How big should I be able to make my photos?

[shuddering93]

Hi,

Sorry if this is a silly question. Sometimes when I'm looking at how sharp my photos are, I zoom in and look of course. I usually know what's "sharp enough" I suppose. Aside from that though, how do I know if the quality of my image is good? Some photos I take will look great when they are smaller but then shoddier when they are a bit bigger (for various reasons including focusing issues).

I know that it partly depends on how big I want it to be. I'm not looking to shoot any HD photos for a billboard or large poster or anything. But is there some sort of convention here?

I usually use a Canon t4i and a Canon 50mm prime.

Hope I'm making sense! Thanks!

 

[Vtec44]

Here are the minimum requirements from SmugMug. I don't use them but it's a good start.

Are there resolution requirements for printing through SmugM...

 

[soufiej]

How close will you be to your larger print? You typically view, say, a 4X6 from arm's length or less. You normally stand away from a 20X30. Therefore, what looks good at 4X6 can also look good enough at 20X30 when you are not judging the image strictly for "sharpness".

 

[donny1963]

Hi,

Sorry if this is a silly question. Sometimes when I'm looking at how sharp my photos are, I zoom in and look of course. I usually know what's "sharp enough" I suppose. Aside from that though, how do I know if the quality of my image is good? Some photos I take will look great when they are smaller but then shoddier when they are a bit bigger (for various reasons including focusing issues).

I know that it partly depends on how big I want it to be. I'm not looking to shoot any HD photos for a billboard or large poster or anything. But is there some sort of convention here?

I usually use a Canon t4i and a Canon 50mm prime.

Hope I'm making sense! Thanks!

it all depends on what type of camera your using and what your camera max megapixels is,. if your using lets say a Nikon D7000 or D7100 and it's 24 mp, and you are shooting raw, and setting everything to high quality, then you would be getting 4000X6000 Resolution, so you would be able to make pretty large size prints, unless you was shooting your pictures at too high ISO, because if your using over 800 ISO and trying to print a 20X13 print, your picture would look like it's braking down and see all kinds of noise, sure your picture shot higher then 800 ISO with out zooming in or blowing up the picture for larger prints won't be a problem, but the minute you start to zoom in that picture or create larger prints over 8X10 would not look good, some times they won't even look good at 8X10
but if your shooting at 100, 200, 400, 800 ISO then you would be fine..
How ever if you use a Full Frame Camera like a Nikon D810 that sensor is bigger and is able shoot at a higher ISO range then crop sensor camera's..

Don

 

[Vtec44]

sure your picture shot higher then 800 ISO with out zooming in or blowing up the picture for larger prints won't be a problem, but the minute you start to zoom in that picture or create larger prints over 8X10 would not look good, some times they won't even look good at 8X10

Oh stop with this bull sh*t already lol I shoot regularly over 1600 ISO, I print 30x40 and clients print them out too without issues. I make hundred of large prints, over 16x20, every year.

 

[dannylightning]

Image Size Calculator/Convertor use that link and type in the size if your photo by pixels.. i set it to 200 dpi inkjet in the choise that calculator gives you and that should tell you how big you can print the photo in a good quality..

so type in say 3000 x 2500 pixels ( use the size if your image) , choose the 200 dpi inkjet setting and see what it tells you.. i have printed out photos at 300ppi and 200ppi and they turned out good. i know i printed a few that were under 200 ppi and those also looked very nice..

i have a photo print that i took hanging on my wall, it was around 200ppi and the iso was around 4500, that print looks great.. how high you iso can go depends on the camera, some cameras do very well with high iso, some do not..

 

[soufiej]

Hi,

Sorry if this is a silly question. Sometimes when I'm looking at how sharp my photos are, I zoom in and look of course. I usually know what's "sharp enough" I suppose. Aside from that though, how do I know if the quality of my image is good? Some photos I take will look great when they are smaller but then shoddier when they are a bit bigger (for various reasons including focusing issues).

I know that it partly depends on how big I want it to be. I'm not looking to shoot any HD photos for a billboard or large poster or anything. But is there some sort of convention here?

I usually use a Canon t4i and a Canon 50mm prime.

