Here's some advice from the August, 2002 issue of PC Photo magazine; I've been exlaining this to a number of people who needed to upload some images to our sites, but this should make the issue of digital photo size easier to understand (when you think about it, it becomes very obvious). So for those of you who still have questions about enlarging digial photos, read on:

Don't try to make big prints from small digital files. Digital may seem magical, but it has its limits. The resolution of a digital camera is directly related to how big a print you can make. A 2 MP (megapixel) camera delivers a good 5x7; a 3 MP, an excellent 8x10, and a 4 or 6 MP an 11x14 or larger. Attempt to exceed these sizes, and the images will reflect a loss of sharpness and color fidelity.

And as an added note, the same holds true when you scan an image, save it, for instance as a 2x3 and then e-mail it to be used as a 4x6 - just too much pixel distortion. So always keep a file as large as possible, since, as you can see, getting smaller is OK, enlarging may not be.

It has come to our attention that there is still a "misconception" concerning the difference, if any, between photography and computer enhance d photography. Let us be Socratic and answer the question with a question: Is there a difference between a photo taken with film and the same photo enhanced through darkroom work?

Of course no. Aside of news reporting where enhancement is editorializing rather than straight reporting, and the use of a "snapshot" as a record of a personal event, photography, whether analog or digital, or analog enhanced digitally, is art. And art should tell a story. The computer and/or darkroom work is the editing of that story, editing to bring out the concept and the best work the image can do.