Post your photos that prove megapixels DO matter

[cainn24]

ca

So how much resolution do you want? How much detail I think my characterisation of your position is correct, rather than viewing the scene as a whole with the FOV chosen by the photographer you feel your interest in the image would be enhanced by looking in finer detail?

Have I misread your position?

It's pretty simple: when details exist that I think are interesting, I like to look at them. That doesn't stop me from zooming out and appreciating the whole image at once, it's just an additional degree of appreciation of the scene.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Nothing is hard to understand about that, so you should be able to understand why the photographer might no want you to do that and why he might not want 'an additional degree of appreciation' he might want you to see the scene as he presented it!

I think I was quite clear earlier that the essence of my argument was best expressed by thinking of me (and people like me) as the photographer in question since what I am trying to get you to understand here, and what you seem to be having all sort of trouble coming to terms with, is that some people like to capture lots of detail because sometimes they like to have lots of detail to appreciate.

That's a fact, so this persistent suggestion of yours that doing so is somehow necessarily at odds with a photographers intent is simply not true.

Would you then argue that I am acting in opposition to my own intentions?

No, not exactly just if the image is yours what did you wish to be the focal point of the image? Was it St Vitus Cathedral which you so carefully placed in the frame? If I zoom in or press my nose to the canvas to see Mrs Bozova's window am I viewing the scene as intended?

Earlier you denied that you were throwing around false dichotomies. Clearly this is not the case since here you are again suggesting that if I take a closer look I am somehow preventing myself from appreciating the scene as a whole. This is nonsense because I can and do routinely do both.

It's not a false dichotomy, because you are not always the author of everything you view.

The false dichotomy lies in your repeated suggestion that a person is either focused on details and therefore unable to appreciate the image as a whole, or is appreciating the image as a whole and therefore doesn't care about details. This is quite simply incorrect. Again, I can do both. To insist that I somehow can't is quite ridiculous and I suspect that many would agree.

So in other words I'm correct, you didn't take them and ta photographer in some instance (not all as I noted above) might not want you to 'zoom in' and might want to preserve his POV and communication.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

In other words you are going to insist that there is something inherently wrong with appreciating small details in addition to (not instead of) the scene as a whole. Is that correct?

 

[Lee Jay]

8MP.

72MP.

--
Lee Jay

 

[cainn24]

I do not wish to invalidate your enjoyment of viewing images at 100%. You carry on enjoying the wonders of the world. ;-)

Thank you.

But you still can't do it with any image in a book/magazine/newspaper/on TV/in a gallery/or even the vast majority of resized or compressed images on the internet. It follows therefore that most images are not optimised for absolute sharpness and detail at 100% zoom.

Obviously.

In trying to work out why you felt the need to point that out it occurred to me that you might think of people like me as having some sort of strange fixation/addiction in an OCD sort of way. But it's not like I lament every time I encounter an image that doesn't lend itself well to viewing at a large size. As has been pointed out by more people than me now this interest doesn't extend to all subject matter anyway and I remain perfectly capable of appreciating magazine or even postcard-sized photos of pretty much anything.

Not aimed at you at all, the Op asked if Mp was important, but then went on to demonstrate by only providing images and examples where you had to zoom in to 100% to see it. Mp is important but... see above.

You did say that: "nobody views images by zooming in to 100% "to admire the sharpness and detail", other than photographers who want to zoom in to 100% "to admire the sharpness and detail" of their own gear."

I think that a lot of people disagree with that assessment and it's probably contextualized the ensuing discussions to some extent. I know it did for me. Perhaps you didn't mean for that to happen. Perhaps it was just a little careless in the sense that you were merely stereotyping the average gear-head and didn't mean to lump everyone who sometimes appreciates the content of a good high resolution capture into the same category. If you didn't then everyone can probably go home (or go looking for the next controversial topic)

Heh.

 

[cainn24]

Ara ararauna @ 36MP

Excellent example of an excellent image that is enjoyable to view both in it's entirety and in all of it's interesting detail.

 

[Kangaroo Court]

In general, I would rather have less resolution and a well seen, impactful, captivating image than a mediocre image with tons of detail.

If you expect anybody to take you seriously, tell us why we can't have both?

I never said you couldn't have both. I said what I would rather have. Taking my comment seriously is up to you.

Ok, why wouldn't you rather have both?

 

[cainn24]

...the following clip in which theoretical physicist Richard Feynman talks about the beauty of a flower:

Now I'm not saying that I'm the brilliant physicist and everyone who disagrees with me is the nutty artist. Nothing of the sort. But this does speak to what I consider to be an illegitimate tension between two methods of appreciation that really should be seen as complementary.

