For Photographers and Those HIRING ONE ~ Important Tech Warning

Thank you for coming to read this blog. I don't blog often, perhaps once or twice a year. This particular one is VERY important to me. It will not only help me vent a litle about recent "camera tech advancements" I consider harmful, but should provide ALL OF YOU reading this with VALUABLE insight whether you're looking for a photographer, thinking of getting into photography as a hobby or professionally, or upgrading your present equipment. That covers most of you!

To give you an idea of how far we've come, please forgive my occasional references to "photography of the past;" this is necessary to give you proper background, and thus proper scope to the argument. Also, it is impossible to discuss a topic like this "briefly." I'm going to dash in to the point with several "bullet points" as brieflyk as I can. If you think this is a long blog, you would all be laying down if I went into all the technical AND creative "details" involved in this argument. I'm keeping it short because we all have lives and things to do! LOL! As I'm fond of saying, there are short answers and there are correct answers. There are very few short correct answers. 

We all love looking at pictures, most of us like taking them, and whatever you use (phone, iPad, point and shoot, semi pro or pro SLR) ~ you obviously want them to turn out okay. If you're posting to social media, just about anything will do, and I have seen some INCREDIBLE photographs on Instagram taken by very young talented folks using a cellphone. We live in an amazing time.

Most "professionals," and especially us old timers who came up with developing film (either paying a lab or standing in a red-lighted room over a sink of chemicals) care about the modern equivalent of "film grain," or "digital noise." Sharp images capable of being printed 16x20 or larger are important. Clients' ability to zoom in on details is very important to us. In smaller formats like Instagram / other social media, uploaded images are "dumbed down" anyway but when original large size full resolution photos are viewed on laptop or big screen TV, or projected on a wall, they should retain sharpness to a reasonable "zoom level." 

With 35m film we never really worried about film grain; you used a fine grain film like Kodachrome 64 , Kodachrome 25, or Fuji 50 and didn't worry about the rest. If you needed landscapes in excruciatingly fine grain detail, you used a larger format negative like a Mamiya 645 or 6x7 negative. Today computers and phones edit digital format images with dozens of amazing programs.  People we pros like to call "pixel peepers" sweat details that are 1% of 1% of an image (in other words, 1/10 THOUSANDTH of the entire image). This was not possible with Ansel Adams' photographs, the timeless works of National Geographic and Life Magazine, or anyone that ever produced an image on a film negative or slide. These pixel peepers love to endlessly worry about image sharpness on levels no one ever sees, and often forgo a good photograph because they can't appreciate "all of it as a single image." They should not only be taken out and shot for being annoying; they are the people causing the problems I'll now describe.

The Good Stuff:

Digital cameras caught up to top end 35mm film cameras using standard 100-200 speed films above at about 5 mega-pixels. FIVE. From now on "mega-pixels" will be written "MP." At around 7MP, they superseded fine grain pro films like Kodachrome 64 and Fujichrome Velvia 50. So anything above 7MP is a huge gain. 10MP was terrific, and even NOW "most" editing done by "most" pros is done at 10MP, although I prefer higher because I'm picky and don't mind waiting longer times for editing processes to take place on the computer, because the results are worth it to me.

Now BEAR THIS IN MIND: Mega-pixels are probably the LAST thing you should consider when buying a camera. I'll repeat that. Mega-pixels come LAST on the list. Inherent sensor noise should be your first consideration; that's why after 25 years of using Canon film cameras, I recommend NIKON because they have LESS sensor noise.

My first digital camera was a Sony 707. 5MP. If you look on my old website at the "Night" section, all the shots of Las Vegas at night were taken with that camera. Here's that link, BTW: Las Vegas Night After it was sent in to Sony for a manufacturer flaw (blank rear screen), and returned to me with a severely scratched rear screen, I sold it and got two Nikon D80s. They were 10MP and did a great job. Later I sold those and upgraded to three Nikon D7000 bodies - they're 16MP and astoundingly good cameras to this day. Even with a 25% crop of the image I'm still at 12MP and I have no intention of switching.

Knowing that "newbies" looked at mega-pixel count first, Canon "cheated" for years. They had a "30MP" camera out first but it was really a 15MP with a doubler. Nikon have never used math manipulation; for a while they had "less MP" on the brochures but it was honest.

Nikon are now offering a true 45MP full frame camera for $3300 (body only). They are still on backorder since September of 2017, and some lucky enough to get one have reported that after 5000 actuations (shots) the rear display is dying. Not good, but I'm sure Nikon will figure it out. It's the cost factor and whether or not anyone needs 45MP that is my issue. If I were to replace my 3 bodies with Nikon D850s, it would run $10,000 for the three bodies ALONE. Let's look at whether that's worth it for me (it isn't) and MORE IMPORTANTLY... is it worth it to MY CLIENTS:

1) I often see photographers doing portraits, engagement shots, wedding photos, using the "glow mode;" overly bright blown out background with a glowy softness on the faces to soften FLAWS. Flaws in eye makeup, skin, that dreaded zit that showed up that morning of the shoot, bags under the eyes, fine lines, etc. While I don't do "glowy" (it can be added in post if a client absolutely demands it) we all want a nice photo of ourselves. Well, you can FORGET that with 45MP. It will bring out every single pore on a woman's face. If the photographer isn't careful, those 2 crossed eyelashes will show up big time; you might as well have a big arrow over your head pointing at it. 

