Am I right in thinking that the size of the actual image (as a file) is immaterial, what matters is the size of the viewed image?

To clarify.

An image at a web size of say 600x400 will require one level of sharpening which (allowing for subject differences) could be applied to web images of any size viewed at 100%.

An image of 1800x1200 destined for printing at 300 ppi to provide a 6x4 print will require more sharpening because the effective reduction in size from the on screen image to the print will reduce the impact of the sharpening. Because of this, rightly or wrongly, I judge sharpening for prints with the image reduced to (say) 25%.

Am I also right in thinking however that another factor may be viewing distance, eg an A3 print likely to be viewed from some distance will benefit from greater sharpening than the hand-held snapshot?

Chris, Email sent.

I wouldn't know about those as I have moving graphics turned off in browser preferences. But all avatars distract (which is why people use them) and do nothing to improve the quality of content. Same applies to signatures which waste space and, like avatars, create clutter. At least we don't have to endure speech bubbles at forum index level.

There appears to be a Mac version.

Chris,

How long is the promotion on for?

Spotmatic OK?

Lens required or is body only acceptable?

OK by post?

Am I missing something here? At present it looks as though you and Peter are referring to my post or Mark's OP; if so I don't see why.

I can only assume that a post about spam has been deleted, in which case it would have helped to leave a slot showing its deletion.

I'm intending to get a K-5 II in the new year and expect to be doing a fair bit of hand-held work in poorly lit interiors (where my K-10 struggles). In due course more information about your experience plus any tips on practice and limitations would be helpful.

Try here.

Especially when one of them is off-site.

I don't know about 'should' but I use the camera EV -/+ button.