Megapixel Myth?
Out of context: Reply #28
- Started
- Last post
- 32 Responses
- ItTango0
As I take in this exhaustive discussion of the science behind the (digital) photograph, I wonder if this isn't a bit like Michelangelo or Dali waxing on about brush density. What have you in the end?
The truth of it is, no matter how much we may know about the architecture of digital prints, I doubt if any of us could break it all down just by looking at one... unless it's just a piece of crap.
Or to put it another way: If you can look at a woman and begin to identify all the elements of her make-up, she's probably done a shitty job.
Knowing the intended use of the photograph is wildly important. That said, the overwhelming majority of photographs (professional or otherwise) can be properly rendered shooting with 6 to 10 MP.
If you're lucky enough to be shooting billboards for car companies or Calvin Klein, then I doubt that you spent one second doing the lens, sensor, MP math. You took your ass to the store and pointed to some wet dream of a camera and called it a day.
Blah, blah, blah... I'm done.
- the great painters were all really picky and innovative with their brushes and paintseieio