2) Bride at a wedding. Hopefully the happiest day of her life. Let's say there's a bug crawling up her gown. The photographer is obviously going to heal/airbrush that out in post. At 16MP you'd not only see the bug, you'd be able to see its antennae. Well, at 45MP those antennae would be "crisper." That's about the difference. Remember you're removing the bug anyway. 

3) I specialize in Real Estate Photography. Even with my reduced versions for Realtors, who have to upload the pics to the MLS (Multiple Listing Service), you can take one of my shots of a large room, zoom in to the back of the room, zoom in on a lamp, and see the lamp SWITCH. That's at 16MP. At 45MP, you could zoom in on an electrical outlet, then the SCREW holding the switch to the wall, and see the details inside the slot the screwdriver goes into. Amazing ... but it's not going to sell the house. In fact, if a kitchen shot at 45MP shows a bit of mold in the grout in kitchen tile, and you're dealing with a "pixel peeper buyer" ~ you're screwed.

4) Staying with the Realtors and their uploads to the MLS, the upload limit was ONE mega-pixel. That's (finally} been increased slightly. Without giving away technical secrets related to how I work, the full rez pics I proved didn't have to be "squeezed" that much to get them to fit within the parameters. NOW ... take a 45MP image, which takes three times longer to process, and THEN reduce its quality & size to make it "fit" the MLS guidelines ... you have to reduce it to ONE TWENTIETH of its original size. FOLKS ... Realtors ... there goes your 45MP. You're lower than if you'd used a 10MP camera in the first place. Wow. That sucks. 

5) Remember catching up to the finest film at 7MP? OK ... at 16MP all is right with the world. You might say 24MP is "acceptably better." But at 36MP something BAAAAAD happens ... you start to bring out the flaws in the LENS itself. Those several glass elements making up the lens? Sometimes 12 of them? They have coatings, folks. If those coatings aren't perfect, or the glass elements aren't exactly straight (perhaps from being dropped) ~ that shows up. NOW the sharpest lens in your bag... isn't. And there isn't one sharper. You're not taking better photographs, you're showing why your pics would be better with LESS pixels. 

In other words folks, we've reached the end of practicality. What's irking me, and the reason I wrote this, is that there is now undue "pressure" on working photographers to shell out what isn't necessary for camera(s) that aren't better in the final analysis. If you shell out $3,300 for the body, plus the lens, for 45MP you can't use it's a needless expense for the pro photographer, and no benefit to the CLIENT EITHER. If you're like me and use 3 bodies for a wedding / family photography so you can have 3 lenses immediately available without switching plus backup body in emergency) ~ you're looking at $10K and the same result ~ no real benefit to the client. So my message to my photographer friends is "don't." My message to any of you needing photography now or in the future: don't judge the prospective photographer you're considering hiring by "his/her mega-pixels." INSTEAD, judge them by their images, portfolio, ease of working with them, price (but don't be cheap, it is an art form and you can't do it), timely delivery of your images, creativity, whether they archive backups in case you lose your photos... almost any number of OTHER qualifications. 

We have to send a message to the primary camera manufacturers, Nikon being my preferred favorite, that in the not too distant future, not only will no one buy an 80MP $15,000 camera (they've probably got them ready to go, LOL) ~ they need to put an inflation-tied cap on camera prices and not "force" the semi pro/pro industry they COUNT ON to constantly upgrade. Sheesh, they're starting to act like Apple :)

Photography buffs: Take more pictures. Take different types of pictures. Challenge yourself. Never stop. Realize that there was a GREAT improvement from 5MP to 6MP, then 10MP, now on average 14-16MP. That's plenty. Focus on the creativity and "rise above the equipment." Don't go into hock for "improvements" you can't generally notice.

Photography clients: Don't judge the photographer you're considering by what your friend told you was in a brochure, or what his rich know-nothing buddy just bought. Both your friend and the brochure are wrong. Your family memories, headshots, wedding will mean just as much at 4 times the quality of film as (MAYBE) "8 times" the quality that you won't even notice. 1) Any self respecting photographer will spend HOURS preparing your photos. Let's say 6 hours, that's my average for a house. At 45MP, I'm not sure anyone has figured this out yet ... but you're looking for EIGHTEEN hours because of the massive file size. So get ready for a huge price increase. 2) If my 33 years experience is an indicator, 70% of the "professionals for 48 hours" types will aim that 45MP body toward the SUN photographing clients, if they even remember to remove the lens cap. I'm not being cynical, that's the reality of "photographers advertising cheap shoots" these days.

Alternative titles for this blog were lengthy: 

"Keep Art Pure. Keep Out Greed ~ Photography Is NOT Just A Jillion Pixels"
"Creativity Isn't Math And Artistry Should Not Be Blackmailed"

Go forth and do well, and don't forget to love each other! / Paul
www.paulbritphoto.com