Hope I'm making sense! Thanks!

it all depends on what type of camera your using and what your camera max megapixels is,. if your using lets say a Nikon D7000 or D7100 and it's 24 mp, and you are shooting raw, and setting everything to high quality, then you would be getting 4000X6000 Resolution, so you would be able to make pretty large size prints, unless you was shooting your pictures at too high ISO, because if your using over 800 ISO and trying to print a 20X13 print, your picture would look like it's braking down and see all kinds of noise, sure your picture shot higher then 800 ISO with out zooming in or blowing up the picture for larger prints won't be a problem, but the minute you start to zoom in that picture or create larger prints over 8X10 would not look good, some times they won't even look good at 8X10
but if your shooting at 100, 200, 400, 800 ISO then you would be fine..
How ever if you use a Full Frame Camera like a Nikon D810 that sensor is bigger and is able shoot at a higher ISO range then crop sensor camera's..

Don

I have to say I cannot agree (and I have disagreed) with that post.

First, the op gives us the camera they intend to use. There's not much point in talking about other cameras IMO. There really isn't even a generic rule which I feel applies to other cameras.

One rule I do apply to most situations, photographic and otherwise, is everything is a trade off for something else. Often that something else has rather obvious downsides.



I would refer the op to my original post in this thread. You do not judge printed "resolution" by looking at your image on your computer screen.

You do judge photos by their size and from a distance relative to their size. If you're holding a large print at arm's length, it simply will not look as good as when you view it from an appropriate distance.

The issue here is cognition and the fact your brain/mind uses its cognitive ability to fill in open or incomplete spaces to create an image which in your perception is "correct". Reliance on this perceptual function is the concept behind tattoos, printed images and the stylistic paintings which fall under the genre of pointilism; 27 inspiring examples of pointillism | Creative Bloq



Any modern camera above the most basic $40 P&S type will have a sensor and digital circuitry with higher "resolution" than most conventional printers can turn out. Therefore, checking with the company doing the printing will be your best bet if you want to know static file size appropriate for a larger print.

However, "static file size" is not synonymous with "resolution".



I would encourage any student of photography to gain a sense of what makes a good photo. Whether you intentionally or unintentionally bend the rules of what photography is all about, resolution is a mere parcel of the whole.



Do not buy into the "larger sensor equals better photos" push.

Same for megapixel count.

Sensors are not created equally and neither are the circuits which make the sensor work.

Does your camera have an anti-aliasing filter? Then your photos will have a somewhat different perceptual resolution than a camera lacking that circuit.

Do your homework and understand your equipment. Pretty much rule #1 for any photographer.

No doubt, larger sensors as a group are more capable of higher quality images when light levels are decreased. However, in most situations where the light source is full daylight (or quite a bit less typically) even a modern smart phone camera is more than capable of turning out good to high quality images.

Using a DSLR such as the t4i (the camera owned by the op), ISO can be raised without serious negative impact on image quality. Typically, digital noise created by extremely high ISO values would be said to impact image "sharpness". Your digital processing software is used to address issues of "sharpness" (which has more than one component).

If you desire a very large print, use the best software to the best of your ability to do your post production editing. Or pay someone with high quality software to do the work for you.



ISO in a digital camera is the equivalent to gain in an amplifier. As digital circuits have improved over the years the ability of digital amplifiers has increased to the point most modern DSLRS or enthusiast type bridge cameras can turn out images which are quite acceptable at ISO's in the 1600 and above range.

This is one spec that camera manufacturers have realized is important to the potential buyer and they are putting an emphasis on high ISO capabilities. Creating a camera with decent high ISO resolution is more than just sticking in a larger sensor.

As to the trade offs of digital noise vs image quality ...

"Each time you double the ISO (for example, from 200 to 400), the camera needs only half as much light for the same exposure. So if you had a shutter speed of 1/250 at 200 ISO, going to 400 ISO would let you get the same exposure at 1/500 second (providing the aperture remains unchanged). This is why high ISOs are so often used indoors, especially at sporting events. Needing a fast shutter speed to stop action, photographers regularly choose ISO 1600 or above."; What Is ISO Sensitivity? | Understanding ISO from Nikon



Do not be afraid of raising the ISO on a modern DSLR.

Do not buy a camera based solely on what you see in the on paper specs.

Understand there is far more to photography than mere resolution - whatever that word means to you.

Know that most printers will not turn out the full resolution your camera produces.

Finally, if you need to create a "higher quality" image, obtain the right software for post production and learn how to make the most of what you own.

 

[KmH]

Many online print labs have a minimum print resolution, usually about 100 ppi.

