Splitting hairs???

[michaelwj]

People do that with paintings too--step back and then inspect it closely. They look closely to see the brush strokes. Seems like these people might appreciate the pixel density of the photographic print from up close. Maybe not.

I step forward to view after a wide viewing. It’s not to inspect quality but to take a more deliberate look at certain parts of the image.

I think prints in the 8x10 range are viewed at a natural distance , but once they go bigger we tend to go in for a more intimate look. I think all prints end up being viewed at the 2ft range regardless of print size, it’s just a natural “close up” distance.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I did a print test last week to help me, hopefully, get away from the megapixel race. Using 17x22 paper, I made prints from uncropped files from the Sigma SD Quattro H APS-H sensor (some say its files are equivalent to a 45Mp bayer-based file), Nikon Df 16Mp full frame sensor, Panasonic GX85 16Mp m4/3 sensor, and a Canon Powershot S90 10Mp 1/1.7" sensor.

All but the Canon looked the same to my eye... equally detailed and accurate. The Canon looked soft. BUT... the Canon image, an indoor still life, is the most beautiful to my eye. And its the one my wife wants to put up on the wall.

So I'm done chasing big Mp numbers. 16 Mp is plenty. Even if I wanted to have a huge 30-inch wide print made, I wouldn't hesitate. The image might be a bit soft at close inspection, but if the subject matter, light, and color are beautiful, the number and size of pixels don't matter. And that's what photography has always been about. If you're looking at a photograph in a gallery with friends and all you're talking about is the sharpness and size of the image, its probably not a very interesting photograph. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot depends on the subject, and besides, camera shake is far more important than most people think. Without a tripod and first-class lens, probably even 16 Mp is overkill. The "one over focal length" rule for hand-holding is often more demanding than you need for extreme wide-angles (21mm and wider) and nothing like rigorous enough for long lenses (135mm and longer). And of course, even this rule of thumb applies only to 24x36mm: smaller formats demand shorter exposures and bigger formats allow longer ones.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Axel]

...So, when someone looks at your camera, sneers and says, “I have more pixels than you do.” simply reply, “Yes, but mine are bigger!!!”

And is this splitting hairs? You bet it is. Any thoughts?

Internet discussions are suitable to promote such phrases until it is splitting hairs.
People see cameras and reviews only virtual and the discussion stays virtual.
"In hand" and while photographing there is a lot to discover that has nothing to do with chip- and pixelsize.
But the amount of people who never reach this stage is enormous in the web.

 

[RichC]

A lot depends on the subject, and besides, camera shake is far more important than most people think. Without a tripod and first-class lens, probably even 16 Mp is overkill. The "one over focal length" rule for hand-holding is ... nothing like rigorous enough for long lenses ...

Quite. I've just finished photographing the lost River Fleet, walking about 500 miles through north London to the Thames - and used a tripod for every shot (as well as carrying kitchen steps to get elevated views!). I don't know what other photographer do - I saw many others with "serious" cameras over those miles but very, very few tripods. I couldn't guarantee sharpness without a tripod at my shooting ISO of 100-200 and aperture of f11-16 ... granted I only took photos on overcast days, never when sunny. In fact, the shutter speed was often so low as to be impossible to hand hold without shake.

Also, another situation where 1 over focal length invariably fails miserably is for prints larger than about A4 (~10 in.) - as do depth of scale markings.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that, yes, often 16 MP say - or fewer - is plenty but when you do need a lot of pixels, there's no substitute for size! When someone loves a photo of yours and wants a big but sharp picture for their magazine or lounge wall, when your lens is too short to reach your subject so you need to crop...

And, unlike driving a car with loads of horsepower, no one will jail you (yet) for using all your megapixels on occasion! It's good to have something in reserve.

Fleet Place:

River Fleet outflow, Blackfriars:

 

[Calzone]

I print in two sizes: one is 13x19 1/2 image size on 18x24 sheet for a hand holdable print; and the other is 20x30 image size on 24x30 that is meant to be framed as an exhibition print.

I will say that so far 16 MP from my Monochrom is more than enough resolution, and that 24 MP from a SL also serves me well.

The thing I want to add here is the two print sizes I do represent two very different experiences. The hand held print on rag is not only a tactile exprience, but also an intimate experience. The interaction of the viewer is very different than viewing an exhibition print hanging on the wall.

