I'm sure there are many tools that would work but since I have Gimp and am sort of kinda half way familiar with it, that's what I'd use. (1) Open the photo (2) Upsize the canvas(Image>Canvas Size)... unlock the aspect ratio and increase the height, you'd need to do the math. (3) Create a new layer(Layer>New Layer)... by default it should be the size of the canvas, which is what you want. (4) Use the paint bucket to fill the new layer with white. (5) Move the new layer behind/underneath the photo layer. (Drag it down in the Layer dialogue) If all goes well you'll have the original photo with white padding (only) at the bottom and it will be proportional to the 16x20 paper. There might be an easier way but that seems to work.

Before you pay for a print as large as 16 x 20, make sure that the image file has enough pixels to produce a smooth image. Most point and shoot cameras are set to nominal pixel counts and can not make good photos beyond 8.4 x 11 inches. If the final picture is printed at 200 pixels per inch, then one square inch has 40,000 pixels. A 16 x 20 picture has 320 square inches and at 200 dots (pixels) per inch, it contains 12,800,000 pixels. In base 2, one meg is 1024 x 1024 or 1,048,576. A quantity of 12,800,000 becomes 12.2 megs in base 2. Therefore by this recconing, a 16 x 20 print needs a minimum of 12.2 mega -pixels. The file size is much larger than this because each pixel may use 24 bits to define its color and intensity. At 24 bits, the file size is approximately 307.2 Gigabits or 38.4 Gigabytes. This is an unweidly number. So, how does a large print get made with a reasonable file size? Its done by spreading the available pixels over the print and interpolating between points to create the pixels in between. Loss of fine detail results. From a distance the print looks ok but on close examination, image edges may be blurred and fringing can occur between sharp color changes, e.g., a saturated red leaf against a bright blue autumn sky. If you anticipate printing large photos, set your camera to take the image at its maximum pixel count. A camera with a full size sensor is recommended.

Frankie, I agree that photos can be a bit of a wake-up-call and reality check, plus reminder of what worked and didn't. One of my examples that is probably shared by others is my fridge being a mess of school photos and other detritus that looks so familiar I don't even notice it, but on a photo is just a "yeesh, why do I have that?". One day my husband and son were both in the kitchen - such an unusual sight that I took a photo. That led me to both putting some OTHER nice pictures of my kids in frames in OTHER places in the house (have never previously been a pictures in frames kind of person) and also to getting a new fridge (OK, that was kind of an indirect result, but it got me ready to change). Also, due to our funny house layout, I've rearranged the furniture more times than I care to remember as the kids have grown and our needs have changed - in fact, I don't remember several iterations. Some photos have me saying 'hey, that actually worked kind of well" or have prevented me from making the same mistake again :-) When I want to sell some furniture, whether to post on craigslist or on consignment, it is amazing how hard it can be to actually make things fully presentable on a photo (not to mention to photograph the house for discussion on a forum). One issue for me is that the flash picks up every molecule of dust. But I see a lot of photos on craigslist where people don't take the trouble, and knowing how much trouble it is, I sympathize, but not enough to refrain from saying to the screen "would it have killed you to move that??" KarinL

From the context of your post I take it that you have not done anything like this before so first of all great job! Some things that I noticed. Watch the hair. I know sometimes the photog can have limited control over this, but it can be a distracter. Add some color to the pictures. That wall is a great background, but every thing seems to be neutral toned. Add colored shirt or something like that. The white balance in #7 is off In #3 she has some blown highlights on her nose. Personally I donÂt care for hands tucked under the arm, have her put them on top of her arm. The eyes look a little dark in few, use some fill flash. When you are doing close-ups, people always look at the eyes, make the sure the eyes are whatÂs in focus. Maybe turn up the color saturation. Or increase it in PP. #1 is my favorite, composition and exposure is great. Weddings can be difficult. I suggest having an external flash. Then there is the dress, most likely it will shiny and white. Try not to have blown highlights with that combination. Check out this photog, he has great ideas and pictures. http://www.josephmark.com/ Great job, be sure to post more shots. Here are some kids pictures I took, you can see what the colors do for the photos. http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b257/zitro_joe/lopez%20kids/?sc=1&addtype=local Joe