Pixels (image resolution) / PPI (print resolution) = Print Size (in inches)
Pixels (image resolution) / Print size (in inches) = PPI (print resolution)
Print size (in inches) x PPI (print resolution) = Pixels (image resolution)

Don't forget to consider print aspect ratio (shape) relative to photograph aspect ratio.
If your photograph has a 3:2 aspect ratio (APS-C size and full frame image sensors) but you want a 5:4 aspect ratio print (8"x 10" is 5:4) part of the 3:2 aspect ratio photo will be cutoff and not included as part of the 5:4 print.

 

[donny1963]

sure your picture shot higher then 800 ISO with out zooming in or blowing up the picture for larger prints won't be a problem, but the minute you start to zoom in that picture or create larger prints over 8X10 would not look good, some times they won't even look good at 8X10

Oh stop with this bull sh*t already lol I shoot regularly over 1600 ISO, I print 30x40 and clients print them out too without issues. I make hundred of large prints, over 16x20, every year.

it's not BS i even have a video out that shows, High ISO noise in large prints,

sure your picture shot higher then 800 ISO with out zooming in or blowing up the picture for larger prints won't be a problem, but the minute you start to zoom in that picture or create larger prints over 8X10 would not look good, some times they won't even look good at 8X10

Oh stop with this bull sh*t already lol I shoot regularly over 1600 ISO, I print 30x40 and clients print them out too without issues. I make hundred of large prints, over 16x20, every year.

your using a full frame camera right?? I did mention, that Full frame Camera's can go higher in ISO with less noise then a APSC crop sensor.. but maybe you didn't read the reply all the way though.. and as far as your BS saying you have gone to 64,000 iso without noise with 30X40 is BS... Not unless your using a Hasselblad med format camera..

 

[donny1963]

Hi,

Sorry if this is a silly question. Sometimes when I'm looking at how sharp my photos are, I zoom in and look of course. I usually know what's "sharp enough" I suppose. Aside from that though, how do I know if the quality of my image is good? Some photos I take will look great when they are smaller but then shoddier when they are a bit bigger (for various reasons including focusing issues).

I know that it partly depends on how big I want it to be. I'm not looking to shoot any HD photos for a billboard or large poster or anything. But is there some sort of convention here?

I usually use a Canon t4i and a Canon 50mm prime.

Hope I'm making sense! Thanks!

it all depends on what type of camera your using and what your camera max megapixels is,. if your using lets say a Nikon D7000 or D7100 and it's 24 mp, and you are shooting raw, and setting everything to high quality, then you would be getting 4000X6000 Resolution, so you would be able to make pretty large size prints, unless you was shooting your pictures at too high ISO, because if your using over 800 ISO and trying to print a 20X13 print, your picture would look like it's braking down and see all kinds of noise, sure your picture shot higher then 800 ISO with out zooming in or blowing up the picture for larger prints won't be a problem, but the minute you start to zoom in that picture or create larger prints over 8X10 would not look good, some times they won't even look good at 8X10
but if your shooting at 100, 200, 400, 800 ISO then you would be fine..
How ever if you use a Full Frame Camera like a Nikon D810 that sensor is bigger and is able shoot at a higher ISO range then crop sensor camera's..

Don

I have to say I cannot agree (and I have disagreed) with that post.

First, the op gives us the camera they intend to use. There's not much point in talking about other cameras IMO. There really isn't even a generic rule which I feel applies to other cameras.

One rule I do apply to most situations, photographic and otherwise, is everything is a trade off for something else. Often that something else has rather obvious downsides.



I would refer the op to my original post in this thread. You do not judge printed "resolution" by looking at your image on your computer screen.

You do judge photos by their size and from a distance relative to their size. If you're holding a large print at arm's length, it simply will not look as good as when you view it from an appropriate distance.

The issue here is cognition and the fact your brain/mind uses its cognitive ability to fill in open or incomplete spaces to create an image which in your perception is "correct". Reliance on this perceptual function is the concept behind tattoos, printed images and the stylistic paintings which fall under the genre of pointilism; 27 inspiring examples of pointillism | Creative Bloq



Any modern camera above the most basic $40 P&S type will have a sensor and digital circuitry with higher "resolution" than most conventional printers can turn out. Therefore, checking with the company doing the printing will be your best bet if you want to know static file size appropriate for a larger print.

