StrivingLife presents ...

What follows is, for more my own information than for anyone else, is a listing of common print sizes, and the approximate resolution a photo must be in order to print well and acceptably.

The math involved is to take the size of the print and multiply each side by either 300 or 200. 300 (dpi) is the best quality, while 200 (dpi) is acceptable. Armed with these two answers, you can then have a nice range of which you should shoot for. Below are the numbers found from a handful of sites.

4x6

Best: 1600x1200^{1, 3}

Lower: 1280x960³

Minimum: 540x360²; 1024 x 768^{4, 5}

Absolute minimum: 640x480⁴

5x7

Best: 2048x1536^{1, 3}

Medium: 1600x1200³

Minimum: 1152 x 864^{4, 5}; 630x450²

8x10

Best: 2560x1920^{1, 3}

Medium: 2048x1536³

Lower: 1600x1200³

Minimum: 1600x1200⁴; 1536x1024⁵; 900x720²

8x12

Best: 2560x1920¹

11x14

Best: 3072x2048^{1, 3}

Medium: 2560x1920³

Lower: 2048x1536^{3, 5}

Minimum: 1260x990²

12x18

Best: 3072x2048¹

Medium: 3072x2048³

Lower: 2560x1920³

Minimum: 2048x1536⁵; 1620x1080²

16x20

Minimum: 1800x1440²

20x30

Minimum: 2700x1800²

Information has been culled from Dummies (listed as 1), Walgreens (2), Samy's Camera (3), and Shutterfly (4). The Photo Company used to have information online, but I'm not finding it any more ... (hence my decision to write on this).

Edit: Found The Camera Company information (listed as 5).

Humble reader, what is the saddest story?

On November 27 2002 I read Guy de Maupassant's Coco (as collected in The Dark Side). Since then I have yet to read another story as sad.

This morning I read of a farm in Wisconsin where various animals, including two miniature horses of some sort, had died. One had been stabbed (a few other animals had met there end in a similar fashion) and one had been beaten.

Here then, are two sad stories; one fictional, and one not. What do you submit?

“It's true that I have some of my best thoughts at night ... or at least, so they then seem.”

“Web 2.0 promises to bring us a unified Web, a Web joined together under the collective banner of Collaboration.”

But the new paradigm is just the old with new voices. The new Web has it's collaborators, but that hasn't changed the number of kingdoms.

“Come to us and help us build the best ___! However, you must share your knowledge to benefit the whole.”

Did we really sign up for the rehashing of the same old content on site after site, all because of collaboration? Are the crowds better or worse than the individual? And, at what cost the unified crowd? Have we lost the power of the individual within the common man?

It may be that the crowd is wise, but with so many crowds, which are we to believe when they speak the opposite?

I'd rather have the smart, the average, and the dumb working alone or in clumps than unified under one banner, for that way leads to naught but stupidity.

“Kill the krowd and save MAN!”

Create your content, but keep it as your's; don't let them take it from you and divide it to the common denominator.

Teach men to fish. Teach men to think.

“If you expect us to believe your promise of unification, then you must begin by unifying the movement itself.”

“Can man perceive the world without his own senses? Can he act without being active? No.”