 Melanie Sohler |
what is the best megapixel for product shots I was all set to get the canon 20D and someone just told me that it's not a high enough megapixel for professional product photography. Over 8 isn't enough. Is anyone using this camera for selling photos for print work. And if not, then what is the minium megapixel I should get for this type of work.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hello Melanie; Your question is best answered with another question. "Who are you submitting to?" If you are doing a shoot for a major automobile company, then 8 MP's would not be in the running. As a blanket statement only, 8 MP for "professional product photography" is not enough. There are numerous reasons for this which we can get into if you like. If we carry this subject a step further, 35mm is generally not acceptable for Pro product shots. Again; it all really depends on your client and what they seek. Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Pete - I guess I'm missing something. When I upload a RAW [CW2] file from my Canon 30D to hard drive, then open DPP 2.1, I get the option to adjust the picture or "transfer to Photoshop." When this is done, the image is transferred from 8 bit to 16 bit, 255 color [JPEG] to 16,000 color files that can be saved as PSDs or TIFFs. A PSD file is no smaller than 40 MB. It seems to me that this really should be enough for publication purposes. My 13X19 prints are truly great at this file size. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
OK...#1: No 8 MP camera can match resolution or color saturation of a 35mm neg..let alone a medium format. 2) Again, depending on your clients needs, 35mm may be fine for a small publications where hi quality is not an issue. 3) The words "professional Product photography" led me to believe the posters question was aimed at high end shoots..Food shots, Clothing shots for Esq...etc... 4) Another major hurdle in shooting 8MP with a 35mm...The lens of a 35mm simply does NOT allow the proper "perspective" for "pro" product shots. High end product shots are almost always done with shift and tilt lenses. I didn't say digital was a poor choice for product photography..but I did say 8MP is. Many pro product shooters are now going to digital, but with 22MP Sinars or better..or at the very least medium format with digital backs. Case in point: Many National Geographic shooters use 35mm digital, but shooting a landscape or animals is a far cry from product photography where minute details ar of utmost importance across the color, contrast, tonality and sharpness spectrum. Your file size has little to do with color saturation, tonal gradations, sharpness. A 17 x 22mm sensor can only capture so much information..and although Photoshop tells you that you are editing in 16 bit, you are not..it is in reality 12 bit..The other 4 bits are for secondary and tertiary functions and have little to do with image formation. If you prefer a more technical explanation concerning the use of digital in Product shoots, I'd be happy to point you to several articles.
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Again, Pete- It wasn't until Canon introduced its 1Ds Mark II, with a 16 MP sensor that the reviews [the one I saw was in Pop Photo or Shutterbug] suggested that digital finally equaled film [ISO 100.] So, how does one explain the fact that many, many pros, product photographers as well as landscape photographers, have been extolling for years [and before the Mark II] all the myriad of advances in digital cameras as the various SLRs got bigger and bigger chips [first 5 MP, then 6, then 8 . . . ? And, using these beasts for years, and getting published in National G - 'cause there wasn't anything else! In fact, it's all just the blown out of proportion hype for digital. And, now, that digital [at least the Mark II and Nikon's 16 MP babies] really might equal film in resolution - suddenly 12-16 MP are the only semsors usable?? Bushwaw! In fact, it's more than likely that the established pros, who might be only people who can afford $8,000 cameras because they can written off, need to hold onto their marketplace. And, I don't blame them one bit [or byte.] Digital is certainly hurting wedding pros! But, I'd like the referral to the articles - not that I'll buy in, but I'm always willing to think! I still haven't taken my first [personally assessed] great image with my new 30D. I'm still getting the feel of this new way to shoot [dial-in white balance, RAW???, ARRGH!] And, I do believe it isn't the camera, it's the photographer! John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melanie Sohler |
This is great information. Thanks. I guess I have to think more about the cost vs. megapixel ratio. Also I'll have to think about who I can do work for like you say "it depends on your client and what they seek".
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
"...In fact, it's all just the blown out of proportion hype for digital. And, now, that digital [at least the Mark II and Nikon's 16 MP babies] really might equal film in resolution - suddenly 12-16 MP are the only semsors usable?? Bushwaw!" +++++++++++++++ John, first off; you are putting words in my mouth..I NEVER said a good 16MP cam does not rival film..I said ANY 8MP cam can not. Now.as far as quality; sure; a 16MP cam will shoot wonderful color, be sharp as a tack and have great tonality..BUT, the format is not suited to professional product shoots. Here are a couple links you might enjoy. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/15/124441/020 http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm I am in 100% agreement with you on that one. Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Pete - It's always a pleasure to "discuss" something with someone who doesn't instantly assume a challenge. I really appreciate your response and I will check th site you provided. I also acknowledge your concern that "you never said..." I did. But, I remain steadfast [in my advanced amateur status] rsolute in the opinion that as technology advances - so does BS. Advertisers accept what is available - and it is up to the professionals to let them know what's available, what's appropriate, WHAT'S EVEN NECESSARY! My son is deeply into this "stuff" as a freelance copywriter, partnered with a freelanced art director. I can't get his concern raised with respect to the issues you suggest - so it's hard for me to accept, as gospel, your arguments. He's living it day-to-day -I'm not. But, trust me, my 13X19 prints are ahrd to beat in lots of competitions. If Nat G accepted 6 MP shots several years ago - they'll reall y OK today. All else is a joke.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
"Advertisers accept what is available - and it is up to the professionals to let them know what's available, what's appropriate, WHAT'S EVEN NECESSARY!" Man-O-Man; you said it! Every month or so I pick up a copy of "LENS" magazine..awesome B&W photography done with big neg cameras, there is also commentary by the photographer about his or her equip, metering, what thoughts went into the shot etc...Great read to see what's happening with the big folks of photography. Farbeit for me to extoll the virtues of digital or film; both have their place..You usually won't see a combat photog carrying a Hasselblad onto the battlefield. LOL I did at one time shoot some product stuff for a jewelry firm and a golf magazine with some success, but to be competitive in the rarefied upper air of big clients, my equip was not up to snuff..not even close! LOL So; from a monetary point of view I shoot portraits, nature and events..and all with a digital 35mm. :) As long as it remains fun; I'm in! :) All the Best, Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||