It's just resampling. From what I understand, it's not only possible, but readily doable in Photoshop/photoeditor of choice. The only drawback is that doing this, the computer will have to interpolate the missing pixels and it MAY not get them the same way that you would if you rendered at that greater size. Remember, if you have to, you can render to disk with the appropriate dimensions to get the 600 DPI @ A2 size (what, slightly larger than 8.5"w x 11"h? Maybe 8.5 x 11.5/12? At 600 dpi that would be ... 5100 (width) by 6900(height, if 11.5", 7200, if 12"). It's a bummer trying to convert European paper dimensions to dpi ... :P Bryce WILL render at those sizes, but only if you render to disk. Now, mind you, this file will be HUGE! As for the difference between a .TIF and a .PSD and file sizes, it's all in how the data for the image is stored. From what I understand, the .PSD is actually a decent format to store images in long term. Supports layers, tranparency, yadda yadda yadda. It's conceivable that the .PSD for a particular image could be 1/3 the .TIF as the .TIF format (usually, it does support it) not use compression. FWIW, YMMV. HTH, John