This is not entirely accurate. While many people do view their photos at small sizes on pretty poor screens, the dynamic range of the entire analog processing c

This is not entirely accurate. While many people do view their photos at small sizes on pretty poor screens, the dynamic range of the entire analog processing chain was typically much less than what even entry-level digital cameras offer today. See for example: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dynamicrange2/ http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dynamicrange2/ Also, for any print that is intended to fit in an album or a frame, there is little benefit over 3 MP. For really, really big prints? Maybe 8, to err on the safe side. Like most analog reproduction media, prints tend to be very forgiving. Someone viewing their 12 MP photos on a 500 ppi HDR mobile screen is pretty much getting the best comparable experience since the dawn of image capture. Which of course doesn't mean that the tiny, faded black and white print from a hundred years ago you find in your grandpa's old wallet doesn't convey much more emotion. Edit: Too slow, crazygringo beat me to it.