>>3322183>it were on a 1000MP sensor you'd be able to either choose the full scene, and scale it down to not be ridiculous in size, or you'dbe able to crop into the tents and discard the landscape.
Sure, but why would you want to? For a tiny fraction of the cost you could buy a longer lens and get it even sharper on a smaller sensor>>3322217
I don't. In 2018 nobody is using less than 1000px resolution. I post either 1600px or 2048px, occasionally 1300px if it's vertical>>3322377
Wherever the local pro's use. Depends on the size, format, coating, quality, etc>>3322390
I wanted to say Typography, but that's text apparently. It starts with a T though>she has a poorly-defined jawline, have her raise her chin up
You raise the chin primarily for the light. It's a symptom of studio work and actually takes away more than it adds if you work the light right>>3322487
The rule was presumably set years ago>>3322515>If I want objectively good photos, like objectively superior imagery and not "artsy" shit, small apertures are usually always best, right?
No. You use whichever aperture the shot and scene demand. That might sound like a cop-out but answering otherwise is simply misguided
Your example is a good one because you're clearly aware good bokeh is often one of the goals of a shot and matters more the better you get at certain types of portrait photography>When is too small of an aperture a bad thing with sharpness as your main concern?
If you're purely talking sharpness then whichever aperture causes the lens to be less sharp than it's optimal sharpness. Typically anything above f8 on most lenses
But again, that's simply an autistic way of picking an aperture because sharpness is a low priority in most professional types of photography>>3322530
Yeah, my woodland stuff shines on a 50mm because it has just enough compression and is wide enough to do all sorts of things
That said, I usually want to be wider or way narrower for landscape so it's not ideal