However, "static file size" is not synonymous with "resolution".



I would encourage any student of photography to gain a sense of what makes a good photo. Whether you intentionally or unintentionally bend the rules of what photography is all about, resolution is a mere parcel of the whole.



Do not buy into the "larger sensor equals better photos" push.

Same for megapixel count.

Sensors are not created equally and neither are the circuits which make the sensor work.

Does your camera have an anti-aliasing filter? Then your photos will have a somewhat different perceptual resolution than a camera lacking that circuit.

Do your homework and understand your equipment. Pretty much rule #1 for any photographer.

No doubt, larger sensors as a group are more capable of higher quality images when light levels are decreased. However, in most situations where the light source is full daylight (or quite a bit less typically) even a modern smart phone camera is more than capable of turning out good to high quality images.

Using a DSLR such as the t4i (the camera owned by the op), ISO can be raised without serious negative impact on image quality. Typically, digital noise created by extremely high ISO values would be said to impact image "sharpness". Your digital processing software is used to address issues of "sharpness" (which has more than one component).

If you desire a very large print, use the best software to the best of your ability to do your post production editing. Or pay someone with high quality software to do the work for you.



ISO in a digital camera is the equivalent to gain in an amplifier. As digital circuits have improved over the years the ability of digital amplifiers has increased to the point most modern DSLRS or enthusiast type bridge cameras can turn out images which are quite acceptable at ISO's in the 1600 and above range.

This is one spec that camera manufacturers have realized is important to the potential buyer and they are putting an emphasis on high ISO capabilities. Creating a camera with decent high ISO resolution is more than just sticking in a larger sensor.

As to the trade offs of digital noise vs image quality ...

"Each time you double the ISO (for example, from 200 to 400), the camera needs only half as much light for the same exposure. So if you had a shutter speed of 1/250 at 200 ISO, going to 400 ISO would let you get the same exposure at 1/500 second (providing the aperture remains unchanged). This is why high ISOs are so often used indoors, especially at sporting events. Needing a fast shutter speed to stop action, photographers regularly choose ISO 1600 or above."; What Is ISO Sensitivity? | Understanding ISO from Nikon



Do not be afraid of raising the ISO on a modern DSLR.

Do not buy a camera based solely on what you see in the on paper specs.

Understand there is far more to photography than mere resolution - whatever that word means to you.

Know that most printers will not turn out the full resolution your camera produces.

Finally, if you need to create a "higher quality" image, obtain the right software for post production and learn how to make the most of what you own.

of course when you hold a blown up print right in front of you the appearance in resolution will decline, just as if you sat 1 foot away from a TV the quality will not look as good, that is with everything not just prints, if your in a helicopter 500 feet up and look down at a tennis court it will appear to flawless and have no imperfections but once you land on it and look at it while your on the court you will see the cracks and imperfections.. that is because the visual is compress all in one small area...
Same with Pictures if you hang a picture and stand 50 feet away you won't see any imperfections in it until you get close to it, but that don't mean the quality is lost in the picture just because your far away from it..
if you do a wedding and the client asks for 20X13 size prints and when he looks at it up close on his lap and says hmm it doesn't look that sharp, what are you going to tell him well put it on a wall and look at it from 15 feet away it will look better?
And not only is there noise in High ISO large prints but your losing color tone quality, maybe you don't notice it, but this is a fact..
the Higher you bring your ISO, the more noise and color tone loss you will get when creating larger prints..
Don't take my word for it, tell this expert as well he is wrong..

 

[donny1963]

Hi,

Sorry if this is a silly question. Sometimes when I'm looking at how sharp my photos are, I zoom in and look of course. I usually know what's "sharp enough" I suppose. Aside from that though, how do I know if the quality of my image is good? Some photos I take will look great when they are smaller but then shoddier when they are a bit bigger (for various reasons including focusing issues).

I know that it partly depends on how big I want it to be. I'm not looking to shoot any HD photos for a billboard or large poster or anything. But is there some sort of convention here?

I usually use a Canon t4i and a Canon 50mm prime.

