"Nobody wants more pixels" (Thom Hogan)

[Solarflare]

The Big Problem You Don’t Have

Last week I asked you what your biggest photographic problem was and then followed that up by reporting what you said were your biggest problems.

I’m closing in on a thousand fairly long email responses to the article. You know what absolutely none of you said was your biggest problem?

Go ahead, think about it a bit.

Think some more.

Okay, go to dpreview’s fora and see what everyone asks for and debates incessantly about there.

See it yet?

Not a single one of you phrased your biggest problem as being “I need more pixels” or “I need more dynamic range.”

Haha lol

 

[KenC]

No one said it because it goes without saying. Everyone wants more pixels. I want to have so many that they fall out of my pockets as I walk down the street.

 

[Gary A.]

No one said it because it goes without saying. Everyone wants more pixels. I want to have so many that they fall out of my pockets as I walk down the street.

Sorta like those old Harley's that left a trail of parts in their wake.

 

[Designer]

Megapixels sells cameras.

Dynamic range sells cameras.

Frame rate sells cameras.

Consumers do not sell cameras.

 

[Buckster]

I honestly just don't care, either way.

I'm very satisfied with my current digital cameras' resulting images. Because of that, I don't plan to buy any new ones, unless I get a total failure here and need to replace one. Even then, I'd probably just replace with a used one of the same model from Ebay and save myself some money.

 

[runnah]

I'd be willing to bet if Nikon had been the one to come out with this large MP body he'd be raving about how fantastic it was. But since it's Canon, it's a terrible idea.

This kind of bias totally invalidates anything this man has to say ever.

 

[Gary A.]

Megapixels sells cameras.

Dynamic range sells cameras.

Frame rate sells cameras.

Consumers do not sell cameras.

Interesting, I would want more of everything if I was buying a new camera ... but upper level cameras are just so damn good right now, that none of that stuff is truly significant for most of us and how most of us shoot and what most of us shoot.

 

[fjrabon]

I'd be willing to bet if Nikon had been the one to come out with this large MP body he'd be raving about how fantastic it was. But since it's Canon, it's a terrible idea.

This kind of bias totally invalidates anything this man has to say ever.

well, he also says "nobody cares about dynamic range" as well, which if he was being a shill for Nikon, wouldn't he make it all about DR?

I agree that higher MP count is WAAAAYYYYYYY down on my list of things I want, in fact it was a mild negative for me with the D800, and actually nudged me towards the D600.

IMHO anything over 16 MP for APS-C and 24 MP for FF is complete overkill, and if I'm being honest that may go as low as 12 for APS-C and 16 for FF. Just my opinion tho, don't want to offend anybody or have nobody believe anything I say about anything ever.

 

[JacaRanda]

I honestly just don't care, either way.

I'm very satisfied with my current digital cameras' resulting images. Because of that, I don't plan to buy any new ones, unless I get a total failure here and need to replace one. Even then, I'd probably just replace with a used one of the same model from Ebay and save myself some money.

But don't all those photos you created with old equipment suck; since they were not made with a late model camera?

 

[Buckster]

I honestly just don't care, either way.

I'm very satisfied with my current digital cameras' resulting images. Because of that, I don't plan to buy any new ones, unless I get a total failure here and need to replace one. Even then, I'd probably just replace with a used one of the same model from Ebay and save myself some money.

But don't all those photos you created with old equipment suck; since they were not made with a late model camera?

Absolutely! But I'm using that to my advantage. You just have to keep in mind what we've learned from Derrel about photography and what most people like.

It's real simple: Since most people have no taste that's worth a spit, the more people like your photography, the more it proves you suck. The takeaway, of course, is that the more your images suck, the better you are. Older, inferior, crap gear can help with that.

To get really awesome, I should probably downgrade to a 1 megapixel point and shoot, smear something on the lens, and maybe punch a tiny hole in it somewhere to introduce a light leak. Maybe one of those Barbie Doll Cameras would be a good move...

 

[Derrel]

Buckster
You ought to go back and re-read what I wrote yesterday, and read it very carefully. Very slowly. Over and over. Until what was actually written sinks in, mmmkay?

Your smart-alecky reply in this, totally unrelated thread, a day later, seems to me to indicate something I wrote got into your populist craw.

Apparently, a guy like you thinks that the more popular something is, the better it actually is. I'm sure you're busy Keeping Up With The Kardashians, while pigging out on your McDonald's, and listening to your Justin Bieber records.Please Buckster, feel free to rant on about how artistically amazing the Kardashian girls are (after all the more-popular something is, the better it is..the great Buckster said so!), and how much you love Justin Bieber. Buckster, the taste-maker. lolz. Buckster sez, "The more something sells, the BETTER it is!"

