An image at 24" x 36" needs to be 150 dpi to be under 60 MB in file size. Is 150 dpi high enough resolution to be sharp?

I would like to see the limit changed to 100 MB, which would allow a 200 dpi 24" x36". There is a big difference is quality of the overall image from 150 to 200. You could even limit the 100 MB limitation to just 24" x 36" and 20" x 30" sizes.

I shot RAW recently and want to preserve as much data from my 6.3 MP shots as possible for enlargements. My normal JPEG image size is 3-4 MB. My RAW conversion software offers the option of saving files as 16-bit TIFF files or JPEG. Are there any plans in the future to support 16-but TIFF since it is now supported by iPhoto?  Thanks.

Derek, are you shooting medium format to get 4800x7200 pixels? (24x36 * 200dpi)  Or compositing images?  How are you correlating pixel density with file size?  JPEG at some quality factor?  TIFF?  If TIFF, are you specifying compression when writing?

For large scale printing (16x20 and above) I really would like to see the file size increased to 100mb per image.  Large prints simply should have the highest resolution possible.  A true shortcoming of Adorama's service.

Ok, it is Feb 2011... and the issue of large prints has still not been address.

A TIFF at 24" x 36" at 200 dpi is about 100 MB.

A TIFF at 23" x 36" at 150 dpi is about 65 MB <--- still over the 60 MB limit.

C'mon Adorama... I really don't want to output my prints at <150 dpi. Can't you increase the file size limitation for large prints?

Are you generating an image with that pixel count by stitching together a panorama?  Genuine Fractals?  You haven't answered wrt compression within the TIFF file.

Totally agree on the size issue. You should be able to go over 150dpi @ the larger sizes if you want to, without having to go JPG. That's not a crazy request.

Another not-crazy request: although it's nice that you guys hold most users hands through the process, you should really allow a "pro" option where you provide more flexibility to those who want it. This applies on the other end as well: I recently tried to print an 11x14 of a crappy, grainy digisnap I took… and it was "rejected" at that size because it was ever-so-slightly under the size requirements (digicams are 72 native, btw). All because "you can't print a bad photo!" The problem is this: I WANT you to print it. I will gladly check any box, or agree to any extra terms you want, but I WANT you to print my 18.614" x 14.629" 72dpi image at 11x14 / 100dpi. I shouldn't have to up-sample myself in PS. I WANT to pay you guys the $10 to see what it looks like. I'll take that chance. Thank you.

is there a list somewhere on the site of the minimum dpi images should be set up for each output type based on the area?   i.e. should an 11x14 gallery wrap be a min of 300dpi?   Thank You

The problem, which I've now come around to agree with, is that your maximum file size does not allow customers to do 300dpi at larger sizes.  I ran into this myself with my last order - Many of my TIFF files were too large to be accepted and I was just printing 8x10's and 5x7's.  You don't accept TIFF files with compression either, so the only recourse is to encode in JFIF/JPEG, and given your customer base, that's not always acceptable.  I support both ideas above:

o The ability to upload larger files.  Presumably your disk arrays are using 3.5" SATA drives.  RAID notwithstanding, a 3TB disk could hold upwards of 30,000 images at 100MB.  Most customers aren't going to be uploading anywhere near that size, so increasing your limit isn't going to balloon your aggregate storage utilization.  Heck, even if you expired oversized images after 30 days, or only accepted them for paid accounts, that would be better than the current situation.

o The idea of a checkbox to override the minimum dpi, either for effect, or because a print's intended viewing distance is going to be large.  Slap lots of warnings and THIS WILL SUCK - ARE YOU SURE? confirmations on it, but allow it.

I just looked around on my local hard drive for the largest JPEG file I could find. it was a 360 cylindrical panorama that was 13,000 pixels on the horizontal. With almost no compression it was 25 MB. After giving this file size issue some thought it seems using JPEG files is the practical solution.  

You're missing the point -- at the larger sizes, I can understand wanting to avoid JPEG/JFIF artifacts.

Is it true that Adoramapix doesn't accept compressed TIFF files, only uncompressed?

That's what their guidelines say, at least as of the last time I read them.  I think I tried once and was rejected.

"Are you generating an image with that pixel count by stitching together a panorama?  Genuine Fractals?  You haven't answered wrt compression within the TIFF file."

It doesn't matter. He wishes to send them as is. Many of us do. I order larger prints elsewhere because of this restriction. It seems Adormampix is losing a lot of business this way. I guess they have their reasons.

You really won't be able to tell the difference between a JPEG at max quality ("12" in Photoshop or "100" in the GIMP) and a TIFF when they're printed -- artifacting simply isn't an issue at the block size used for 1:1 compression, and the color misses will be less than even the most sensitive vision can detect (you'll get more loss is the gamut errors going to print than you will with the compression). You'd need a loupe and a bit of an obsessive nature to see a difference at "11" (in PS) as well. The idea that lossy compression is going to irretrievably harm your image is just plain silly if you're using a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio; the only possible harm can come from repeated editing, saving, closing, opening, editing, saving.... The minuscule errors that would be otherwise undetectable are cumulative in that process. Sending a high-quality, low-compression JPEG for print is pretty much the professional standard.

I wonder how often a 100 QF JPEG/JFIF file would still be over the size limit.

Not very often, I'd imagine -- I have a 76MP JPEG at 100 QF (that'll easily print 40 x 60 and stand close scrutiny or make a 24 x 36 you can use a loupe on) that's just a hair over 26MB without Huffman optimization. At the next QF down and optimized, it would be just over 10MB, and I'd bet that nobody here could really tell the difference at either print size.