The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Who needs more than 6 MP?

Shashin

Well-known member
Ralph Gibson is having a retrospective in London. Scroll to the end of the article (link below) and look at one of his most recognized images. Look at the actual detail that is present in the image, not the grain, but detail. So what is the connection between detail and a strong image?

https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-48254948
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Perfection is over rated and always has been when it comes to art.

Also, I have a LOT of batteries. :chug:
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I was very fortunate to see the Don McCullin exhibition at the Tate earlier this month.
It affected me deeply, so much so I'm still thinking about it.
All film and except for one or two examples from newspaper magazines, all in black and white.
And all well below anything even close to 6mp.
Up close with the medium format shots you see incredible detail with wonderful texture.
Up close with the 35mm film frames they are smudges... but... stand back about 2-3 feet and the results are sublime, truly sublime... even when they take you into the heart of darkness.
My ongoing concern with digital equipment is that it has no longevity. If I wasn't so lazy I could still pick up a Hasselblad 500CM with a 80/2.8 - two antique pieces of equipment - and still create lovely images. It is just so much more easy to pick up a digital camera.
I hope that doesn't make me a shallow and bad person!

LouisB
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I hope that doesn't make a shallow and bad person!

LouisB
Well... we just have to live with your attitudes, don't we :ROTFL:

Black and white film, and particularly the two classic high speed emmulsions Tri-X and HP5, has an ability to show details that aren't really there, and to enhance stories that is more in your eyes than on the paper. The engineers at Kodak and Ilford must have spent enormous amounts of time creating those formulas, an artistic triumph in itself.

Those who strive to develop digital sensors to perfection clearly have totally different objectives. It's perfection and perfection hand in hand. But art isn't perfection, and neither is story telling. If nothing is left to the fantasy and the intellect of the viewer, if I'm not challenged by the image to see more than the surface, to use my brain to figure out all the tiny bits, viewing it becomes a flat and boring experience. We are past "kitsch" and on our way to an artistic vision boring beyond anything previously experienced.

When I'm finished with my current lens buying spree, I'm looking at three cameras that are still current but that for photographic purposes are interesting for other reasons than the ever increasing number of pixels: the GH5s, the A7s II and the Df. I have friends who bought the GH5s or the A7s II with the purpose of producing video with them, but who brag endlessly about their qualities for stills photography. The qualities of the Df are well documented on this forum. They are much more than 6MP of course, but again, they are current.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
What Never Happens: "I was a great film photographer, but now all my photographs will be boring because I have this boring digital medium."

What Never Happens 2: "My photography was mediocre, but now that I have more megapixels, it will be better."

What Never Happens 3: "My digital photography was soulless, but now that I'm shooting on an old film camera, my work will have meaning and depth."

What Never Happens 4: "The beautiful images I make with my camera are now garbage because someone has released a newer camera with more impressive specs."

What Rarely Happens: "A newly released camera will let me experiment with a kind of photography I haven't previously explored due to technical limitations."

What Rarely Happens 2: "I shoot for large prints that sell well. Now that I have more MP, I can print those even larger images that my customers have been asking for without resorting to stitching."

What Constantly Happens: People believe that all of the above are inevitable.

My 2p,

Matt
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Technology changes the way we take photos and the way we see photos. This is nothing new, and it goes for most artforms. However, I don't think the best or most advanced technology necesarilly give the best results, neither from an artistic nor from an illustrational point of view. More detail, and absolutely more colour, can often distract from the intended message. It's very interesting to study reportage photos and portraits from the fifties and sixties, when colour photos hadn't yet replaced black and white. Some photos simply convey their message better in b&w than in colour. I think it would be naive to think that cleaner photos with higher resolution don't work in a similar way.

Sometimes, when watching an old, simplistic photo with a strong message, I ask myself "Would this photo have been taken at all with current technology? Would the photographer have found the motive strong and interesting enough for the increased resolution and colour fidelity that modern cameras offer?".

There is no scientific way of finding out, but I'm quite sure that I take different photos with film compared to with digital, and when I compare digital photos that I've taken now compared to those I took 10 or more years ago, there are certainly differences that often go along camera and technology lines. I wouldn't say that my photos now are worse. Some has been gained, but some has also been lost.

There was a long discussion when "The Hobbit" was released due to the fact that it was shot at 48 fps, twice the normal movie frame rate, rendering more precise movement and much more details than what was at that time the norm in feature films. Very many comments were negative, and claimed that the increased detail distracted from the film's story. I tend to agree.
 
