Shakey Loc: Traveling again to Norway and other places.

You are welcome, Bigwolf. The praise should go to Billyspad who gave me a recommendation to try the program a year ago. :-D :thumbup:

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Looks great considering the limitations...what's the problem?

I'd print this 8 x 10 any day of the week.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Bingo.

And bingo again.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I double clicked on DL and didn't notice any distracting noise at all. Print a 8X10 and see how it looks, you just may be surprised.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The chart is misleading. First it is definitely not the "recommended" resolution or viewing distance! It is the worst case that can pass, if the viewing conditions are poor enough that the lack of quality will not be noticed. Hence an uninteresting image mounted where the light is dim will be fine at that resolution.

For example, a 16x20 image has a diagonal of 25.61 inches, and according to the chart the viewing distance would be 38 inches (3.2 feet) and 89 PPI would be a useful resolution.

But they also mention that "some photographers use the less stringent multiplier of 2 instead of 1.5", and that the 89 PPI would not be appropriate "if viewing conditions are optimal", or if the viewing distance is in fact closer (than a 2x multiplier which would be closer than about 4-1/4 feet).

Another factor comes into play too. This viewing distance is never fixed (for photography), and what actually happens is that viewers who are attracted to a print will move closer to get a better look. Hence the specified distance (which was actually the calculated distance at which a TV screen with a fixed resolution could be viewed) is not the distance at which a critical judgment of the image will be made. Figure about half that distance. Just about the length of the diagonal! Maybe even closer if other viewing conditions, such as proper lighting, are in fact optimal. (Look up how DOF is defined, and every valid description will mention that for prints the "normal viewing distance" is considered to be equal to the diagonal of the print, not 1.5x or 2x the diagonal.)

Hence you may get away with what the chart shows if your image is used for a store front poster in an advertisement. Nobody expects it to look interesting, nor do they care.

If the image has your name down in the corner, or is identified in any other way to viewers as yours, you want something closer to twice the resolution indicated. A 16x20 should probably be printed at 180 PPI minimum, and 220 to 260 is really much better. If it is going to be "judged" and compared to others, greater than 260 is imperative.

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

[quote=NewFujiGal]I always check the camera settings to see it. I am amazed that you have to go to ISO 5000 to get enough light. You said there were windows, but it looks like the light was limited. David

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I am really sorry, but this is 100% incorrect. Monitor display knows NO ppi (not dpi) number. ALL that matters is the pixel dimension. An image at 2000x3000 pixels will display at precisely the same size on a monitor at 72ppi, 720ppi 270ppi, 237ppi...etc. And it will be the same size in kb/mb. All the ppi figure is doing is compressing or spreading out the pixels IF IT WERE PRINTED. A monitor knows nothing of this.

This 72ppi myth has been around for years and seems it will never die. I bring this up every time I see it posted - eliminating photo myths one post at a time!

Wallbanger Loc: Madison, WI

You don't have a "problem" with "grain" in this image if you're printing at 5X7 or 8X10. It's pretty clean (as long as you're not pixel peeping).

Your background is a little messy with the dog tunnel thing sticking out of the top of the dog. Other than that, I'd print this all day long.

reader Loc: Los Angeles

RG Thanks for the tutorial

reader Loc: Los Angeles

MMC I am interested in the steps you took to adjust the photo. It looks much better.

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

I am sorry but I do not remember exact steps that I took 4 months ago. I tried it again today using Crop tool in Photoshop, Topaz DeNoise, Shake reduction and Unshurp Mask filters in Photoshop.

(Download)

chauncey Loc: Rochester, Mi

"How beautiful is that beautiful woman if "viewed at a reasonable distance""
Aah...that's like saying that the lady you pick-up in the bar in the wee hours loses her luster in the morning upon awakening.

Publishing an image that is sup-par at 100% indicates poor lenses and/or inadequate photography skills.
I once had an instructor who would not print any image that would not stand up to a nose-length viewing distance.

reader Loc: Los Angeles

Thank you for re-creating it