The Jet Age Compendium: Paolozzi at Ambit – I just bought this yesterday at the South London Gallery bookshop. Designed by John Morgan for Four Corner Books, this special edition version of Ambit unites Poalozzi's work for Ambit in a single volume.

The content attempts to tackle the war in Vietnam, the acceleration of Japanese technology, and the utopias of mass advertising. A 2009 exhibition at Raven Row followed the book by bringing together the array of collages, visual essays, magazine adverts and fragments which together challenge the boundaries between text and image. I have always been a fan of artist's publications, but for me this book is a perfect balance of art and design.

Amateur is an amazing little website subtly housing a fascinating resource of content that cannot fail to arouse curiousity. I particularly like the imagined, observed and remembered comparative drawings used to highlight and overcome the trials of defining a personal visual language.

By utilizing drawing in a similiar way I have attempted to create an introduction to the drawing process that uses John Berger's description of 3 modes of drawing – those which study and question the visible, those which put down and communicate ideas, and those done from memory.

The result is a series of tasks intending to address a students focus on the finished image and to re-direct attention to drawing as a methodology . . . each mark you make on the paper is a stepping-stone from which you proceed to the next, until you have crossed your subject as though it were a river.

A + X + M =?, Alain Resnais' Last year in Marienbad has been described as a defining work of the French New Wave and one of the great, lasting mysteries of Modern Art.

This cinematic marvel describes a haunting relationship between a man and a woman who may or may not have met. The 3 main protagonists, never referred to by name, wander through a sumptuous château and the viewer is left to deliberate over the ambiguity of memory and the pursuit of an image.

The pixel myth – Pixels really don't matter [in photography] as much as people think, it's all a myth because the number of megapixels (MP) a camera has has very little to do with how the image looks. Even worse, plenty of lower MP cameras can make better images than poorer cameras with more MP – Ken Rockwell.

Upgrading your camera by doubling megapixel may make far less difference than you think because of the way it is worked out, it's simply length x width (no. of pixels), 2000 x 3000 = 6MP. A 12MP camera will produce an images size around 2848 x 4288, so even though the MP value is doubling the image size is only increasing by 40%.

I've recently picked up my camera again and have obviously had to upgrade from film equipment to digital. I still have several Nikon AF–D lenses (from my F4), so have been looking at Nikon cameras to take these lenses. Notably they need a built in motor drive for the lens, this left me looking at the D50, D70, D70s, D80 and D200 in my price range. I chose the D50 which is the cheapest and has the lowest number of MP's (6). I made a realistic choice knowing that most of the images I would be taking are either going to appear solely digitally or at most as an A4 inkjet print for reference. Most home printers print between 200-300ppi which means you can print a 6MP image at 200dpi 25 x 38cm, you could probably take this up even further if necessary!

It is worth noting that in the design/publishing industry print resolution is 300 dpi at 100%, and even though this can still be pushed, when things are being printed commercially then this should nearly always be adhered to. Essentially it is best to make a decision based on the intended use of the images and for myself and most 6MP is more than adequate.

My camera is extremely user friendly and the image quality is superb, buying more pixels doesn't help you to take better photographs. Sharpness depends on the skill and knowledge of the photographer rather than the width of the megapixels.

For all questions Nikon there is no better source of reference than Ken Rockwell.