Whither high resolution Digital Images?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: gorilla
Next: I was recently at an all-around outdoors store, and the proprietortold me that some people use spotting scopes...
From: bobwilliams on 3 Aug 2010 05:02 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
From: eatmorepies on 3 Aug 2010 05:58 "bobwilliams" <mytbob(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:17SdnVQz2f-lRsrRnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > 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. > All you say is correct. People buy high res cameras for several reasons; 1. Because bigger is better and gives you more bragging rights. 2. Because they want a feature that is in a new model and it comes with higher resolution (I bought the 5D2 for it's high ISO abilities) - and you may set the camera to lower resolution (a). 3. Because, like me, they want to print some A2 photographs on their excellent Epson 3880 printer. (a) If you do this you can't then offer your image for a photographic exhibition that wants larger prints - such as the one my local camera club is preparing. Conclusion - whatever camera you have use the full resolution and then reduce it to suit your purpose. Even if you are intending your snaps for web use don't take low res pictures because someone might just ask to buy a nice big print from you. John
From: Bowser on 3 Aug 2010 08:06 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, bobwilliams <mytbob(a)cox.net> 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. Because when I shoot the pic I don't really know what the final use will be. So why not shoot at high-res so you can print, display, crop, etc? > >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? Nobody would buy a camera designed for such a narrow usage. Many ofus display on the web and print and make calendars, and photo books, etc. Are we going to buy two cameras: one for web and one for print? Nope. >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. Again, if that's ALL you'll ever do with your images, use a cell phone. I print, in addition to web display. I won't buy a low-res cam just for that; makes no sense at all.
From: ray on 3 Aug 2010 11:05 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0700, 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 People are sheep. Most will get the 'in' thing. Some of us actually consider what we do, what we are likely to do, what we may do. The majority of my photos don't get printed - but by using available resources and routinely shooting in raw, I can do what I want with any of them. More recently, I've had occasion to print out several photos for my mother in law. She is a recognized artist now in 'assisted living'. If I can give her something to work with, I'm happy to do that.
From: Rich on 3 Aug 2010 11:42
On Aug 3, 5:02 am, bobwilliams <myt...(a)cox.net> 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 People still put images on walls. Not everyone is such a clod that they only have a computer monitor or a (Yuck!) digital frame. |