"Professionals" are of course not a monolith. A fashion photographer with a particular style may not need (or indeed may actively avoid) resolution/sharpness. A high-end architectural photographer, product photographer, or fashion photographer with a different style on the other hand may go to great lengths to achieve it.
This is no different than it was 30 years ago when some professionals shot through pantyhose, or used vaseline on their lens while others used 8x10 film and did manual unsharp masks in the darkroom (which was incredibly time consuming compared to a drop down menu).
I realize you were speaking about the professionals you work with and not all professionals everywhere. But for someone reading the forum that doesn't know you they might take it as a broad statement.
Given that many serious hobbyists are focused on landscape (especially on the luminous landscape forum) it's not surprising their interests would include high image quality including resolution and sharpness; this is true 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and today.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8)
That's correct Doug, thanks for the precision. I was indeed talking about a part of the profession where I'm activly involved and not a broad statement. As in life, everything is relative.
But, and yes that's the sort of general statement I wanted to express, I also know arquitecture photographers, artists who hang their printings in museums and art galleries and therefore the needs for sharpness-reso are "different", yes. But
neither in those sphere I saw deep concern about it except in the museum repros. People who need sharpness and details just have it ! it's as simple as that. And they have it with the proper equipment.
I mean by that, the criticisms I sometimes do on MF gear just concern the niche where I work. But there is no doubt that if I where doing art gallery big formats (for ex), I'd have my studio full of view cams and MF backs, wether I like tether (wich I do not) or not. I'm not as blind to think that a Pentax K5 will give me what a P65 can. No! People are trying very hard in the forums to demostrate with graphs, bottle wine details comparaisons etc...that the current generation of consumer sensors are on par if not better in DR for ex than the FF or MF equipment. Of course, you and I and many more may look at that (noise?) with an healphy distance. After all, if they want to enjoy with those sort of demonstrations to proove something I still do not get that's fine.
Yesterday I did a part of a fashion shooting with this GH2 because I could loose time on that. It's just ok. Could that go to full page print? No doubt, nobody would notice anything because it's the look of the 16MP 1D Canon of years ago. (very very similar look by the way). In that sense you can see the progress that have been acheived by the industry. I liked the look of the raw files, there is a lot to like about it but the camera buffer is not suitable for such demanding session, at 100% details are lacking, this smaller sensor area demands more light power than usual to extract the full potential, post prod files are not trickable but fall apart very easily because it's a small sensor etc etc so you fall on its limitation in a question of minutes. There is no miracle, but the GH2 is NOT a high-end camera. It's impressive considering the sensor's size and capable of outstanding small prints. The EVF is impressive and I could really rely on it for manual focussing with a high amount of accuracy. Very very impressive EVF that I'd like to see in coming pro gear. But that' s all. No comparaison with any MF image quality, not even the 5D2 for stills.
In the high-end, whatever the high-end is, image quality in 2011 in his vast forms and needs is guarantee
. Then it's just a question of personal orientation and personal apreciation on each aspect.
2 pics with the gh2 before make-up in avail light (not yet strobes but 2 500w hot lights you can see the yellow on the dress, one on the arm and the other on the bottom), raw files right-out-the box, no color correct, no sharpen, rien que du brut de décoffrage. the crop is a 100% view at 800 isos from the developper.
As you see it's just ok and we can clearly notice the artifacts at 800 and some moiré, but for such a small sensor it's pretty good anyway.