>Try this... > >Get a ruler marked with single millimeter increments. Tape it >to a wall and stand 11.3 feet away. See if you can clearly >resolve the millimeter lines.
That would be a bit of an ambitious task, but I don’t know if it’s worth it for me to do it.
In my younger days I was just myopic, but now in my advanced years I am both myopic and hyperopic. Top that off with the onset of cataracts, and I question what such a test and resulting information would do for me.
Having said that, I decided to dig out those test prints and see if how the change in my sight might affect the results. Well, it didn’t. Under the incandescent lighting I picked the 150 PPI print as the better, with the 240 and 300 a close second and third with the 120 PPI dead last. Under direct sunlight I picked the 300 PPI print as the better, with the 150 and 240 print a close second and third with the poor 120 PPI dead last once again.I even tried the test under a three-way compact fluorescent topping out at 100 watt equivalent luminance, and the results were the same as the incandescent (didn’t have one during the original testing).
On a side note, each of those prints viewed on their own looked great. It was only via a side by side close inspection that I was able to place them in an order of quality.
But this exchange does once again peak my curiosity about inkjet resolution (I know this is a hotly debated and contested topic). And now that I can best 400 PPI at my maximum print size (8.5x11 inch) with my D7000 images, I just might be inclined to expend the energy to see if greater than 300 PPI will result in a better print under direct sunlight viewing.
But bottom line for the original question, I agree with the viewpoint that with the average viewing conditions, unless you are making very large prints and viewing them closer than expected normal distance, you will most likely not see an appreciable increase in image resolution from D800 files over say D700 files.