Hope I'm making sense! Thanks!

it all depends on what type of camera your using and what your camera max megapixels is,. if your using lets say a Nikon D7000 or D7100 and it's 24 mp, and you are shooting raw, and setting everything to high quality, then you would be getting 4000X6000 Resolution, so you would be able to make pretty large size prints, unless you was shooting your pictures at too high ISO, because if your using over 800 ISO and trying to print a 20X13 print, your picture would look like it's braking down and see all kinds of noise, sure your picture shot higher then 800 ISO with out zooming in or blowing up the picture for larger prints won't be a problem, but the minute you start to zoom in that picture or create larger prints over 8X10 would not look good, some times they won't even look good at 8X10
but if your shooting at 100, 200, 400, 800 ISO then you would be fine..
How ever if you use a Full Frame Camera like a Nikon D810 that sensor is bigger and is able shoot at a higher ISO range then crop sensor camera's..

Don

I have to say I cannot agree (and I have disagreed) with that post.

First, the op gives us the camera they intend to use. There's not much point in talking about other cameras IMO. There really isn't even a generic rule which I feel applies to other cameras.

One rule I do apply to most situations, photographic and otherwise, is everything is a trade off for something else. Often that something else has rather obvious downsides.



I would refer the op to my original post in this thread. You do not judge printed "resolution" by looking at your image on your computer screen.

You do judge photos by their size and from a distance relative to their size. If you're holding a large print at arm's length, it simply will not look as good as when you view it from an appropriate distance.

The issue here is cognition and the fact your brain/mind uses its cognitive ability to fill in open or incomplete spaces to create an image which in your perception is "correct". Reliance on this perceptual function is the concept behind tattoos, printed images and the stylistic paintings which fall under the genre of pointilism; 27 inspiring examples of pointillism | Creative Bloq



Any modern camera above the most basic $40 P&S type will have a sensor and digital circuitry with higher "resolution" than most conventional printers can turn out. Therefore, checking with the company doing the printing will be your best bet if you want to know static file size appropriate for a larger print.

However, "static file size" is not synonymous with "resolution".



I would encourage any student of photography to gain a sense of what makes a good photo. Whether you intentionally or unintentionally bend the rules of what photography is all about, resolution is a mere parcel of the whole.



Do not buy into the "larger sensor equals better photos" push.

Same for megapixel count.

Sensors are not created equally and neither are the circuits which make the sensor work.

Does your camera have an anti-aliasing filter? Then your photos will have a somewhat different perceptual resolution than a camera lacking that circuit.

Do your homework and understand your equipment. Pretty much rule #1 for any photographer.

No doubt, larger sensors as a group are more capable of higher quality images when light levels are decreased. However, in most situations where the light source is full daylight (or quite a bit less typically) even a modern smart phone camera is more than capable of turning out good to high quality images.

Using a DSLR such as the t4i (the camera owned by the op), ISO can be raised without serious negative impact on image quality. Typically, digital noise created by extremely high ISO values would be said to impact image "sharpness". Your digital processing software is used to address issues of "sharpness" (which has more than one component).

If you desire a very large print, use the best software to the best of your ability to do your post production editing. Or pay someone with high quality software to do the work for you.



ISO in a digital camera is the equivalent to gain in an amplifier. As digital circuits have improved over the years the ability of digital amplifiers has increased to the point most modern DSLRS or enthusiast type bridge cameras can turn out images which are quite acceptable at ISO's in the 1600 and above range.

This is one spec that camera manufacturers have realized is important to the potential buyer and they are putting an emphasis on high ISO capabilities. Creating a camera with decent high ISO resolution is more than just sticking in a larger sensor.

As to the trade offs of digital noise vs image quality ...

"Each time you double the ISO (for example, from 200 to 400), the camera needs only half as much light for the same exposure. So if you had a shutter speed of 1/250 at 200 ISO, going to 400 ISO would let you get the same exposure at 1/500 second (providing the aperture remains unchanged). This is why high ISOs are so often used indoors, especially at sporting events. Needing a fast shutter speed to stop action, photographers regularly choose ISO 1600 or above."; What Is ISO Sensitivity? | Understanding ISO from Nikon



Do not be afraid of raising the ISO on a modern DSLR.

Do not buy a camera based solely on what you see in the on paper specs.

Understand there is far more to photography than mere resolution - whatever that word means to you.

Know that most printers will not turn out the full resolution your camera produces.

