No. Printing photographs may be compared to records (CDs or tapes) made of a specific song recorded by a specific artist at a specific place. Different artists may record the same song. If the place changes, or the medium changes, they would be different "editions" in the sense that each difference has its very own copyright. Approximately. Also, sometimes the Certificate of Authenticity which provides provenance of a physical photographic print may often contain language allowing for different sizes or medium formats to be printed from the same digital file as different (numbered) editions which may affect the value of this particular numbered edition.

A word of caution regarding numbered editions. I was watching the 8-part documentary, "The Toys that Made Us", and one of the Star Trek toy makers decided to issue a limited edition of the original Star Trek spaceship, the Enterprise, in order to make a lot of money. That decision killed the collectors market for all of their Star Trek toys because there were so many times that number of collectors who were trying to collect every single Star Trek toy ever made by that company, that when many of them could not buy that particular item, they stopped collecting all of the other Star Trek toys made by that company. But then, the market for those toys, at the time, was thousands or millions of items.

The morale to the story --- If the market for your prints is over the number in your edition, don't kill the market by withholding the buyer's ability to create a complete collection. [P.S. edit: But then, that is where the ability to create a new limited edition in a different size or medium comes in. If you quickly sell out your limited edition of 100, sell a 1000, or 10,000 edition in a different size or medium.]

The correct link is this: http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Magpul-Gen-2-MS4-Dual-QD-Sling

I use the Magpul sling, purchased through RRS (Really Right Stuff). see http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-518636-1.html
And the correct link in that thread should have been http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Magpul-Gen-2-MS4-Dual-QD-Sling

Use the search function on this site and look for "sensor size chart". You can print the chart at the bottom of that page on 8.5x14 inch paper. I have a Sony HX400V camera that zooms the equivalent of 24-1200mm; not as good as your Canon SX60, but they both have the same 1/2.3" sensor size. And yes, the Sony HX400V is also not good in low light situations.

These cameras are in the superzoom or bridge-camera category, which have only one non-interchangeable lens. The sensor converts incoming light into the picture elements (pixels, or megapixels). Because the sensor is so small the camera can use smaller, lighter (weighing less) lenses to zoom in to fantastically close distances.

I "upgraded" the Sony HX400V to a Sony RX10iii which has a 1" sensor. The lens is 3 times larger and it will only zoom to an equivalent 24-600mm, but it is moderately good in low light situations. But the price was 3 times as much (less than $1500). This is the problem with larger sensors: The lenses are also much larger, and do not reach very far in terms of millimeters of zooming. Also, these lenses cost many times the price of the superzooms.

Those sensors with fewer megapixels in the same sized sensor will work better in lower-light situations. For example: the Sony A7S series has a full-frame (36x24mm) sensor, but with only 13 megapixels it works much better in low light than the A7R with 42 megapixels. Instead of a larger sensor (with larger lens), you may want to look for a superzoom camera with the same sized sensor (and same zoom lens), but only 8 megapixels (instead of the 16 megapixels in the SX60)?

Or check out this year-old link: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-superzoom-camera/

Or you could just order the metal print in semi-gloss or matte?

The Sony FE 24-240 f/3.5-6.3 has the reach you are looking for; it is only as sharp as what you already have, but I have enlarged 24mm prints taken with this lens on an A7Rii up to 24x36 inches that were good. You will lose f-stops at longer zooms. It retails about $1000. [edit] The thumbnail above was taken with this lens at 24mm.

On the short end, the Sony FE 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6 OSS is only $500 but you lose f-stops with the zoom.
On the long and heavy end, The Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS is sharper than what you have, at $1498.
And the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 GM OSS is slightly sharper than the f/4 at $2600, but if you need the f/2.8 it is available.

I had Walgreen's print a 24x36 poster from a digital JPEG yesterday, $30. Then I had the same poster printed at Costco, $15, in both auto-corrected and not auto-corrected. The Costco Auto-corrected version looked identical to the Walgreen's version in color tint, paper weight, and quality. The 'auto-corrected OFF' version by Costco had slightly less red to the color, but the color difference was only slightly noticeable. I preferred the 'auto-corrected OFF' version by Costco.
Note: I prefer the heavier weight paper and the semi-gloss finish from either Costco and Walgreen's to the matte finish and lighter weight paper of shortrunposters.com, $14 plus shipping, plus $5 if shipped flat. Both Walgreen's and Costco roll up the poster to about 4 inches for pickup.
Note: I have had a bad print from Walgreen's before (dark areas streaked with lighter lines, and I refused the print), so it depends on when they last cleaned the print heads, and maybe on who is running the print as to the quality you will get. With Walgreen's I pay after reviewing the print; with Costco you pay before they print it.

Absolutely. The guy walking through the scene in my thumbnail (above) was pure luck. The reflection of the lamp in the puddle, in the picture below was pure luck (But would have been looked for by a more experienced photographer).
Post Edit: The vignetting is from using a crop-sensor sized 20mm lens on the full frame A7ii camera.

(Download)

I agree with SonyA580 that laptop screens are not good for post processing work. Look at a color photograph on a laptop screen; calibrated or not, the brightness and color changes when you move your head just a few inches, left, right, up, down, or if you tilt the screen as little as 10 degrees forward or back. I plug my laptop into my mostly calibrated Toshiba television through the HDMI port, so I can see the colors which match the output of my P400 Epson printer; colors which do not change as I cross the room from one side to the other.

At 30 to 50 feet "at the closest" the flash might be useless. But for special effects, I can see imitating an electronic fireplace --- the kind with blowing plastic flames and a light from the bottom --- by using a puff of air (fan?) to lift aluminized mylar "flames" just before an actual flash bounces off of the mylar reflection (and trigger a whoosh sound effect from a hidden speaker); all set on the platform on a pole. But you may want to take the actual photo in an ambient floodlight 1/2 second before the special effect "flash".

Thank you all very much for your work on this. Your results are amazing. Even B&W looks better than the original. It looks like color correction is not a simple process. The lady who owns this is now 98 years old, and the original was the only picture she had of her grandchildren (as children).

The first original, a 10MB file. (And yes, I did use the .ARW files to merge these.)

(Download)

But then (whine - whine -) I have to export the 54MB file to a less-than 20MB file if I want to post it on UHH. So you cannot get all the detail. The following was stacked from seven quick-shot originals. It is a picture of Multnomah Creek downstream from Multnomah Falls, between the Railroad and the freeway, in late March. The resolution stacking brightened the green colors significantly, and added little ripple lines from the circular lines moving away down the stream.

(Download)

I used the 2x teleconverter on the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM lens to reach 400mm and it worked well. I later tried the 100-400mm f5.6-6.5 GM lens and had to increase my ISO from 1600 to 3200 (shooting indoors with medium light). But when I use the 2x teleconverter on the 100-400mm lens my maximum (widest) f-stop is now f/9. This means I can only shoot 200-800mm in very strong light or else use very high ISO, greater than 6400, which adds digital noise to the picture. Since I am only using the teleconverter on really-sharp lenses, I have not noticed any degradation in the level of sharpness, just in half the amount of light reaching the sensor due to narrowing the aperture. This also sharpens the background, so using it for portraits is not advised.

Many, but not all, telephoto zoom lenses are softer on the long end. The Sony 100-400mm GM lens is sharpest at 400mm --- go figure. One of Canons 300mm prime lenses is almost perfect at any distance. But the cost of these lenses is in thousands of dollars.