Resolution concern?

mr_baseball_08 · Jun 9, 2008

Bifurcator said:
Depending of course on how out of focus and how many mega pixels we're talking about.

And how far away you view it from. LOL

Bifurcator · Jun 10, 2008

Very true!

PortraitMan · Jun 10, 2008

Wow. All this brainy stuff is giving me a headache! Along simpler lines, I'd say the megapixel size you need depends upon what you're doing.

As a portrait photographer, I used to use medium format film. Yet I always had to slide a little mesh diffuser down into my bell-o-shade to soften up facial features; unflattering details that stood out loudly on medium format film. But when I went to digital (6 megs originally), I didn't need to diffuse anymore!

Nevertheless, since eyes and teeth in larger family groupings would interpolate nearby colors making them flesh toned and wrong, I knew I eventually needed higher megs. Finally I got 10 megs and while there's less interpolation in smaller areas, now I'm noticing unflattering facial details are standing out again... Therefore the higher quality image can be a double-edged sword depending upon one's use. I spend more time retouching...

I think I may be set to stay with 10 megs as it suits my need for most portrait applications. Contrary to the statistical figures, I've found that I can easily print up to 20x24 wall portraits that look just as good as film did, even better, because I always shoot with a tripod. And with a little lab art for eyes I can go 24x30 with great results.

Sure, if my clientele consisted of customers wanting bigger images, I suppose I'd dare move up to 12 megs or higher, but since that's not the case, I'm set.

bisp21 · Jun 10, 2008

PortraitMan said:
Wow. All this brainy stuff is giving me a headache! Along simpler lines, I'd say the megapixel size you need depends upon what you're doing.

As a portrait photographer, I used to use medium format film. Yet I always had to slide a little mesh diffuser down into my bell-o-shade to soften up facial features; unflattering details that stood out loudly on medium format film. But when I went to digital (6 megs originally), I didn't need to diffuse anymore!

Nevertheless, since eyes and teeth in larger family groupings would interpolate nearby colors making them flesh toned and wrong, I knew I eventually needed higher megs. Finally I got 10 megs and while there's less interpolation in smaller areas, now I'm noticing unflattering facial details are standing out again... Therefore the higher quality image can be a double-edged sword depending upon one's use. I spend more time retouching...

I think I may be set to stay with 10 megs as it suits my need for most portrait applications. Contrary to the statistical figures, I've found that I can easily print up to 20x24 wall portraits that look just as good as film did, even better, because I always shoot with a tripod. And with a little lab art for eyes I can go 24x30 with great results.

Sure, if my clientele consisted of customers wanting bigger images, I suppose I'd dare move up to 12 megs or higher, but since that's not the case, I'm set.

Good info everyone!! Thanks for your input PortraitMan that is what I was looking for. I am looking to blow up some images to about 45 inches and maybe even a little bigger. I am mainly going to be taking landscape and architectural pictures. I am probably going to stay with the Nikon D80, but considering the D300 and the Sony Alpha A350.

What DSLR do you use?

skieur · Jun 11, 2008

To complicate the issue of megapixels and image quality even further, when you get beyond 12 megapixels or so, you may also see slight artifacts and fine noise on the screen after post, that won't show up in a print.

When considering cameras of course, a top lens is necessary to make the most of the large megapixel count. Most of the reviews are done with the kit lens which make a difference. An expensive gold Zeiss lens on a Sony A350 will naturally produce better image quality than a $200 kit lens.

As to size and viewing distance, billboards is rather an unrealistic analogy since most here will not be taking photos for this use. Photos in coffee table books and even posters however are often looked at the reading distance of 15" used in the chart. A lot of people still go up close to a photo enlargement on a wall to see if it is really sharp.

So despite all the rhetoric, all things being reasonably equal and average, resolution and megapixels can make a difference.

skieur

reg · Jun 11, 2008

skieur said:
So despite all the rhetoric, all things being reasonably equal and average, resolution and megapixels can make a difference.

I don't recall seeing anyone say that they didn't...
Just that they aren't as important as all the pixel-peeping, chart-making Alfreds would like for you to believe.

And.... barring that.... there's always Genuine Fractals.

Garbz · Jun 11, 2008

bisp21 For landscapes megapixels is the least of your worries. I find trees do not tend to run off in a hurry so it's quite easy to take 10 shots and make a large 80megapixel panorama, once you get the hang of panorama software.

And with a photo like that you could print multi metre long images that satisfy even the pixel peepers.

This may be less ideal for architectural stuff unless you have a panoramic tripod head.

notelliot · Jun 11, 2008

first time i've seen that print chart deal - pretty useless, IMO.
i'm sitting 18 inches from a 20x36 print from a d70s (6.1mp) and see no pixels.
i also have a 24x36 from a D2h that looks stellar.

btw, Garbz, the other day i saw a woman with a D3 and 18-135 on it. i tried not to give her a dirty look, but it happened. :blushing:

JimmyO · Jun 11, 2008

notelliot said:
btw, Garbz, the other day i saw a woman with a D3 and 18-135 on it. i tried not to give her a dirty look, but it happened. :blushing:

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Garbz · Jun 11, 2008

LOL. Last time I gave a woman with a camera a dirty look she dirty looked back. What was the point, she only had a D200. Oh well at least she has a lens with VR that I now get to play with :lol:

.

PortraitMan · Jun 12, 2008

A "kit" lens is not necessarily a bad thing... My first Nikon kit lens still gets rave reviews: the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED. I've made a lot of money with this puppy.

And when you're talking about megapixels, another thing to remember is that 6 or 8 or 10 megs on one camera sensor is not equal to 6 or 8 or 10 megs on another camera's sensor.

You probably know this.

icassell · Jun 12, 2008

Don't forget that not all megapixels are equal. The quality of the sensor is very important. Some are far better (or worse) than others.

My 30D is 'only' 8.2MP, but is is plenty for me!

Bifurcator · Jun 12, 2008

Hehehe you guys both posted the same thing (kinda) at the same time. (great minds...)

I think it's not obvious to most people tho and it's good to say it. It certainly is true.

Moglex · Jun 15, 2008

At the bottom of that chart it says:

"At 150 BPI printed images will have visible pixels and details will look "fuzzy"".

So why is it that an image displayed on my monitor at 80 BPI can look pixel free and perfectly sharp?

From memory a 'standard' VGA 640 * 480 could look stunning on a 14" monitor and this would be less than 55 BPI.

How a print will look depends upon a complicated mix of subject type, lens quality, sensor quality, sensor size, magnification and printer/paper/ink quality. It cannot be encapsulated in something as simple as a fixed BPI figure.