How much resolution do I really need?

That looks awesome

Agree, when taken past the traditional need to add more light, flash essentially allows you to relight a scene as you want it to be, not how it's presented on the day.

That's not going anywhere, regardless of resolution or high ISO/low noise ability.

Factors that make a difference when enlarging a print; especially to a larger sized print.

1. By far the largest factor is sensor size. I say this by example. I own a Canon with a 50mp sensor. The Canon has it's own specific market nitch, yet... When one has the ability to do studion work with an almost equal (mp count) Hasselblad with a 50mp sensor... There is simply no comparison between the ability to enlarge the image. The same can also be stated with a Pentax 16mp sensor, compared to a Canon or Nikon full-frame 16mp sensor. Ask any printing professional for very clear proof and examples.

2. ISO makes a difference. Obviously one would see a considerable difference between iso 100 and 1,000. Try to use the best iso that the subject will allow.

3. Differences in subject; at all of the same camera setting, try comparing a wedding enlargement to a still life. Due to tones, items such as fabrics, etc... The wedding is by far usually one of the most difficult subjects.

4. Editing software used, sadly for the wallet CS is still the best.

5, Add in items such as color calibration.

6. Printer hardware. One gets what one pays for. Try borrowing the use of some of the best in consumer printer hardware out there, then compare it to a true custom lab. Also experiment with printing surfaces

So very true. But I'm not sure the race to pack as many pixels in camera sensors, particularly APS-C sensors is going to help photography, other than make you feel you need a newer camera? I note that with the K3 II, it's not just about the 24MP sensor, it's now what you can do to get more from it, rather than just increase the number.

I took a good many decent photos with an *ist D and a look in the gallery here will no doubt find countless others. You can make far better improvements by upgrading the photographer, rather than the camera and that's the 'resolution' I try to make.

This thread has been incredibly interesting and Ronald's ( 50mp CMOS) commentary above articulates the essence of this subject so comprehensivly and clearly; sensor resolution is critical when producing very large pro-standard exhibition / commercial images and prints

However, picking up on the references to wedding photography, I do feel that even for the wedding photographer who wants to acheive the standard without taking out a second mortgage, a modest sensor size is more than adequate from an IQ standpoint.

For sure, the execution of a wedding shoot requires very demanding organiztional skills as well as photographic competence but as the whole photographic process it is pretty dynamic, not having to " lug around" or utilise unweildy flash equipment fon more or less every interior shot is a massive bonus.

Gone are the days of tripods, slow film, sometimes very complex lighting and flash equipment for the interior shots which prompted Nigels's (GregNi) response when I was commenting earlier in this thread, on resolution not being too much of a concern anymore and that maybe the potential low-light capabilities of a "lower pixel count FF sensor" would bring more to the table per se than simply adding pixels/resolution as it could potentially reduce the need for flash even more.

By the way I think Nigel's response was perfectly correct foash will always be needed as a crwtive necessity.

However Increasingly we are seeing whole albums shot virtually without flash because unlike in film days where the process was very formalised and standardised as regards posed shots, typically mounted as 9x6 to 14x11 prints, todays pros will shoot off literally hundreds of shots at very high ISO, of which the majority selected for the album will not be printed above 7x5 in the typical A4 "photobook " albums; consequently resolution is not that challenging.

No worries today about low ISO film media, hand holding, low shutter speeds and slow lenses with poor IQ at the wider apertures; and of course the luxury of being able to change ISO at the press of a button was not possible on a film camera; back in the day you were stuck with whatever film you loaded so changes in light levels could only be countered by skilful use of a flash-gun.

In the case of the recent weddings of my two daughters, both taken by quite well known pros, the "photobook" collage style albums were formatted on larger A3 size pages.

Apart from two or three pages where a single A4 image was presented, there was between three and five images laid out per page in the typical "storybook collage" style with random aspect ratios and sizes, some of which were as small as 4x4

Flash was used very little and then mostly for some of the exterior shots to lift shadows and balance contrast ( fill in) but on the interior shots, even in challenging lighting environments the flash was used on just a very few posed shots.

I have the discs (and EXIF data) from the weddings and in both cases the indoor shots, all taken on full frame Canons, were generally shot between ISO 400 up to 12,800 with most being at the higher ISO range (ISO 800 +) even exterior night time shots in the beautiful grounds of the venues were lit by ambient lighting only.

The point of my previous comment regarding the topic "how much resolution do I need", I think it is fair to say 16-18mp is more than adequate in respect of resolution for "collage style wedding albums" and even the odd conventional framed enlargement but the advantage of, for example a 16mp array on a full frame sensor, would be very good IQ at the highest ISOs further reducing the need for flash.

I know in my days as a wedding photographer producing typically 9x6 up to 14x11 album prints, colour fidelity, resolution and grain were the first challenge and to acheive the quality, very slow film was used, typically 100 ASA (ISO) because even ISO 400 film in the early days was not good enough for enlargements above 7x5

Wedding photographers would need to use very unwieldy flash equipment on just about every indoor shot to overcome the slow film needed to provide the appropriate standard of IQ

In that environment the art of flash photography was the most important factor in underpinning the quality of the indoor shots for the printed wedding album

As regards to Nigel's comments on flash; Flash is definitely under-utilised if not lost as an art today and I agree unreservedly with his comments about the creative advantages of flash particularly in the hands of a skilled exponent, which is why his recent guide to flash photography is not only very useful as a learning reference but is very important in preserving the skill and art of flash photography.

Todays wedding environment is quite different and the very dynamic and candid approach, coupled with the incredible flexibility that digital cameras offer has completely changed the style of wedding photography and the images

IQ and resolution are not a real concern anymore but as I said above lighting is a priority consideration in every shot and using a flash at a wedding is still a challenge because it requires great subtlety and skill to be done well; even more so today because modern cameras can rely on the remarkable light gathering capabilities of the sensors to give very natural lighting and we simply don't use flash very much if at all

Skilful use of flash will always be a fundamental requirement that demands high levels of competence if the result are not to degrade the image and is both unobtrusive and natural .

I have lost that skill in recent years myself and therefore feel indebted to Nigel in producing his Practical guide to Flash photography which definitely provides a means of refreshing my capabilities with the often dreaded flash gun.

But how much resolution do I need ; 16-18 mp on a full frame sensor coupled with an ultrafast prime would do me very nicely thank you

Regards

All this talk about weddings made me go back and look at my own wedding photos.
I had a pro doing it and my cousin brought his camera as well. Year 2007, pro was with Nikon D70s and cousin with Canon 20D. FYI: it was in Poland, back then both of these cameras, even that they were 2 years old, were seriously expensive relatively to salaries.

Photos in album look really great, A4 size album with 6x8 prints, can't say anything bad about them. I even have one at A3 size hanging in my living room and it looks great.

Checking them out on my PC is a different story: they're full of noise (even outdoors with iso 100), soft and general quality is pretty low for today's standards. It's amazing how much it all changed in 10 years. Today the photos I have would be dismissed as total rubbish IQ wise.

So for me the whole printing large experience was a revelation. I probably will still pixel peep but I will be much less critical than before.

For some unknown reason I'm having two issues: still using a darkroom and trying to figure out how to fit in larger trays, and getting a second mortgage for a house on wheels

Gret picture and the house is definately better than my boring caravan