- Question: How many megapixels for portraits/wedding photos?
tnfe...@aol.com
I am an amateur photographer (35 mm) that is looking to take it more
seriously and learn and practice... to the point that I can take
quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even shoot weddings. I know
digital is the way to go these days...so my question is this....
For good quality portrait enlargements up to say 11x14...
How many megapixels should I expect to have to purchase? is 10 enough?
16?
(is there anything else I may need to know about digital resolution?)
Also.... is it reasonable to think I could use a digital SLR for
weddings and events?
Thank you.... more to come.
Joseph Meehan
Many professional wedding photographers use digital today. That is not
a problem.
If you are considering doing it professionally, I suggest going to the
best camera equipment available today and remember, buy two of everything.
If you are going to do weddings remember Murphy's law. It means something
is always going to fail and it will fail right when the bride starts down
the walkway.
I would also suggest doing some time working with a professional to
learn the tricks.
Finally I suggest you consider a different employment. Weddings are
tough work and not much pay.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Scott W
pixels. I would think that the 5D would be just about perfect for
wedding work, more then enough resolution and you can shoot in low
light with out the need of a flash.
Scott
ASAAR
While the 5D is a very good camera, it is also quite expensive,
especially considering the lenses that might be added to the kit.
Your recommendation would be a good one, say, for a pro film
photographer looking to switch to digital or another type of pro
that's developing an interest in weddings. But here we have an
amateur that only says that in time, he'd "maybe even shoot
weddings". The OP should understand that wedding photographers
have successfully used (and are still using) lesser 6mp and 8mp
digital cameras, which can produce very high quality 11"x14" prints.
In fact, there are probably many wedding photographers that have
used or are still using 20Ds for their work. Know any? :)
Almost any current DSLR would do about everything the OP needs, as
his stated initial primary concern is learning and practicing.
Restricting the discussion to Canon and Nikon models, the now
obsolete Canon 350D and Nikon D70 would do everything he needs, even
producing very nice 11x14's, and would result in savings of from
many hundreds to thousands of dollars better spent on lenses and
lighting equipment (not just flashes). After a couple of years, the
OP would know quite well whether getting a newer, better camera
would be justified, and by then would probably know whether getting
the latest 10mp or 12mp camera would be a good idea, or whether
switching to a full frame model such as the 5D would be justified.
Even though the 5D doesn't require as much light as some other
models doesn't mean that the skilled use of lighting equipment
wouldn't improve many of the shots it could produce. I wouldn't
want the OP to think that a 5D requires no lighting assistance for
wedding photography, especially given that it's one of the DSLRs
that has no built-in flash. A good external Canon flash would
provide fill and bounce flash, which any serious amateur
photographer should be as familiar with as understanding the proper
use of White Balance as well as the advantages of shooting RAW.
With a couple of good lenses (preferably IS, right?) and lighting
equipment, the 5D would make a very nice training and learning
setup, but would cost thousands of dollars more than many other
DSLRs that would be just as effective for learning. And they'd also
be able to produce decent 11x14's even using inexpensive kit lenses
(if the worst ones are avoided).
Barry Pearson
> Hi...
> I am an amateur photographer (35 mm) that is looking to take it more
> seriously and learn and practice... to the point that I can take
> quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even shoot weddings. I know
> digital is the way to go these days...so my question is this....
>
> For good quality portrait enlargements up to say 11x14...
>
> How many megapixels should I expect to have to purchase? is 10 enough?
> 16?
Others have answered some of your points. My target is typically to
print on A3, up to about 11" x 16", for club and external competitions
& exhibitions. For this purpose, I consider that I need at least 5
million good pixels after cropping. (More than 5 is a bonus). I
currently use a 6 MP camera launched 3 or more years ago. (I am likely
to upgrade to a 10 MP camera).
