Originally posted by biz-engineer The ultimate secret that no one ever told is that the megapixels needed is entirely relative to how much detail worth looking by human being, is present in an image, i.e how many pixels (image samples) are used to describe an image detail.
This secret trick has been largely used, and is still being used by David Yarrow, who produced gallery prints the size of pools table, of images captured with a D810 and D850. In all his images, the subject occupy a large part of the image frame, such that even printed 10 feet wide, the subject details still look well defined to the human eye.
Well yes, but the overwhelming majority of non-camera-obsessive photo-looking-at people don't respond primarily on the basis of how much detail they can see. If fine detail in huge prints was their main aesthetic concern then they wouldn't all be using smartphones.
The overwhelming majority of people respond to photos on the level of what it makes them
feel. They respond to the subject of the photo, to the composition and the light, and even. . . dare I say it. . . to the
meaning.
I've been in galleries with non-photographer friends, and I've observed them looking at huge and technically perfect prints of subjects and light that don't evoke any sense of an emotional response in them. They just shrug and move on along to the next thing on the wall. More often than not, the photograph that makes them stop and look for the longest time is a smaller print full of technical imperfections that grabs their eyes because it makes them
feel something that has a meaning for them.