Finally, if you need to create a "higher quality" image, obtain the right software for post production and learn how to make the most of what you own.

of course when you hold a blown up print right in front of you the appearance in resolution will decline, just as if you sat 1 foot away from a TV the quality will not look as good, that is with everything not just prints, if your in a helicopter 500 feet up and look down at a tennis court it will appear to flawless and have no imperfections but once you land on it and look at it while your on the court you will see the cracks and imperfections.. that is because the visual is compress all in one small area...
Same with Pictures if you hang a picture and stand 50 feet away you won't see any imperfections in it until you get close to it, but that don't mean the quality is lost in the picture just because your far away from it..
if you do a wedding and the client asks for 20X13 size prints and when he looks at it up close on his lap and says hmm it doesn't look that sharp, what are you going to tell him well put it on a wall and look at it from 15 feet away it will look better?
And not only is there noise in High ISO large prints but your losing color tone quality, maybe you don't notice it, but this is a fact..
the Higher you bring your ISO, the more noise and color tone loss you will get when creating larger prints..
Don't take my word for it, tell this expert as well he is wrong..

Oh and if you want go and listen to these guys and try it, take your camera out and shoot with 1600 to 6,000 iso and see what happens to it..

 

[KmH]

. . . i even have a video out that shows . . .

There ya go!
Because everyone knows:
If it's on the Internet - it has to be true ! ! !

 

[donny1963]

. . . i even have a video out that shows . . .

There ya go!
Because everyone knows:
If it's on the Internet - it has to be true ! ! !

Don't go there with that, Matt Granger is a well respected Photographer / Instructor...
Where do you Teach Photography?
And your on the internet, so what does that mean no one should listen to you as well??

 

[Vtec44]

it's not BS i even have a video out that shows, High ISO noise in large prints,

They call that parroting information without experience.

your using a full frame camera right?? I did mention, that Full frame Camera's can go higher in ISO with less noise then a APSC crop sensor.. but maybe you didn't read the reply all the way though.. and as far as your BS saying you have gone to 64,000 iso without noise with 30X40 is BS... Not unless your using a Hasselblad med format camera..

I wouldn't have known that FF can go even higher ISO if you didn't tell me!!! LOL 64,000 ISO? What the actual eff?? LOL!!! Please reference where I said 64,000 ISO without noise. I rest my case. It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you can't even expose a simple photo properly or even print your work. LOL

Also, digital medium format are typically geared for low ISO range. So you have no idea what you're talking about.

I might as well quote Ken Rockwell. I'm waiting for you to teach me how to shoot film by showing me a YouTube video.

 

[donny1963]

it's not BS i even have a video out that shows, High ISO noise in large prints,

They call that parroting information without experience.

your using a full frame camera right?? I did mention, that Full frame Camera's can go higher in ISO with less noise then a APSC crop sensor.. but maybe you didn't read the reply all the way though.. and as far as your BS saying you have gone to 64,000 iso without noise with 30X40 is BS... Not unless your using a Hasselblad med format camera..

I wouldn't have known that FF can go even higher ISO if you didn't tell me!!! LOL 64,000 ISO? What the actual eff?? LOL!!! Please reference where I said 64,000 ISO without noise. I rest my case. It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you can't even expose a simple photo properly or even print your work. LOL

Also, digital medium format are typically geared for low ISO range. So you have no idea what you're talking about.

I might as well quote Ken Rockwell. I'm waiting for you to teach me how to shoot film by showing me a YouTube video.

Your wrong, first, off where you get off saying i can't expose a simple photo, if your referring to the flag picture, again it was taken to have a shadow on it, and it was taken at sunset so the sky should not have been lit up like you said it should have been.
Some times images are meant to have shadows.

as far as digital med format camera, your wrong about it being geared for low iso only, Karl Taylor did a shoot in low light situation, to print at 6 meters tall, so wrong again.. Yes Hasselbald is best used for the high quality and can shoot a 50 ISO, but doesn't mean you can't go to higher iso, in fact can do higher iso better then full frame, because the sensor is larger..
And i'm not going to show you any video, besides doesn't matter what any one says with you, seems your opinion has little to do with reality..

I could post dozens of videos from professional well know photography instructors, yet you would still believe what you believe and stick with your own opinion, what ever..
you have this insane idea that you know what your talking about yet i proved you wrong, maybe it some sort of tension or embarrassment for you, idk, either way i could care less.
the facts remain true, when you turn up your iso at 1600 above even with full frame camera's you start to lose quality, and color & tones.. it's a fact!!!! and if you tell people that is not true, your lying to them and misguiding them to false information, period.....