If you as a customer understand that any picture below 40-50mp may look like rubbish on a screen in 10-15 years, then this entry may not be interesting for you. I recommend you keep reading to understand why technology is so crucial in photography, and you, as a client, should invest in photographers that care about it.

If you, as a photographer, already care about the resolution in your craft and understand that new technologies help to get better results that last longer, you can skip this entry.

Short answer Yes.

Do you ever wonder why old film pictures look so clean and good even today?

Digital photography still has not matched the resolution and dynamic range of old 4x5 or 8x10 film. Yes, the most expensive digital camera in the world cannot compete with an old 8x10 film in both aspects. The resolution of 4x5 or 8x10 after a drum scan can be gigapixels, and the dynamic range of a negative film is around 22 to 24 steps, or maybe more but we can't perceive it as that is the eye limit. The best studio camera outputs 150 megapixels and 15 to 16 steps in dynamic range. Think about that. A technology invented a hundred years ago can outperform in quality a fifty thousand dollar camera.

The previous sentence does not mean you should go for a photographer that only shoots film. The workflow of a digital system is vital. You will get more pictures and faster results using digital photography, time matters.

Ten years ago 1080p was the cool thing on televisions. 1080p represents barely 2 megapixels, which means that you could film a movie with a 2 megapixels camera and have good results on a 1080p TV. Your phone probably has a camera that outperforms old 2 megapixels cameras. There are things like noise and optics that probably are better in the old camera than your phone.

Ok, now think about 4k. 4k is 8 megapixels. If you play a 1080p movie on a 4k monitor, it looks blurry. This is why now all new cameras record in 4k. You do not need more if your result is for tv or youtube. Now I want to ask you something.

What resolution do you think will be the standard in 40 years?

The thing starts to get a bit more interesting. 8K needs a 33 megapixels sensor, and have you seen an 8k tv versus a 4k tv? The 8k looks crisper and sharper. I would expect it to be the standard in the next five to ten years.

Booking a photographer that today can create the highest resolution images will ensure that in the future, you can see your pictures on a media that could output those high resolutions, which would guarantee that your memories look great for a longer time. Your children or grandchildren will see your pictures and will not be distracted by the low resolution or think, “wow” the quality in the past sucks.

"But customers don't care"

I keep listening to photographers and youtubers saying that. That is an insult to your customers. Customers do not care because they do not know, need something now, and do not think about the future. Maybe they are desperate to get a good headshot for an audition, maybe they have been saving money for a whole year just to pay for that shoot. As a photographer, not delivering 100% of what you can, is the worst part of this sentence. What it really means for me "I have the money but I don't care or I don't want to adapt to new technologies".

It is like picking an Uber, you can go for the expensive or the cheap car. Can it go badly? Yes, but you know that one is probably going to be better and there are high chances that the ride will be more comfortable.

If you are customer, you need to understand that photographers with high end gear and prices, probably spend more time studying how to make the pictures and deliver what you need not what the photographer needs.

As a client, If I need a portrait and I see the photographer using a 20mpx M43 I wouldn’t probably take that portrait. I will not be able to use that image in a TV/Computer in 5/10 years without a heavy upscaling.

The final media drives the resolution

You should try to get the highest resolution possible for a portrait, landscape or piece of art. There is no excuse not to. Right now, when I watch old videos on the internet, my eyes hurt, all is pixelated, and is not because they got worst, it is because the technology improved. Then you watch an old videoclip that was recorded on film, and they look clean (and will look good for generations).

I get it; a product that will be displayed on a web page for three months doesn't need 102 megapixels, but trying to convince those clients for prints or billboards with higher quality may push a deal even if they don’t use the whole resolution images.

"I don't have the money"

The gear is expensive. Customers need to understand that your price matches it. I will talk about the photo session process on future entries. The experience is the core of any packages, but the final price has to include the cost of the gear and infrastructure you use.

Try to get the best gear that you can afford without suffering and gets the work done. Plain and simple. Cheaping out in gear will impact your product. The key here is to deliver the best you can to your customers, and remember, with lenses, expensive doesn’t translate to more quality. Old EF canon glass is terrible and they are thousands of dollars more expensive than other third party options.

As a client, you need to understand that the average gear of a photographer would be around $10k, that is going low, some photographers gear can be around $500k or more. If you think the photographer asks too much, just tell him you are in a low budget and move to another photographer.

What about me? What can I do better as a photographer?

At this time, I only deliver 102 megapixels, which is around 11k, and probably in the future, I will try to upgrade to 150 or 200 megapixels when the price is reasonable, ensuring that my pictures stand the effects of technology longer than the rest is a key point of any of my packages.

Photography is an art that immortalizes our memories. That has no price (ok it has but you know what I mean), and ensuring that these memories last for longer is bound to the technology we have in our hands.

As a photographer, I need to communicate this to my clients, I know customers don't understand it, and I lose potential gigs. For portraits and fine art, there is no reason that more is worst for your customers. It may be more retouch time for the photographer, maybe the photographer needs to outsource the retouch. The final result is for your customers and for your art.

On next entries I will discuss other key factors like lighting, planning, file delivery, file storage, directions during session to get natural results, etc.