Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- From: "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:40:53 GMT
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article <37Csi.9176$By5.4762@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David J
Taylor says...
The other day somebody asked a print of one of my photos. If
possible he would have ordered it as 180x100cm. Had I taken that
photo with a camera with sufficient resolution or with a panorama
technique, I could have sold a 180x100cm print. Pixel count matters.
What was the intended viewing distance? Why not make the 180 x 100cm
anyway? It may be the size and presentation which stuns, rather
than the ability to scrutinise the print close-up (group photo
possibly excepted).
Sure, such a print won't be made at 300dpi, but still one would expect
some detail and sharpness. With a low pixel count, people might walk
close to the print and wonder why it is so blurred.
Don't forget that there is a reason why medium and large format
cameras exist.
Look at the large prints on advertising posters and in stores. None that
I have seen stand close scrutiny, but many can make an impact. If pixel
peeping /really/ matters, mount the print where people can't get close to
it!
I might also say that if the image content is /that/ good, the blurriness
won't matter, but it does depend on the precise application, of course....
Cheers,
David
.
- References:
- Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- From: dr
- Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- From: Chris Malcolm
- Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- From: Alfred Molon
- Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- From: David J Taylor
- Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- From: Alfred Molon
- Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- Prev by Date: Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- Next by Date: Re: I predicted it would happen!!!
- Previous by thread: Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- Next by thread: Re: The megapixel insanity continues
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading