Big Pixel Count - Does it mean better pictures?
There is a debate going on in many photo circles over how many mega pixels you need and if you can tell the difference anyway. I land squarely on both sides of the opinions! I agree wholeheartedly that in most cases if you've got 5-8 mega-pixels on a point and shoot you won't tell the difference between one camera and another. And even a 3-4 mega-pixel camera can look great with a really good lens in front of it. On the other hand I've seen plenty of images from 4x5's and medium format cameras with high end digital backs that look like crap. Becasue even with the best of gear you still need talent and skill.
Why? Lets start with skill, No matter what your shooting with, skill, composition, understanding of light and your subject, and your timing will take you much further than plopping down a wad of cash for the biggest imaging chip. But we live in an instant gratification world, people would rather spend a lot of dough hoping that all those pixels, and software and proprietary algorithms will make up for not knowing what they are doing. And you know what? In many cases they are correct.
Back in the day before desktop publishing was hot we had typesetters. These were highly paid highly skilled artist who understood not just the rules of good type but how to make the type art itself, how to convey emotion and substance through the presentation of words. This art is for the most part completely lost to us and it's a shame. People who would never allow for a widow or orphan, or poor kerned lettering in a headline suddenly did not care so long as they could do it themselves for 1/3 the cost. What was once held to a very high standard was all of a sudden unimportant, and our world changed even if most people did not notice it. And a lot of talented people were out of work too. Suddenly quality took an except-able noise dive for the sake of ease, speed, and fun. It is fun after all to produce your own work, self publish regardless if we are talking newsletters, books, advertising or phone directories it's simply is more fun to do it yourself, even if not as good one rarely judges our won work as harshly as others especially in creative endeavors.
So what does this have to do with mega-pixels you ask? Well for one thing even though there is a massive up take in the interest in photography and that also means many people out there are pretty good and can take a technically well made image the artist is getting lost in the technology. And people for sometime now have been eroding the value of the professional photographer. Since the camera does have the work, and digital is cheap and I can let the print guess at color why pay that pro down the street for the real good stuff when I can produce marginally acceptable photography for nothing. This kind of thinking is not only killing professional photographers but each time the camera gets a little better and does more background fixes we get a new way of semi-professional photographer who by right of having the money to afford the gear are eating away at not just the market, pricing, and talent of real pro's but at the same time dumbing down the expectations of the audience from ourselves to news papers, broadcasters and virtually everyone else.
Real photographers are at serious risk, industry groups like PPA (Which I am a member of) are being invaded by stay at home Mom's who got a nice camera for christmas or mothers day now consider themselves professionals. I have nothing against stay at home mothers but I do have an issue with the part timers under cutting full time professionals, taking their 2-3 jobs a week so they can pretend to have a business while stealing work away from people who depend on photography as a full time lively hood.
All this is not new, everyone has a story of a relative at a family wedding who runs around taking pictures of the shoulder of the pro, convincing the family not to buy anything but the basic package because he will do all the same work for half the price. After a year of waiting the newly weds get a half put together, poorly edited, drug store album and some prints that will fade despite what the package said on the paper you picked up at Wall-mart and the professional photographer mean while is looking for a bankruptcy lawyer as his or her business goes down the tubes.
So is it important to have the most pixels money can buy? Id' say yes, get the most you can afford with the best piece of glass you can afford in front of it, but as your admiring your handy work and the razor sharp details ask yourself this "Is it really better than a pro could do? Am I really as good as they are, should I offer myself as a pro just because I've bought some expensive toys and don't want my spouse to kill me so I tell her I'll make it back up in freelance work? Is undercutting the local photo studio worth destroying someone's career so I can pretend to be a pro and provide inferior service. Am I proud that I have contributed to the lowering of quality and standards just to save a buck?
Ours is a world where Ansel Adams would never have made it. He was slow, methodical, expensive, and demanded the highest level of perfection available, hew would never be able to compete with a 20-something Mom, with her Best Buy Rebel xti and a stroller full of flyers.
Why? Lets start with skill, No matter what your shooting with, skill, composition, understanding of light and your subject, and your timing will take you much further than plopping down a wad of cash for the biggest imaging chip. But we live in an instant gratification world, people would rather spend a lot of dough hoping that all those pixels, and software and proprietary algorithms will make up for not knowing what they are doing. And you know what? In many cases they are correct.
Back in the day before desktop publishing was hot we had typesetters. These were highly paid highly skilled artist who understood not just the rules of good type but how to make the type art itself, how to convey emotion and substance through the presentation of words. This art is for the most part completely lost to us and it's a shame. People who would never allow for a widow or orphan, or poor kerned lettering in a headline suddenly did not care so long as they could do it themselves for 1/3 the cost. What was once held to a very high standard was all of a sudden unimportant, and our world changed even if most people did not notice it. And a lot of talented people were out of work too. Suddenly quality took an except-able noise dive for the sake of ease, speed, and fun. It is fun after all to produce your own work, self publish regardless if we are talking newsletters, books, advertising or phone directories it's simply is more fun to do it yourself, even if not as good one rarely judges our won work as harshly as others especially in creative endeavors.
So what does this have to do with mega-pixels you ask? Well for one thing even though there is a massive up take in the interest in photography and that also means many people out there are pretty good and can take a technically well made image the artist is getting lost in the technology. And people for sometime now have been eroding the value of the professional photographer. Since the camera does have the work, and digital is cheap and I can let the print guess at color why pay that pro down the street for the real good stuff when I can produce marginally acceptable photography for nothing. This kind of thinking is not only killing professional photographers but each time the camera gets a little better and does more background fixes we get a new way of semi-professional photographer who by right of having the money to afford the gear are eating away at not just the market, pricing, and talent of real pro's but at the same time dumbing down the expectations of the audience from ourselves to news papers, broadcasters and virtually everyone else.
Real photographers are at serious risk, industry groups like PPA (Which I am a member of) are being invaded by stay at home Mom's who got a nice camera for christmas or mothers day now consider themselves professionals. I have nothing against stay at home mothers but I do have an issue with the part timers under cutting full time professionals, taking their 2-3 jobs a week so they can pretend to have a business while stealing work away from people who depend on photography as a full time lively hood.
All this is not new, everyone has a story of a relative at a family wedding who runs around taking pictures of the shoulder of the pro, convincing the family not to buy anything but the basic package because he will do all the same work for half the price. After a year of waiting the newly weds get a half put together, poorly edited, drug store album and some prints that will fade despite what the package said on the paper you picked up at Wall-mart and the professional photographer mean while is looking for a bankruptcy lawyer as his or her business goes down the tubes.
So is it important to have the most pixels money can buy? Id' say yes, get the most you can afford with the best piece of glass you can afford in front of it, but as your admiring your handy work and the razor sharp details ask yourself this "Is it really better than a pro could do? Am I really as good as they are, should I offer myself as a pro just because I've bought some expensive toys and don't want my spouse to kill me so I tell her I'll make it back up in freelance work? Is undercutting the local photo studio worth destroying someone's career so I can pretend to be a pro and provide inferior service. Am I proud that I have contributed to the lowering of quality and standards just to save a buck?
Ours is a world where Ansel Adams would never have made it. He was slow, methodical, expensive, and demanded the highest level of perfection available, hew would never be able to compete with a 20-something Mom, with her Best Buy Rebel xti and a stroller full of flyers.
Comments