If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
Hi...
I am an amateur photographer (35 mm) that is looking to take it more seriously and learn and practice... to the point that I can take quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even shoot weddings. I know digital is the way to go these days...so my question is this.... For good quality portrait enlargements up to say 11x14... How many megapixels should I expect to have to purchase? is 10 enough? 16? (is there anything else I may need to know about digital resolution?) Also.... is it reasonable to think I could use a digital SLR for weddings and events? Thank you.... more to come. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
On 22 Sep 2006 09:41:24 -0700, Scott W wrote:
I am an amateur photographer (35 mm) that is looking to take it more seriously and learn and practice... to the point that I can take quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even shoot weddings. I know digital is the way to go these days...so my question is this.... For good quality portrait enlargements up to say 11x14... How many megapixels should I expect to have to purchase? is 10 enough? 16? (is there anything else I may need to know about digital resolution?) Also.... is it reasonable to think I could use a digital SLR for weddings and events? I would worry more about low light performance then the number of pixels. I would think that the 5D would be just about perfect for wedding work, more then enough resolution and you can shoot in low light with out the need of a flash. While the 5D is a very good camera, it is also quite expensive, especially considering the lenses that might be added to the kit. Your recommendation would be a good one, say, for a pro film photographer looking to switch to digital or another type of pro that's developing an interest in weddings. But here we have an amateur that only says that in time, he'd "maybe even shoot weddings". The OP should understand that wedding photographers have successfully used (and are still using) lesser 6mp and 8mp digital cameras, which can produce very high quality 11"x14" prints. In fact, there are probably many wedding photographers that have used or are still using 20Ds for their work. Know any? Almost any current DSLR would do about everything the OP needs, as his stated initial primary concern is learning and practicing. Restricting the discussion to Canon and Nikon models, the now obsolete Canon 350D and Nikon D70 would do everything he needs, even producing very nice 11x14's, and would result in savings of from many hundreds to thousands of dollars better spent on lenses and lighting equipment (not just flashes). After a couple of years, the OP would know quite well whether getting a newer, better camera would be justified, and by then would probably know whether getting the latest 10mp or 12mp camera would be a good idea, or whether switching to a full frame model such as the 5D would be justified. Even though the 5D doesn't require as much light as some other models doesn't mean that the skilled use of lighting equipment wouldn't improve many of the shots it could produce. I wouldn't want the OP to think that a 5D requires no lighting assistance for wedding photography, especially given that it's one of the DSLRs that has no built-in flash. A good external Canon flash would provide fill and bounce flash, which any serious amateur photographer should be as familiar with as understanding the proper use of White Balance as well as the advantages of shooting RAW. With a couple of good lenses (preferably IS, right?) and lighting equipment, the 5D would make a very nice training and learning setup, but would cost thousands of dollars more than many other DSLRs that would be just as effective for learning. And they'd also be able to produce decent 11x14's even using inexpensive kit lenses (if the worst ones are avoided). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
ASAAR wrote:
On 22 Sep 2006 09:41:24 -0700, Scott W wrote: I am an amateur photographer (35 mm) that is looking to take it more seriously and learn and practice... to the point that I can take quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even shoot weddings. I know digital is the way to go these days...so my question is this.... For good quality portrait enlargements up to say 11x14... How many megapixels should I expect to have to purchase? is 10 enough? 16? (is there anything else I may need to know about digital resolution?) Also.... is it reasonable to think I could use a digital SLR for weddings and events? I would worry more about low light performance then the number of pixels. I would think that the 5D would be just about perfect for wedding work, more then enough resolution and you can shoot in low light with out the need of a flash. While the 5D is a very good camera, it is also quite expensive, especially considering the lenses that might be added to the kit. Your recommendation would be a good one, say, for a pro film photographer looking to switch to digital or another type of pro that's developing an interest in weddings. But here we have an amateur that only says that in time, he'd "maybe even shoot weddings". I personally believe that anyone even considering doing weddings as a professional should be fully aware ahead of time they they need to be professional. That includes their equipment and experience. Far too many people think doing weddings is easy and fail to deliver. This is not new to digital, it was true back in the early 60's when I was starting in photography. I do believe the 5D would be a good choice and I would agree that there are many "professional" photographers using less. However if the price of the camera is keeping you out, then likely you don't belong in. -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:39:36 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
I personally believe that anyone even considering doing weddings as a professional should be fully aware ahead of time they they need to be professional. That includes their equipment and experience. Far too many people think doing weddings is easy and fail to deliver. This is not new to digital, it was true back in the early 60's when I was starting in photography. I do believe the 5D would be a good choice and I would agree that there are many "professional" photographers using less. However if the price of the camera is keeping you out, then likely you don't belong in. Wedding photography is difficult, and probably shouldn't be self-taught. The sense I got from the OP wasn't that he was gung ho to become a wedding photographer though, at least not yet. Did you notice that he didn't say that he had a burning desire, but said that he: is looking to take it more seriously and learn and practice... to the point that I can take quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even shoot weddings. As such, it doesn't seem worthwhile or wise to spend several thousands of dollars more for a learning setup than is really needed, on the odd chance that several years from now the slight, possible interest in wedding photography will actually grow to the point where he wants to do something about it. If it happens then, he'll be in a more knowledgeable position and should be able to select the right equipment for his needs. It might then be an old, serviceable 5D, or some new Canon 7D, announced in an '08 or '09 Photokina. Or maybe he'll hook up with an old pro and want to invest in similar equipment so that he has a greater pool of lenses, backup bodies & batteries and other equipment to share. He has a lot to learn, and the kind of skills he'll need will include people skills and organizational skills, not just photographic skills. For developing those almost any DSLR will do nicely. If he has plenty of money and doesn't mind spending it on a 5D that'll work. But he won't learn any more quickly than if he gets a 350D, 400D, 20D or 30D. One of the ng's Canonista denizens said earlier today that: JL You really have to get your money's worth out of a digital body JL in the first three years. so if a lot of money is going to be put into a camera, it's probably best to put it off until the learning phase is over, and the equipment has a better chance of earning its keep. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
ASAAR wrote:
.... Wedding photography is difficult, and probably shouldn't be self-taught. The sense I got from the OP wasn't that he was gung ho to become a wedding photographer though, at least not yet. Did you notice that he didn't say that he had a burning desire, but said that he: is looking to take it more seriously and learn and practice... to the point that I can take quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even shoot weddings. ... so if a lot of money is going to be put into a camera, it's probably best to put it off until the learning phase is over, and the equipment has a better chance of earning its keep. You made good sense there. -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
I depends upon the medium.
If a photo album is the end result, then figure that decent prints require a minimum of 300 dpi. If you are going to have 8x10s then you need at least 8 megapixels and if you are going to crop, then you will need more. Similarly for 11x14s you need at least 15 megapixels. A person wanting perfect results would want 4 times the megapixels so they could print at 600 dpi, but that is overkill and the improvement is only noticeable upon close inspection. An amateur wanting nice results could use half as many pixels and get 200 dpi which is marginally acceptable if no printing is present. If printing is present, then a minimum of 300 dpi is necessary. Some people prefer 200 dpi for portrait photography since it softens the image. If a DVD is the only end result then much less resolution is necessary. -- Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Archiving Old Photos - A Newbie Question | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | June 10th 06 09:19 PM |
Archiving Old Photos - A Newbie Question | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | June 10th 06 03:50 AM |
High resolution photos from a digital camera. | Scott W | Digital Photography | 77 | November 17th 05 03:26 PM |
Reducing File Size / Sharing Photos / Album Help | Dave | Digital Photography | 10 | September 16th 04 10:36 PM |
safe guarding photos | BJ | Digital Photography | 11 | September 15th 04 03:04 AM |