Karl Blessing wrote:
Curious, why the D3 wouldn't work...

There is no reason.  A lot of people are hoping that there will be a D3X with more megapixels.  Just because the D3 is greate for sports doesn't mean it won't be a great studio camera as well.

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
resolution,  for full length fashion with detail on a single glossy or two page spread 16 is not really cutting it, 22 is a minimum for un upsampled resolution and detail. 

Not that the others cannot do it, I have used the 1DS2 for a long time and the results beautiful, but more fine detail in clothing, skin, eyes, hair is always better. 

That said I don't think Nikon is coming out with a higher res camera soon.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

hehe, considering something like sports illustrated used images from a 4 megapixel Canon 1D for years even spreads, even when the 1D Mk II had been out. Course thats just one example, not exactly related to fashion, but to say in general that one major publication felt it 'cut it'.

Karl Blessing wrote:
PS: Have you ever taken a standard magnifying to most of those magazines, them big pixels with half-toning compared to a photographic print. So I in my opinion (for what it's worth) to say X megapixels won't cut it may be short sighted.

Agreed. You do NOT need 22MP for a spread if you know how to work a 12MP machine like a pro. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't done it. Also, 30" X 40" enlargements from a 12MP image, tack sharp. The most important part of the photo equipment is the nut behind the viewfinder.

Karl Blessing wrote:

hehe, considering something like sports illustrated used images from a 4 megapixel Canon 1D for years even spreads, even when the 1D Mk II had been out. Course thats just one example, not exactly related to fashion, but to say in general that one major publication felt it 'cut it'.

they print on one level above newsprint, try that with a high end glossy like french, numero, Gloss, Muse, Bon, Spoon, ICON, Ten, Pop, C&G, and let me know how a full length looks, I have and do I know what shows and what does not.  I have done billboards on less pixels and have seen 4x5 ones that look like crap, that is someone fault, but not the limitation of the resolution of the camera, on full length fine detail is lost at lower resolutions, at 22mp backs you cannot print 40x60 with the same level of detail as a 39mp back, does that mean it looks bad?  but is the same level of detail present if you look? 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
they print on one level above newsprint, try that with a high end glossy like french, numero, Gloss, Muse, Bon, Spoon, ICON, Ten, Pop, C&G, and let me know how a full length looks, I have and do I know what shows and what does not.  I have done billboards on less pixels and have seen 4x5 ones that look like crap, that is someone fault, but not the limitation of the resolution of the camera, on full length fine detail is lost at lower resolutions, at 22mp backs you cannot print 40x60 with the same level of detail as a 39mp back, does that mean it looks bad?  but is the same level of detail present if you look? 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

(It's really cool how you sign every single one of your posts with a full name and url)

Lets get something clear here.

Larger Size = Farther viewing Distance.

Most billboards are are only 8 to 15 dpi (relatively speaking since most of them are vectors with bits and pieces of raster images)

But the other thing to consider, is there is no one-size-fits-all rule when it comes to how much works for what.

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
I would agree there is no rule, there is a rule which says if you have 18millions bits of detail before the lens and only 4 million pixels with which to record some of it wont be there.  So saying you don't need it is relative, sayings its always needed is relative, saying its not noticable is wrong, saying it does not make a difference is wrong, I never said you needed anything, but to get a two page in a typical lower res american fashion magazine you need a native res of approximately 22mp capture at the correct proportions, anything else is upsampled.

You contradict yourself when you say previously that something won't cut it. And I was not saying it doesn't make a difference. I'm merely saying that some people make a mountain out of a mound on the differences in some instances.

As for bold #2... why?

wrote:
And I sign because I am not the only one who uses these accounts so I make sure if I said it its stated.   And so I can give your opinion merit or value as you stated above what is your background in the CMYK offset printing world?, Billboard printing?  and fashion inparticular?

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

I thought "Managed" accounts were against the rules here on MM, and would normally get closed.

Karl Blessing wrote:

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
I would agree there is no rule, there is a rule which says if you have 18millions bits of detail before the lens and only 4 million pixels with which to record some of it wont be there.  So saying you don't need it is relative, sayings its always needed is relative, saying its not noticable is wrong, saying it does not make a difference is wrong, I never said you needed anything, but to get a two page in a typical lower res american fashion magazine you need a native res of approximately 22mp capture at the correct proportions, anything else is upsampled.

