Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 11 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

It makes sense for me and for so many others. It does not make sense for you and for many others. If we change a term everytime it does not make sense for ANYONE, then what sense does this make? Some accept and others don't.

Unless you quote me I have no idea what you are referring to.

If you are referring to the silly pixel peeping term, then my response is it doesn't make sense, period.

Please explain why it doesn't make sense (I know you don't like to explain yourself, but I'll ask anyway).

If you actually read my posts then you can't in any way say I don't "like to explain" myself.

When I said "please explain" repeatedly, you just say "read the paragraph" Well I read the paragraph when I first posted, and I still have no idea why you think your statement meant anything other than what I said.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52863010

I even stated that I might be misunderstanding, but you refused to try and clear it up.

We all know what a Pixel is.

To peep is to look at something.

Therefore if you are blowing up an image to the point the you can see individual pixels, you are peeping (looking at) pixels.

That's just it, most people can not see pixels when they are supposedly "pixel peeping."

You just stated in another post minutes ago that most monitors do not have a high enough pixel density to require zooming past 100%. If that's the case then you must be able to see pixels at 100%. I know that I can easily see the pixels on my monitor.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim most people don't see pixels at 100% and then claim that most people can see all available detail at 100%.

If you are peeping pixels, you are a pixel peeper.

Granted it's silly, but it is accurate.

LOL. No, it's silly" because it is not accurate. On most monitors in use people can not see individual pixels when viewing their images at 100%.

This is a false statement. Plain and simple.

Some take offence to the term, some don't. Sounds like a personal issue if you do.

No, it's simply an issue of common sense and truth.

I'm an occasional pixel peeper, I don't see the problem here.

My thought is a good image is a good image even if you can't print it large. So the reason I pixel peep is to determine how large I can print. As I said if I'm not printing large, I don't care if it's not ideal at 100%. If I'm displaying digitally, I'm only concerned with the quality at the display size.

Unless you are using a monitor from the 80s you can't see individual pixels at 100%.

In another post you claimed that you can see pixel level differences in 650 ppi prints,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52862890

now you're claiming you can't see pixels in your 109 ppi display. Let alone the typical 92 dpi display.

You can't even understand what I am saying in this thread and now you want to discuss another thread??

It's the same thread just a few posts up. Once again you claim I don't understand but make no attempt to clear things up.

You misunderstood something I previously said, only because you refused to take into consideration what the entire paragraph was saying. You kept asking for clarification and when that wasn't enough you bring something else in unrelated to what you were confused about in the first place. Whether it is from another thread or not doesn't matter.

Move on already.

No, sorry. Move on.

Pathetic. At least you've clearly displayed that you can see that you're wrong, even if you won't admit it.

Unless you can read my mind or you can place your own thoughts into my mind, I've "displayed" no such thing.

What I mean is, you will drive a thread into the ground when you think you're right.

Everyone is free to express their views and opinions. Only someone being cynical would take your view of other people's comments.

But every time you realize that you've talked yourself into a corner,

Unless you can think for me, you can not "realize" things for me. You're just expressing an opinion that has no basis.

you claim nobody understands you,

No, most people understand me just fine.

and cut the conversation short.

I will if the person clearly can not understand what I am saying or is pretending to not understand. I will because then it turns into a discussion that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
NoNew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow