Digital prints, max size

[ROL]

Really?!? The never ending arguments of size vs. distance vs. quality. Carry on… People are attracted to the artist, the image, and money. Everything else is justification and self serving b.s.

[StoneNYC]

If I were a better photographer I would be too busy with my shows and books and photo adventures to even be on this site

[Jody_S]

If I were a better photographer I would be too busy with my shows and books and photo adventures to even be on this site

+1

[Drew Wiley]

If you were a career fine art photographer you wouldn't have any time for this nonsense because you'd be too busy rummaging thru the dumpster behind the local
pizza dive.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you were a career fine art photographer you wouldn't have any time for this nonsense because you'd be too busy rummaging thru the dumpster behind the local
pizza dive.

[StoneNYC]

If you were a career fine art photographer you wouldn't have any time for this nonsense because you'd be too busy rummaging thru the dumpster behind the local
pizza dive.

Well that's basically my life now... AND I'm "supporting" myself with my acting career... Yes... It's not a joke, but if it were, the jokes on me...

[john borrelli]

I do think the nature of the subject of the image matters, as others have suggested.

An image that is a silhouette at sunset (as pictured earlier in this thread) will enlarge better than other subjects. As an amateur landscape photographer I have to say that my typical subjects of rocks and in particular trees and branches are very difficult to render sharp at great enlargement sizes. I won't even include leaves as subject motion will negatively affect their sharpness dramatically. I am using the term "sharp" loosely to refer to how the enlarged print appears relative to the original piece of film.

Sure lighting makes a difference, a tree that is a black silhouette or lit with some form of side lighting may appear more contrasty in the print. People images don't need a ton of sharpness and can enlarge well. Images of man-made structures always look a little sharper.When I go to test a lens I just purchased, I go out on a day without wind and in diffused lighting, I shoot landscapes with trees then view the film of trunks and branches with a loupe.

In enlargements beyond these sizes I begin to notice that images are beginning to looked "stretched" in comparison to the original piece of film, the sizes are 5X7 inches from a 35mm negative or slide, 8X10 inches from 6X7 and 11X14 from 4X5 film.

[Randy]

I'll bet most people in this group's demographic can't even focus at ten inches.

I can squint down to about 20"...closer than that I need someone else's eyes.

[TXFZ1]

Has anyone ever met a mathematician who took good photographs? Maybe someone has. I haven't. But we all have different ideas of what a good print is supposed
to look like. Some people find the "moth smashed on a windshield" look to be perfectly acceptable. I don't. But like cell phone, calculators do have an analogous
practical application. They're nice and flat, and nice for skipping on ponds.

Not to argue but Bruce Barnhaum was a mathematician and took some pretty good photographs.

David