On my large prints is a billboard like effect that draws a person in from afar. The viewing distance in this manner is very dynamic, and the print changes depending on angle and distance that invites the viewer to approach. Understand that closer inspection reveals more and more detail, and because of scale there are more details to see. Don't ever underestimate that viewers will take a "macro" look and nose-up into a print.

A dramatic display of this effect can be seen by visiting the Prado in Madrid and moving around viewing Valezquez's "Las Maninas." At about twice the diagonal something rather profound happens which is the optimum viewing distance, but you will observe viewers "nosing-up" to experience the fine detail, even in this mural sized work.

I will also say that the size and scale of a print effectively changes. In a larger print (B&W in my case) the smaller print has a voice that is more related to contrast, but in a larger print this very same contrast will become diluted and the midrange will be the dominant voice of the image. Also in the larger print a lot more tiny detail and texture will become evident that is not displayed in the smaller print. I also think my larger prints display more depth.

So for those that dismiss a large print understand that scale and size do matter a lot to the experience of the viewer, and for me the larger prints open up to display a much broader tonality and reveals a lot more fine detail that cannot be seen in a smaller print.

That said, the quality of small format cameras is such that it can transcend format, at least in B&W. Salgado did this with the decade long body of work called "Genesis," but he had the best lab in Paris at his disposal. Today the technology is here for a guy like me to get similar results without having Salgado's lab in Paris.

Big prints don't lie, and big prints is where I'm able to transcend format to get medium and I dare say even large format like results.

As far as splitting hairs, like a large format shooter I maximize everything at time of image capture. I use filters to record my contrast, instead of adding it in post. I basically minimize post processing to minimize noise and digital artifact. I also use "Heliopan" filters marked "Digital" that has additional IR and UV filters built in to minimize unwanted signal that is not visual information that is otherwise "noise."

I think the point of a ultra-high MP camera is to record more information, so unless it is needed/required it would get wasted. Also a level of perfection is required in the work flow as to not compromise the added resolution. Pretty much not for most photographers, but mighty useful to some. I for one might find useful a 50 MP small format camera, but I will still keep my Monochrom and SL.

Cal

 

[Out to Lunch]

In the end, what is in the frame is more important than anything else. Camera producers will add something 'new' every six months because their shareholders demand increased market share and rising stock value. Today, it's pixels, back lit sensors, in-camera stabilization, and tomorrow it'll be something else 'new'. For anyone interested in the birth of the consumer society, I recommend ''The Fifties'' by David Halberstam.

 

[Huss]

M...

Viewing distance is a myth. Anyone who sees a large print will step back to take it in, then walk right up to a few inches. So, a print needs to pin sharp both near and far, regardless of its size...

yup. No matter what I display at my gallery - paintings, sculptures, photography - the customers look at them from any distance they please.
"Viewing distance" is used by those who feel the image would be better with more resolution.

If the artist does not care if pixels are seen up close, then they do not matter.

 

[willie_901]

MTF 50, Perceived Sharpness and Pixel Pitch

MTF 50, Perceived Sharpness and Pixel Pitch

This link references a blog post that relates pixel pitch to perceived sharpness.

It's no surprise that "It turns out the spatial frequencies that are most closely related to our perception of sharpness vary with the size and viewing distance of the displayed image".

A system MTF of ~ 90 yields optimum perceived sharpness. Here MTF does not refer to the lens optics alone, but the entire system characteristics.

While the link specifically addresses screen viewing, the principles apply to prints as well.

A post exists on another forum [1] that extends this approach to estimate the effect of pixel pitch on print perceived sharpness at a viewing distance of 2 meters. The calculations indicate 24 X 36 mm, APS-C and M4/3 formats all could have have sufficient pixel pitch (at least 6 um) to support A1 and 24 X 35" print sizes. Increased sensor area is an advantage because pixel pitch can be higher when MP count is held constant. But more MP on a larger sensor could give the same perceived sharpness (based on the system MFT) as a smaller sensor with less MP. In other words, the pixel pitch for both sensors would be equal.

1. In the past links to this forum have resulted in censored posts, so the reader will have to trust that I did not make this up.

 

[Dan]

There is no relation between big prints and the amount of megapixels the original camera has had.

This is simply wrong. You do not understand the relationships between print size, pixel dimensions and pixels per inch.

 

[Bill Clark]

In business, when a client, with the size usually determined during a pre-event meeting, the set up was very different than making pj photographs. Most of these were made at the event location. I found I needed to treat such a photograph as if it was going to be made in my studio. This, the set up, I found was as important, if not more important, than the camera used. The largest print I sold was a 40 x 30. And they all, even though rare, came out beautifully.

