TheDman Loc: USA

Nice!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks. And the image posted is downsampled to 2000x1339 -

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

We are not in disagreement at all. You use your images the exact same way I do. You do them so they can have enough perceptible fine detail for the viewing distance. The only difference is a 40x60 landscape is rarely viewed at the same distance a macro shot of the sex organs of a flower or the tiny hairs on the leg of a spider. You are 100% correct - the viewer will get as close as possible to appreciate the details. It's all about the viewer, the subject material and the anticipated viewing distances. If you knew your image would be displayed in a museum exhibit where the minimum viewing distance might be 10 ft, you'd probably approach the image a little differently. It's a little hard to wrestle with images that are 500mp and larger.

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

Agreed Gene. Actually knowing how you viewed image production as tied to the anticipated use of the image, I anticipated that we were in agreement. I just wanted to point out that general "rules" in photography had to be tailored to out of the ordinary usage. Appreciate you.

therwol Loc: USA

Some of my pictures have haze in them because there was haze in the air. None of them were intended as artistic masterpieces. I'm not an artist. I take pictures of vacations for memories. They are what they are, and that's how I'll remember being there. And actually, I think that the picture of the backlit island with the field of hay bales in the foreground benefits from a little haze in the distance. It makes the island look a bit surreal.

Is there a "rain filter" I can use to remove the rain from these next two pictures (Ireland 2005 and England again 2011). Whoops, there is camera movement too. The imperfections don't matter at all to me. This is where I was driving both times, holding the camera in one hand while driving, and capturing the experience for posterity. These pictures mean more to me than any I could take by setting up a shot for an hour and waiting for the rain to stop.

(Download)


(Download)

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

LOL

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Now those two I like. I just didn't like the earlier ones. Sorry.

therwol Loc: USA

Apology accepted. Don't worry about it. The original purpose of posting those pictures was to show that a 6 megapixel camera can take decent pictures, and I'm pretty sure that any of them would make a decent 8x10 enlargement, if not a bit larger. By the way, the Ireland picture was taken while driving over the Sally Gap south of Dublin with my first digital camera, a 5 megapixel Gateway model. I don't know who actually made it for them. The camera was stolen from my son when he left his car door open and went inside a gas station. He has the Panasonic now but finds his iPhone more convenient to use, even though the old Panasonic is far more capable. Let's just say he isn't very critical.

The funny thing is that I bought a Nikon D810 a couple of years ago and what do I do? I cut down the size of the pictures drastically to share them by e-mail, almost negating the purpose of having such a camera. The bottom line is that I agree with the statement Ken Rockwell makes regarding 6 megapixels being adequate for most purposes. I said here that I've exchanged e-mail with him, and he actually wrote to me with a technical explanation of the actual resolution of computer monitors and printers to back up what he says, speaking of wasted pixels in producing the end result. He gave me the link to the full discussion on his web site, but I lost it. He isn't an idiot, as some suggest, just very odd in some of the things he says on his web site and in the way he says them. I'll also give him credit for putting a lot of time and effort into what he does.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

And therein lies the reason why "most" people with a smart phone believe that their photography skills are just as good as "most" professional photographers.

therwol Loc: USA

Smart phones do NOT take the pictures with the same level of quality as most dedicated cameras. The pixel count is the least of the reasons. My old 6 megapixel Panasonic has an optical zoom (12:1) versus a digital zoom for one thing. It has controls that give you complete exposure control, 4 exposure modes including manual. It has many preset scene modes. You can change the white balance. You can focus manually. It has multiple video options. Remember, this camera came out in 2008 and was considered advanced for a compact camera back then. When you advance beyond a compact superzoom, you add interchangeable lenses, larger sensors, better ISO an noise performance etc.

We're just talking about megapixels. No typical computer screen can display as many as 6 megapixels at once. No typical printer will put that much information into normal sized enlargements. We're only talking about this and nothing else.

I do appreciate that my Nikon d810 takes better pictures than anything else that I've owned, but I believe that's somewhat a function of the quality of the sensor versus the absolute number of megapixels for "normal" sharing and printing of pictures. The high pixel count gives the ability to crop without loss of IQ. The Nikon lenses that I own are light years ahead of anything you see on a smart phone.

But we're only talking about pixel count and not all of that.

If you're interested.

http://www.camera-usermanual.com/manuals/panasonic/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FZ7.pdf

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

We might be talking about megapixels, but one can't do anything with just megapixels. One has to have a way to create those megapixels (like a camera or a smart phone), a screen to display those megapixels, a printer to print those megapixels, etc. Thus, I'll disagree with you that we're not talking about anything else. Heck, even you in your post here are talking about other things. You talked about optical zoom, digital zoom, exposure modes, preset scene modes, white balance, focus manually, video options, age, compact cameras, interchangeable lenses, ISO, noise, cropping. And then you include a PDF of the Panasonic Lumix camera user manual. Mama mia. Seems like we're talking about all sorts of things and how megapixels relate.

therwol Loc: USA

The question only had to do with megapixels. Adding all of those features to the megapixels makes for better megapixels. I was trying to explain why a camera is better than a phone. A camera at this point in time makes for better images, but more megapixels, good or bad ones, may not be necessary for what most people do with pictures simply because of the way they are typically viewed or printed.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Indeed! The only use those megapixels have is how they are ultimately displayed, and that is a function of the display, not the megapixel number or the digital file containing all the information about those pixels. If a print, then it is the resolution ability of the printer that is the limiting factor, if a screen, then the resolution of the screen, and its size. None of these display media can utilize 36 megapixels!

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

You can tell Photoshop how to use those 36 megapixels. I have a 4K monitor, and to use the 24 megapixels of my camera I let Photoshop know that I'm using a 4K monitor with 3184 pixels. I do that by telling it that I have 163.404 pixels per inch over 23.5 inches. That gives me a real size on the screen, so that 10x14 inches on the screen is exactly the 10x14 inches that I will print on my printer, very useful when I'm doing something for my Clients, and once I explain how to get actual sizes on the screens, they wind up doing the exact same thing.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I'm not arguing that a phone is better than a camera. I don't even have a phone that takes pictures, but I do know that all of my non-photographer friends with phones--every. single. one.--don't think they need a photographer for anything in today's world since their smart phones take excellent pictures. The iPhone 7 has a 12 MP camera, so if you're arguing that 6 is enough for photographers, then suddenly everyone is a photographer. And 90% of everyone believe that they now ARE a photographer because they can take great pictures of their dogs and cats.