Seriously Buckster, why are you mis-interpreting my words from yesterday? WTF does a comment about artistic efforts in photography (that's the part you need to re-read, carefully, until the comprehension come to your brain, Bucky...). Start with the words artistic efforts, and then slowly move you way down to, "Are those the kind of people you're talking about?".

Stalk much, B?

And Hogan's article...yeah, I read it. He notes with pride that the way he structured his survey question influenced the result he got. Hogan asked about their biggest photography problem, and nobody said he or she needed more megapixels. Not too surprising in these days of 24 and 36 MP Nikons. Most of Hogan's readers have 24 or 36 MP cameras with the best dynamic range in the industry, so it's sort of a self-selecting crowd of higher-end workers. People who have the highest-end gear currently on the market realize it's pretty good, and that their biggest problems come from things **they** are doing somewhere within their own shooting or workflow operations.

The higher up the ladder people get, the more they realize that the tools available are not the most critical aspect to realizing artistic success. Education, understanding, and work habits are what really help people make their art stand out, and once one has the best tools that are on the market, and every other shooter has access to the same products. People who really understand how photography works realize that the place to put their efforts is on something they, themselves, have some control over.

If I want to someday once again run a 5-minute mile...I don't need the "best" pair of running shoes--instead, I need to put in more time running and work on my cardiovascular fitness. A $200 pair of NIke shoes is not how the 5 minute minute goal would be realized: my biggest problem would be my own fitness level. What any manufacturer in the world offered would be of no use unless **I,myself** had the capability to run one mile in five minutes or less.

 

[gsgary]

Mega pixels is just about the only way they can improve digital, it's starting to get very boring

 

[Derrel]

Mega pixels is just about the only way they can improve digital, it's starting to get very boring

YEAH...it has become boring. Like, the newest announced Canon Rebel models last month, and the newest 5D-series models...barely a flutter from the Canon crowd on the world wide web...same with the newest Nikon, the D7200...the newer models are really NOT creating much buzz. It's no longer an exciting, expanding, ever-upward era where each new generation generates huge waves of upgraders... this is like a new car model year with one extra cupholder wedged in somewhere.

 

[Buckster]

Derrel, you've made it very clear over the years what your views of the opinions of the unwashed masses are for everything, but especially as it pertains to the arts and, most especially for this forum, how it pertains to photos.

Anything popular with them sucks in your opinion. You constantly compare the popularity of their photo preferences to the high sales of McDonalds, Justin Bieber and any number of other "popular" things that draw a lot of customers. You constantly put down "pretty pictures" like the sorts of landscapes one finds on calendars and postcards and desktops and a hundred other places in everyone's lives as kitsch, junk, crap, and so on. Oh yeah, and they're found right here on this forum too, but you carefully don't jump into those threads to voice those same opinions about how pretty pictures are just sucky kitsch crap.

On the flip-side of that coin, you denigrate those same unwashed masses for not having the artistic taste and vision to appreciate the fine, excellent, seriously great things that you like, but that just don't grab them.

As you go about constantly slapping the masses' horrific knuckle-dragging tastes with your massive ego flying high above them, you completely ignore the basic problem, which is that it's just your opinion that what they find good is bad, and what they find bad or ho-hum is great.

Like it or not, there's something to be said for the fact that the masses like what they like because it simply appeals to them at a gut instinct level. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Humans, like all animals, have evolved to be attracted to certain things and repelled from others - instinctively - without having to put a lot of thought into it, without having to rationalize it, without having to justify it, without having to explain it. It's enough that humans like what they like. Yes it is.

If most people instinctively prefer the taste of "plain old everyday common" barbecued burgers over the taste of a "delicacy" like monkey brains, who are you to tell them they're wrong? To clarify, "nobody" is the correct answer.

You want me to stop "misinterpreting" what you say on this issue? Stop misconstruing what most people like as crap just because most people like it.

I'm not stalking you. I don't have to. All I have to do is participate on this forum; to read the threads and posts, and there you are again and again, flying your big flagpole of how far above the unwashed masses you are and how their tastes totally suck. You keep putting it out there, so I'm just going to go ahead and accept it and use it. You keep bringing it up whenever you want to, so why shouldn't I?

 

[Vtec44]

I for once would like cleaner output file (less noise) at an additional two stops.