Indeed ;-) - Thanks

Thanks - I'm trying to produce videos which get noticed, but don't short change viewers

Thanks - I do look at pixels sometimes, but more in connection with testing stuff than actual work ;-)

Thanks. You need big walls for such prints ;-)

Thanks - I've one about 'megapixels and prints' to publish later today...

@@KeithCooper I look forward to that one. 🙂

Thanks - I agree, some technical aspects do take more effort to 'silence'. One reason I do all the testing is that it lets me tinker with stuff, in ways I couldn't do on paying work. The 'work' photography has benefitted quite a lot from this over the years

That can be the case... ;-)

Thanks!

Yes, forum discussions about new DxO Mark figures always seem to illustrate that well ;-)

Thanks - Glad you enjoyed it

Yes - I've noticed it... Actually woking as a photographer has worked wonders for me with this though, in that 'best' includes business aspects ;-)

Thanks - glad it was of interest

Yes, there are definitely still improvements happening, but areas where they show up are getting harder to find.

I just commented the following elsewhere - it illustrates the use of numbers as tools AND explains your experience with MP changes: Exactly. As, in landscape mode, a 14mm lens has a vertical angle of 81.2 degrees, you can use a 20mm in vertical orientation to get a "14mm" image from the 20mm in portrait orientation (*) by shooting a couple panorama shots that are stitched later. Of course there are disclaimers here - like time parallax. The 14mm has a horizontal angle of 104.1 (landscape orientation) and the 20mm - in portrait orientation has 61.9 degrees. In theory two shots would be enough to cover that, with about 20 degrees overlap, but I would take three in the case of these ultra wide angle lenses. And, you end up with an image of about 75MP (**) from a 45MP camera like a Z 7ii but imagine you crop that to letterbox aspect ratio and you still end up with some 45MP. In many cases, I would use a 35mm in portrait orientation, in stead, even, for some panorama shots, just because in my local landscape I get too much boring foreground that does nothing for my composition. I understand viewpoint and ultra wides very well, but it's my reality, very often. (*) in landscape orientation, a 20mm has a horizontal angle of 83.8 degrees. Note that lens angle specifications are at infinity distance setting and across the image diagonal - unless explicitly labelled as deviating from that. (**) The interwebs keep navel gazing about more MP and that's good for marketers, influencers, investors, but not for photographers. "MP" are an area unit and consequently MP comparisons relate areas. Since the early days of photography, "we" know that human perception of detail resolution needs linear comparison in order to better predict what we will experience. That is why "we" measure lens resolution in "line pairs per millimetre" or variants thereof. So if we compare sensor resolutions then we must go to one of the sensor sides and compare its number with the same side of another sensor. In the case of different aspect ratios, we should take the diagonal. What does that mean? Well, if we have a sensor of X*Y=MP resolution then to get the perception of TWO TIMES the sharpness, we need 2X*2Y=4MP. Or the other way around, in comparing these two, we compare the X with the 2X, not MP with 4MP. This means, in the case of much lower differences in MP than 4 times, the difference in image quality that we perceive will disappoint. And it explains why we still can be surprised by how good a 12MP camera's images look. Or how "little the difference is between a camera of 24MP versus 12MP: 41% linearly. Such comparisons of course need the "ceteris paribus" requirement and lenses that can resolve both. And so there's one situation where that ceteris paribus is broken: when we compare cameras that have an AA filter over the sensor with a camera that does not have the AA filter. A Nikon Z 6(ii) has an AA filter, a Z 7(ii) or Z 9 doesn't have that. The AA filter disperses a bit of the light travelling to photosite [I,J] in the sensor, to the direct neighbours thereof. This makes raw processing easier, especially the aspect of jagged lines and potentially some banding. But it reduces dynamic range, low light sensitivity, colour space, and lens sharpness through loss of especially contour sharpness. Also it creates a filter tunnel over each photodiode (photosite) that contributes to vignetting - increasingly so with increasing sensor resolution. This is why Nikon Eliminated the AA filter - I nickname it "fuzzy filter" - in the D800E some 10 years ago. Problem - ceteris paribus - is that we don't know how our raw processing software deals with this. It should apply a different incarnation of its algorithm(s), but considering the detail loss, or lack of detail recovery, I notice in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), the question is, if 10 years after the dropping of the AA filter in some cameras, algorithms are still only based on the presence of an AA filter. Talking about my brand, its rival Canon makes a different choice and generally still uses an AA filter in higher resolution cameras. In short, the detail resolution jump from 24 to 45 is larger when the 24 has an AA filter and the 45 does not have that. If our raw processing software can reveal that. Up to, say, an A3 size, ACR works good enough. A3 compares to a double page spread in regular magazine format. Larger magnifications may require better algorithms - I personally use Topaz Gigapixel AI to upsample to higher resolution (32,000 max at the longest side) and detail recovery is incredible. No need for "sharpening" and its artefacts.

