jackalopemaui
Veteran Member
It's amazing seeing a city in so much detail. Seeing all the windows and imagining the people who live and work behind them really contributes to the photo
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Post your photos that prove megapixels DO matter
- Thread starter jackalopemaui
- Start date
Reilly Diefenbach
Veteran Member
Nice Pileated!
chkproductions
Veteran Member
I'm happy to have both. I like to have it in my commercial work. Look, nothing is wrong with having detail in an image, and at times it is needed for a specific purpose or as an accurate and faithful as possible recording of a object or scene. In recreational photography terms if your whole image is relying solely on detail and not all the other factors that go into a captivating image, then it's really not worth it to your audience. If I take a photo of a property with a house and a lawn, does the viewer really care that they see each blade of grass? Probably not. It may be that you care - but not your audience-at-large. In general terms, again, for me, it is the image and not the detail that is important. Personally, for how images are mostly viewed today, I would rather have a sensor that gives more DR and captures more hues in the captured colors.
In defense of detail, Ansel Adams would contact print many of his 8x10 negs which kept the detail absolutely faithful to the negative. And on the other hand Pete turner http://www.peteturner.com/ would copy a 35mm slide (whether he shoots slide film anymore I don't know) 10 different ways to Sunday to achieve his graphic looks.
Cheers
chk
DigitalMaven
Veteran Member
Having large images (i.e., many mpix) is very useful for when I shoot bicycle races.
My current heavy hitter is a Nikon D800 with 36 Mpix. This allows me to do deep
cropping and still have enough pixels left for a decent screen or print image.
The need to do deep cropping stems from the fact that at the time I am taking many
of my cycling race pictures, I do not know whose image I may want/need to pull out
of any particular picture. That is driven by after the race requests for pictures
of a particular rider - sometimes coming from the riders or their teams, or perhaps
because someone, often a cycling publication, wants some action shots of the race
winner.
Here is an example of what I am talking about. The first image is a Photoshop
screen capture of a picture from a recent race showing the Pro peloton descending
a hill. I had a request for a picture of the rider in the blue jersey in the
middle of the pack. You can see him in the cropping frame - view at original size
to see the cropping frame.
Here is what I cropped out - a 1200 px X 1500 px image - large enough to fill a screen
or to produce a 4 X 5 print at 300 DPI. View at original size for best results
This one reason why having high megapixel images is valuable to me.
--
When a hammer is your only tool, all problems begin to look like nails.
My current heavy hitter is a Nikon D800 with 36 Mpix. This allows me to do deep
cropping and still have enough pixels left for a decent screen or print image.
The need to do deep cropping stems from the fact that at the time I am taking many
of my cycling race pictures, I do not know whose image I may want/need to pull out
of any particular picture. That is driven by after the race requests for pictures
of a particular rider - sometimes coming from the riders or their teams, or perhaps
because someone, often a cycling publication, wants some action shots of the race
winner.
Here is an example of what I am talking about. The first image is a Photoshop
screen capture of a picture from a recent race showing the Pro peloton descending
a hill. I had a request for a picture of the rider in the blue jersey in the
middle of the pack. You can see him in the cropping frame - view at original size
to see the cropping frame.
Here is what I cropped out - a 1200 px X 1500 px image - large enough to fill a screen
or to produce a 4 X 5 print at 300 DPI. View at original size for best results
This one reason why having high megapixel images is valuable to me.
--
When a hammer is your only tool, all problems begin to look like nails.
Mark Smith145430
Veteran Member
Its not the detail in the caster that makes me appreciate them.
Fail. I know the historic photo well, have studied the photographers work and have a good idea of how he worked, I have knowledge of the processes used. So I think you are projecting your own values on me.
Have you heard of William L Sawyer? Do you understand how and why the shot of chief Parker was taken? You are familliar with the photo's of the Comache Wichita-Caddo reservation?
I think superficial is what your 'caster' level of detail quote is driving at detail isn't needed (not that there isn't plenty there in those glass plates.
How do you know? I regularly go to them sometimes 2-3 times a month and exhibit my own work also but I fail to see how my deeper knowledge and understanding of the photography of Mr W L Sawyers means I can't appreciate art?
I'm not impressed by your elitism and I'm never bored (except by you)
I spent some time reading this thread and I learned that for some people Megapixels matter and for others it doesn't. As of today, I'm in the it does matter as long as its around 20 MP. In a few years I may change my idea, but for now around 20MP are sufficient for my needs.
jackalopemaui
Veteran Member
You missed my point. I'm accusing you of not caring about details, which are interesting for anyone who appreciates these historic photos as glimpses into the past. If you're just viewing it from a distance and judging it's compositional merit, you are experiencing it differently and getting less out of it. It's like going on a hike and not stopping to smell the roses, or take macro photos of them.
It's not elitism to value the details in the photos. If anything it's snobbery to have this singleminded focus on judging artistic merit without appreciating the value of a caster on a bed. I learned from that caster that casters existed in the 1800s but were made of wood, which is something I never even thought of before. I thought about the person who spent every day carving those casters in a factory or workshop, and the person who smithed the metal parts. Don't you think that's interesting?
Here's a 6000x3834 pixel image in the Library of Congress. Do you not find it fascinating to look at the junk around the farmhouse, the trees, the plants? Artifacts of human life are always interesting. By looking closely we can tell that the farmer is building or dismantling an arch greenhouse http://cdn.loc.gov/master/pnp/highsm/18300/18361a.tif
Last edited:
O
Ocolon
Guest
Interesting discussion, thanks. Personally I think there are photos where more detail than can be recognized by looking at the whole image at once adds to the picture, and there are also photos where you don't need or want more details.
I understand the point that more quality pixels almost always mean more information, but a great part of photography is about excluding information, really. When going on a photo trip, we not only decide what to take photos of, but also what not to take photos of. For every composition we decide what to include and what not to include in the frame. It's a perfectly valid decision by a photographer to exclude detail when it's unimportant or even distracts from the photographer's message. Likewise it's a legitimate decision to include detail.
I think it's great we have options today and people can make their own choice.
I think you're comparing two things here that are not in the same league, so to speak, and that might be why the comparison leads to questionable conclusions.
Photography is on a comparable level with painting, not with impressionistic painting. There's nothing wrong with very detailed paintings and there's nothing wrong with impressionistic paintings that you can't “zoom in”. The same applies to photography, both “styles” are valid, detailed or not. It's the photographer's and painter's choice.
It's cool we have that choice today.
I understand the point that more quality pixels almost always mean more information, but a great part of photography is about excluding information, really. When going on a photo trip, we not only decide what to take photos of, but also what not to take photos of. For every composition we decide what to include and what not to include in the frame. It's a perfectly valid decision by a photographer to exclude detail when it's unimportant or even distracts from the photographer's message. Likewise it's a legitimate decision to include detail.
I think it's great we have options today and people can make their own choice.
This argument is a little flawed in my opinion, because people will argue the authenticity of photos independent of the actual resolution. If you would have a higher resolution of this photo that answered the now controversial question, they would simply argue about another detail that we may not be able to see at all right now, but that would be visible then and just too low res to be clearly identifiable.
I agree that some people love tiny details, even when the photographer or the painter deliberately decided not to include it. But photographers are not obliged to provide it!
I think you're comparing two things here that are not in the same league, so to speak, and that might be why the comparison leads to questionable conclusions.
Photography is on a comparable level with painting, not with impressionistic painting. There's nothing wrong with very detailed paintings and there's nothing wrong with impressionistic paintings that you can't “zoom in”. The same applies to photography, both “styles” are valid, detailed or not. It's the photographer's and painter's choice.
It's cool we have that choice today.
jackalopemaui
Veteran Member
Yes I agree it's good we have a choice in how we take and present our photos. But the thing is that fans of low megapixel cameras are adamant that no one needs high megapixel cameras and that detail is irrelevant. Note the comments on the Canon 5DS preview. Many don't WANT us to have a choice because they don't want camera manufacturers to sell high res cameras. The opposite is never possible. You don't preclude low res pictures with a high res camera.
Last edited:
O
Ocolon
Guest
Images are often displayed big, for example adds on house walls, to attract attention and to be seen by many people. And yet it's often not desired that you concentrate on the details, because that could distract you from the advertised product or may even repel you. Think of a face shot in a make-up ad for example – the make-up companies don't want you to see the individual particles the makeup is made of or the details of skin pores, they want a slick, smooth impression.
I don't oppose big images being inspected from close, though. I'm just giving an example for when it's not desired. Both high and low resolution photos have their place. Neither is always better than the other.
O
Ocolon
Guest
That's weird indeed.
Timj351
Veteran Member
Goods points Ocolon. I was only thinking of standalone fine art prints and not the kind of photography associated with advertising. Clearly when it comes to advertising the quality of the photos used is very wide ranging.
I completely agree that high and low res photos have their place.
-Tim
Last edited:
D
Darrell Spreen
Guest
I am always impressed by the quality of Canon 10D images! There must be some reason they look so good, but I can't figure it out. It's not megapixels!
--
Darrell
--
Darrell
Last edited:
Rory Clague
Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 19
A pixel-dense camera is useful for digitizing old negatives, and other macro applications such as still life or insects or plants. With a high pixel density body like a 7D2, D7100, a77, or D8xx series, you can get results as good as or better than flatbed scanners for less money:
Crop from upper-right corner of image.
Crop from upper-right corner of image.
I am happiest with 10 to 16 megapixels. This range seems to suit my eyesight (with my glasses on). But some of my favourite shots came from a 4 megapixel point and shoot. I am more interested in photos that seem natural to the human eye. Too much resolution, although good for croppers, appears artificial, and tips the balance away from the meaningful content of the image to the intensity of the image itself. For myself, I don't need to see anything more clearly than I can with my glasses on. Anything else is science.
Mark Smith145430
Veteran Member
Eh? That's stupid. I don't care about details? Yet I know more about these images than you ever will, I get your point entirely that having more detail will allow you to see if these are 'fake'
These are from glass plates as big as your head taken in 1892 and bought by the Library of Congress-they are famous.
I fail to see how having higher resolution makes judging composition easier? These pictures are HUGE why don't you see them in reality?
Where did I say it was? I called YOU an elitist for chiding me that I couldn't appreciate 'Art' and would probably leave an art gallery after 2 mins because I can only appreciate 'art' on a superficial level.
That you think I could not understand the Quannor Parker images or spend more that 2 min in a gallery and therefore have 'a boring way to exist make you an Elitist @&&***
Eh so you have to appreciate the caster on the bed to understand on of the great images of Chief Parker? Who said anything about artistic merit?
These are historically important images that are world famous
Wow knock yourself out, that must have been a revelation, and what did you learn about Chief Parker from that caster?
Oh my god!! and you saw one of the most famous images of all time have no idea about the subjects or it's meaning and you spent time thinking about bed manufacture–that is punch yourself in the face stupid!
I have seen the images for real many times, that you are interested in tiny details is fine within context of the image but if you can't see why the image is taken and can't see what is communicated then you fail
You who thought the pictures of Quannor Parker were fake now posting LOC images-sheesh
Great you can see the content (caster on the bed) but totally ignore context? No wonder the bed caster was so interesting to you and Chief Parker well you have no idea why the images were taken.
Last edited:
Yes, the higher resolution captured, the more information:
"Note that sometimes re-sampling down can get you a sharper result than, say, using a lower resolution camera, because there will be edges in the high-resolution image that cannot be detected by a lower-res device."
There are many different down-sampling algorithms available, some specialize in
preserving perceptional features.
The google terms i used:
"algorithm downsample image preserve feature"
"Note that sometimes re-sampling down can get you a sharper result than, say, using a lower resolution camera, because there will be edges in the high-resolution image that cannot be detected by a lower-res device."
Loading…
stackoverflow.com
There are many different down-sampling algorithms available, some specialize in
preserving perceptional features.
The google terms i used:
"algorithm downsample image preserve feature"
jackalopemaui
Veteran Member
Your WHOLE ARGUMENT is that the details don't matter therefore resolution doesn't matter.
You misread what I wrote. I'm saying that YOUR objective is to view a picture from a distance and judge it's compositional merit, and YOU don't value the details.
You are proving just how narrow minded you are. Just because you don't see the value of historical details, you think they should simply not exist. You are stuck in this singleminded art-class-judging mentality.
What are you talking about? It's a photo of a farm. Enlighten me oh wise one. Tell me what the photographer is trying to communicate, and why you hate the details so much. Explain to me exactly why you are so hell bent on not preserving historic and cultural information. Tell me, do you go to arcitectural digs and destroy the artifacts and lecture the archaeologists on how they shouldn't be looking at those little details because "themes" are better in your art-class world?
Where did I say the picture was fake? Are you just bad at reading comprehension?
What is the context of the image? I'm actually not familiar with Quannor Parker at all, I just saw the picture posted on Facebook by Traces of Texas. And why does it cause you to not care about interesting details?
Last edited:
Never met a bird shooter that doesn't need to crop and in my case it would be cropping ....... 99% of the time.
Crops from the NEX-7 and the Canon FD 500 F/5.6L
Full image of a Kingfisher
Full and a crop of each KF below
I'll always take more megapixels at a low ISO.
Danny.
--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
Crops from the NEX-7 and the Canon FD 500 F/5.6L
Full image of a Kingfisher
Full and a crop of each KF below
I'll always take more megapixels at a low ISO.
Danny.
--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
Mark Smith145430
Veteran Member
No it isn't! My argument is that sometimes (like the Quanah Parker image) resolution won't help us appreciate the image.
Simple
Not at all, I said the tiny caster in the image is irrelevant to the story the photographer is trying to show.
Eh? So the caster is 'historical detail how'? Also stop behaving like a jerk and calling me 'art class mentality' it doesn't help you already paper thin argument
Here is the image:
Quannah Parker and his 3 wives, the last great Commanche chief.
You said about having so much detail helped you
"I learned from that caster that casters existed in the 1800s but were made of wood, which is something I never even thought of before. I thought about the person who spent every day carving those casters in a factory or workshop, and the person who smithed the metal parts. Don't you think that's interesting?"
Really you found the caster the main point of interest? That pretty much confirms why you DON"T need more resolution in the image above!
You seem to totally ignore one of the most historic photographs in American history to consider 'the caster' and that is why you need higher resolution? I wouldn't let you view anything buy thumbnails for the rest of your life for that.
'Art class' again (rolleyes) just grow up already.
With that final 'art class quip' I'm going to leave you because you have lost it totally.
You're blocked.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum