The D800, a case for the higher resolution

marcio_napoli wrote:

Hi Bob and Robin, thanks for the replies, I appreciate it

Well, it's not so simple, I'm afraid...

If I have my mind set on high quality retouching, I will always retouch at 100%, no matter the camera, regardless of mp.

For special work (for whatever reason), or fine tuning, I go all the way to 200%.

Try retouching a 36mp image at 200% magnification, and you'll know exactly what I mean about spending way too much time

So, why not retouch it at 60% as you suggested, for the larger files? Because my mind is always set at doing my very best.

I simply can't rush things, even if my deadline is like tomorrow. I simply can't, I feel I'm cheating myself for not doing the best I can.

I prefer to choose directly a lower mp camera, and continue doing my retouching at 100% and be fine with it.

About the suggestion of charging more, I can't, Robin. I appreciate a lot the suggestion, but in my area, I fear clients will not take it as healthy measure.

Think about the other way around, all my competitors are using 21mp 5D mark II, and I'm offering 12 mp most of the time.

On the opposite side of that coin, should I charge less for 12 mp compared to my competitors? Well, I guess not.

We all have to offer the very best we can, even if that means 12 mp , or 21 mp, or 36 mp.

I understand other markets, or different types of photography, may offer that opportunity of charging more for extra detail.

I understand the concept: it's like asking for extra cheese on your burger. You already know it will cost more.

But my particular market won't welcome the idea. My clients will feel cheated, as they already expect the largest possible files one can offer from the beginning (be it 12, 21 or 36 mp).

The D800 is a camera on my wish list, but, at least for me, I already know I will always convert the RAWs at lower resolutions.

--
Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com