Went up to New York for the day on Friday (Oct. 19th) for the PhotoPlus Expo. As I walked from Penn Station to the Jacob Javits Center all the sidewalk newspaper boxes read one thing: “Shove It.” It was referring to, just the evening before, reports that Joe Torre, beloved manager of the Yankees, had not accepted the offer presented by the Steinbrenner Boys– an contract that many believe was an insult to Joe’s 12-year commitment to the team and to the city of New York. Anyway, just as the humidity was heavy in the air that morning, the gloom and doom of the Yankees losing Mr. Torre–a father figure to many, a New York icon to most– seemed an impossibility. The palpable melancholy of a city hung from its the trees, crept into the crevasses of its sidewalks and enveloped its citizens. “Shove it, Shove it, Shove it,”… citizens seemed to be chanting from within.
It was a drone that fit in the controversial keynotes headlining PhotoPlus that day. Themes like: megapixel size doesn’t really matter, and, the next generation won’t ever smell developer fluid, seemed to say it all….”shove it, shove it, shove it.”
Quite a contrast from sad outer New York was the lively party-like atmosphere when I finally did arrive at the Expo after my five block walk. As I was sucked in to the air-conditioned photo mecca that is PhotoPlus, I was greeted by those bright yellow plastic Nikon bags at the check-in. “Oh, what a sight for sore eyes,” I thought after a 4-hour train ride from Washington. I have arrived at my favorite show. Even if it is for just one day.
I visited the Cygnus booth briefly and met some of the new staff and touched base with veterans. Then I was off to see New York Times Technology Columnist David Pogue speak. I couldn’t wait. He was going to tackle what he defined as the “Megapixel Myth.” This was going to be good. Is he crazy? I thought. Does he know where he is? What does he think the trade floor is about? I CAN tell you one thing, it’s NOT about selling cameras NOT based on high megapixels. I’m sure there is some catch, I thought.
Pleasantly surprised, Pogue was true to form. He managed to give a talk at a professional photography show about (all his words) a “myth” that is perpetuated to make consumers believe that the larger the print size, the higher the megapixel number should be. While I haven’t tested the theory, I must say he was my hero, just for being a journalist willing to challenge corporate America. Investigative journalism is alive and on the New York Times Web site. Yeah.
When he first presented his theory first on this popular Times blog, before it even ran in the paper, he was lambasted with hundred of emails on the first day. By photographers, of course. Pogue explained why he believes this so-called myth about the megapixel is out there in the first place:
“The public is dying for a good grade,” he said. “They need a quick index to find how good a camera is [in relation to another one].” In other words, a marketing buzz word. Hmm. I not sure how i feel about this. If it’s true, I feel like many of us have been taken to the cleaners. If it’s false, I’m just..well..peeved at Pogue. Turns out the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. And more on the left for the pros. This is my theory. The more of a pro you are, the more the megapixel DOES matter.
Anyway.
Pogue explained how a 7-8 megapixel camera for most people, in his opinion, is more than adequate to make 13×19-inch prints. Other factors, he contended, impact image quality much more after about 7 megapixels-such as the camera’s frame and sensor. At a certain point, he explained, more megapixels begin to worsen a camera’s light-detecting capabilities. For an example, imagine 100,000 people standing naked in Times Square in the middle of summer wearing no sunscreen. Ok. Gross. Now, imagine one person standing there. That one person will get more burned because more space equals more sunlight. Get it?
Anyway, the keynote went on like a long anecdote as he told how he conducted an experiment to test his theory. What piqued his curiosity in the first place? Giant prints of his family, and particularly his big-eyed adorable baby, that hang all over his home, taken with varying megapixel cameras (most between 4 and 6 megapixels)–all looking pretty much the same (his language). He did an experiment with prints of varying megapixel cameras and asked New Yorkers if they could tell the difference. They couldn’t. But it turned out the experiment had one major flaw, as he was so “kindly” notified by his blog readers: Downrezzing all the images in Photoshop.
Finally guided by a photo tech editor at another pub, Pogue and the editor redid the experiment and claimed the same results. Admittedly, it was difficult to tell apart the prints that we all saw at his talk. For more on his final test, visit the blog entry at http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/deconstructing-the-megapixel-myth/
If it wasn’t wearing enough to be told that the sky is not blue by Mr. Pogue, there was more controversy at another afternoon keynote.
“Black-and-White Photography in the 21st Century,” presented a panel of top-flight photographers that are film-only users. They focused on the truth that film reveals as compared to digital and discussed the future of film. As I heard the photographers speak about how photography students today have never seen the inside of a darkroom, let alone ever used film, I felt old and sad. But not sad for me. It’s too bad so many will never have the tactile experience of “making something” that conventional photography allows, and the panels so eloquently discussed. Unfortunately, the feeling of the talk was of doom. That the future for film may be in museums and galleries and as a preserved antiquity for collectors.
I certainly hope not. I don’t believe it has to be one or the other. I mean, people said books would die. But people have not stopped picking them up. I hope photographers will continue to love the feeling of picking up a silver gelatin print and getting their clothes dirty and smelly. Maybe the new standard will be two darkrooms side by side–digital and traditional–whatever it takes to coax out the beauty inherent in photography. A short film showcased the film photographers’ work. All so gripping, I must mention their names: John Sexton, Kristen Ashburn, Michael Crouser and Liz Gilbert. They all agreed that photos created with film have more of the “photographer’s touch” embedded within–because of the process that is bathing, drying, pushing, pulling, dodging etc.
My money is that vintage is always cool. To those that say film is not cool I say: “Shove it, shove it, shove it.”
One footnote: I came out of all my drive-bys, that is, all my visits with companies on the trade floor, with an overwhelming feeling that there are so many talented students, technologists and young photographers out there. More and more photography schools are cropping up and I was invited to see some of this newbie work myself. In addition, in the 2 am cab ride home from the train station back to my townhouse in Virginia, I was riding with a photography student who had either ironically or coincidentally (i haven’t decided yet) just returned from the show too. She had been on the same train from New York that was three hours late (first we had engine damage and then hit a deer. Yes you heard right). She was deciding either to go into photography or real estate. You bet she got into the right cab. I was happy to save her life.
