Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrF" data-source="post: 148728" data-attributes="member: 10292">I probably should have been a little more clear with my caveat there, Don.&nbsp; The 300 ppi requirement is the rule of thumb for printing magazine quality photos.&nbsp; I threw it out there as a starting point.&nbsp; My mom used to work in advertising, and that's the standard that she held all the images that she used to.With your D5100, I think you'd still be happy at 20x30.&nbsp; It works out to just over 150ppi.&nbsp; I have a 160ppi print on my wall, and I have to almost put my nose up to it and really look to start to see individual pixels.&nbsp; From a normal viewing distance, it looks just fine.&nbsp; (This may be why printed publications use 300 ppi, since people are generally looking at the pages much closer than a piece of artwork on the wall.)&nbsp; I think snapfish might be pushing the envelope with their guidelines a little, but let me know how it turns out if you try it out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrF, post: 148728, member: 10292"] I probably should have been a little more clear with my caveat there, Don. The 300 ppi requirement is the rule of thumb for printing magazine quality photos. I threw it out there as a starting point. My mom used to work in advertising, and that's the standard that she held all the images that she used to. With your D5100, I think you'd still be happy at 20x30. It works out to just over 150ppi. I have a 160ppi print on my wall, and I have to almost put my nose up to it and really look to start to see individual pixels. From a normal viewing distance, it looks just fine. (This may be why printed publications use 300 ppi, since people are generally looking at the pages much closer than a piece of artwork on the wall.) I think snapfish might be pushing the envelope with their guidelines a little, but let me know how it turns out if you try it out. [/QUOTE]

Verification