That's a corker Kris!

me too despite almost all my clients being severely in arrears, it's just not to be missed, especially (even) when you're skint.

I haven't had any out of stock message yet. just as well - I just took my Tamron 70-300 out this morning and it was utterly hopeless, maybe I have a bad one.

I've never used the term ppi for anything. I just use dpi like everyone else. is there a difference? except letting the recipient know you are talking about printing, not monitors.
In printing we use lpi a lot to quickly determine the correct output resolution for a particular device. I can't recall any printer asking me what ppi my image was

2 meter banners are output at 72 er... ppi and they look fine from 6 feet away, but I suspect my panorama will be viewed at monitor distance by the curious so I need the resolution to be pushed as high as possible without being all blurry.

Thanks everyone, that's great. I'll have a go at that Matt.

Just to put this into perspective, I have been using PhotoShop since 1992 so I'm fairly handy with it but you do get stuck in your ways
In all that time, I've almost never felt the need to increase the file size of an image, it just seemed wrong ('you can't get something for nothing') and in the multimedia world, downsizing is the name of the game.
But it's interesting to discover just what you can get away with nowadays.

I will still default to increasing the dimensions by lowering the resolution wherever possible tho'. Even a 72dpi image can look as sharp as a tack in the right place.

hmmm... thanks for your contributions folks.
BTW bicubic seems to be the default, not bicubic smoothing.
I have just tried bicubic, bicubic smoothing and transform tool in CS3 and they all look identical!
The image has a combination of detail and large gradients (sky). oh, and it is black and white.
It wasn't the most scientific experiment, but still, I think I might be worrying unduly in this case at least.

I wonder if PhotoShop does this resizing in steps anyway as part of the algorithm. Same goes with sharpening. I sharpen in steps but I'm not sure I should, it just seems right. bit off topic already

A printer I am obliged to use and who ought to know what he is doing is suggesting using the 'Transform' tool in PS to increase the size of my panorama to 85cm at 300dpi. (it is currently 55cm)

I'm not convinced that:
a. he should be using this tool for such a critical thing
and
b. the image wouldn't print better at a lower res with les interpolation. i.e. don't resize as much, just mostly change the dimensions.

The picture relies on the details in the structures.

Has anyone done any tests of this nature?

what's the advantage with these screens ? apart from composition lines and being nice and new?

Do they serve some other function? are they designed for manual focussing or something?

I totally agree Prieni, I toyed with doing it properly and just sneaking it back in but thought better of it.
Now that it has won I guess it deserves a little TLC. Mind you, I think I might be better off just going back and doing everything better. I tried the flash and various other techniques to get the full range but ran out of time as I was supposed to be in work. Bit like now actually

I also thought Martin's box was the one. V nice.

OMG! that brings back such sweet memories Lilly.
For a year and a half in the 80s I went out with the girl who's parents owned the Headland hotel up there on top of the cliff in shot one. We had the run of the place and our favourite room to wake up in was room 14! - astonishing views over the sea and sweet, endless mornings. ahh... those were the days.
We were at the art college, I had a Yashica and she had a Pentax with a wide angle lens (oh how I coveted that!) and she was much more talented anyway
Hey ho... back to work Mark...