 

[jackalopemaui]

Here's a picture from 1892. There's an ongoing debate about the age of the photo, all caused by the caster on the bed. The question is whether it's wood or plastic, because plastic wasn't invented until decades later. With more resolution it might be possible to determine the material. But my point is that people do care about details. This is photography, not impressionistic painting. https://www.facebook.com/TracesofTe...5810232784448/898980790134051/?type=1&theater

Isn't this the problem? I mean here we have a picture taken in 1892 and people are arguing on the internet if it is real judged on sharpness of a wheel on a bed in the corner not on the subject. The point being it is an historical photo and we are all overlooking it as a beautiful photo and reducing it to what type of material the caster is made of.

The point of the photo has been missed in the pursuit of being able to count angels on that pinhead.

The same with your images, the one of the countryside where if you zoom in you can tell the sex of the goats–to what purpose?

Was your image taken with the goat in mind as the subject? If you could zoom in further and see the goat has fleas will it change the subject?

Surely you took the image with a subject in mind? Was it the flea on the goats back?

You see people peeping at the wheel as a problem because you're stuck on the art-class-grading mentality. IE that all that matters is beauty of the photo and artistic merit, without seeing the value of historical detail captured for posterity.

The goats were the subject. The only reason I pulled over to take the picture was because I saw a herd of goats walking in a line. The flea thing is just silly.

 

[jackalopemaui]

....

Here is a landscape I took on a ranch on Maui. With fewer pixels, the cattle wouldn't be identifiable as cattle. They'd just be little specks in the distance.

I looked at that picture in Gimp. There is a big area in the middle which is filled with the color FCFCFC and FDFDFD ( almost white ). I would like to have some structure in that area, but it is not there. At least when zooming in electronically, i would like to see structure in the athmosphere. THIS is a bigger problem than that the cattle wouldn't be identifiable as cattle.

--
cheers
Mr.NoFlash
Sorry for typing errors - i decided to save time not to correct all typing errors

That's what the sky looked like. A light drizzle diffused the sun and made the sky underneath the clouds too bright to look at. You want detail that isn't there. The real world is often "overexposed"

 

[jackalopemaui]

...the following clip in which theoretical physicist Richard Feynman talks about the beauty of a flower:

Now I'm not saying that I'm the brilliant physicist and everyone who disagrees with me is the nutty artist. Nothing of the sort. But this does speak to what I consider to be an illegitimate tension between two methods of appreciation that really should be seen as complementary.

Exactly! Knowledge is beautiful and information is what makes up knowledge

 

[jackalopemaui]

8MP.

72MP.

--
Lee Jay

How did you take a 72MP picture of the moon? The images you posted are both downsized though so the 72MP detail can't be seen

 

[jackalopemaui]

I'll ask you the same sort of question I posed in that thread: is there something unwholesome about my desire to appreciate all of the inherently interesting details in images like that?

I don't think it's unwholesome, just not what the images were communicating.

The top one of the library was taken to communicate the expanse and how large the space is, the details are there for scale but the image is of a building as a WHOLE.

Now if you want to zoom in to see what books the library contained that is understandable but may have subverted the reason for the photographer taking the image.

Actually zooming in serves to enhance my appreciation of the scope of that scene. The fact that you might disagree in no way invalidates that experience.

That is your opinion, if you want to read what is on the spine of the books fine-but I don't think it will communicate anything more about the architecture which I'm guessing was the reason for the image.

The same with the cityscape, it shows a densely pack city with several interesting architectural features, I'm not sure zooming in to see what is on a washing line or in a window is the reason the photographer took the picture-photography is about communication and sometimes that should have a limit so his original idea isn't diluted.

So you're speaking for the photographer to make your case. And in doing so you're necessarily headed in the direction of claiming that no photographer ever captures a cityscape with a high resolution sensor and a sharp lens specifically so all of the interesting little details can be appreciated should he/she or anyone else desire to appreciate them. And I don't think that's true at all.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is the photographer has communicated all he needs. What he is showing you is a European medieval city with a Gothic style cathedral placed behind the jumbled city-taken from a high viewpoint.

Zooming in destroys the effect somewhat, and I don't think the photographer needs you to see in the windows I bet he'd rather show the architectural mix and preserve the balance of the image and communication.

So not unwholesome just subverting the reason for the images existence.

Human nature possibly...

I think I see some sort of contradiction in conceding that it's not unwholesome while simultaneous insisting that it's a form of subversion.

No at all you can subvert the meaning of any art without it becoming unwholesome.

