bbradford Loc: Wake Forest NC

I would love to solve this mystery I've heard for years. I have always been told that if you develop no larger than 8x11 that pixels don't matter. So, my question is this. If you develop a picture that's 8x11 using a 12 megapixel camera and another picture that's 24 megapixel will I be able to tell the difference? We must assume we are using cameras that are as like each other as possible. Let's not get into a ten year old camera and a modern camera conversation. Want to compare apple to apple as best possible. Thanks for your thoughts. Bryan

Vietnam Vet

yes

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

If you handed me an 8x11 print and asked me if a 12 megapixel or 24 megapixel camera was used to capture the image, I would not be able to tell you with any certainty.

bleirer

The eye can't really see resolution smaller than 300 pixels per inch in close up normal viewing. If you pixel peeped you could see it maybe.

So for a print 10 inches by 8 inches you'd need 10 times 300 by 8 by 300, so 3000 by 2400 or 7.2 megapixels.

Chart about halfway down https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-pixel.htm

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

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

If you make a giant print 40x60 or bigger, and you walk up and view it at 18" - of course you will see a difference. But move back to a 9 ft distance and the answer is probably not. Make a bigger print, say 120x180, and move to a distance where you can view the entire print without moving your head from side to side - you will definitely not see any difference at all.

This has all the info and scientific rationale to explain away the myths.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

BebuLamar

No you can't. You can if the printer can make use of more than 12MP for an 8x10 print but the printer can not. It seems that they don't try to make printers that can print with higher resolution.

bbradford Loc: Wake Forest NC

Wow. Thanks everyone for great information.

agillot

the ISO used make a large difference , shot at 200 and then at 2000 , crop and see .the newer cameras are much better at high iso .i use a D300 , so i try to stay around 400 .

bleirer

Maybe it's just me, but I look close up, if I can, the more interested I am. I get billboards where the viewing distance is set, but even in a gallery there might be a Monet that fills the whole wall and I'll get as close as the velvet ropes allow to look up close. I think in photos a good goal is 300 pixels per inch for homes, offices, and galleries.

BebuLamar

The OP asking about comparison between a 12MP 8x11 print and a 24MP 8x11 print and if the the printer can only print 300ppi then you can't see the difference even if you use a loupe and look at the print at a couple of inches distance. Either the print has only about 8MP.

bleirer

I was replying to the link Gene51 posted about viewing distance. In my first response I said something similar to what you said.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

There are 2 parts to this question. First, for a given distance and FOV (field of view) a higher mp sensor will record more detail than a lower mp sensor if there is detail to see. For example, you don't need much resolution to photograph a plain white wall with no texture, but you will pick up quite a bit more detail in landscapes, portrait, macro and other categories of photography with a higher resolution sensor. Second, can you see the detail from a higher resolution sensor? The answer depends on how you view it. For social media where screen resolution goes from roughly 70 to 200 ppi, an 8 to 12mp camera is over kill unless you are using an extremely tight crop. If you are going to print out a hard copy it depends on the level of quality that is acceptable to you (if you are using a good quality printer), but the resolution of the human eye provides reasonable guidance. At 8" the human eye can see about 428 ppi, at 12" about 286 ppi, at 24" about 143 ppi. Most consider a high quality of print will use 300 ppi, so an 8x10 would require 7.2mp. Again, if you need a tight crop, then more sensor resolution is a must.

There is a very important thing to consider. You can never capture more detail than your sensor and lens will permit. If you are using a low mp body and mediocre lens, you will never be able to reproduce the detail of a complex scene. On the other hand, if you are using a high mp camera and pro quality lens, the detail will be there if you want to use it. For me personally, it kind of goes along the old adage, "it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it". I am passionate about birding where heavy crops are the norm and a higher pixel density is important to have.

BebuLamar

Sorry! Back when I first started taking pictures at age 10. I shot B&W and the lab gave me 3.5x5 prints. I could see a lot of details in the prints using a loupe. Today, all the digitally printed prints I can't see more details using the loupe (or even a microscope). The digital printers simply don't have very high resolution. To show more details you simply have to print it big.

bleirer

I'm curious where your ppi science came from, I'm not saying it's wrong, just wonder how so specific of a number could be derived.