« Reply #15 on: Wednesday 30 March 11 08:41 BST (UK) »
Hi Pels, I can only go with the info I had at the time of restore i.e showing 96dpi. Apologies Captain bonius for the technical blah blah that ensued my comment.
Cheers, David.
The technical 'blah blah' is how we learn to be better at what we try to do.
If it's of benefit to the poster, I don't think captainbonius will object in the slightest. I'm sure your apology will be appreciated !

Lovely restores Irene - I've been on with this all day and can't do it.
Thanks for coming to our help George. Hope you feel better tomorrow Rachel ! xx
Kind regards,
Pels.
At the risk of having stuff thrown at me and out of curiosity, I'm posting what my computer says about the 2nd scan
As you can see, this is smaller

Rachel
FOR RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT 300-600
Please do NOT use my restores without permission, unless you're the owner of the photo. Some of my restores are on flickr.com ~ rachel sc
my computer is an iMac
BANCE, BALLINGER, CHEES(E)MAN, CONNOR, COOK, COX, CRUTCHLEY,
DAWSON, FLYNN, FOLWELL, FORGAN, FORREST, HARRIS, KING, LOOKER,
MIDGLEY, OATES, ROE, SIM(M)S, WHITTINGTON