> >See if you have the same problem I do with these large >prints: people look at them from a proper viewing distance, >say "Nice photo!" or some variation thereof, and go to >inspect it up close where they can see it isn't as sharp as >it could be... >
I think there is some innate drive in people to try to examine a print at as close a distance as possible.
>That said, it's amazing that we can get anything like >an acceptable result at that sort of size from the D1's 2.75 >MPixels since it equates to about 115 dpi, and 300 dpi is >the usual figure for being considered photorealistic. >
We've been TOLD that we need 240 or 300 dpi to get an acceptable print. There is no doubt that more dpi is better, up to a point, but as far as I'm concerned, when done correctly, 115 can look plenty good for me. Most people I tell don't beleive it until they see if for themselves. Nikon made a big deal a couple years ago about making some gigantic (billboard-size) blowup from a Coolpix 990 shot for the movie "Godzilla".
>>I used QImage Pro > >Have you tried using the Lanczos interpolation to resize >your images? To my eyes it does as good a job as Genuine >Fractals, and QImage is one heck of a lot cheaper. It's also >my favourite NEF converter by far.
I use Lanczos exclusively. QImage is a fantastic program, and definitely my preferred NEF converter.