Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | People Photography | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?

  
 
oguruma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


I am looking to get some input from people with a lot of experience with studio portraiture. Is there really a need to go beyond a certain point in terms of resolution when it comes to portraiture? What I mean is: At what point can you say "enough is enough" when it comes to resolution? I just started getting pretty heavily into portraiture in my garage, and I find that the excessive resolution from my D810 is much more unflattering (until a retouch in post) than the much less expensive D700 or D3 that I own. Plus, the smaller files are kind of handier not that it's really a problem in studio work. Is there a benefit to the greater amount of resolution (yes, I understand the 64 native ISO of the D810 is better than the 200 of D700/D3)? Are there benefits to shooting this D810 that I am missing?

At what point is enough MPs enough? 12? 24? 36?

Does anybody else ever use their older, more outdated camera for portraiture when in the studio?



Aug 15, 2015 at 06:53 PM
Puffin Runner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


I don't want to lob a forum grenade, but I'm going to make a suggestion: look at some of the stuff Ken Rockwell has written on the subject of megapixelage and their attendant file sizes. His website is his name, which makes it pretty easy to find. Read him critically, toss out the stuff that doesn't necessarily make sense and keep the stuff that does, you might find an answer that suits your question.

One thing Ken says, with which I agree wholeheartedly, is that you don't necessarily need a higher resolution just because you're printing images bigger. The logic is that larger images are typically viewed from farther away, and thus the distance serves to "smooth" the lines. Think about it -- you will hand-hold a 4x6 image in a little photo album, but you're going to stand around 3 feet away (minimum) when you look at that beautiful 16x20 on the wall, and almost certainly even farther away if it's hung over the sofa.

I have a 3MP image that I blew up to 36 inches on the long side. It has specular highlights on water, and if you stand closely enough you an see the pixelation. But it's hung in such a way that people can't get closer than around 5 feet to it, and from that distance it really looks great.

My personal opinion is that 12MP is more than almost anyone needs, but that's only one person's opinion. It's an opinion informed by research and empirical evidence, but it's still simply an opinion.




Aug 15, 2015 at 07:33 PM
oguruma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


I have read some of Ken Rockwell's stuff, and I generally agree with his stance on resolution vs viewing distance. I do tire of the pixel peepers that want to judge the quality of the results based on images blown up to 1:1. Part of me wonders how much of this is done by armchair elitists to justify spending $3000 every couple of years to have the latest and greatest camera body. You will find all kinds of imperfections on any supermodels face if you get three inches away from her and look at her pores with a jewelers loupe. The same seems to be true of pixel mapping your digital images.

I know one of the big benefits of higher resolution is that you have much more room to crop without reaching unacceptable levels. While this is very useful when you can't necessarily fill the frame on location, in the studio, filling the frame isn't necessarily a problem.


The stuff that I have gotten paid for has been shot with a D80/D90, and I never had a single person complain about sharpness or resolution. Granted this has only been a few hours of wedding photography and some low-budget portraiture.


Thanks for the input, I am still trying to figure out if I am missing out on something I don't know about by shooting with my lower-resolution D700 versus my D810.



Aug 15, 2015 at 08:53 PM
ucphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


There is another advantage of more resolution, assuming all else is equal. The noise from four pixels averaged together will be lower than for a single pixel four times as big (slightly more complex, but true with many modern high resolution sensors). This in turn increases your potential signal to noise.

So, if you take a picture with a 12MP camera and the same picture with a 36MP camera and reduce the resolution "intelligently" to 12MP, the latter picture should be "less noisy" and probably has better color gradations as well.

The other possible reason a D810 might be better is dynamic range (a side effect of SNR, I suppose). The dark areas will have less noise in them without blowing out the highlights. Now, in a studio, you can avoid blowing the highlights easily enough, but that won't fix the noise in the deep grays. The D810 will have less.

I think the answer is that you are losing something between the cameras. Probably a subtle but visible something. My previous camera was a D300s. The sensor in that was ... not so good. I could tell instantly the difference between my D800 and the D300s. You could almost tell blindfolded. The difference to a D700 will be smaller, as it was a far better camera.

Just a few more factors to think about.



Aug 15, 2015 at 10:33 PM
oguruma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


I never considered that aspect of it. Now, why is it that the still relatively low resolution D4/D4s is still very popular, even for portraiture? Is it that many professionals buy the pro bodies so that they can more effectively shoot action, thanks to the larger buffer, and they just put the D4 into service for portraiture as well?

Are the same drawbacks in the D3 Vs the D810 comparison also present in the D4 Vs D810 comparison, just to a lesser extent?



Aug 15, 2015 at 10:40 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


Puffin Runner wrote:
I don't want to lob a forum grenade, but I'm going to make a suggestion: look at some of the stuff Ken Rockwell has written on the subject of megapixelage and their attendant file sizes.

