tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post8681061525333991610..comments2024-01-18T05:34:40.549-07:00Comments on Behind The Lens: Why So Many Pixels?George Barrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06745541057122821349noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-6397970697543407522012-06-20T11:27:55.849-06:002012-06-20T11:27:55.849-06:00Most beginners don't stitch, don't blend a...Most beginners don't stitch, don't blend and don't print large.<br /><br />One thing to consider is that the Epson 3000 is capable of printing 360 pixels per inch where previous printers really topped out at 300, no matter what you thought you were sending to the printer. At 360 pixels per inch, a 16X20 (the traditionally largest size photographers would print in darkroom days) this would equate to 20X360=7200 pixels, which coincidentally is just about the long dimension of the new D800/E.<br /><br />Some are delighted when a 16X20 comes out at all, others need it tack sharp and max. resolution. I would never suggest a $3000 camera for any beginner, no matter how much money they have - APS-C cameras are a bit smaller and the lenses sig. smaller and with greater range and serve the needs of many hobby photographers, no matter how serious they are.George Barrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06745541057122821349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-87929293174792228882012-06-20T10:33:08.749-06:002012-06-20T10:33:08.749-06:00Seems that dear Anonymous (which I wonder why s/he...Seems that dear Anonymous (which I wonder why s/he kept its own identity anon.) forgot some facts about having larger count of pixels.<br />1. If you plan to print and lot of times you need to crop to adjust the framing (nature isn't perfect I guess), then it is better to have a bigger count of pixels to remain in the range of a good resolution and printable size.<br /><br />2. Higher count of pixels (with addition of a full-frame) provides a lessening in the noise level. <br /><br />3. Higher count of pixels (i.e. higher resolution) results in .... higher resolution! (Laws of Physics). i.e. greater details, i.e. nicer print.<br /><br />this is just some.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08018919311091160354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-44650575835093673212012-06-20T10:01:43.647-06:002012-06-20T10:01:43.647-06:00Maybe I am missing something, but I do not follow ...Maybe I am missing something, but I do not follow the logic of this blog at all. What is the relevance of pixel count to the operations listed? They all change all the pixels within a selected range. If I select a feature then burn it, I alter all the pixels within that selection. If the feature occupies one quarter of the image, then whatever the pixel count I alter a quarter of the pixels in the image. What has the overall pixel count got to do with it? How does a higher pixel count protect the quality of the representation of the selected feature?<br /><br />I guess I have an underlying problem with undefined quality. For example, consider blending images to achieve depth of field. Why do it? Because the original image does not provide the DOF sufficient to represent the image to the public in the way the photographer wanted (laws of physics!). So the original image is not fit for purpose. You cannot have anything that is simultaneously of quality and not fit for purpose - like a high quality oven that does not cook the Sunday roast! Pixel count changes neither the laws of physics nor a common sense definition of quality.<br /><br />This reads to me like someone trying to justify purchase of a very expensive camera. Buy it because you want to print six foot by four foot prints. Buy it because it is there and you want it. <br /><br />If there is a step in the argument I have missed, please publish it. Otherwise, this is misleading and adds to the impression many beginners have that you cannot make a great image without a prohibitively large outlay on kit!<br /><br /><br />I expected better from the author of great books like 'Take your photography to the next level' and 'Why images work'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-29156413552867638242012-06-19T11:50:45.144-06:002012-06-19T11:50:45.144-06:00I agree to a point - can't have the pixel coun...I agree to a point - can't have the pixel count outrunning the ability to control noise! But from the looks of things I think we can expect much higher counts in the near future from fx sized sensors.John - Visual Notebookhttp://jstrongphotos.com/VSBlognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-66082040892023772712012-06-15T07:06:15.292-06:002012-06-15T07:06:15.292-06:00I guess this is all technically correct but the is...I guess this is all technically correct but the issue is how little is little. If it's little but negligible that's one thing, and if the aggreagagte of all the changes is noticable - in print - that's another.<br /><br />At the end of the day I still believe that what drives the resolution you need is how big you want to print (cropping aside). <br /><br />By the way, sharpening doesn't add resolution, it adds acutance - edge contrast.Tim Grayhttp://www.timgrayphotography.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-90222577948563158832012-06-15T02:39:50.812-06:002012-06-15T02:39:50.812-06:00and I'll be happy to have the money to get suc...and I'll be happy to have the money to get such a camera :)))TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08018919311091160354noreply@blogger.com