Do we need more pixels? A small demo of a concept...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Back in 2006 I was on an Iceland trip with my best friend. One of the better images from that trip was this one:


Full size image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/DetailDemo/PICT9663.jpg

This was printed in A2 format and I had it hanging on the wall since than. It was shot with an APS-C camera having 6 MP.

My friend and I revisited Iceland 2017 and we did a reenactment of the 2006 image, it ended up I like this with a 42 MP camera:

Full size image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/DetailDemo/20170813-_DSC0002.jpg

The 6 MP image was sort of OK. No one complained about it lacking detail and I don't know if the new one that replaced it on the wall is any better.

But, we may get interested in the main characters in the image and have a closer look:

Full size image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/DetailDemo/PICT9663_crop.jpg

The new version looks like this:

Full size image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/DetailDemo/20170813-_DSC0002_crop.jpg

I don't want to demonstrate any basic principle. But, these images may illustrate a few concepts:

• An image may not need to be technically perfect, but it can still be compelling.
• Even a low pixel image may good look as a reasonable sized print.
• Eleven years of camera development mean a huge improvement in dynamic range, but I am not sure it matters in this case.
• But, we may be interested in some small detail. In that case the 42 MP camera shows it's strength over the 6MP camera.

This is not an MFD demo, as I didn't carry MFD to Iceland.

Best regards
Erik

[BernardLanguillier]

It certainly demonstrates that light, composition and timing remain essential aspects of photography.

All 3 are better in the original image in my view.
- the lower position of the sun results in more sexy shadows
- the summit being located in the right corner results in a more balance image
- the shape/position of the steam, the photographers in front of the steam, the people at the top giving a sense of scale, the steam coming out of the upper part of the mountain back lit

But then you get also this kind of images captured with the GFX-100's DoF stacking capability (70 images) and you think that detail help make some images work... or not 



Cheers,
Bernard

[Jost von Allmen]

I also prefer the first image, certainly a better composition and more interesting light.

Have you ever tried Gigapixel AI for interpolating such low megapixel images?
In many cases it is pretty amazing what can be achieved.
During the current self isolation I actually reprocessed older images which I had taken in 2005 with a whopping 12 Megapixels (Nikon D2X), the difference in a print size of A2 ist clearly visible.

Best

Jost

[ErikKaffehr]

It certainly demonstrates that light, composition and timing remain essential aspects of photography.

All 3 are better in the original image in my view.
- the lower position of the sun results in more sexy shadows
- the summit being located in the right corner results in a more balance image
- the shape/position of the steam, the photographers in front of the steam, the people at the top giving a sense of scale, the steam coming out of the upper part of the mountain back lit

But then you get also this kind of images captured with the GFX-100's DoF stacking capability (70 images) and you think that detail help make some images work... or not 



Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard,

Thanks for the good comments!

Personally, I am a bit attracted to detail. The reason I took to this example was that I found that the old 6MP image worked remarkably well.

There is also a huge difference in DR between the two sensors.

The simple fact is that back in 2006, on that day, it was better light and I had more fortune with circumstances.

A downside with modern cameras may be that persons are highly recognizable even at significant distance.

I don't think that more resolution is a bad thing. But, I feel that 'artistic value' and 'technical quality' are sort of orthogonal variables. Once technique is good enough for the presentation the artistic value plays a dominant role.

For some subjects, detail is very important. For the original 2006 image, tonal separation of the steam 'clouds' was very important. In the 2017 image humidity, temperature and wind was different, so the light was much less challenging.

On the other hand, the main challenge with the 2006 image was in the highlights and almost any sensor on the planet handles highlights well, if they are correctly exposed.

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

I also prefer the first image, certainly a better composition and more interesting light.

Have you ever tried Gigapixel AI for interpolating such low megapixel images?
In many cases it is pretty amazing what can be achieved.
During the current self isolation I actually reprocessed older images which I had taken in 2005 with a whopping 12 Megapixels (Nikon D2X), the difference in a print size of A2 ist clearly visible.

Best

Jost

Hi Jost,

I will try Gigapixel AI on that image!

I used to have a 12 MP APS-C camera once upon the time. When I got to 24 MP on 24x36, I have found that 12MP on A2 was pretty good, going 24 MP was not a huge difference. Going 39 MP on 37x49 mm, I didn't really see a significant difference at A2 print size from 24 MP on 24x36 mm. But, that of course varies with subject, eye sight and technique.

I have just one picture on my wall at home shot with my 42 MP camera, but I had the opportunity to decorate a corridor at my former workplace and I had some images from both my A7rII and my P45+ on that wall. BTW, those images are here: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/



This was a stitched image, shot on 24x36 mm, a small crop shows that the Japanese gentleman on the right uses a Canon DSLR. Would that pano been shot on a 100 MP MFD device, we may be able which lens he used:




Best regards
Erik