we are kidding ourself arnt we

that more migapixels are better. ive just saved a large group shot posted on facebook of my mother at a ball when she was 16 yo, 70 years ago.
the file was 191kb 700x524 pixels wide. just printed a boarded a4 print on pearl high quality 320gsm paper. it looks magnificent.

It depends on the contents of the image, the print size and the viewing distance.

In my experience more pixels is sometimes better and sometimes makes negligible difference.

I normally size the image file at 360 ppi for the print size and then print at 1440 dpi.

what i like about it its printed just like an old print from the past. sepia, got plenty of detail but not clinical sharp, i was hoping it wouldnt pixelate and it didnt at all, im very happy with the look.

As long as you're happy that's all that matters.

It's about 60ppi. Can be bearable depending on the content (old photos may not have a great resolution to start with).

^^^ This.

Have you printed it yourself or with a printing service?

i have a canon pro 200 printer i just bought to replace my pro10s.

Hi,

I went to shoot the seven NC Lighthouses with the idea of printing on quilting fabric. My first attempt was with a Nikon Df. But, the 16 MP, once cropped to 5:4 to fit the textile printer, wasn't enough. Image looked too soft as the printer operates at 300 PPI. Keep in mind that the fabric weave also softens an image.

So I looked around at the used market, Nikon to begin with. Then, I tripped across a 40 MP Pentax 645D for less than half the best price for a used Nikon D850. And, lenses were even less money. The highest I paid was $200 for one. So I went that route. Much better end result.

Years ago, I shot night motorsports and professional bowling using a Kodak 620x (and the later 720x) and those were only 2 MP. Largest I could print (on paper) was 8x10" and that took some upscaling. Looking at the prints today, they are pretty poor compared to what the Df makes of the same subjects for the same print size. But, back then, no one was capturing those images save me, so everyone was very happy with those prints.

Stan

Stan

There's also expectations. Our brains are not passive viewers of information, which compare things empirically or objectively; our brains see characteristics inherent in the captures that inform it how much to expect, and therefore, what it is satisfied with. In this case, the brain sees "old photo, heavily undersampled" and drops its expectations about how much technical quality it can or should have, to be a good specimen of that type of thing. If one of Donald's dragonfly head images came out with this technical quality, I'm sure he would delete it, because it had no personal emotions or history attached, and did not give us a very unique peek into the world of dragonfly heads.

yes thank you , i printed it up and it looks better much sharper.

its all subject related. i did a fashion shoot on the weekend and one of the best images was taken at iso 12800. i didnt even realize till i got home. i still sent it off to the client as it was a great shot, but when i did look at 100% its was good but not perfect and i just said to myself its a social media advert image, the client loved it and never said oh , its shot at iso 12800. same situation yesterday i fitted a staircase for a client and they had put an undercoat on the parts before i installed it, he had varnished 80% of the parts the wrong side 🤨he didnt even know what side was the sanded side.

its done a good job, i will have to see if Ps can do ok. my mother is middle row second from right.