Pixels & Cupcakes: Russ Juskalian Explains It All For You

[amateriat]

10-20-30-40-50 or more
Those bloody megapixels
Were runnin' up a score...

So...we keep arguing over just how many megapixels are "enough".

What the hell defines "enough?"

Some sleep-deprived parent chasing her/his toddler?

An AP stringer?

A wannabe fashion shooter working "on spec?"

A wannabe artist angling for MoMA, the Tate or Whitney?

A guy with $30k burning a hole in his pocket, wondering "What next?"

At any rate, this was somewhat interesting. Of course, I simply shoot film...


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

Fred: I certainly grok your point (and his mangling of tech issues). What I found more fascinating was the less-than-honorable mention of Canon's 50D in relation to earlier incarnations in that line.

The only digital numbers I've got here, oddly enough, are both 8mp models: a tiny Casio (Exilim EX-850) and Olympus (C-8080, with that once-raved-about Sony sensor). Can't say I've really pined for more, although that might in part be explained by my mostly being a film shooter. But, were I only shooting digital, unless I had a terminal jones for poster-sized prints for grain-sniffing museum curators, what exactly am I missing?

(David Pogue, whom this article's author namechecks, claims to have gorgeous, huge prints from files made with a 4mp camera. No, he's not a dyed-in-the-wool Serious Shooter, but he ain't a duffer, and not exactly a shill (read how he shot Sigma's DP-1 down in flames?)

Inquiring minds want, and all that...😉


- Barrett

 

[icebear]

Hello Barrett,

interesting read. He definately got an excellent example with his cupcake tin / sensor analogy to explain why more but smaller pixel are not leading to better image quality.

But best of all is the Ansel Adams quote :
“The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image, often leads to creative disaster.” LOL 😀

 

[40oz]

I thought the article was pretty informative. His analogy makes sense, but I don't have any idea how accurate it is. I do know that just because you have high resolution doesn't mean the pictures will look good. And I know enlarging a small capture, whether film or digital, won't result in high detail.

That said, it does seem to me that if you can increase the resolution on a small sensor, it's simply a matter of time and money before you match that ability in a larger sensor. In the meantime, marketing convinces consumers to fund the research. And information that cuts through marketing is a rare commodity.

Not surprising this article is in the New York Times rather than where logic would expect it to be: In Popular Photography as a preface to their annual buyers' guide lol

 

[kievman]

(David Pogue, whom this article's author namechecks, claims to have gorgeous, huge prints from files made with a 4mp camera. No, he's not a dyed-in-the-wool Serious Shooter, but he ain't a duffer, and not exactly a shill (read how he shot Sigma's DP-1 down in flames?)

It is possible using various software ( General Fractials -Comes to mind) that will give the savy photoshopist the ability to make huge enlargements from a relatively small sensor cameras. I saw some fantastic huge enlargements (48x72) iin injet prints) with fantastic detail from a Canon D5 using this software. THere was no Pixelation and the detail was as good as a 24x36 in print from a decent 35mm color neg. On asking the photographer about how he got such great giant enlargements fron a D5 , he said he could increase the size by 100 percent using General Fractials. I am planning to try this with some of my 35mm scans... -Michael