What the 'I want more pixels' brigade don't consider!

My experience is that people who say "we all know ..." really mean "I believe ..."  I don't understand what you mean by "pixel people" anyway.  Photography has always been a technical craft; that craft has always been used by some people to create beautiful or artistic images.

But the craft comes first - without it there would be no images.  Advances in technology and user interfaces have made it easier to skip the details of the craft and progress to the creative side of technology, but that doesn't negate the value of the craft or its understanding.

I think it is an unfortunate reflection on the modern world that some people think it appropriate to pour disdain on those who want a full understanding of their subject.

Totally irrelevant.  First, printing is sized in DPI not PPI and dots aren't the same as pixels. Second, as already pointed out several times in this thread, higher pixel density yields better results for any given print or screen size.

Asking this question betrays the fact that you haven't fully grasped this part of the craft of photography.

Perhaps some do, just as some forget that understanding the craft is an essential part of photography.  You are inventing your own definition of "photography" that ignores its craft.  What you are talking about is, in reality, "taking photographs" - undoubtedly that's an important part of photography but it's a mistake to confuse a part with the whole.

Some of the best photographs I've taken, in the creative sense, were also taken with cheap 35mm film cameras.  But given the same subject, lighting etc there's no doubt that they could have been technically better if I'd used top-end film equipment or modern DSLR; and given a low-MP and high-MP DSLR the high-MP results would have been better than the low.

--
---
Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne