuine fractals...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently held a photography exhibition, in which I had several photos printed at A2 (16.5 x 23.4 in) from my D300 (12.3mp). I had them uprezzed using Genuine Fractals, and they came out very well. However, I wouldn&#8217;t have wanted to push the files much beyond what that &#8211; I know that it would have looked much better had I used a LF camera. Having said that, I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to have printed them at A1 (23.4 x 33.1 in) for the average viewer, if you were not to look at them too closely. This is, however, after using Genuine fractals&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edwaste</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/q-and-a-can-you-make-59x37-inch-prints-from-a-12-megapixel-image/comment-page-1/#comment-3586</link>
		<dc:creator>Edwaste</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:06:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=4030#comment-3586</guid>
		<description>A lot depends on the distance the print will be viewed from. 
I have made many posters for trade shows where the image(s) used are 75 pixels per inch. The results were fine for that purpose, and the paper was not of a lower quality.

If you expect the viewer to look at your 59x37&quot; poster from the same distance as a 11 x14&quot; print...then I guess 72 pixels per inch is not going to work...but who is going to look at it from that distance? 
You look at a photograph from a distance where the entire composition can be seen at once. Not scrutinized inch by inch, like some.... pixel peeper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot depends on the distance the print will be viewed from.<br />
I have made many posters for trade shows where the image(s) used are 75 pixels per inch. The results were fine for that purpose, and the paper was not of a lower quality.</p>
<p>If you expect the viewer to look at your 59&#215;37&#8243; poster from the same distance as a 11 x14&#8243; print&#8230;then I guess 72 pixels per inch is not going to work&#8230;but who is going to look at it from that distance?<br />
You look at a photograph from a distance where the entire composition can be seen at once. Not scrutinized inch by inch, like some&#8230;. pixel peeper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jane</title>
		<link>http://www.photocrati.com/q-and-a-can-you-make-59x37-inch-prints-from-a-12-megapixel-image/comment-page-1/#comment-3443</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocrati.com/?p=4030#comment-3443</guid>
		<description>large shots are usually watched from the distance, so sometimes bad quality not a problem</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>large shots are usually watched from the distance, so sometimes bad quality not a problem</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

