MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Came across this 1.2 Mb image in the archives... Fuji lens on an HP bridge camera from back in the day.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The flower looks great. However, 'bytes' has nothing to do with pixel-based digital images. Rather, the important issue is simply the pixels, because they're pixel-based images ....

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Thanks Paul... I just thought the resolution was pretty good from a small file. I will have to educate myself on your comments. Thanks for your expertise. Maybe this would be a good discussion topic ?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I discuss it all the time ...

What defines a pixel-based digital image are the pixels. That is, the pixel resolution, or more exactly, the total pixels wide by the total pixels tall, such as 6000x4000 or 24MP.

What defines the file size is a) the data being stored and b) the compression (if any) being used to minimize that total storage. An 8-bit file, all JPEGs, stores more color data than the human eye can actually 'see'. That is, more shades / combinations of Red with Green with Blue than our eyes can actual discern (RGB).

RAW files are 'bigger' for two reasons: a) they are 12- or 14-bit files containing even more data about the RGB colors and b) they're uncompressed.

TIFF files are 'bigger' for two reasons: a) they are typically 16-bit files and b) they're uncompressed.

But, a 24MP JPEG has the same 24-million pixels as the 24MP RAW as the 24MP 16-bit TIFF. The conversion from the sensor's typical 12-bit data stream into the 8-bit JPEG format is typically the largest 'loss' of data ever performed on the image file. The software performing this conversion 'maps' the colors of the higher bit-depth to the same (or closest) color defined by the 8-bit format. The JPEG format is 'compressed' in a fully reversible format, just like ZIP files contain the exact same files when 'inflated' during the extract from the ZIP 'container'.

So, looking at the file size of an image tells you next to nothing relevant about the pixel resolution, nor quality, nor usefulness of a digital image. You need to know the pixel resolution to determine how well the image might fill a target pixel-based display device and / or might print to a given physical size.

Your image here reports 2434x1952, more than enough pixels to fill my 1920px 'wide' display monitor, a screen 21-inches wide. The image would print to about 8-inches at the 300ppi 'gold standard', and would easily print wider at a lower ppi ratio, if desired. Both example usages are based on the pixels of the image, not the bytes.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

It's breathtakingly beautiful! It's breathtakingly beautiful because of the light, clarity, color and details. It's breathtakingly beautiful to me because I love dramatic lighting, and while you have a strong directed light source (flash?), you've retained great detail in the important areas.

Megabytes vs. pixels is good to know, for many reasons, but of no importance in this particular topic. It's of no importance because of the massive numbers of poorly composed and exposed photos shared that were taken with lots and lots (and lots) of pixels 🥰

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Thank you Paul... A lot to digest but There are prob. a lot like myself out here who might of been not quite clear on the differences.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Thanks Linda... I have NO excuses for my ignorance... Prob. spurred on by the push to higher MP cameras, NOT MB !

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Let's blame UHH's main photography discussion. There have been very few topics in the past five years that address anything other than gear.

The few who've tried (see Wallen's last here) are trashed quickly - and often - by the big egos, jokesters, trolls and Great Truth Tellers.

Sad, but predictable.

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

Beautiful capture, Bob.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

It is the photographer, not the camera, Bob.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Well, maybe just a little.... Actually what I was showing was an image from what I believe was a 6mp camera over 20 years old... I was amazed at the clarity of the fuji lens on the HP point and shoot... In my mental fog I was talking MB instead of MP. Actually, I am still a lens guy first... Paul's drill down on MB vs. MP was very informative.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you can fill the frame, this example shows 6MP are 'enough', especially when displaying images onto screens (phones, monitors, similar) that can't even display the full 1:1 pixel-level glory. My oft-referenced monitor is 1920x1080px, just 2.1MP. These 'low' resolution images (sensors / cameras) broke down when you a) needed to crop into the details or b) needed to print larger than their resolution provided to achieve the 300 ppi -- pixels per inch -- gold standard.

But, when the file matches / exceeds the display resolution, a sharp lens and frame-filling subject delivers the goods.