Ken Rockwell is an internet buffoon who is no more qualified than my cat to talk about photography or audio.

He has no practical professional experience, so anything he says is pulled from his rear end.



Aug 16, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


dmacmillan wrote:
Ken Rockwell is an internet buffoon who is no more qualified than my cat to talk about photography or audio.

He has no practical professional experience, so anything he says is pulled from his rear end.


+10



Aug 16, 2015 at 03:25 PM
Puffin Runner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


Sounds like someone is jealous


Aug 16, 2015 at 08:10 PM
ucphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


Why a D4 (and variants) over a D800 (and cousins)? They are aimed at different markets, though the markets are not necessarily completely exclusive.

My take is that the D4 is designed for when things are not optimal and likely very, very far from optimal. Either the environment is bad (e.g very cold or hot or wet) or you need to get as many shots as you can in a hurry or the environment is very, very dark, or things are moving. Or all of the above and other things. As such there are tradeoffs. Less pixels to get data off the sensor faster. Optimized response for high ISO rather than the best possible results at low ISO. The D4 will get you a shot, and possibly an excellent one, when nothing else will even shoot.

The D800 is designed more to get the best possible shot in difficult circumstances, but not horrid. Maybe the target is not moving (landscape) or maybe not moving as fast (grandchildren vs sports cars). Or things are dark but not pitch black. Or you are in a studio where you can get your light perfect and need to get every photons worth of image quality. A D4 will get a great shot under these circumstances. A D8xx will get an awesome shot.

Photojournalism or sports or weddings without a flash in dark rooms? Bias toward D4. Studio or landscape or environmental portraiture? Bias toward D8xx.

Which is not to say that there isn't a lot of overlap with some compromises. Always compromises... Weight vs. cost vs pixels vs speed vs dynamic range vs high ISO capabilities vs best capability at low ISO. No single camera can be *best* at all of those.

That's not a perfect description and probably details are subject to discussion, but I think that's a pretty reasonable description from 20,000 feet.

Dave



Aug 16, 2015 at 09:51 PM
oguruma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


Thanks for the input, that was very well said and I appreciate it.

What I have noticed though, with portraiture, is that I end up flushing much of the sharpness I paid so much money for right down the drain. An otherwise beautiful subject sometimes looks very unflattering before post with the D810. My wife, for example, hates seeing the headshots that are taken with it before I go in and do away with some of that. The D810 shows every pore and piece of peach fuzz....



Aug 16, 2015 at 10:44 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


Puffin Runner wrote:
Sounds like someone is jealous


Ken Rockwell would be ever-so-jealous of the photographic history that Doug has behind him. It is unfathomable that Doug could possibly be jealous of Ken Rockwell ... not even in an altered universe of cyber-realm. I may not go as far to use the term "buffoon" ... but, neither can I argue that Doug is wrong.

That said, viewing distance is a valid point. I've had 6MP files take to 20x30 (years back) and have known local pro's who still shoot 1 Series for their tonal transitions, etc. and the prints on the wall are resoundingly stunning. I guess my perspective is that until you need the extra resolution, you don't need the extra resolution ... profound, I know.

I find it interesting that my vintage SLR/C @ 14MP (still shooting) was state of the art more than a decade ago. Yet, today we still have top dollar camera's being produced at 14MP. Hmmm, there must be something to that, since it certainly isn't due to a lack of ability to produce more than 14MP cameras.

I think that horses for courses is a bit in play. If you want to see inside the pores, the texture of the makeup or a single hair shaft of a woman for a makeup / shampoo ad campaing or the detail of stitching for a clothier, then the extra detail is likely a magnificent thing. But, if you are working with "regular" folks who routinely warrant skin smoothing, etc. ... hmmm, at the need for 50MP. As to the noise advantage @ good downsampling ... ummm, shooting controlled lighting, right

Caveat, I have no experience with 50MP, and I don't shoot portraits these days, but just something to think about @ definition of "need".



Aug 17, 2015 at 08:26 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Is there an effective Megapixel Maximum for studio work?


Thanks Kent.

I was rude and went off on a side track and didn't address the OP's question.

oguruma, I would factor in the use of the portraits you are taking into considering the camera to use. 12mp would be plenty for publication, web use and desktop prints. The D810 would be helpful if you are doing full length portraits that will end up as wall hangings (e.g. 30x40).

You are right, workflow might be easier with smaller files and there's no reason to go through the heartburn of working with big files if the final destination is Facebook.

I would shoot a test with both, taking the image all the way through post. Decide which serves your purposes better.




Aug 17, 2015 at 12:27 PM





FM Forums | People Photography | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.