therwol Loc: USA

A 4K monitor can display 8.3 megapixels of information. An 8x10 print at the typical 300 dpi needs 7.2 megapixels. For most people, this is all they need. By simple multiplication, you'll use up all of your 24 megapixels by the time you get to 16x20 at 300 dpi. I don't think that anyone would argue that 6 megapixels is adequate when you start making very large prints, and the point about 6 megapixels is moot when you consider that you can't find cameras these days with less than 12 megapixel sensors, 20 now being common in compact cameras, but the actual need of most people isn't 24 or 36 or more megapixels in their cameras.

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

Please explain how Apple managed to take 8 mp images from an iPhone 6 and blow them up to billboard size? They look pretty sharp, don't they? The reason is that less ppi is needed for large prints.

If you understand the eye's limitations, you'll realize that a 16x24 print viewed at normal distances (1.5 x the diagonal dimension) does not need 300 ppi, but will still be perceived as sharp at 80 ppi.

These two charts from this link - explains it all - http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

In the simplest of terms, the resolution required to see "sharpness" diminishes as the viewing distance increases. If you anticipate closer viewing distances, then naturally you would need more resolution. But no one but an OCD photographer will walk up close to a 40x60 landscape print.

A 40x60 print only "needs" 32 ppi, or 1920x1280, or 2.6 mp to appear sharp. A 6 mp camera will provide 50 ppi, which is more than enough for a print that size viewed at 9 ft.

Your resolution requirement in ppi goes up as the distance decreases, so a 4x6 image, printed from the same 1920x1280 image that would have been fine for a 40x60, would barely be acceptable printed at 320 ppi.

This is pretty basic, but most, like yourself, usually get it wrong. If you still don't believe what you read, take a view minutes and go to a company that creates billboards and signage.

(Download)

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

Yes, and the Sony 4K theater projectors at the local multiplex are no different. They project a 4096 × 2160 px image or 8.8 mp.

Oh, and if you do bird and wildlife photography, cropping to 6-12 mp is the order of the day.

This is cropped to 5 mp and I have made some stunning 24x24 prints from it - no one has judged it to be soft. . . Just sayin'

(Download)

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Excellent Red-bellied.

therwol Loc: USA

I think that my threshold for stepping back and looking from some distance might be different from yours. If someone has a 16x20 picture of an event or gathering of a lot of people, I'm going to have my nose up to the picture to see the faces and other details clearly. In the old days, such pictures would be taken on medium or sometimes large format film and printed optically. Disregarding imperfections in the enlarger or lens, you'd get a lot of detail in those pictures. On the other hand, I might just look at a poster across a room. It depends on the subject.

Also keep in mind that throughout this thread, I've been a support of the concept that we don't need as many pixels as most think we do. We get them anyway because that's where the market has gone.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

"most".........."most"................"most"................"most"..............."most"....................but not all.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Not necessarily if one has a 600mm lens. I have the Tamron 150-600mm, and I find that I no longer have to crop to get that close-up. Thus I have 24 mp, 6000x4000 pixel close-up images now. Since wildlife is my #1 sales category behind flowers, having a 60"x40" print sells at a much higher price than smaller sizes. Much greater profit.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

There's that "most" qualifier again.
I'm one of those who does not fit into the "most" category.
I need as many pixels as I can get. In fact, I need so many pixels that I'll often take 3-40 pictures and stitch them together using Photoshop's Photomerge function to get even more pixels. My biggest so far is a 33,000 pixels x 4,200 pixels photomerge of a unique home in Del Mar CA. Fine Art America printed it on metal at 100 ppi. It came out to 330 inches long by 42 inches high. Sold for $6,000 to the guy who owns the home. Looks awesome in his great room, and he's the happiest person in the world.

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

Thanks!

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

As an FYI, I shoot with a Sigma Sport 150-600 and a 600 F4. I found the Sigma the sharpest super zoom at the time I purchased it, but since I have also found the Tamron G2 to be pretty much it's equal.

I often need to crop, and with either lens I have enough contrast and acuity to do that on a D800. It's challenging to shoot small birds without cropping.

I don't need 24mp to get to 40x60, 12 is more than enough, and 6-8 is also fine. I too make large images for sale in galleries. No one is complaining about softness or lack of detail. The images below were hand-held with the Sigma.

I took a look at your gallery on FineArt America. I have one question - are all your bird shots done with the watercolor effect?

My "journal" gallery is here https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

female robin

(Download)

wood thrush(?)

(Download)

red headed woodpecker

(Download)

common yellowthroat

(Download)

gray catbird

(Download)

house wren

(Download)

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

No. In fact, I have no idea how anything was done because I don't keep notes and they are truly one-of-a-kind. I play around until something satisfies me. I'm using Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements, Paintshop Pro, Photo-Paint, Illustrator, DRAW, Word, Topaz (everything), Redfield, onOne, Dynamic Auto-Painter, After Effects, OpticsPro, Photomatix, Landscape Pro, PanosFX, Painter, Light Zone, Affinity, Photo Impact Pro, Faststone, Photoscrape, Xara, PhotoDirector, Photo Gallery, Automatix, Capture One Pro, Final Cut Pro, Davinci Resolve, Wondershare Filmora, and VideoStudio Pro.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Fine Art America requires a minimum of 100 ppi. So to get a 40x60 print, 12 mp just is not going to get me there. The mathematics is not difficult.
I am at Fine Art America for two main reason: (1) I don't have to keep physical inventory, and (2) they have a money back, no questions asked, satisfaction guarantee. I am averaging just over $10,000 a month in sales and have never had anyone return anything they ordered from Fine Art America.


I don't make any images at all for sale in galleries. My target audience comprises Realtors, loan agents, title agents, and escrow agents. They use my work as close-of-escrow gifts.

More about my company and my marketing that I shared with UHH on August 2, 2015: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-327835-1.html

I love your work. I could make some great Photographic Art with it!

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

Thanks!

David Taylor