Bill Pierce
Well-known
Yesterday, when we were discussing the relative small number of megapixels needed to make a good screen image and the fact that I still yearned for a medium format 50 megapixel kit that cost just short of $12,000, Icebear sent a message saying, “I take it this is a little tongue in cheek to get the thread going.” The answer is yes… and no.
Certainly our internet needs can be met with small sensor cameras that don’t have some huge megapixel count. And the great majority of family images, news pictures, advertising, e.t.c., now appear on the web. That means they appear for the most part on uncalibrated monitors of varying quality that usually don’t even have the brightness adjusted. This is not a tragedy. Most of these pictures are important for their content, hardly for their subtle nuances of tonality. But I do remember when I first posted images on the web and then saw them on other people’s computers. I saw the high key version, the low key version, the contrasty version, the flat version, the totally weird tonality version and my version. Oh yes, and that special pad and phone category, extremely small. A few of the pictures held up, sort of. But a lot that weren’t based on some sort of high impact content were diminished to the point where they certainly wouldn’t touch or move a viewer, certainly not in their busy office.
For the most part, people accept the fact that looking at a reproduction of a painting, even in a high quality book, much less on an uncalibrated computer screen, is not like looking at the original.
Both Gene Smith and Ansel Adams made prints for publication that were slightly different from their exhibition prints, pictures that had a little extra shadow detail and highlight detail to compensate for the losses in reproduction. That kind of control is not possible on the web.
There are strong arguments for making prints. They will be your version of the image, not the dark version, the contrasty version or the small version - your version out of the many possible. And, if you are the master of your craft, it will be, at least in your eyes, the beautiful version.
And here comes the argument for the many big megapixels. Film cameras range in image size from the 8 x 11 mm Minox to huge view cameras. Half frame through 8 x 10 inch are common. Photographers make big prints from little negatives, small prints from big negatives and, of course, small prints from small negatives and big prints from big negatives. Edward Weston made contact prints even when he occasionally downsized to 4x5. Richard Avedon made some prints that were so big his printer had to use the Modernage mural facilities. Photographers shoot 35, 120, 4x5, 8x10 and make whatever size prints they want. Big prints from little negatives aren’t always super sharp, but sometimes they can be very powerful. Medium size prints from big negatives can be super sharp and sometimes that’s one of the reasons the they can be powerful.
I remember seeing some large prints, probably 5 or 6 feet on the long dimension, of war images made with relatively early DSLRs. They were not very sharp. They were very powerful. I have seen large prints, not of landscapes or architecture, but people full figure and tight head. They were extremely detailed and exceptionally powerful. They were shot by different photographers who all used 8 x 10 film cameras. But I know that in the future those pictures, landscapes and portraits, will be taken on a large format digital camera. They probably already have. I just haven’t seen them. Sometimes fine details and subtle textures aren’t important; sometimes they are. Sometimes little prints are right; sometimes big prints are right. It’s your call. Film photographers have had a variety of cameras, a variety of their equivalent of sensor size, to choose from. So should digital photographers who print their work. Some folks will foolishly spend money on sensor size just to say, “Mine is bigger than yours.” Some will wisely spend money on sensor size so they can make that big print of the tree as beautiful as possible. And some will shoot with their cel phone, and that’s OK.
As always, your thoughts?
Certainly our internet needs can be met with small sensor cameras that don’t have some huge megapixel count. And the great majority of family images, news pictures, advertising, e.t.c., now appear on the web. That means they appear for the most part on uncalibrated monitors of varying quality that usually don’t even have the brightness adjusted. This is not a tragedy. Most of these pictures are important for their content, hardly for their subtle nuances of tonality. But I do remember when I first posted images on the web and then saw them on other people’s computers. I saw the high key version, the low key version, the contrasty version, the flat version, the totally weird tonality version and my version. Oh yes, and that special pad and phone category, extremely small. A few of the pictures held up, sort of. But a lot that weren’t based on some sort of high impact content were diminished to the point where they certainly wouldn’t touch or move a viewer, certainly not in their busy office.
For the most part, people accept the fact that looking at a reproduction of a painting, even in a high quality book, much less on an uncalibrated computer screen, is not like looking at the original.
Both Gene Smith and Ansel Adams made prints for publication that were slightly different from their exhibition prints, pictures that had a little extra shadow detail and highlight detail to compensate for the losses in reproduction. That kind of control is not possible on the web.
There are strong arguments for making prints. They will be your version of the image, not the dark version, the contrasty version or the small version - your version out of the many possible. And, if you are the master of your craft, it will be, at least in your eyes, the beautiful version.
And here comes the argument for the many big megapixels. Film cameras range in image size from the 8 x 11 mm Minox to huge view cameras. Half frame through 8 x 10 inch are common. Photographers make big prints from little negatives, small prints from big negatives and, of course, small prints from small negatives and big prints from big negatives. Edward Weston made contact prints even when he occasionally downsized to 4x5. Richard Avedon made some prints that were so big his printer had to use the Modernage mural facilities. Photographers shoot 35, 120, 4x5, 8x10 and make whatever size prints they want. Big prints from little negatives aren’t always super sharp, but sometimes they can be very powerful. Medium size prints from big negatives can be super sharp and sometimes that’s one of the reasons the they can be powerful.
I remember seeing some large prints, probably 5 or 6 feet on the long dimension, of war images made with relatively early DSLRs. They were not very sharp. They were very powerful. I have seen large prints, not of landscapes or architecture, but people full figure and tight head. They were extremely detailed and exceptionally powerful. They were shot by different photographers who all used 8 x 10 film cameras. But I know that in the future those pictures, landscapes and portraits, will be taken on a large format digital camera. They probably already have. I just haven’t seen them. Sometimes fine details and subtle textures aren’t important; sometimes they are. Sometimes little prints are right; sometimes big prints are right. It’s your call. Film photographers have had a variety of cameras, a variety of their equivalent of sensor size, to choose from. So should digital photographers who print their work. Some folks will foolishly spend money on sensor size just to say, “Mine is bigger than yours.” Some will wisely spend money on sensor size so they can make that big print of the tree as beautiful as possible. And some will shoot with their cel phone, and that’s OK.
As always, your thoughts?
