I read (yet another… ;-) megapixel rant somewhere online yesterday, and it got me thinking again about the fixation on megapixels as a measure of camera “value,” and the odd and sometimes irrational ways that people respond to this issue. It is well known that over the past decade or more, as digital photography technologies have become more and more prevalent (displacing film in many areas), camera technology has continued to advance in many ways. Among these advances is the ability to increase the number of photosites on sensors of a given size – e.g. give us “more megapixels.”
The Online Photographer (a.k.a. “TOP”) is one of the blogs I follow regularly – lots of great thought-provoking posts show up there on a regular basis, frequently written by folks who know what they are talking about. Take a look if you don’t already follow TOP.
I enjoyed a recent article (“From Film Holder to Memory Card”) by photographer Charles Cramer in which he describes his transition from large format film gear to using medium format digital systems. My favorite example of Charlie’s ironic humor in the post is his “apology” to those who haven’t made the switch: “Note to my large format friends: O.K., I sold out—but I get to use zoom lenses!!!”
In any case, this post is another data point to consider if you happen to be one of those folks who is certain that great photography must be created using traditional film gear and processes. While there is absolutely no question that great work can still be done that way, it is equally possible to do wonderful photography with newer technologies… and, as Charlie illustrates, there are some things that can simply be done more effectively, less expensively, and with better results.
It is typical for photographic “how to” books to focus on specific techniques, and to be organized around a presentation of these techniques – perhaps with a section on curves, a section on black and white conversion, and so forth. This approach has its place, especially for certain types of learners and at certain points in the learning process. It is important to understand the basic techniques and operations that are available in the “digital darkroom” of such programs as Photoshop, Lightroom and so forth. That said, the bigger and more important issue is how to call upon these techniques creatively and effectively and appropriately in order to make photographs. Not all “how to” books do an effective job of illustrating this.
Michael’s “Light & Land” takes a different approach, and one that more accurately and realistically reflects the thought process of a photographer who is calling upon this arsenal of techniques in the service of creating beautiful photographs. He writes:
“The digital darkroom gives us tremendous control over our images. We can make them lighter, darker, add contrast, change the color balance, increase saturation, turn a color photograph into black and white, remove telephone poles, blend exposures with HDR, combine ten images to capture infinite depth of field, or put a winged elephant in the sky.
I responded to a post today in an interesting forum discussion about the new Pentax 645D “medium format” (or, as I prefer to call it, “mini MF” format) digital camera. This is a potentially game-changing camera. I has a 33mm x 44mm 40MP sensor and a body-only price of under $10,000. Its cost is far below that of competing mini MF bodies and a fraction of the cost of recent larger MF systems – and the price isn’t much above that of the high end full frame DSLR systems. While larger is not always better, for some types of photographers this puts a level and type of digital camera performance within reach.
In the discussion forum thread I referred to above, a writer had suggested that the 1.7x size differential between the Pentax 645D and full frame DSLRs would not be significant. In a sense he is right – it will not be significant to most photographers, and I surely cannot imagine why anyone would get one in order to make family photos to post on the web. However, I thought I’d share what I wrote concerning why I think that this might be significant for at least some photographers. My response (slightly edited) follows:
Photosite density is rarely the limiting factor when it comes to maximum print size from DSLR originals. As [the other poster] points out, “technique” stuff tends to be much more critical. Enlargement limits are more likely the result of stuff like camera movement, slight mis-focus, lens issues, etc.
Photographer and visual opportunist. Daily photos since 2005, plus articles, reviews, news, and ideas.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.