Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Glen Barrington
Forum ProPosts: 13,441
Like?
I don't think it matters, either way. . .
In reply to Prognathous, 11 months ago

If you're having fun, or getting something out of showing your photos that way, what difference does it make?

Now, measurebating is WAY different. . .

-- hide signature --

I still like soup. . .
Fine Art Flyover Country:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/2505841@N22

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike CH
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,532Gear list
Like?
That is surely one opinion
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Lightpath48 wrote:

My impression of pixel-peeping is that it is an overemphasis on pixel-level image quality.

There's no such a thing. Pixels make up a digital image so. All of them are important.

Pixel-peepers are perhaps more interested in the performance aspects of their cameras than in making photos.

A proper photographer is not only seeking artistic excellence but also technical excellence. Something as fundamental as maximizing image detail and sharpness can only be properly detrmined by viewing at 100%.

And it is certainly yours.

But is it universal? Or are you projecting your conceptions of proper photography unto the world?

Mind, personally I cannot stand technically inferior images passed of as art, when a little bit of effort could have improved the image. But I cannot go as far as to claim that technical excellence is the only proper way of photography.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Zone8
Forum ProPosts: 15,656
Like?
Re: Oh Lordie Lordie
In reply to Prognathous, 11 months ago

Prognathous wrote: I limit the number of pictures I show to the very best pictures (which include zero pictures I would refer to as "snaps"), usually around 30~50 pictures for a week of travel. Twice for a two week trip. Not only are people not complaining, they usually ask to see more. If people show lack of interest when viewing your pictures you might want to check the reason for that.

I don't inflict them - full stop.  Never did with transparencies years ago either.

My images are printed and framed so people can view or pass by as they please.  

However, glad to see you at least edit them to reduce number.

-- hide signature --

Zone8: Although I am a handsome genius, when I stand in front of a mirror, I vaguely recognise the ugly idjit standing on the other side!
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm
Cleaning DSLR Sensors, including Kodak DSLR Factory Cleaning method:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/KodakDCS-sensorcleaning.htm (Includes links to "bassotto's" images)
Solving back/front focus problems on Sigma and most other DSLRs
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=35565277
PDF format list of lenses you can print or download - covers Italian Flag YES/NO for DCS 14n but applies to others. http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/ItiFlagLensList.pdf

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,606
Like?
Yes, it is pixel peeping, but pixel peeping is not the problem
In reply to Prognathous, 11 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

Would you call this practice "pixel peeping"?

Yes, I would. But I have nothing against pixel peeping in itself.

What I have something against are the wrong conclusions about noise and sharpness that people draw when they use 100% pixel magnification to compare two cameras with a different number of megapixels.

So please continue what you are doing. But remember that if you have photos from a 6MP camera and a 24 MP camera, and you deem the 6MP photos better because they look better at 100% pixel magnification, you are doing it wrong. You should instead look at the 6MP files at 200% and the 24MP files at 100% to get a correct comparison.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ontario Gone
Senior MemberPosts: 3,802Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Mike CH, 11 months ago

Mike CH wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

To me, pixel-peeping is more about the quality (of a limited amount) of pixels. It seems to me that you are more concerned with the content - and if there is interesting content in the small details, then zoom in to your hearts delight.

All of the pixels determine "the quality" of a digital image. They are all important.

Perhaps.

But are they all equally important?

And are they more important when viewed in isolation? Or less?

You can easily have a whole slew of perfect pixels, which add up to a completely uninteresting image. And vice versa.

I think it depends on what the photo is meant for. If you are taking it in order to sell, as a photojournalist ect, the actual photo matters and perhaps the pixel level is less important. I, like the op, happen to take enjoyment out of my own personal photos by being able to see small details within the whole. The better the pixel level performance, the better i can see these small details. To me, pixel level performance is of great importance, which is why i pixel peep, but there is a solid reason why it is so. For anybody to tell me im doing it wrong and it's only the whole photo that matters cannot see beyond their own nose.

When you pixel-peep you are more interested in the quality of a limited area of the image than in the quality of the whole image (by necessity, as it is more difficult to see the whole image when a part is enlarged to 100%). Pixel-peeping also has the bad connotation of measurebating with test charts et all...

Do note that I am not saying that you should not look at an image at pixel level. Of course you can and should as circumstances require. One should just not forget that that is not the whole story, eh image.

 Ontario Gone's gear list:Ontario Gone's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Mike CH, 11 months ago

Mike CH wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

To me, pixel-peeping is more about the quality (of a limited amount) of pixels. It seems to me that you are more concerned with the content - and if there is interesting content in the small details, then zoom in to your hearts delight.

All of the pixels determine "the quality" of a digital image. They are all important.

Perhaps.

Not "perhaps." Nothing else forms the image.

But are they all equally important?

Of course.

And are they more important when viewed in isolation? Or less?

