Dear all,

We have seen recently a resurgence of posts linking the quality of photographs with the resolution of the capturing device.

- Some crazy self-proclaimed pano gurus tell us that their 500 megapixels images leave drum scanned 8x10 prints in the dust (I love speaking about myself at the third person ),
- A few P65+ owners see magic qualities to their files that would elevate them from the masses of lesser equiped shooters in a way proportional to the lenght of their credit line,
- High end DSLR owners swear that 24x36 inch prints from their babies meet the most stringent fine art print standards,
- M9 prospect buyers believe that their AAless sensor probably put Hasselblad backs to shame,
- ...

Besides the obvious fact that most of these claims are not based on apple to apple comparisons of large prints, I see a deeper problem in these exchanges.

Such an accute focus on resolution do once more take photography back to these dark ages where its mechanical abilities to create a faithful reproduction of our landscapes prevented its wide recognition as an art form. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot by letting our metrics driven world invade art? Can't we just let our creations speak for themselves without sticking next to them the price tag of the camera they were shot with?

Can't we do better as a virtual community that prides itself of being somewhat on the leading edge? How about sticking to a description of our finished products including its intended print sizes, whatever the resolution we deem appropriate?

I will for sure try to work along these lines.

Cheers,
Bernard

Dear Bernard,

I believe a simple Scientific Test can put this issue to bed once and for all. We need a perfectly level platform, an accurate measuring device (i.e., ruler), and one of each type of Esteemed Guru. We ask the four of you to stand in a row on the platform, while a panel of Disinterested Experts measures exactly how far above the platform each of you stands. The Guru floating the Highest obviously speaks the Greatest Truth, and should be bowed down to by all the rest. 


As a PC user, I think it only fair to point out that we need PC to PC comparisons as well.

Cheers,


Eric

I knew I could count on you to understand the seriousness of this matter!

Cheers,
Bernard

That could be just as much fun as megapixel wars! Hey dude, my intended print size is bigger than your intended print size!

Yes Bernard, you are right. I see it clearly now. But we need to go further! We need to photograph in spite of our gear. There should be more trashing of all cameras and their manufacturers! No more "I really like my ..... " (fill in your favourite brand). Time to put the boot in. Quality in spite of only 500 gigapixels.
So here is my own poor attempt. An ode on the decision to buy a 5D Mk 2 (with sincere apologies to Liz BB ):

How do you annoy me, Canon? Let me count the ways.
You annoy me to a depth and breadth and height
(as I the twist locks on my tripod fight)
Past use of words polite (as I my tongue I bite)
Going out to shoot the light.
For though on average you are good,
Your goodness is an average good, wherein the also-rans hath stood.
WHERE IS MY MLU?
Where is my auto focus new?
Somewhere lost I fear they flew,
In some distant sub- sub-menu.
Where is the battery lid that breaketh not?
And why creaketh so the cf slot?
So now joining in the lottery, of buying a good 5D,
Alas, to cunning Canon marketing I'm prey,
That giveth real good things they say,
Video and direct print speed:
All the things I do not need.

David

A classical education is never wasted.

Michael

<<<<APPLAUSE>>>>

Mike.

P.S. Bernard, I agree with you...

So true. David, your poem is inspired!


Eric