I mean my God, do you actually really have that much trouble accepting the possibility that some people really like details, and that this pursuit need not necessarily be at odds with whatever one wants to communicate artistically?

Of course not–calm down. I just think that the minute detail might not have been what the photographer wanted to communicate.

Why must so many false dichotomies be thrown around in these forums?

EH? come again I'm just sharing my opinion I make no rules here.

Why must one idea or pursuit necessarily always be in conflict with some other?

It doesn't, you are free to do what you will with an image-even if you aren't viewing it in the way the photographer intended.

Why not accept instead the possibility that they can be complimentary?

I have there is a possibility just not likely in the two examples you linked to which seemed to be architectural and about balance of buildings rather than seeing in the windows of the buildings

That a photo can sometimes then be more things to more people, and that that's OK, because it's all in the name of appreciation.

Precisely, but remember that sometime the photographer might want you to stand back and view the scene as a whole for effect rather than zooming in to count bricks which I'm sure wasn't the reason for taking that lovely picture of Praha

That is nothing but wholesome in my opinion.

Which is why I said it wasn't unwholesome, just changes the image purpose.

This is what I'm calling the art-class mentality. You're saying that a photo should only be viewed at low res to see balance and composition, and details not appreciated, because in your opinion that's what the photographer wants you to do. But the details have inherent value. Photography isn't impressionist painting

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Here's a picture from 1892. There's an ongoing debate about the age of the photo, all caused by the caster on the bed. The question is whether it's wood or plastic, because plastic wasn't invented until decades later. With more resolution it might be possible to determine the material. But my point is that people do care about details. This is photography, not impressionistic painting. https://www.facebook.com/TracesofTe...5810232784448/898980790134051/?type=1&theater

Isn't this the problem? I mean here we have a picture taken in 1892 and people are arguing on the internet if it is real judged on sharpness of a wheel on a bed in the corner not on the subject. The point being it is an historical photo and we are all overlooking it as a beautiful photo and reducing it to what type of material the caster is made of.

The point of the photo has been missed in the pursuit of being able to count angels on that pinhead.

The same with your images, the one of the countryside where if you zoom in you can tell the sex of the goats–to what purpose?

Was your image taken with the goat in mind as the subject? If you could zoom in further and see the goat has fleas will it change the subject?

Surely you took the image with a subject in mind? Was it the flea on the goats back?

You see people peeping at the wheel as a problem because you're stuck on the art-class-grading mentality. IE that all that matters is beauty of the photo and artistic merit, without seeing the value of historical detail captured for posterity.

That's why I CLEARLY STATED "The point being it is an historical photo"! why bring the 'A' word into this?

You do realise that the image was from a historically important group of images taken between 1890 and 1894 by William L Sawyers?

So yes I'd seen the the image before but unlike you I didn't question the material from which the caster was made, in fact I've seen all the images from this series–never noticed the caster.

So I think you're stuck in the pixel peeping 'with higher resolution we would be able to tell what material' so judge the authenticity–sheesh guy it's in the Library of Congress collection you think they'd know!

The goats were the subject. The only reason I pulled over to take the picture was because I saw a herd of goats walking in a line.

Then the image fails to communicate, because if you have to tell people why you took the image and what the subject is it is a failure.

Nothing personal.

 

[jackalopemaui]

Here's a picture from 1892. There's an ongoing debate about the age of the photo, all caused by the caster on the bed. The question is whether it's wood or plastic, because plastic wasn't invented until decades later. With more resolution it might be possible to determine the material. But my point is that people do care about details. This is photography, not impressionistic painting. https://www.facebook.com/TracesofTe...5810232784448/898980790134051/?type=1&theater

Isn't this the problem? I mean here we have a picture taken in 1892 and people are arguing on the internet if it is real judged on sharpness of a wheel on a bed in the corner not on the subject. The point being it is an historical photo and we are all overlooking it as a beautiful photo and reducing it to what type of material the caster is made of.

The point of the photo has been missed in the pursuit of being able to count angels on that pinhead.

The same with your images, the one of the countryside where if you zoom in you can tell the sex of the goats–to what purpose?

Was your image taken with the goat in mind as the subject? If you could zoom in further and see the goat has fleas will it change the subject?

Surely you took the image with a subject in mind? Was it the flea on the goats back?

You see people peeping at the wheel as a problem because you're stuck on the art-class-grading mentality. IE that all that matters is beauty of the photo and artistic merit, without seeing the value of historical detail captured for posterity.

That's why I CLEARLY STATED "The point being it is an historical photo"! why bring the 'A' word into this?

