Does pixel resolution matter in digital photography?

File: kate-moss-mert-marcus-playboy-12.jpg (558B, 20x15px) Image search: [Google]

558B, 20x15px

Of course not.

>>3029419
this.

>>3029405
If it's above 16MP, no

It matters more as an individual image is processed further; notice for example how "sharpen" can't be 1:1 reversed with the inverse matrix (aka "blur"). More pixels provides more headroom. This implies that more editing, i.e. lossy transforms on the image data, also costs resolution in terms of print size, which professionals can attest to.

For people shooting SOOC and posting things on Instagram, it's relatively meaningless compared to things like sensor size and lens optical quality. And with the latter I mean zoom vs. prime as seen under ideal conditions.

>>3029405
Yes.

Knowing what pixel resolution is too little, right or too much is important.

Ideal pixel resolution really depends on the purpose and equipment you are using.

Common arguments for pixel resolution is 16MP vs 24MP vs 40+MP, ASP-C vs full frame sensor, and zoom vs prime lens under certain conditions (can go on longer if I wanted to).

>>3029405
If you're printing above 11x14 it matters a little. If you want to print pretty big like 24x36" or bigger it can matter a lot.

IF you want to shoot huge bursts it's obviously better to have less pickles, because more pickles=slower frame rate and quicker buffer fill.

I'm still at 12mp bro
I edit the fuck out of my raws, make FHD and UHD wallpapers, and print. But I don't seem to need anymore than I already got?? Why go to 24mp? 36? 42?
I might upgrade to 16 eventually, or 24 when the good 24mp cameras get cheaper. Not because I need more pixels, just because those sensors happen to be better. (High ISO, dynamic range, base ISO noise, etc)

Not one bit. Resolution only matters when printing.

PPI/DPI are separate from regular old resolution but nobody here is specifying that. The former matters for printing only since it determines the final print size. The latter determines how much information you have in your image.

>>3029556
Well if it can't be reversed that can only mean blur is not it's inverse matrix

>>3029555
>16MP

most people that will never print their photos don't even need half that.