tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3780317.post113470097622982795..comments2009-07-13T04:12:44.765-07:00Andyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425449900707787672noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3780317.post-1135270227334377522005-12-22T08:50:00.000-08:002005-12-22T08:50:00.000-08:00heh, you should know. lolAndyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425449900707787672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3780317.post-1135234942905832832005-12-21T23:02:00.000-08:002005-12-21T23:02:00.000-08:00looks like difference clouds :P<BR/><BR/>-Michael KahanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3780317.post-1134836205576688952005-12-17T08:16:00.000-08:002005-12-17T08:16:00.000-08:00Hi Andy. Yes, I have a D70 and it reproduces large prints well, too if the rest of the conditions are right (and as long as there's not too much of that darned digital trademark red shift).<BR/><BR/>Actually, I was more speicfically asking if you could/would make one and maybe sell it to me. I'd like to hang it up. :)<BR/><BR/>greggreg hugheshttp://www.greghughes.net/rant/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3780317.post-1134754690321415332005-12-16T09:38:00.000-08:002005-12-16T09:38:00.000-08:00Thanks, Greg. I've learned from experience, always edit at actual size then shrink for web. It's a pain trying to reproduce an effect after the fact. Our Canon 300D takes 6 mega pixel photos (3000x2000 pixels) so 8x10" looks sharp. But, image quality is usually more important than megapixels: how much noise (ISO), how far the colors have been pushed in editing, and quality of the lens usually determine image fidelity. I've blown up a 4mp image up to 18x24" with good results.Andyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02425449900707787672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3780317.post-1134708830899310052005-12-15T20:53:00.000-08:002005-12-15T20:53:00.000-08:00Wow - nice. How large of a quality print could you make?Greg Hugheshttp://www.greghughes.net/rant/noreply@blogger.com