Love the entertainment of folks who hang out on a gear forum, but who pose as being above coveting new gear. Very bogus, but a very funny side of human nature!
Need? No ... don't _need_ what I have now but _enjoy_ playing with the latest gear and can afford to use it a couple thousand frames then sell it. Yes, I am on the list for both a 50D and a 5DMKII.
ChrisDM wrote:
Absolutely. Print them at native 16" wide without any uprezzing.
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
I am printing 20x30 inch from 10mpx mk III superbly, not sure what else should I see on this picture with higher mpx? Also modern photography world is computer/lcd but not paper printed images. In 10-20 years nobody will use paper pictures, that would be LCD screens already for sale in small sizes.
Breitling65 wrote:
I am printing 20x30 inch from 10mpx mk III superbly, not sure what else should I see on this picture with higher mpx? Also modern photography world is computer/lcd but not paper printed images. In 10-20 years nobody will use paper pictures, that would be LCD screens already for sale in small sizes.
First off, I didn't say you couldn't uprez files from other cameras. I simply and clearly said you could print natively 16" wide with a 50D... And you said, "In 10-20 years nobody will use paper pictures"... What? Can I tell the art gallery that sells my prints that you said this? They prefer my 24x36" prints, those are the best sellers. Should I start displaying them on huge LCD screens in the galleries? Perhaps my fine art clients will just hang static images displayed on these big LCDs on the walls in their homes...
I apologize for the sarcasm, but if you think paper and printers are going away, you must simply lack perspective from this point of view. The art world is alive and well with our prints.
Though Chris, you would admit that many photographic artists do display their pictures on LCD screens in galleries & that "electronic picture frames" are already popular in many homes?
I'm not arguing that paper prints will become obsolete but just making the point that there is growing competition from other forms of image display.
In particular, the rise of higher resolution computer screens has certainly coincided with a dramatic reduction in the number of paper printed images. I know I print far fewer prints now I have large high quality screens to view my images on ...
That is what happening now, but even now most shot are published on Internet and visible on computers/lcd's. That was not the case 15 years ago!!!
Paper/printers for sure not in future of photography, photography as well might transform to something mixing with video
Breitling65 wrote:
I am printing 20x30 inch from 10mpx mk III superbly, not sure what else should I see on this picture with higher mpx? Also modern photography world is computer/lcd but not paper printed images. In 10-20 years nobody will use paper pictures, that would be LCD screens already for sale in small sizes.
What - with the advent of this amazing new "photographic" artform, as some call it, WHO WILL EVER BY PAINTINGS! Time to sell the oils:
I don't sell LCD screens. I sell prints. I have never had a client tell me they wanted an LCD screen instead of a print.
I still use a print portfolio for my clients and I'm printing more than ever so I don't see the slow down. If it happens in 10-20 years then I guess I will have gotten my money worth out of my new 50D and 5DMKII.
globalkiwi wrote:
Though Chris, you would admit that many photographic artists do display their pictures on LCD screens in galleries & that "electronic picture frames" are already popular in many homes?
I've been to many, many art galleries and have never seen an LCD being used to display static art. The ones used in homes display vacation snapshots.
Well, what can I say? I disagree with you. I've seen plenty of LCD's displaying "static" art & I know many serious photographers who primarily use hi-rez computer screens to view their pictures. But hey ... YMMV. It's really not that important a point to argue about - & in any case I came here to see 50D samples!
The iso 3200 samples looked very clean to me,especially when exposed properly.When DPP NR was applied it was very impressive.If you look at that pic you can see the blackhead pores on her nose!!At iso 3200 Just my 2 cents worth
-Jim
I don't sell LCD screens. I sell prints. I have never had a client tell me they wanted an LCD screen instead of a print.
I still use a print portfolio for my clients and I'm printing more than ever so I don't see the slow down. If it happens in 10-20 years then I guess I will have gotten my money worth out of my new 50D and 5DMKII.
Jim
You don't have to sell LCD you will sell shots, but I don't think it is really important to have such huge mpx with even super modern and huge LCD.
globalkiwi wrote:
Well, what can I say? I disagree with you. I've seen plenty of LCD's displaying "static" art & I know many serious photographers who primarily use hi-rez computer screens to view their pictures. But hey ... YMMV. It's really not that important a point to argue about - & in any case I came here to see 50D samples!
I'm not arguing, nor was there any opinion to disagree with. I just said that of the many galleries I've visited, I've never seen one display art photos on LCDs instead of prints.
Breitling65 wrote:
You don't have to sell LCD you will sell shots, but I don't think it is really important to have such huge mpx with even super modern and huge LCD.
Once again, it's a matter of perspective you're lacking. If you or any photographer's only goal is to just look at your photos on a computer screen, then you don't need 15 megapixels. Hell, you don't need 5 megapixels. But some of us sell large prints, and for us megapixels do matter. Once again, a matter of perspective. Not right or wrong, just fact.