Knowing about it helps! ;-)

Yes, to me good colour management is about getting things right first time - more often. My biggest personal difficulties often come with people assuming it will do far more than it actually does.

@@KeithCooper I was there at most of the larger graphic conventions (Seybold New York and San Francisco) when ICC was first being pushed and that's how it was marketed to people. Even today on inkjet print web sites and color management sites it's still being pushed using BS! For me color management is about making all my application work together without color shifts.

For me it's about having a more predictable results and ways of getting a better clue as to what's wrong when things go awry We are long away from the marketing and hype of when this stuff appeared... Any stuff i cover here is purely aimed at photographers/artists definitely NOT commercial print ;-)

PSF and diffraction mean almost nothing for most photographers other than new things to worry about. If they take the time to understand the relevance it's quite likely they will find they mean nothing much for their photography either ;-) That's definitely not to say they don't have utility for some people, but for far more they fall into 'you don't need to bother' category.

@@KeithCooper Well thats important to me to decide what resulution I need in a camera. If I choose to get a 38-46Mpix camera I will not get sharp images at higher aperture steps begining at f/9.0 but if I print the image it begins at f/22.0 For my 12 Mpix camera its begins at f/16.00

@@thomaseriksson6256 The "sharpness" does not fall off a cliff at f/9. Rather as the aperture becomes smaller there will be gradual decrease in sharpness for objects in the plane the lens is focused on. It would probably be difficult to tell the difference between f/9 and f/11 or even f/13 without measuring equipment. On the other hand the depth of field increases so objects not in the plane of focus are likely to be sharper as the aperture decreases.

@@DCockey Resolution, DOF and sharpness are not the same-. Some diffraction can be clear up using good sharpening tools, but not a heavy diffraction, that’s why I desided to stop at 45-60 Mpix for Nikon FF more than that is a MF domain. I cannot afford to start with a new system again. Maybe Fuji GFX 100S and use my old MF lenses.

I sometime shoot architecture - with fine detail at f/13 or even f/16 on 50MP - do I care about diffraction - NO Do I care about the balance between diffraction, depth of field and image quality over the whole field - YES --- Interminable wrangles over diffraction are one of the 'numbers things' I'm taking a swipe at in this video... It is one factor amongst many which may or may not be of relevance

Thanks - I'm hoping people are starting to see the reduced real-world improvements of new kit with each iteration. For printing I'm only ever looking at inkjet media - but what do you actually mean by 'medium size' and for that matter 'fine art' ;-)

@@KeithCooper Ha! Medium size to me is 8x10" - 16x20". And I guess I mean inkjet by fine art print

It's not a paper I'd normally use at all - all my photo printing is done on inkjet. I tend to associate 'fine art' more with rag type papers, but it's nothing more than a marketing term which means whatever you want it to means ;-)

start here... www.northlight-images.co.uk/photography-articles-and-reviews/printing-paper-reviews-articles/ Most common cause is that your screen is too bright...

@@KeithCooper interesting. I never thought about it like that

In what way? Or more to the point in what meaningful and useful way ;-)

​@@KeithCooper I'm trying to compare resolution on different sensor sizes, the pictures on Fuji T5 a 40 Mix DX camera is taken with a lens that have an aperture between 1.4 to 2.8. Also the aperture on pictures taken with Fuji GFX 100S is greater. So how do I convert between the different sensor sizes? Must be the equal aria theory

Just give up on the calculations... I switch between formats all the time - I look at what I see in the viewfinder and add that to experience. I've never done a calculation for any of this stuff - I could, but I see no use or benefit for it in my actual photography I'm afraid

@@KeithCooper I have old 16 Mpix Fuji x-Pro 1 and X-T1 for daly use, in my backpack to work. I have Nikon FF 12 and 36Mix for woodland. I may get a Fuji GFX camera so I can use my old MF lenses I'm not shure if I shall get a 50Mpix or 100Mpix..

The key elements of editing images with photoshop, I've shown people in a day. Depends on their experience and inclination... ;-) The book I always recommend is 'Photoshop for Photogaphers' by Martin Evening

It’s no different than the question of using the camera itself. Cameras have hundreds of features because everyone’s needs are different, the key is to get to know your camera well enough to understand which features you want to use, and which features you don’t need to use, for the specific type of photography you do. Same with Photoshop: You should learn enough about Photoshop to understand which features and techniques are relevant to the kind of photography you do. Today, I spend much less time in Photoshop than I did years ago, because raw processors such as Lightroom Classic have advanced so much that most of what my photography needs is more efficient to do in there.

Once you decide which brand of flour is optimal... ;-)