You do realise that the image was from a historically important group of images taken between 1890 and 1894 by William L Sawyers?

So yes I'd seen the the image before but unlike you I didn't question the material from which the caster was made, in fact I've seen all the images from this series–never noticed the caster.

So I think you're stuck in the pixel peeping 'with higher resolution we would be able to tell what material' so judge the authenticity–sheesh guy it's in the Library of Congress collection you think they'd know!

The goats were the subject. The only reason I pulled over to take the picture was because I saw a herd of goats walking in a line.

Then the image fails to communicate, because if you have to tell people why you took the image and what the subject is it is a failure.

Nothing personal.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the detail in these historic photos. You have only a superficial level appreciation that never goes beyond "this is a good/bad photo". If you went to an art gallery you'd be out of there in 2 minutes. Very efficient I guess but it has to be a boring way to exist.

The REASON you didn't notice and recognize the importance of the goats is because of the resolution at which you viewed the picture. As a high res print or on a 5K screen, you'd see and notice the goats without being told about them. That's my point. The photo is NOT how it happens to be currently viewed on today's common technology. The photo is the full image which will continue to exist and be viewed indefinitely.

 

[hfjacinto]

8MP.

72MP.

--
Lee Jay

How did you take a 72MP picture of the moon? The images you posted are both downsized though so the 72MP detail can't be see

I took the below picture and my image is 20 Megapixels and larger than yours, are you sure thats a 72MP picture of the moon, what is the image size?

 

[Jestertheclown]

Sorry, but higher resolution has always been better. This has never been disputed since the dawn of photography. With 35mm format film you took a trade-off in quality for the faster shutter speeds, greater Dof, and frankly greater portability, that allowed greater use of hand held in available light.

What has changed is the quality of the smaller formats, now you can produce an image that is adequate with a 24mp sensor. In fact for some subjects with current technology, (sport/action and low light) 24mp is better than 36mp. Larger formats (and higher mp sensors) capture and display better tonal, tonal gradation and textural information, this is their real strength. You should also be able to extract better acutance and therefore apparent sharpness out of them, and they will hold more detail. But it is of very limited consequence when you view the image at the same size.

Also nobody views images by zooming in to 100% "to admire the sharpness and detail", other than photographers who want to zoom in to 100% "to admire the sharpness and detail" of their own gear.

The rest of us produce completed images designed to be viewed as complete images, at a distance where you can see the complete image.

BTW, I didn't bother checking your images at 100% as I didn't find them that interesting as a whole, and I certainly wouldn't zoom in to check a tractor that could be mistaken for a tree trunk. Can't see the wood for the trees maybe? ;-)

 

[Lee Jay]

8MP.

72MP.

--
Lee Jay

How did you take a 72MP picture of the moon? The images you posted are both downsized though so the 72MP detail can't be seen

Those are both 100% crops. The 72MP image is actually an 18MP image taken with a 2x teleconverter (the same as increasing pixel count by a factor of four). These images show the difference in detail retained between an 8MP camera and a 72MP camera at the same focal length.

--
Lee Jay

 

[Timj351]

This image of the Seattle Skyline is down sampled from 31mp to fit here. It was taken many years ago with my Sony F707 with only 5mp. It is stitched together from 11 photos.

I've never shown it to anyone who didn't like the image as a whole and was thrilled to see the details up close. I've also never seen a case where a photographer displayed a large hi res photo in either print form or digitally and didn't welcome close inspection of it. That would be very bazaar and if that was the case why wouldn't they just display the image at a small size instead?

I really like your photos Jackalopemaui, thanks for sharing them.

-Tim

 

[nikonson]

Examples from a small P&S camera, Sony HX50V.

 

[Paul B Jones]

Canon 10D

Reds got crunched but not bad for an ancient camera.

--
Paul B Jones

Paul Jones’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[Pixel Pooper]

Yes I speak for the photographer, and it is obvious he wished to show us the wonderfully balance picture of a medieval city, when you zoom in to count bricks that might not be his intention. Of course I don't know for sure his intent but his careful composition means he thought about his FOV.

I think it's strange that you are so concerned about protecting what you assume are the unstated intentions of some random photographer. Once your pictures are out there, the only way you can stopping people viewing them close up is by only posting low res images, or displaying your prints behind a guard rail. Personally, I want people to zoom in and look at the details, so I post full size images and I assume that anyone else posting hi res wants the same, but if they don't, I don't care and I will view them however I want. If I want to look at your pictures upside down, or listen to my favourite song backwards, that's my choice and it doesn't affect anyone but me.