 

[ptpdprinter]

This link references a blog post that relates pixel pitch to perceived sharpness.

I am wary of formulas for sharpness that rely on viewing distance for determining sharpness. They generally address adequacy. For my work, I aspire to more than adequacy. I want my prints to be sharp, not just appear sharp at a certain distance. When I go to a gallery, I notice that people look at images from a variety of distances. I always look at prints from a normal viewing distance as well as up close. Details can be important.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Often, when I look at giant prints I wonder if that picture would be as impressive if reduced in size to one of Edward Weston's contact prints. . . .

Dear Bill,

You are no doubt aware of the saying: "If you can't make it good, make it big."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Axel]

This is simply wrong. You do not understand the relationships between print size, pixel dimensions and pixels per inch.

So - how do you think big prints from small photos or paintings are made?
Be sure I understand the relations but they simply doesn´t matter here.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Dear Bill,

You are no doubt aware of the saying: "If you can't make it good, make it big."

Cheers,

R.

Yes, but I always thought it applied to steak vs meat loaf. You have opened a whole new train of photographic thought for me.

 

[willie_901]

I am wary of formulas for sharpness that rely on viewing distance for determining sharpness.
...

However, people have no choice but to view them from some distance.

Distance is a significant variable. But it is only one variable.

So I agree that considering distance alone or thinking distance is the most important factor is incomplete.

A magazine cover has a limited system MFT compared to a very large high-quality fine art landscape print. For the former the typical viewing distance will be closer than the later.

Sally Mann's wet-plate, collodion process prints are very large but the system MFT is very low. Decreasing the viewing distance has little advantage because the inherent visual resolution [1] is low.

Then there's billboards.

1. Visual resolution is defined in the ISO 12233:2000 standard.

 

[Dan Daniel]

If the artist does not care if pixels are seen up close, then they do not matter.

It may also be that the artist accepts that the image will have different qualities to be seen at different distances. There can be a beauty... uh, an aesthetic quality in grain structure as rendered in a print. AND an aesthetic quality in the representational image. A print may allow for both. The transition between these extremes can also be part of the experience of the work.

This is very common and accepted in paintings. Not sure why so many photographers freak out at it in photos.

 

[RichC]

It may also be that the artist accepts that the image will have different qualities to be seen at different distances. There can be a beauty... uh, an aesthetic quality in grain structure as rendered in a print. AND an aesthetic quality in the representational image. A print may allow for both. The transition between these extremes can also be part of the experience of the work.

This is very common and accepted in paintings. Not sure why so many photographers freak out at it in photos.

Not happy with this.

As John Szarkowski, former director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, pointed out, photography is not painting. What makes photography special are 5 qualities that are unique in combination:

• The Thing Itself (i.e. its connection to reality)
• The Detail
• The Frame
• Time
• The Vantage Point.

If you're not foregrounding all of these as a photographer, you're doing it wrong. If you're trying to make paintings, just be a painter!

The first two are especially important and peculiar to photography – and make it entirely different from, say, painting. If you're deliberately breaking photography's connection with reality and to depicting detail such by blurring or being into grain ...take up painting!

Lee Friedlander wrote:
“I only wanted Uncle Vern standing by his new car (a Hudson) on a clear day. I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry, and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It's a generous medium, photography."

And this why a photograph needs to be pin sharp at both 5 feet and 5 inches.

 

[Axel]

Categorizing is often splitting hairs.

What is when photographs look like paintings and paintings have so much details that they look like photographs?
Both are not good?

 

[benlees]

Not happy with this.

As John Szarkowski, former director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, pointed out, photography is not painting. What makes photography special are 5 qualities that are unique in combination:

• The Thing Itself (i.e. it's connection to reality)
• The Detail
• The Frame
• Time
• The Vantage Point.

If you're not foregrounding all of these as a photographer, you're doing it wrong. If you're trying to make paintings, just be a painter!

The first two are especially important and peculiar to photography – and make it entirely different from, say, painting. If you're deliberately breaking photography's connection with reality and to depicting detail such by blurring or being into grain ...take up painting!

Lee Friedlander wrote:
“I only wanted Uncle Vern standing by his new car (a Hudson) on a clear day. I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry, and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It's a generous medium, photography."

And this why a photograph needs to be pin sharp at both 5 feet and 5 inches.

Does pin sharp mean in focus or out of focus?