I have heard countless times that "resolution is of utmost importance for landscape photography". This also comes up often when landscape photographers look to medium format for it's detail and resolution. Here is a quote from a dpreview Landscape Primer:
Superb image quality and the ability to record as much detail as possible are hallmarks of landscape photography.
A few reasons come to mind why this might be the case such as:
- The enlargement of such images is common in public displays and home uses
- Many landscapes have far distances, so capturing more detail allows for cropping later
- Landscapes are often marketed as "Fine Art" prints, so maximum resolution is demanded
On the other hand, I can think of reasons that this isn't necessary:
- Often the subjects are naturally occurring, making distortion difficult to spot imperfections
- Interpolation of features such as a sky I would think would be easier than a human eye in a portrait for example
- If a image will be enlarged significantly, typically it will be viewed at a corresponding further distance, negating the necessity for additional resolution
- I am wondering if this might be a somewhat dated stance, considering what type of detail and resolution can be captured with basically any current DSLR. Maybe this theory comes from 35mm film days and no longer applies
As you can see I can't decide myself why this "rule" of landscape photography is so prevalent. What makes an image of a waterfall "require" higher resolution than an image of a wedding ceremony or football player in action(per se)?