You contradict yourself when you say previously that something won't cut it. And I was not saying it doesn't make a difference. I'm merely saying that some people make a mountain out of a mound on the differences in some instances.

As for bold #2... why?


I thought "Managed" accounts were against the rules here on MM, and would normally get closed.

Karl,Stephen Is a master and one that has merit and skill behind his Name! I don't think you realize whom you battle with. I also don't believe that he Trying to match brain and Brawn with you.

He simply warns of the bumps in the road that many have not encountered!

Stephen Eastwood is a very Humble and natural Teacher, so please listen to what gifts he shares.


What Up to Both Of You Guys?

Digital Soup wrote:
Karl,Stephen Is a master and one that has merit and skill behind his Name! I don't think you realize whom you battle with. I also don't believe that he Trying to match brain and Brawn with you.

Being a master shouldn't invalidate my ability to ask him 'why' in a more concise manner. It's not like as a person that he's above or below me.

Digital Soup wrote:
He simply warns of the bumps in the road that many have not encountered!

I can understand that, but perhaps the way he worded it made it sound like an absolute.

I may not have much personal experience but in the last two years I have learned from and heard testimonials of my co-workers who have nearly 80 years of combined experience, most of which similar in nature to the questions at hand. Except the one pitfall is their experience does not extend into the high megapixel digital rebel. But at the very least of what I learn from them does teach me to take some things with a grain of salt before accepting them as absolute fact when they may be in a manner of speaking influenced opinions.

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
And its not managed its a business I own it I have people who read and download email and they may post, I do not forbid them from that, they use to talk in the shout box, that I do not allow on my account anymore as its too potentially problematic.

Just because its a business, does not mean it's not "managed". By definition an account that is used by multiple people (business or otherwise) is still considered managed. Unless of course Tyler makes certain exceptions to the rule (but seriously could it be hard to have a separate profile that has company name dash initials?). No beef just mentioning it in case unknown.

Karl Blessing wrote:
Just because its a business, does not mean it's not "managed". By definition an account that is used by multiple people (business or otherwise) is still considered managed. Unless of course Tyler makes certain exceptions to the rule (but seriously could it be hard to have a separate profile that has company name dash initials?). No beef just mentioning it in case unknown.

Course seems a Mod clarified what MM's definition of managed is.

Miracle_Man wrote:
...
but it will be more problematic for studio shooters because of the minimum ISO 200. 
...

I kinda find this to be BS, why? because I've shot with strobes and using 400 speed film at times.

ISO 200 is only 1 stop from ISO 100. Why could someone just not understand how to use their lights, and ratio...

Miracle_Man wrote:
I wouldn't say its BS.

First, your lights may be able to be dialed down to 1/64th or 1/28th power.  Some people on here might not be able to dial down below 1/4th power.   For people who don't have as much ability to reduce their light power, the ISO 200 might mean an F8 aperture instead of an F5.6 which can "limit" the Depth of Field control.

Yea, its only one stop.  Its not the end of the world or a show stopper, but there will be some people where it will impact them.

Some people who would be so impacted by that, probably wouldn't have a problem just using an ND filter. Or learning to distance or filter their lights.

So ok maybe it'll impact some people, but in my opinion those people got some more learning to do then, whether its equipment usage, or understanding how to compensate. But it seems like such a non-issue, but regardless the canon vs nikon debate has often used the 1 stop iso difference to stir such commotion. While I may be more bias to canon usage, I doubt Nikon R&D are idiots.

Miracle_Man wrote:
Yea, there is a Lo-1 setting to get to an effective 100, but will the image quality start to suffer since its out of the "calibrated range"?

Ya know, it is interesting, how do you know the image quality will start to suffer.  We are only talking about one stop.  Wouldn't it be better to wait until the camera comes out and gets reviewed/tested by the labs to see what, if any, effect the extended settings have?

I have seen images from the camera at extremely high ISO with minimal noise.  It seems if the extended range at the high end makes little difference, it may mean that one stop makes little difference either.  It also may be that it isn't a push, it is just a transposition to a different range in the sensor.

