Eric Stevens <eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:42:37 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b_at_dd-b.net>

> wrote:

>

>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz> writes:

>>

>>> What is the effect of changing the size of the image on it's

>>> appearance?

>>

>>Basically, it looks better; at least up to 24x36, the biggest I've

>>printed it.  (That's paper size, and there are margins.)  At

>>pixel-peeping distances, I can definitely see how more resolution would

>>look even better at the larger sizes, but this has detail in the edges

>>of the footprints in the snow, and twigs all over the place, and so

>>forth; huge amounts of detail. 

>

> I expect that with the original 6.2 MP image you would be able to look

> at this for hours and still keep on finding new details. Its great

> even in the reduced 428,000 pixel file you have shown. (Figures fron

> EXIF data).

I try to remember to leave that in, though some workflows, especially

some I use for snapshots, seem to take it out and I haven't been

motivated enough to figure out the problem yet.  I want that information

to be avilable.  

6.2MP confirms my memory that that was shot with my Fuji S2, my first

DSLR, back when.  

As I recall there was some CA to correct, but not horrible, and I had

the HUGE advantage that Ctein was working with me preparing the file for

printing (I got to play that big because he had a new printer about the

same week I was out in the Bay Area for work for the week). 

And thanks!