I call this one Serenity.

[RealityCheck]

The quality isn't that great. I took it in Aperture Priority. I don't know if that's the reason why? I have a Nikon D50. It's about 6 MP but I've been told that MP doesn't matter, because all DSLR cameras take sharp pictures?

 

[cgipson1]

The one thing that keeps this from being serene to me, is the lighting. It is harsher than it should be... not soft and cuddly. But a nice shot... and a good concept!

 

[Mully]

It improves some opening up the mid tones.... really needs more open and soft light ...so keep trying different things ...shoot through a white sheet

 

[RealityCheck]

But a nice shot... and a good concept!​

Thank you sir.

I made it darker than what it should be, mainly because the black background is a sketch book and it's a little dirty on the outside. The camera didn't take a sharp picture of it so you can see speckles in the photograph.

 

[unpopular]

I'd call it "pretentious yuppie", but hey, that's just me!

I prefer the original over Mully's.

As for megapixels not mattering, that's a complex issue. Megapixels DO matter, just not AS MUCH as camera manufacturers claim it to.

 

[RealityCheck]

As for megapixels not mattering, that's a complex issue. Megapixels DO matter, just not AS MUCH as camera manufacturers claim it to.​

Any article I read about the truth about megapixels is that it doesn't matter. I honestly thought MP does matter because of the resolution is supplies. After researching about it, I found out I was wrong in the beginning, but since you said it does, then I was right the whole time?

 

[unpopular]

There's a whole group of people saying that "megapixels don't matter" ... well, or at least there is Ken Rockwell.

If MP didn't matter, then what is the bottom of acceptable physical resolution? Why isn't there these high end cameras that take tremendously sharp images at 640x480 resolution? Heck, at that size, you'd practically be able to SEE the individual sensing elements on a full frame camera! Just imagine the low light performance!

The problem with this is is that physical resolution does in fact matter, just not in the way that you might think. For example, my 12.4 megapixel a700 has similar optical resolution, despite having about 10% fewer sensing elements than my a350. In fact, in practice, if you scale an image from the a700 to 14.2 megapixels, they look exactly the same, similar in sharpness, similar edge definition.

However, if I took a 6mp image and scaled it up to a 12mp image, it won't be as sharp as an image taken with a 12mp camera. So there is a limit to how much you can realistically say "megapixels don't matter", because a 12 megapixel camera does record more data over the same space than a 6mp camera.

Now, a 6mp image may appear sharper if printed at 300ppi without any interpolation, mostly due to optical flaws. But it will also be smaller than a 12mp, 300ppi image. The 12mp image will likely appear slightly softer than the 6mp image, but not as soft as if you scaled up the 6mp file to match the size.

OTOH, smaller resolution means larger light sensing elements provided that the format is similar, and if you were to compare like-generation cameras the lower resolution camera will have better noise performance.

So, no - megapixels don't "matter" but only to a reasonable extent.

 

[RealityCheck]

There's a whole group of people saying that "megapixels don't matter" ... well, or at least there is Ken Rockwell.

If MP didn't matter, then what is the bottom of acceptable physical resolution? Why isn't there these high end cameras that take tremendously sharp images at 640x480 resolution? Heck, at that size, you'd practically be able to SEE the individual sensing elements on a full frame camera! Just imagine the low light performance!

The problem with this is is that physical resolution does in fact matter, just not in the way that you might think. For example, my 12.4 megapixel a700 has similar optical resolution, despite having about 10% fewer sensing elements than my a350. In fact, in practice, if you scale an image from the a700 to 14.2 megapixels, they look exactly the same, similar in sharpness, similar edge definition.

However, if I took a 6mp image and scaled it up to a 12mp image, it won't be as sharp as an image taken with a 12mp camera. So there is a limit to how much you can realistically say "megapixels don't matter", because a 12 megapixel camera does record more data over the same space than a 6mp camera.

Now, a 6mp image may appear sharper if printed at 300ppi without any interpolation, mostly due to optical flaws. But it will also be smaller than a 12mp, 300ppi image. The 12mp image will likely appear slightly softer than the 6mp image, but not as soft as if you scaled up the 6mp file to match the size.

OTOH, smaller resolution means larger light sensing elements provided that the format is similar, and if you were to compare like-generation cameras the lower resolution camera will have better noise performance.

So, no - megapixels don't "matter" but only to a reasonable extent.

Gotchya. I read somewhere that if you were to print out a picture that was shot by a 6 MP camera, you could only stretch it so much. As to a 12 MP you are able to print out a bigger picture, which makes sense.