I suspect that you have too many requirements mixed together. If you
want to learn and practise, perhaps you should get a cheap dSLR, (I've
seen the Pentax K110D at low prices), and learn about all the software
issues, understanding how to choose between raw and JPEG. Then you will
be able to make up your own mind, and invest in a system more closely
matched to your needs.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
Joseph Meehan
I personally believe that anyone even considering doing weddings as a
professional should be fully aware ahead of time they they need to be
professional. That includes their equipment and experience. Far too many
people think doing weddings is easy and fail to deliver. This is not new to
digital, it was true back in the early 60's when I was starting in
photography.
I do believe the 5D would be a good choice and I would agree that there
are many "professional" photographers using less. However if the price of
the camera is keeping you out, then likely you don't belong in.
ASAAR
> I personally believe that anyone even considering doing weddings as a
> professional should be fully aware ahead of time they they need to be
> professional. That includes their equipment and experience. Far too many
> people think doing weddings is easy and fail to deliver. This is not new to
> digital, it was true back in the early 60's when I was starting in
> photography.
>
> I do believe the 5D would be a good choice and I would agree that there
> are many "professional" photographers using less. However if the price of
> the camera is keeping you out, then likely you don't belong in.
Wedding photography is difficult, and probably shouldn't be
self-taught. The sense I got from the OP wasn't that he was gung ho
to become a wedding photographer though, at least not yet. Did you
notice that he didn't say that he had a burning desire, but said
that he:
> is looking to take it more seriously and learn and practice... to the
> point that I can take quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even
> shoot weddings.
As such, it doesn't seem worthwhile or wise to spend several
thousands of dollars more for a learning setup than is really
needed, on the odd chance that several years from now the slight,
possible interest in wedding photography will actually grow to the
point where he wants to do something about it. If it happens then,
he'll be in a more knowledgeable position and should be able to
select the right equipment for his needs. It might then be an old,
serviceable 5D, or some new Canon 7D, announced in an '08 or '09
Photokina. Or maybe he'll hook up with an old pro and want to
invest in similar equipment so that he has a greater pool of lenses,
backup bodies & batteries and other equipment to share. He has a
lot to learn, and the kind of skills he'll need will include people
skills and organizational skills, not just photographic skills. For
developing those almost any DSLR will do nicely. If he has plenty
of money and doesn't mind spending it on a 5D that'll work. But he
won't learn any more quickly than if he gets a 350D, 400D, 20D or
30D. One of the ng's Canonista denizens said earlier today that:
:DJL> You really have to get your money's worth out of a digital body
:DJL> in the first three years.
so if a lot of money is going to be put into a camera, it's
probably best to put it off until the learning phase is over, and
the equipment has a better chance of earning its keep. :)
Joseph Meehan
...
>
> Wedding photography is difficult, and probably shouldn't be
> self-taught. The sense I got from the OP wasn't that he was gung ho
> to become a wedding photographer though, at least not yet. Did you
> notice that he didn't say that he had a burning desire, but said
> that he:
>
>> is looking to take it more seriously and learn and practice... to the
>> point that I can take quality protraits.... and in time... maybe even
>> shoot weddings.
>
>
> so if a lot of money is going to be put into a camera, it's
> probably best to put it off until the learning phase is over, and
> the equipment has a better chance of earning its keep. :)
You made good sense there.
Stephen Henning
If a photo album is the end result, then figure that decent prints
require a minimum of 300 dpi. If you are going to have 8x10s then you
need at least 8 megapixels and if you are going to crop, then you will
need more. Similarly for 11x14s you need at least 15 megapixels.
A person wanting perfect results would want 4 times the megapixels so
they could print at 600 dpi, but that is overkill and the improvement is
only noticeable upon close inspection.
An amateur wanting nice results could use half as many pixels and get
200 dpi which is marginally acceptable if no printing is present. If
printing is present, then a minimum of 300 dpi is necessary.
Some people prefer 200 dpi for portrait photography since it softens the
image.
If a DVD is the only end result then much less resolution is necessary.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhod...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman