I wonder how many people have actually printed so large, they didn't like the image. It's never happened to me. I've printed images with as little as 72 pixels per inch that were fine for 4x6 images. I've heard so many theories about what folks need to do I'm immune now.
I print the image I have at the size I want it to be.
Maybe others have display spaces that mean they need some sense of an upper limit. My largest is 42x30, a K-3 image. A k-1 could be 20% bigger.
So I almost feel like turning folks into guinea pigs. Why not just have everyone upscale their images to 300 DPI, and print the size they want. Eventually someone will be unhappy and let us know.
Corners and edges limit the enlargement only when in focus. Out of focus areas upscale quite nicely and for many prints the edges are out of focus.
This painting sold for 240 million.....
The resolution is terrible. Until photographers start to come to terms with this, this will be a topic of endless debate. I ask, would the painting be better if you could read the cards in the players hands? Are you really going to second guess the appeal of a 240 million dollar painting? What is it that's important here?
Check this one out....
3 million dollars.Do you think someone went up with a magnifying glass and pronounced it worthless? Does anyone care what that person thinks? Why?
I see very little evidence that Richard Prince spent much time pondering the resolution.
Gursky on the other hand has sol for more and is incredibly detailed, but if you'll read about Gursky, you realize the kind f detail that makes him the big bucks isa combination of scanning and combining 5x7 film images of different focal lengths, creating 100 MP fplus files and then printing. None of us shooting Pentax are Gurskys.
This is what really impressive high res looks like. You aren't going to do that with your K-1. Neither could Gursky.
If you have a great image, print it at the size you want.
I place absolutely no value on print resolution.
My issue is," is it a compelling image?"
I know one of my favourite images was a 35mm of myself and my kids walking through a forest of tall birches, done as a 36x24 poster, (the limit for 35 mm was supposed to be 11x14.) The grain was awful, the image was delightful. I'm kinda starting to think of the resolution based print guys as fitting in with those who know the measurement of everything and the value of nothing.
I know, what the reaction will be. Probably insults and outrage. But I'm on the team of the guy with the 3 million dollar print, who are you guys with?
There will alway be those for whom the numbers build their confidence to feel they've done a good job. I see little evidence that it's necessary to pay much attention to the numbers. My advice would be, if you think I will work, go for it. Find out. No one giving you advice here has sold a print for 3 million dollars, but other less critical people have.
I'm a photographer, not an accountant.
Take chances with your printing, you might creates something special. Those successful in the world of photography didn't get there following rules and mathematical formulas.