Originally Posted by wickerprints
Let me admit that most of my pictures look best when viewed at less than 1-1. If I'm not viewing them at 1-1 anyway (either because my screen isn't big enough or, when I crop heavily or pixel peep, it doesn't look good at 1-1), doesn't that mean more pixels won't help much? I realize that more pixels help for post processing and that a very high pixel density can give modest improvements in prints, but I feel like I'm usually *more* limited by other factors.
On the other hand, I don't really think I'm usually limited by lens quality either. Today I think focus is the #1 limiting factor for me (I shoot a lot of pictures of objects with very narrow DOFs), but I change my mind a lot
Anyhow, in a sense this is all silly because my sharp pictures look good
when viewed on a 24" monitor or printed at say, 11x14. But usually not
when viewed 1-1.
Either way, you make good points wikerprints. Many of us make arguments based on an
assumption that "X" is the limiting factor, and start arguing
(discussing, I should say, this is a very polite forum) with someone
arguing based on the assumption that "Y" is the limiting factor, and
they get nowhere.
Reply With Quote