In any case, I would suggest that we wait to see some images from a lab before we conclude what the image quality is going to be.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Ya know, it is interesting, how do you know the image quality will start to suffer.  We are only talking about one stop.  Wouldn't it be better to wait until the camera comes out and gets reviewed/tested by the labs to see what, if any, effect the extended settings have?

I have seen images from the camera at extremely high ISO with minimal noise.  It seems if the extended range at the high end makes little difference, it may mean that one stop makes little difference either.  It also may be that it isn't a push, it is just a transposition to a different range in the sensor.

In any case, I would suggest that we wait to see some images from a lab before we conclude what the image quality is going to be.

By the way the next couple of lines I am about to say would be something to the degree of saying "In theory", because this is only what I heard, but I haven't really noticed it all that much myself.

The cameras minimum ISO is basically the 'natural iso' of the sensor, meaning the sensitivity of least resistance and best signal-to-noise ratio. By pushing the ISO down to a lower sensitivity, they have to incorporate additional resistance to the sensor, which can cause lower quality in the final image compared to the natural iso. Will you notice a difference... I dunno...

Karl Blessing wrote:
The cameras minimum ISO is basically the 'natural iso' of the sensor, meaning the sensitivity of least resistance and best signal-to-noise ratio.

I know that is the normal scenario but I'm not sure if that is true or not true in this situation.  Frankly, I haven't seen the engineering drawings or technical specs on the process they use (I did go to college for electrical engineering and computer design).

I say that because to achieve the extended modes, they have to apply some kind of amplification with some filtering to make it work.  So while it might be possible that ISO 200 is the "natural iso" of the sensor, it might also be that they have instead "balanced" the sensor.  To deal with the new processor and better low noise at higher ISO's, they may have picked a sensor that is, for example, optimized at ISO 400 or ISO 800.  Normally there is little effect with only a stop or two.  With current Nikon sensors, noise isn't typically a factor until you get past ISO 400 or ISO 800.

From what I know, Nikon has used what amounts to a "dual range" sensor.  It is entirely possible that for the purposes of the processor they were using, the minimum ISO they could get before switching the range, was ISO 200.  They may have felt that without changing the amplification, the image was unacceptable at the lower ISO.

Having said all of that, there may or may not be any degradation when you switch ranges at ISO 100.  I frankly just don't know.  It is all theoretical if we make some design presumptions.  Since Nikon really keeps the chip design under their hats, anything we would presume would simply be speculation.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying we really won't know until the camera comes out and someone tests it.  If it turns out that the quality is worse at ISO 100, so be it.  It is entirely possible.  It is equally possible that the quality at ISO 100 will be exactly the same as ISO 200.  I just want to see the tests and make an informed decision from empirical data not speculation.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I just want to see the tests and make an informed decision from empirical data not speculation.

That's fine and dandy too, but I think until then theres really no reason to to assume that ISO 200 is (for lack of a better word) unusable in a studio. I was at the least offering speculation (for what it's worth) based on what I heard about the 'why' from when I used work as a canon sales rep, though it's not like they hand you white sheets and such .

ToddPhillipphotography2 wrote:
Im not so sure that nikon would not be comming out with a higher resolution D3 in the near future ...it was not so long ago that some one said on this forum Nikon would never come out with a FF,...but that is the thing about Forums...there tends to be a alot of speculation and opinions...

If it happens, it happens. I just think its a shame for people to wait and wait for what *might* not happen when they can get something in the now that'll work for them just fine.

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
they print on one level above newsprint, try that with a high end glossy like french, numero, Gloss, Muse, Bon, Spoon, ICON, Ten, Pop, C&G, and let me know how a full length looks, I have and do I know what shows and what does not.  I have done billboards on less pixels and have seen 4x5 ones that look like crap, that is someone fault, but not the limitation of the resolution of the camera, on full length fine detail is lost at lower resolutions, at 22mp backs you cannot print 40x60 with the same level of detail as a 39mp back, does that mean it looks bad?  but is the same level of detail present if you look? 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

I agree and disagree with some of that, but we would need to know the screening that some of those print companies use. However I do remember a time when we were having wet dreams over 6mp, and now we are spoiled with 12, and 22, and so on...

IMO 12 should do fine with someone, and IF a mag wants a 2 page spread, well, that person can just rent what they need.