How much definition is enough for a good picture?

Started 1 month ago | Questions thread
Flat view
LuisMartin New Member • Posts: 1
How much definition is enough for a good picture?


I have been an amateur in photography for some time now, but I still have a problem trying to define how much "definition" must a photo have in order to be good. I am referring to the central subject of the photo, where I have placed the focus. Once I zoom in 200% or 300% even 100% sometimes, the photo starts to show grain or pixels.

Different lenses, at different apertures and using different ISO's produce different results, yes, but I would like to know if there is a general rule of sorts, say that I use a prime lens like the Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.8, I stop down the diaphragm to f7.1, handheld at a shutter speed of 1/500, at ISO 250, I find the right EV using ETTR to avoid burning the clouds. When I zoom in, the picture has grain, has lost definition. Similar things happen with 105mm micro AF-S or the Tamron 70-300mm f 4-5.6.

I have come to consider myself a very poor photographer. From a distance the photos are OK, but from very close, they are awful. I have read that depending on the viewer distance, so should be the definition, but I am sure I am doing something wrong that I can't find out on my own.

Any piece of advice, please?

Nikon D850, handheld. Nikkor 50mm AF-S, 1.8; ISO 250, f7.1 @1/500; ETTR about +1.3EV Automatic WB, cloudy

This question has not been answered yet.
Nikon D850
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow