Skip to main content

Understanding Megapixels

Megapixel, that ubiquitous word that gets tossed around so often with little understanding. But what is a megapixel and why do we need to understand its importance in our work? The answer is directly tied to our editing and the intended purpose of our photos.

By now you should know that a pixel is a singular dot of color captured by the camera's sensor. The sensor being an array of multiple photovoltaic elements arranged in columns and rows that, when the shutter is clicked and the data collected, forms an image. A singular sensor can have millions of 'collectors' or photovoltaic receptors. So rather than saying, "I have a 6 million pixel camera," we simplify it by saying, "I have a 6 megapixel camera," mega meaning million.

Unfortunately that 6 megapixel camera won't always give you 6 megapixels.

"Huh?" you ask, "What do you mean my 6MP camera doesn't always give me six million pixels?" Here is what I mean; to calculate the true megapixels of an image you need to do some simple math. Take the width of your image (number of pixels wide) and multiply it by the height of your image (number of pixels tall). The resulting number (rounded to the nearest million) is the image's true megapixel rate.

You should now be able to deduce that if you crop your image in post processing you are systematically reducing the number of megapixels. Likewise, if you scale your image down you are reducing the number of megapixels. Here's an example;

My Canon 7D is advertised as an 18MP camera. A full sized image, straight out of the camera, is 5,184 pixels wide by 3,456 pixels tall. Multiplying the two numbers together we get 17,915,904 pixels or 17.9 megapixel (rounded up to 18MP). As with most cameras, I can change the quality of the images the camera can capture by making a simple menu selection. For example I can change from large JPEG to medium or small JPEG quality. The values are as follows;

Medium JPEG is 3456 x 2304 = 7,962,624 (8MP)
Small JPEG is 2592 x 1728 = 4,478,976 (4.5MP)

Keeping this in mind, when I process an image and resize it to post to the web I scale my images down to 400 x 600 pixels. Do the math and you should get... 240,000 pixels or .2MP. Not large enough to do anything constructive with.

In a previous post, "Pixel vs. DPI", I discussed the relationship between pixels and various output devices. Now that you understand how megapixels are calculated you will be able to determine the required megapixel for any given project. For example, if you want to print an 8x10 photo all you need to do is convert inches to pixels and multiply height by width to get the required minimum megapixel.

So, an eight inch by ten inch photo is printed at 300dpi. 300dpi x 8" = 2,400 pixels and 300dpi x 10" = 3,000 pixels. Multiply 2,400 x 3,000 = 7,200,000 pixels or 7.2 megapixel. Now if you crop your photo in Photoshop or Lightroom and you need to know if it will print properly you can calculate the answer. The reverse is also true. If you want to print an image at a particular size and you want to know how much you can crop away, this simple formula will let you know. Or if you are submitting to a stock agency and they have a MP minimum, you can calculate for that too.

NOTE: I did a quick check on the Walgreens Photo Center web site and their minimum print resolution for their photo products is 90dpi. While this means you can increase the size of  your output it also means image quality will be degraded. Remember the higher the dpi on your output the better the image quality (sharpness of edges).


Most Popular Posts

Large DIY Diffusion Scrim

One of the most commonly used tools in my photographic arsenal is the all purpose diffusion screen . I use it to soften light, create gradients and light fields or as a background. One of my current favorites is a metal framed 4' x 4' foot scrim with thick white artificial silk made by Matthews. I didn't think I would use it so much, being so large, but having borrowed it from a friend I really came to love it. The downside for me is the price. At just over $100 I couldn't really justify the cost, considering I want at least two of them. Time for a DIY alternative.

DIY Softbox Storage Hanger

If you own a softbox, or two, you understand how bulky and unwieldy they can be. Imagine owning several in different sizes. Storage becomes an issue. One solution is to break them down and store them flat, but that becomes a pain after the first few times struggling to put one of these things together. It is more convenient to just grab one "off the shelf" and go to work. Allocating shelf space seems like such a waste of valuable storage space. In my case I have two square softboxes, three striplights and soon two more rectangular ones. That's a lot of real estate. Time to come up with a storage solution that doesn't require floor space or shelf space. The solution I came up with is a compromise of an idea I originally had of hanging them from the ceiling on pulleys so they would be out of the way until needed. I still like that idea, but for now I will be suspending them from a wire rack shelf system in my studio. Here is what the system looks like.

Don Julio - Hero Shot

For starters, a hero shot is one in which the product is showcased in all its splendor. Careful attention is placed on making the product look its very best. For this shot of Don Julio I knew I wanted to give the bottle some majesty by photographing it from a low angle. That low angle makes the bottle look tall, towering over the viewer and creating a position of dominance. Can't you hear the choir of angels singing in the background? I also knew that I wanted a rich, moody image with lots of darks. I am partial to darker images, which is surprising to most people because the majority of the work I do are images on white backgrounds. But that's another story. I also tried a lifestyle type shot with glasses and lime slices but I wasn't feeling it and ended up scrapping it. Again, that's another story.

Observations on composition - Pieter Bruegel

In this article I am reprinting a critique I published on regarding the painting entitled ' Census at Bethlehem ' by famed painter Pieter Bruegel , who was born in what is now the Netherlands in the 1520s. The first point I would like to say is that you first need to consider both the medium and the time frame of this painting. Being a painting, the artist has a certain advantage of being able to carefully direct the large amount of content presented to the viewer, unlike, say, a photo of opportunity of the street photographer (I strongly believe Pieter would have been the 'street photographer' of his time). Even a studio photographer, with the luxury of space and time, would have a hard time justifying creating such a complex composition. Where you would see this type of visual composition today would be in modern cinema. In particular, period pieces that rely on background elements to "sell the era" .  Secondly, the era in which thi