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

Started Feb 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Gerry Winterbourne
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,193
Like?
Re: What is the biggest print out you have ever made from your own photograph?
In reply to Simon Devlin, Feb 27, 2013

Simon Devlin wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

Simon Devlin wrote:

What is the maximum print size you have made and in what print PPI?

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.

Off course it is relevant! If you want bigger prints, for example, a poster, smaller MP images will start pixelating.

Your question was asked in a thread you started about how more pixels don't help. While it's true that too few pixels will degrade IQ, that's outside the context of your quesion.

Pixel peepers should at least know that. Oh sorry am I pouring disdain again? Calling pixel peepers 'Pixel peepers' is obviously a touchy subject.

"Pixel peepers" is a term that was deliberately invented by someone who wanted to show disdain for people who were interested in the minutiae of photography. So, yes, using the term shows either the same disdain or, at best, a degree of insensitivity.

I've seen many 'photographers' with all the equipment and they can't take a good photograph. Many of them also claim to know the craft.

That's the other side of the coin: photograhy needs art as well as craft; and they may well understand the craft but be devoid of artistry. But that doesn't devalue the craft, it merely emphasises that good photography needs both art and craft.

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.

Are you sure? Maybe they were better in the creative sense as they were technically inferior.

I'm certain. I don't look at them and think that their quality is enhanced by any technical imperfection; with many of them I think "nice shot but today I could do better".

Isn't 'the craft' in the definition of the word perhaps more of a creative art than a technical exercise?

Craft, like many words, has a range of meanings depending on context. In this context I meant all the practical parts of photography including an understanding of them. There is, in practice, an overlap between the various aspects of any discipline.

-- hide signature --

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow