Should Sigma make a 30 MP per layer full-frame Foveon instead of 20 MP per layer?

DMillier wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

D Cox wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.<>

How are you to see the fine details in a high resolution photo without looking at it closely ? <>

But where does one stop?

How about those tera-pixel images where one can zoom in fractally just like the movies?

Have to say that, if I'm looking down my street with my eyes, I can't read the street sign at the T-junction. If I shoot an image from the same position, should I expect the sign to be readable in the whole image - even if printed large and walked up to or even when zoomed in on-screen?

I do have a 1930's 5" magnifying glass, a 10X loupe and a Seibert 50X pocket microscope all of which are useful upon occasion.

There is no reason in principle why someone should be required to concentrate on the overall composition, and there is nothing in principle wrong with treating photographs as a data source to explore in detail. If that is your thing, absolutely feel free to do that.

But Keith's point is that most people who are interested in making and selling fine art (like, I presume Scott is) will benefit more on focusing on content than chasing ever more fine detail because the people who buy other people's pictures, do so because they like the picture first and foremost. Technicalities come a distant second. Indeed, if you are a fine detail enthusiast, then a sharp image with no artistic intent would be just as good, so why would you spend hundreds or even thousands in a gallery?

Scott's quest seems unending because he is already using equipment that is an order of magnitude better than a few years ago (which this forum considered pretty fine at the time) and is not remotely satisfied. There is no point in hanging around waiting for better equipment (it'll come at its own pace anyway), work with what you have now.

Now that I have a better camera and excellent lenses, I agree with you, and that is why I went to re-shoot Yellow Branch Falls on my autumn trip this year, and got this photo:

OOC jpeg

Unfortunately there is no more yellow branch there, so I fear that this photo is not as aesthetically pleasing as my original shot here:

No doubt both photos are lacking - the first in content, and the second in detail and light. I can probably enhance one or both, but I doubt I will be happy with either. Unfortunately, I don't have the shot I want of that beautiful waterfall, and I probably never will. I will go back and try again though, no doubt, some day, when I have a better wide-angle lens or a camera to use with my 14-24mm f2.8 Art, and I will hopefully get a photo of that waterfall that satisfies me enough that I will make a huge print of it. For now it will remain to me one of those elusive photographic subjects, like Glade Creek Grist Mill in autumn.