Sometimes, when watching an old, simplistic photo with a strong message, I ask myself "Would this photo have been taken at all with current technology? Would the photographer have found the motive strong and interesting enough for the increased resolution and colour fidelity that modern cameras offer?"
I tend to think yes. You make an image with the camera at hand.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Even in the 6MP days I did brick wall lens test :rolleyes:


KonicaMinolta 5D + Helios 35/2.8 (M42)

The lens was fine, the wall failed :ROTFL:
 

Oren Grad

Active member
Wrapped my Pentax K110D with 18-55 DA kit zoom in a plastic bag and ventured out as the snow fell...





These are from December 2007. I bought the camera late in 2006, my first DSLR. I still have it, even as many other digital cameras have come and gone.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I tend to think yes. You make an image with the camera at hand.
Absolutely, but how much are the motives I choose influence by the camera, its functionality and limitations? If you ask the same question if the lenses are discussed, it obviously matters a lot, but with cameras?

Here's an example:
When I started shooting motor sports, I used a Fuji S3, and I know that the motives I chose were influenced heavily by the limitations of that camera. Later, I changed to a D80, then to a D300, D2Xs, D700 and finally to a D810. With the latter two, there were few limitations, and my photos reflect that. The photos are not necessarilly better, but they are different. The downside was that I got all these bursts of 36MP images of which none was in focus. With the S3, since I only shot RAW, I had a buffer size of 3 frames, and the buffer took more than 40 seconds to flush. Because of those limitations, I always prepared better, and the hit rate was high.

With film and with old digital camera that were limited in so many ways, I always worked harder and I always gave the framing and exposure more thought. I suspect that, because of this more elaborate way of taking photos, I might have seen motives that I wouldn't have seen with the current crop of advanced cameras.

There's no way of proving this of course, and as you point out, we shoot with what we have, but the more I think about it, the less I'm inclined to upgrade my camera bodies, although I often give the opposite impression :ROTFL:
 
With film and with old digital camera that were limited in so many ways, I always worked harder and I always gave the framing and exposure more thought. I suspect that, because of this more elaborate way of taking photos, I might have seen motives that I wouldn't have seen with the current crop of advanced cameras.
Are you basically saying that new cameras make you a lazy photographer. If so, I'd stay as far away from that EM1X as I could. Too many fps to distract you from the task at hand.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Are you basically saying that new cameras make you a lazy photographer. If so, I'd stay as far away from that EM1X as I could. Too many fps to distract you from the task at hand.
Absolutely. Technology makes photography easier, it doesn't make me a better photographer. This is not unique to cameras. Most progresses in consumer technology make most people lazier.

If I buy the E-M1X, it would mostly be because of build quality and ergonomics. Oh... and it looks cool too :)
However, at the moment, I'm more likely to buy a G95 with the grip. It's a third of the price, uses batteries that I already have, and has excellent ergonomics too, very much like my old GH1 and 2. Or maybe I should buy another Fuji S5. They are cheap now, and image quality is still good :cool:
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Now don't misunderstand me. I'm fortunate enough to be able to shoot:

Phase One IQ3100 with XF kit and Actus DB outfit
Fuji GFX 50s outfit
Leica M10 kit
Leica M246 kit
Sony RX100 VI
Nikon Df kit with wonderful AIS glass
Ricoh GRDII
Sigma Merrills full kit - yup all of them.

(oh, and a bunch of film Leicas)

And the overwhelming thing as I get older is that technology and art are not related. I could shoot a wonderful image with any of those cameras and the technical capabilities wouldn't matter a jot. (Ok, the Leica lenses do have a special look but I digress)

I suspect that it's similar to asking a great writer what typewriter they used. :facesmack:
Finally!!!!

A voice of reason and wisdom!!!:thumbup:

Actually a lot of voices of reason and wisdom!

How did I miss this thread? Hmmm... I have to get a CD reader to download/upload? my images from the D1/D2 cameras I used in the past. Those images are still not obsolete and neither are the cameras. I wish I had been able to have kept them.:(
 

simonclivehughes

Active member
I've a similar history as many others here: D1, R-D1 etc, and while I agree that 6MP can certainly be enough, I'm glad to have the additional pixel depth that I'm shooting today (24MP Sony NEX 7 and a6000). I just bought a 20MP (albeit 1"-type sensor) Sony RX100 Mk3, I'm liking the additional pixels for cropping into its 24-70mm range to approximate having a 200-300mm viewpoint without carrying my APC cameras and lenses.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Another wonderful thread! Thank you pegelli :thumbs:

D70s..( ok I cheat..6.1mp )..in Switzerland...




I remember taking the following in St.Moritz, as if it was yesterday!!

 
Top