Originally posted by PDL I have several images hanging on my wall right now that are 12x18 inches from my *ist Ds and no complaints. The two images I have sold from that camera were 12x18 inches with no problems. If the customer keeps their nose at a decent distance from the image - they really can't tell the different.
By the way, those images where processed with LR in the version 1-3 era. The 20x30 inch prints I made using the same camera have gathered nothing but ooohhh's and aaaahhh's.
Remember Ernst Haas shot images with Kodachrome in the 60's that were put up on the Kodak Colorama a 18x60 ft illuminated display from a 35mm image.
---------- Post added 04-12-20 at 03:39 PM ----------
Who are you trying to prove this too? Other people or yourself?
I enlarged a few images from my istD to 12x18. Due to the way digital processing works, the ''grain'' was very good, but the detail wasn't there.
I don't think talking about billboards and the like is really on topic unless that is what the OP is doing.
The biggest print I've made from a 6mp file is 16x59, which is the longest output I am able to print from my Epson 4000. It's hung pretty high on the wall, it's on the gable end of a 4/12 pitched ceiling. It's ok because of the viewing distance, but it isn't really very good.
It really depends on what level of quality is acceptable for the individual job.
As pixel counts have increased, the minimum level of acceptable quality has moved as well.
Remember that at one time, it was accepted that a trip from New York to Los Angeles would take a couple of weeks or more. Now people lose their minds if it takes longer than half a day.