Why shoot with a high resolution camera?

[David S]

Another discussion on hyperfocal distance raised the question-
--
It makes sense only if one doesn't print large output. That would raise a question as to why use a camera with high resolution to begin with, but that's a different subject ...
--

So why does we shoot with high res. cameras?

How big is large print output?

Dave S

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My experience is that 12 MP APS-C works fine for A2 size prints. 24 MP is better but the difference in A2 prints is not obvious to my eye.

On one occasion I shot with 16MP APS-C and 24MP full frame and preferred the 16 MP APS-C image.

It is really a question about how large you print and how close and carefully you look.

Best regards
Erik

Another discussion on hyperfocal distance raised the question-
--
It makes sense only if one doesn't print large output. That would raise a question as to why use a camera with high resolution to begin with, but that's a different subject ...
--

So why does we shoot with high res. cameras?

How big is large print output?

Dave S

[Dan Wells]

I just posted on effectively the same question - I got very impressive files out of an X-e1 (24x36 inch prints), and am now wondering why I have a D800e...

[Hulyss]

High resolution is "needed" when shooting "fashion" and "beauty". You need resolution to pixel peep the skin of the models, default on fabrics or accessory and so on. In my world, I do not need high resolution because my school taught me to build correctly the photos before shooting. So i f you select models with perfect skin, if you know how to light a scene, if you take time to set the photo, High Res and PP are not that needed.

More a photographer is skilled, less he need informatics assistance. It is why shooting film, especially MF and GF, is absolutely cool and trainer. Many agencys and clients like it over "overealistics" bazillionpixeled camera.

High Res is not a way to make better pictures. Only skills, talent and relations do it.

I sold some expensive shoots done with a SIGMA SD15 (4.7mp) printed in A0 ...

If you take your time, all is possible.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

High Res is not a way to make better pictures. Only skills, talent and relations do it.

Hi,

I don't think it is an either High res / or skills situation. High res can augment an already good image by adding realism, if that helps the particular image.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ellis Vener]

So why does we shoot with high res. cameras?

I don't know about others but I prefer shooting with high resolution, large bit depth/dynamic range, large sensor cameras as that way of working allows for more options when deciding what the finished photograph will look like.

 

[lfeagan]

I just posted on effectively the same question - I got very impressive files out of an X-e1 (24x36 inch prints), and am now wondering why I have a D800e...

I am absolutely there with you Dan. I have an X-Pro 1 and a D800e. The D800e rarely comes out from hibernation; the X-Pro 1 is at my side in my ThinkTank Retrospective 5 on a daily basis so it should come as no surprise which gets used heavily. For specialty tasks I still use the D800e (PC-E lenses in particular). I like that I can crop like crazy on a D800e shot and still come up with a large print. The dynamic range is also ridiculously capable at pulling shadows and highlights back in so that I can skip the exposure bracketing step I did with all previous digital cameras. Basically, if I am going somewhere with the express intent of taking great photos, the D800e will be coming along. But the Fuji gets a daily workout. Sigh, I have so many damned dollars in Nikon lenses.

[Alan Smallbone]

Resolution is nice and if you are doing it for sale then it can help, although like some of the posters here I am finding that between 16-21mp to be more than enough for what I do. I guess that is the caveat, each individual has different needs. I love the prints from X-Pro 1 and also from my Canon 5mii,  but since I got the X-Pro 1 I hardly use the Canon any more. I can get as good a print at the sizes I print with the Fuji. The Fuji is just so much nicer to carry with me all the time that I use it more..... I print mostly up to 17" wide although I have gotten some 24" prints done. The resolution needed depends on the size of the print and viewing distance, I did a shoot a long time ago using a Canon D60 the original 6mp dslr and that image was put on a banner that is used once a year on a road overpass, a picture of some roses, still looks great at those distances. 

Alan

[TMARK]

I shoot a D800 not for res but for the DR.  It is nice to crop to 3:4 with impunity, which is how I shoot.

I do find the 20mpx range to be perfect, although I shot many editorials with a Leica M8 and Canon 5D, and shot commercially with a 1ds and a D2x.  The 5d2 has, to me, a perfect file size but then again I'm not shooting landscapes.

[arlon]

I have a D800E that replaced my D700 (didn't think it was possible to replace the D700). I like being able to crop down to a third of my shot if I want and and be about where I'd be starting with my D700...   Exactly how I felt when I went from a D50 to a D90 only better. I shoot a lot of macro and the cropability I have with 36mp is very helpful sometimes. I seldom print larger than 16x20 but it's nice to know I can take the best third out of a pic and still get a great print. I couldn't do that with the D700. I was the last guy to think pixels mattered but I still got the D800E. Well, I haven't picked up the D700 since I got it.

I'm also sometimes amazed at some little detail captured in the 36mp picture that I didn't even know was there when I took the shot. It has happened a number of times.

[BernardLanguillier]

36mp is nice, 300 is even better. I tend to agree that the more the better, even in relatively small prints it adds something to the reality of the print, a somehow hard to describe sense of infinite depth, almost fractal in nature. But I am getting carried away. 

Besides, we know super high res large screens are just a few years down the road, they will be our standard soon. If I shoot images today with the intend of making them Hifi, then I sure hope they will still look hifi in 10 years from now when 100mp will be common place and used in our everyday display media. Just like Ansel Adams prints still somehow work today because they were shot by very high standards back then, I see no reason not to go for 300 megapixels today considering how easy it is.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I also assume more to be better. I'm pretty sure returns will diminish but there are still advantages. With really good lenses the Nikon D800E seems to struggle with aliasing artifacts. Increasing resolution would avoid/reduce those artifacts or allow for OLP filtering at much finer detail.

I'd suggest that for each generation of cameras there is an ideal pixel size, and that is getting smaller with time. Let us not forget that all those pixels need to be handled by in camera processing before written to the card. Those processing chips need to get faster when pixel size is shrunk.

I am quite happy with the 24  MP I have now, but wouldn't mind more pixels.

Best regards
Erik

36mp is nice, 300 is even better. I tend to agree that the more the better, even in relatively small prints it adds something to the reality of the print, a somehow hard to describe sense of infinite depth, almost fractal in nature. But I am getting carried away. 

Besides, we know super high res large screens are just a few years down the road, they will be our standard soon. If I shoot images today with the intend of making them Hifi, then I sure hope they will still look hifi in 10 years from now when 100mp will be common place and used in our everyday display media. Just like Ansel Adams prints still somehow work today because they were shot by very high standards back then, I see no reason not to go for 300 megapixels today considering how easy it is.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dan Wells]

REALLY good lenses seems to be the issue... I just did some 24x36" prints from my little X-e1 that were very, very nice, and a lot closer than they should have been to D800e prints (from a foot away, they're indistinguishable, from closer up, the D800e has a slight edge). I'm thinking that what's happening here is that the superb Fujinon lenses are really using the sensor fully, and most Nikkors don't quite take advantage of the D800e. I've used the 24-70, 16-35 and 105 micro, all very well respected lenses, on the D800e, and none of them are all that much better than the little Fuji. I actually prefer the Fuji 18-55 over the much larger Nikon system up to 16x24, because that lens has such lovely rendering.

What WILL take full advantage of ultra high-resolution full frame?
Probably most or all of the f1.4 Nikkor primes
Possibly some of the f1.8 Nikkor primes?
Almost certainly the exotic Nikkor telephotos (the big primes, maybe the 200-400)
Probably most of the Zeiss lenses
Probably the PC lenses
But really nothing else, including the pro zooms!

