Originally Posted by JeffDM
My justification: 10MP exceeds what's necessary for a letter size photo print at 300ppi, with plenty of margin for cropping. And that's pretty good for amateurs. Larger prints often mean that observer is standing back a bit farther anyway. They're most likely not getting stuff printed as a two page magazine spread or hung as a similar or larger sized shot in a gallery. Even with nose-printing on the print, most people don't appear to notice or appreciate any extra detail at 600.
That's no justification at all. As I wrote about what size prints I'm talking about. I'm not talking about letter size prints, as you know very well.
As I've said, for point and shoots, it's fine, even a bit too much.
And when you say amateurs, what you really mean is "casual shooters". Amateurs are people who care about something as an advocation, and shouldn't be confused with people who know little, or care little, about the subject.
You're making a lot of statements about "people" when you don't know about those "people".
Why don't you go to a gallery displaying photographs? The "people" there do tend to move in and look at detail. All of us in the profession in one way or another, understand that.
You're talking about yourself, and your friends and family. Thats different.
As I was talking about people who DO shoot two page spreads for a living, why are you dismissing them? Why are you dismissing people who shoot landscapes for a living, and often print anywhere from 17" x 20" to 60" x 120"?
Those of us who are doing this don't care about "most people". There is a big audience for this as it is, and when people do come to see these prints, often, even if they are part of that "most people" group of yours, do go nose to nose with the prints.
You misinterpreted what I said. I have no idea how you can say that in view of "I try to point out detail in a letter sized photo prints, but pretty much no one cares." I don't know how I can say I try to point out detail and you still contend that I don't care about said detail. I'm just being practical. Except for some pros, I see little use in obsessing over detail that are only of interest to the occasional nose-printers. I doubt most amateurs would stand much of a chance with that kind of crowd anyway.
Why do you think this should be up to you?
Just say that YOU don't appreciate the high quality work people do, and leave it at that? What you mean as detail in a letter sized print would be a blob on a large print.
I am interested in photography despite your elitist assertions otherwise. It's like telling someone they aren't really interested in Macs if they don't own a Mac pro. While there are certain niches that demand such detail, the practical reality is that the web is fast becoming the primary photo display medium, if not already, and even more so for the future. Magazines are slowly declining, there's not a whole lot of room for shooters to serve that market. Being able to capture a 21MP photo doesn't mean shit if the photo is posted to the web, it's either annoying or significantly downsampled.
Ah, I see. If someone is interested in high quality, it becomes an elitist thing. That' a VERY unfair statement to make.
Being interested in photography at the level that requires this equipment, is different from "interest" as expressed in shooting letter sized prints. Do you spend several hours on a prized photo as many of us do? That's the level of interest I mean.
The fact that you don't seem to understand the need for high quality work has nothing to do with it I suppose.
I guess the photographers who use $50,000 cameras for their work can throw them away because you think they are elitist for wanting, and needing what those cameras give them.
How nice! I suppose that people who only shoot for 4" x 6" photos made in a mini-lab should think you're elitist as well—to them.
So now, anytime someone here talks about something better than what you think THEY need, they're elitist.
How narrow minded!
You'll notice that nowhere did I say that everyone needs these higher quality pieces of equipment, just those who do.
Magazines aren't declining in many areas. In some, that can be better served by the web, yes, such as computer magazines, and others like that. But, in general, that;s not so. More magazines come out every year. More than enough to replace those that go under. And they aren't going under because of the web, for the most part, but because the field is so crowded. The poorer ones can't make it.
And people aren't going to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for web pictures as they do for properly printed and finished photographs.
I suppose painters should no longer paint, and sculptors should no longer sculpt either. They should use computer programs only, because everything they do will only be on the web.
I have nothing against people who aren't interested in making exhibition prints. They do their thing, and that's fine.