Whither high resolution Digital Images?

The advantage of digital phography is printing only those shots I really
like and need.

i used to shoot as part of the duties of my previous job. At each event
easily hundreds of shots were taken by my team. Of these, less than a
hundred would be selected and uploaded to our server. Of those, only a
few might eventually be printed when we wanted to put up a display. Most
of the shots were kept as softcopy for the other officers' usage.

A caveat is that most of those shots were printed at 8R, so 6MP was
about right back then.


bobwilliams wrote:
About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be
viewed on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a
major reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those
in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of
offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When
will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer
much better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other
P/S on the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams

bobwilliams wrote:
About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams

I ABSOLUTELY agree that IF you plan to print at 8X10 or larger, more
pixels are better. And good glass is of paramount importance.
After all, it is the lens that creates the image.
Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield
mediocre images.

But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question.....
" 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?"
It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the
digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at.

I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in
large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors.
I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and
easy display. These are my best-of-best pics

My primary, serious camera is a Panny FZ 50 which is 10MP.
It has a Leica lens that IMHO produces outstanding images even on a
1/1.8" sensor.

I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing
tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite
significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would
not find a spot in the heart of the general public. They seem to be
thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh
Bob

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:18:11 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:

bobwilliams wrote:
About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams

I ABSOLUTELY agree that IF you plan to print at 8X10 or larger, more
pixels are better. And good glass is of paramount importance.
After all, it is the lens that creates the image.
Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield
mediocre images.

But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question.....
" 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?"
It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the
digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at.

I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in
large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors.
I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and
easy display. These are my best-of-best pics

My primary, serious camera is a Panny FZ 50 which is 10MP.
It has a Leica lens that IMHO produces outstanding images even on a
1/1.8" sensor.

I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing
tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite
significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would
not find a spot in the heart of the general public. They seem to be
thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh
Bob




And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

What is it with you tech-head pixel-pervs? I guess since none of you ever
know how to take any images of worthwhile content, the only thing that any
of you have left to admire and be concerned about are the dots. It doesn't
matter how many of those you have, or how high of a resolution they can be
combined into, none of them matter if you don't have something worthy of
being depicted by those dots.

Here's some dots ..................................

I have 21 million of them! All of them just as sharp and clear as those
above, each of them available in 8 million shades too! Ain't they
wonderful!?! I bet you'd pay $10,000 to be able to have a device to create
such perfect dots, and so many of them, all just as perfect!

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

You ****ingly useless idiots.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:18:11 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:

bobwilliams wrote:
About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams

I ABSOLUTELY agree that IF you plan to print at 8X10 or larger, more
pixels are better. And good glass is of paramount importance.
After all, it is the lens that creates the image.
Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield
mediocre images.

But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question.....
" 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?"
It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the
digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at.

I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in
large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors.
I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and
easy display. These are my best-of-best pics

My primary, serious camera is a Panny FZ 50 which is 10MP.
It has a Leica lens that IMHO produces outstanding images even on a
1/1.8" sensor.

I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing
tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite
significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would
not find a spot in the heart of the general public. They seem to be
thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh
Bob




And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

What is it with you tech-head pixel-pervs? I guess since none of you ever
know how to take any images of worthwhile content, the only thing that any
of you have left to admire and be concerned about are the dots. It doesn't
matter how many of those you have, or how high of a resolution they can be
combined into, none of them matter if you don't have something worthy of
being depicted by those dots.

Here's some dots ..................................

I have 21 million of them! All of them just as sharp and clear as those
above, each of them available in 16.7 million shades and hues too! Ain't
they wonderful!?! I bet you'd pay $10,000 to be able to have a device to
create such perfect dots, and so many of them, all just as perfect!

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

You ****ingly useless idiots.

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

--
Bertrand

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

You ****ingly useless IDIOT TROLL.

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.


--
Bertrand

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.

I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.
All he managed to do was not destroy an already majestic scene. There's no
talent in that.

But if we had to compare the above example you've given with any of your
photography on even the best camera in existence? Ansel's downsized, noise
added, upsampled image would beat anything you could do, without question.
Between the two guess whose photographs would sell? NOT yours.

On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.

I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.

Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.


--
Bertrand

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.

I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.

Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.

And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago
when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
publications. You stupid ****wad.

[Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.
This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
good lesson for all.]

Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
medium-frame camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all wait
while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just upload
any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't even own
one camera.

YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.