So, Fine Art America does print fulfillment on behalf of its artists.  They claim that PPI/DPI is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is the pixel dimensions.  They base their print sizes off the long edge dimensions.  For example, they claim a 3 megapixel camera is perfectly capable of printing a 20" (long edge) picture.  Well, I'm sure it can print a 10 foot picture but that doesn't mean it would be any good!  

Regardless, they programmatically determine the available print sizes based on the dimensions you upload.  They are implying the print quality is acceptable.  This doesn't make sense to me (though I am hoping they are right).  I just don't understand how the resolution is irrelevant to printing.  It seems completely critical.  Am I missing something?  

I'll give you a practical example.  I have a 5 image pano of Hayden Valley.  The dimensions are more than 13,000 on the long edge and it's a 900+ mb file.  FAA limits file sizes to nothing more than a 25mb jpeg.  They claim I can print up to 108 inches long!  At 240 DPI it's a 55 inch picture.  Wouldn't a 108 inch picture be about 120 DPI?    

And, while I'm at it: FAA's upload process is a piece of garbage.  Three out of four uploads fail between 97% and 99% complete.  I've tried it on three different browsers (Safari, Chrome and Firefox) and two different computers.  That's really a nice treat when uploading large files!  :evil:

Your math is right, their standards are probably lower than yours and they rely on a whole lot of interpolation. For most people it's probably good enough especially at the viewing distances you look at large prints from. But I wuld work with a company that makes more sense and one whose service is more reliable.

You didn't mention what type of printing they offer. Light Jet printing, for example, is indeed capable to produce amazingly sharp enlargements from small files.

Regardless of that, I think you're right to be very cautious. A printer who boldly states that resolution is irrelevant is obviously aiming for the dummy section of the market and there is no need to run an expensive test to prove that.

They probably mean that the dpi setting (as embeded in the uploaded file) is irrelevant, rather than the actual dpi that they print at. In that context, their statement that what matters is pixel dimension, for the uploaded file, is true.
You could set dpi as 20 for arguements sake, they'd (hopefully) ignore that and divide the pixels by their minimum dpi to give maximum output size.

Thanks, guys.  I read on a forum somewhere they use the Epson 9880 Giclee printers.  Have no idea if that's true or not.  Is that a printer that can mitigate image degradation from lower resolution images?

I do think they are catering to a crowd that wants to be very low tech and not involved in the sales process.  For example, they state never to enlarge photos ahead of sending them in and that enlarging them yourself will make them unusable (the latter just a blanket statement).  I can see value in those statements if you are going to print at sizes bigger than you've sized them at yourself (since they will interpolate on top of your interpolation).

I think I will just limit my sale options to those sizes that I am comfortable printing at and ignore all the other sizes they offer.  Outside of the horrible upload process, I love the fact they offer framing and it's a very interactive and "purchaser" friendly site (they will automatically update your picture to show the frame and matting selected live on the page).  The frames are not the quality of a brick and mortar custom frame shop like Aaron Brothers or Michael's but they do look pretty nice (I got one framed; though printed at a size that I knew it would print well at).

I think I get their philosophy now. I found a post on their discussion board from 2009 where one of their employees is explaining how the printing process works. He discussion centers around artists that photograph their artwork. It would seem their printing and sizing instructions are designed specifically for those purposes. I don't think the degradation from printing a 3mp image at 20 inches is going to be that obvious for an oil painting vs. a photograph.

The french word "giclee" means "squirt". A giclee printer is an inkjet printer; it just sounds more artsy.

I think I get their philosophy now. I found a post on their discussion board from 2009 where one of their employees is explaining how the printing process works. He discussion centers around artists that photograph their artwork. It would seem their printing and sizing instructions are designed specifically for those purposes. I don't think the degradation from printing a 3mp image at 20 inches is going to be that obvious for an oil painting vs. a photograph.

Giclee is an old elitist term for ink-jet in the US. It comes from the days when inkjets were getting pretty decent but still had a bad reputation. It is an outdated term now.

When you sell a fine art print for big $$$ giclee sounds better then ink jet.
If it's a B&W print selling for $1000+, carbon pigment sounds way better than black ink. 

UltraChrome Pigment sounds better than Giclee!

Isn't it funny that it seems important how it sounds while it should be important how it looks?

When you are trying to market something, how it sounds is important.