View attachment 4227
I copied before it went away Remember this is a chart. Just a reference. So chart haters please relax ; )
Nice chart!
I used to print lots of photos from digital files and I noticed I needed about 20MB for a really sharp 8X10 that was going to be printed at 300 dpi.
If it's only going to be shown on a screen you may only need a fraction of that depending on the system. PC's are about 72 or 75 dpi (I forget exactly). Macs are like 95 dpi.
I printed literally hundreds of these and they had to look very sharp so I came up with my own formula which you may or may not agree with but I can tell you the prints were sharp.
Using my example above:
8X10 print at 20MB looks great
8X10 = 80 square inches
80 square inches divided by 20 (20MB file size) = 4
My theory became 'Desired photo size in square inches divided by 4 = required file size in MB to produce a print that's about as sharp as you are able to get from that file size.
To simplify
The maximum photo size you can make from a given file is 1/4 of the area of the photo.
Where
Photo size is in inches
Area is length x width of the photo
File size is in MB
Using my example
Photo Size----------File Size MB
5X7-------------------------9
8X10----------------------20
11X14-------------------132
16X20-------------------320
20X24-------------------480
I'm sure a lot will disagree and the question may become "if 20MB is good why why won't 18MB or 15MB work?"
All I can say is I was testing digital cameras when they first came out in the 80's or so and professional photographers like myself wanted to know if it was worth spending around $20K~$25K for a Kodak ~8MB digital camera. When we figured that best you could get out of that was around a 5X7 before it started coming apart we decided to wait. Yes that's how much the first DSLR cost.
I've probably bored a lot of you already but if you're interested the jpg file type is not a very good type if sharp detail is wanted. Not only does it discard important detail in the interest of a smaller file size (which it does do excellent-ly) it gets a little fuzzier every time you re-save the same file as a jpg. It's best to start with raw, which are usually very large files, until you are finished editing.