This is sobering, suggesting that only Fuji and Leica have lens lineups that relatively fully match their sensors (and Fuji has only done it with fairly expensive APS-C lenses, while Leica has frightfully expensive full-frame lenses). It also suggests that the standard APS-C DSLR kit (16-24 mp camera with $100 lens) is an extreme mismatch - not sure I trust DxO's numbers, but they're suggesting that those lenses may run out of gas at 6-8 mp...

Dan

[hjulenissen]

High resolution is "needed" when shooting "fashion" and "beauty". You need resolution to pixel peep the skin of the models, default on fabrics or accessory and so on.

Why do you need to pixel peep their skin?

In my world, I do not need high resolution because my school taught me to build correctly the photos before shooting. So i f you select models with perfect skin, if you know how to light a scene, if you take time to set the photo, High Res and PP are not that needed.

Ok. Was modesty part of your training?:-)

I'd suggest that if you are aiming for 1+ meter wide landscape panoramas, that high resolution is a good thing, especially for those that push their nose up against the print to investigate details.

-h

[hjulenissen]

It also suggests that the standard APS-C DSLR kit (16-24 mp camera with $100 lens) is an extreme mismatch - not sure I trust DxO's numbers, but they're suggesting that those lenses may run out of gas at 6-8 mp...

If what you need is 6-8 MP and a 24MP sensor is the most cost-effective way to get there (with really high DR, reduced artifacts etc), then I would say that the match is perfect.

-h

[Hulyss]

Why do you need to pixel peep their skin?Ok. Was modesty part of your training?:-)

I'd suggest that if you are aiming for 1+ meter wide landscape panoramas, that high resolution is a good thing, especially for those that push their nose up against the print to investigate details.

-h

mmmm yeah yeah .... You should ask a fashion/beauty photographers to ask why High Res is needed, and, you should print more to see some facts by your eyes. Pixels was a marketing plot as well as "DR" is one today and "pixels" have nothing to do with DR. Until the venue of the D600, the DR king was the fuji S5 pro, period. How much pixel have the fuji S5 Pro ??  

Now, lets speak about pixel and printing :





This print is out of my Roland printer (not even a real photo printer) on canvas, 120 cm by 80 cm. The photo is done with a simple SD15, 800ISO at 4.7 Million pixels. You can even see the bristles of the fur. You know what ?? when I got my D700 12 MP, he just come slightly over at the same size but with Zeiss lenses ... With the SIGMA DP merrill (15MP), you can only dream how far you can push the print without really loosing detail ...

The DP Merrill with 15 Million Pixel out-resolve the whole 24 MP range of cameras out there today.

A perfectly scanned 135 film (only) done with modern glass, can out-resolve the whole 24 MP range of cameras out there today. Dynamic range of film is awesome and film is far to be dead. Film do not need "PP" if photo is correctly done.

Do not think that we, on Lu-La or other forums, are the common mass of photographers. Common mass of photographers do not print. We are a niche and ppl who print bigger than A3 are a niche in the niche, in the real world of photography today. Photos today are stored on HDD Nas close to the router or carved on DVD or stacked in 10x15 prints or in the memory of the Iphone.

36mp is nice, 300 is even better. I tend to agree that the more the better, even in relatively small prints it adds something to the reality of the print, a somehow hard to describe sense of infinite depth, almost fractal in nature. But I am getting carried away.  

Besides, we know super high res large screens are just a few years down the road, they will be our standard soon. If I shoot images today with the intend of making them Hifi, then I sure hope they will still look hifi in 10 years from now when 100mp will be common place and used in our everyday display media. Just like Ansel Adams prints still somehow work today because they were shot by very high standards back then, I see no reason not to go for 300 megapixels today considering how easy it is.

Cheers,
Bernard

Now we come to Bernard point of view. Bernard speak about the "reality" added to the shoot when using High Res. But, In my opinion I do not take photos to make it a perfect gimmick of reality, never ever !! It is why some software are so popular >> DXO film pack, Niksoftware color efex, Instagram .... MANY people do not like the reality out of there digital cameras !! this create a perfect tech market

Shooting film have sooo much soul, bring sooo much to the mood of a photo !! Film is not dead.

