Unless you need a printer for your other computer work why bother with one at all

I have recently had some prints produced by labs and the cost of the prints themselves are very small. Around 70pence for a 12x8 print. Find a lab that requires you to size your files to the correct pixel size for the print size and the cost is minimal

Thanks for all the comments and interesting discussions.

I guess the answer is then that I send my friend pictures that have been resized for web and monitor viewing. If she wants to produce artwork/prints I will produce further copies resized to the specified sizes.

This is exactly how i produce my own pictures.

If you upload from your computer it gets resized to 800 wide, but if you link to say a Flickr image it gets displayed larger

I have one...it's called a telephone

But that is not much use to someone with a 1920x1080 monitor. I like to see pictures fill the screen.

majestic bird and great captures. Would love to see them in a larger size, do you have a Flickr account or similar ?

A question for you all regarding re-sizing images.

I usually shoor RAW and create JPEG files in pp. I usually resize them during pp to 1080 pixels on the tall side because that equates to my monitor resolution. This means that any pictures I use as a screensaver will display correctly and also keeps the overall file sizes not too large.

My understanding has always been that it is best to resize for the screen the picture is to be viewed on, then apply output sharpening (USM). Am i right in thinking that if I left the original pixel dimensions (7360/4912) that when viewed on a screen the image would lose some sharpness as the computer software would be drastically reducing the image for viewing ? From doing some tests this is what I think happens.

The reason I am asking is I am doing some portraits of a friends dog. most of the images will be viewed on her monitor/ipad and uploaded to facebook etc. But she also will want to use an image or two to have some physical artwork made up (poster style). I assume that for the latter keeping a large pixel resolution image would be best.

So do i supply all the images at full size, or supply all the images at a sensibly reduced pixel size (say 1080 tall or a bit bigger to account for most monitors) , and then supply full size images for only those ones she wants to have artwork made out of.

I guess what I am asking is what a professional photographer would supply a client in this circumstance, although there is no commercial arrangement in my case.

A FF 20 or 24 mm D-FA prime would be nice. i have the M 20mm f4 and the FA* 24mm f2 which I think are both excellent lenses (FA* gets mixed reviews), but I think a modern design with modern coatings, accross the frame sharpness and minimal distortion would show off what the K1 camera is capable of even better whether it be sweeping landscape or exagerated foreground cityscape.

I am also eagerly awaiting the long promised D-FA 85mm

I used one for years with my K10 as a medium/long walkabout zoom and never did it disappoint. I got the D-FA 24-70 when I bought the K1 and so had no real need for the FA24-90 so I sold mine. In retrospect I should have kept it as it provided a lighter alternative to the 24-70.

Don't be put off by the metal/plastic construction, the optics are excellent.

Mid autumn light in the morning/afternoon can really make greens come to life I find. I think Andy chose his hours well.