What make Ansel Adams prints that good to the human eye Large Format !! not resolution. Only the perspective captured by a very big sensitive plan. What you see on Ansel Adams prints, you can't see it by your eyes just because of the perspectives (and you can't reproduce it without a LF camera too).

Well... this is just my opinion after all

[hjulenissen]

you should print more to see some facts by your eyes.

You know nothing about how much I print.

What make Ansel Adams prints that good to the human eye Large Format !! not resolution. Only the perspective captured by a very big sensitive plan. What you see on Ansel Adams prints, you can't see it by your eyes just because of the perspectives (and you can't reproduce it without a LF camera too).

Sensor size does not change perspective. Photographer movement does.

-h

[Hulyss]

I do not really care about what or how much you print. You said something, I showed something. Slight difference - over and out.

[BernardLanguillier]

Now we come to Bernard point of view. Bernard speak about the "reality" added to the shoot when using High Res. But, In my opinion I do not take photos to make it a perfect gimmick of reality, never ever !! It is why some software are so popular >> DXO film pack, Niksoftware color efex, Instagram .... MANY people do not like the reality out of there digital cameras !! this create a perfect tech market

Shooting film have sooo much soul, bring sooo much to the mood of a photo !! Film is not dead.

What make Ansel Adams prints that good to the human eye Large Format !! not resolution. Only the perspective captured by a very big sensitive plan. What you see on Ansel Adams prints, you can't see it by your eyes just because of the perspectives (and you can't reproduce it without a LF camera too).

I agree that a large capture surface matters, this is exactly why I stitch. I don't believe it is look alone though, the image quality also contributes significantly to making these images feel contemporary.

Now I have to acknowledge my inability to convey subtle nuances in the English language. Reality was probably not the right word because recent images I shot stitching have a very strong photographic feel to them thanks to limited DoF (they don't feel real), but at the same time the astonishing detail in the sharp areas creates a certain connivence with the subject and attracts the eye in an almost magic way.

Unfortunately I cannot post this series of images online at the moment, which is very frustrating because I find them to be some of the work I am happiest about.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hulyss]

I agree that a large capture surface matters, this is exactly why I stitch. I don't believe it is look alone though, the image quality also contributes significantly to making these images feel contemporary.

Now I have to acknowledge my inability to convey subtle nuances in the English language. Reality was probably not the right word because recent images I shot stitching have a very strong photographic feel to them thanks to limited DoF (they don't feel real), but at the same time the astonishing detail in the sharp areas creates a certain connivance with the subject and attracts the eye in an almost magic way.

Unfortunately I cannot post this series of images online at the moment, which is very frustrating because I find them to be some of the work I am happiest about.
Cheers,

Bernard

Then, we agree a lot Bernard. I'm a stitcher too, like the so called "brenizer" method but ... I'm not rich   So, all my pro body's do not work outside pro situations, to save them. When I started stitching with 24x36 (+ 85f1.4G) I was amazed by the output. Then, I started to look at my photo numbers and stopped. In two years with one of my D700 I did 8500 actuations and, probably, over 1000 actuations are waste. Now, if we look at what can output a M9 + a 50 cron, we fall exactly in what you say :
 

"the astonishing detail in the sharp areas creates a certain connivance with the subject and attracts the eye in an almost magic way ".

Only Leica do that in the 35mm world and this is almost all due to the lens.

Now, speaking about transition and bokeh, even with stitching, nothing come close to large sensitive surface such as MF film (on a good body). Hand-held with a fuji 645 pro and HP5+ you can have the leica feel and some awesome smooth transitions you can't get with a digital MF below IQ 160/180 (6x4.5). Of course, we can print it as big as we want, depending on our scanner (then again their is some tricks).