They are all important, period. No better example exists than understanding how a Bayer sensor works and why when compared to a Foveon sensor the difference in image detail at 100% is so dramatic.

You can easily have a whole slew of perfect pixels, which add up to a completely uninteresting image. And vice versa.

That's an entirely different thing. One is technical excellence and the other is artistic excellence. The former is also objective while the later is subjective.

When you pixel-peep you are more interested in the quality of a limited area of the image than in the quality of the whole image (by necessity, as it is more difficult to see the whole image when a part is enlarged to 100%).

Nonsense. Viewing at 100% is the only way to judge the *technical quality* of an image.

Pixel-peeping also has the bad connotation of measurebating with test charts et all...

The term is idiotic to begin with. Viewing an image at 100% has a "bad connotation" only with those that are ignorant.

Do note that I am not saying that you should not look at an image at pixel level. Of course you can and should as circumstances require. One should just not forget that that is not the whole story, eh image.

As it relates to the technical quality of an image, it certainly "is the whole story."

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: That is surely one opinion
In reply to Mike CH, 11 months ago

Mike CH wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Lightpath48 wrote:

My impression of pixel-peeping is that it is an overemphasis on pixel-level image quality.

There's no such a thing. Pixels make up a digital image so. All of them are important.

Pixel-peepers are perhaps more interested in the performance aspects of their cameras than in making photos.

A proper photographer is not only seeking artistic excellence but also technical excellence. Something as fundamental as maximizing image detail and sharpness can only be properly detrmined by viewing at 100%.

And it is certainly yours.

No, it is fact.

But is it universal?

Obviously not amongst those ignorant enough to be using the idiotic term pixel peeping.

Or are you projecting your conceptions of proper photography unto the world?

No, it is fact.

Mind, personally I cannot stand technically inferior images passed of as art, when a little bit of effort could have improved the image. But I cannot go as far as to claim that technical excellence is the only proper way of photography.

Read again what I wrote.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

Its a definition problem here. Of course every pixel is important. But not the pixel alone.

Wrong. Learn how Bayer sensors work and then compare 100% magnification images from any Bayer sensor camera to a Sigma Foveon sensor equipped camera. That's a perfect example showing that "every pixel is important."

I am just saying he should not forget to enlarge until whole image with all pixels are seen at once.

Why would anyone "forget" to do that?

If someone does it differently, then he is free to do it.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,536Gear list
Like?
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Because if viewed the image (normally) the eye or/and computer interpolates the pixel, to recognize a more important whole picture. Thats why a single pixel is not important. Just replace 100 random pixels in an image and downsample to whatever you want todo.

Its not wrong what i talk. Its just different seeing. I just could say you are wrong too... Dont accept others view?
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BertIverson
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,032Gear list
Like?
Nothing wrong with "Digitally Zooming" provided ...
In reply to Prognathous, 11 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

When I'm showing pictures from a trip to friends, I prefer to display the picture on my FullHD 50" TV rather than pass around small prints. In some cases, the picture contains multiple subjects and many interesting details, so I switch to 100% magnification and show specific parts which include details I consider worth focusing on. In practice, I use the same technique people use when pixel peeping (100% magnification), and if image quality is lacking it's tough for me not to notice it, though I don't tend to point to technical shortcomings. Would you call this practice "pixel peeping"?

Hey Prog,

I am guessing, that occasionally, we all do what you describe and this is probably why so many of us on DPR are IQ and pixel noise phobic.
I have 20MP and see no problem with 2:1 digital zoom (5MP). However, at 100% viewing the pixels need to be "clean". To me, clean pixels mean lower ISO and no motion blurring (and of course focused properly)
When viewing the whole frame, I could care less about pixel noise and lens quality. (typically neither can be seen)

my 0.02

Bert

 BertIverson's gear list:BertIverson's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

Because if viewed the image (normally) the eye or/and computer interpolates the pixel, to recognize a more important whole picture. Thats why a single pixel is not important. Just replace 100 random pixels in an image and downsample to whatever you want todo.

Its not wrong what i talk.

Yeah, it is. You said the perfect word, "interpolates." Consider how a Bayer sensor works and then compare it to a Foveon sensor and you'll clearly see that interpolation can not accurately show detail that was not recorded accurately in the first place.

Its just different seeing.

Opinions and "different seeing" does not always equal facts.

I just could say you are wrong too...

You can say whatever you like, but you shouldn't expect not to be challenged on what you say in forum.

Dont accept others view?

I don't accept that you are talking sense and facts and I have expressed that. Accepting the right for someone to express their "view," is another matter.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 22,084Gear list
Like?
yes, view the entire image or crop it
In reply to Prognathous, 11 months ago

Yes view the entire image or crop it.  When 4x6 prints were the norm, you didn't pass around a magnifying glass when viewing them!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,536Gear list
Like?
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Just to clarify, as you told the same thing again and again. I already know bayer and foveon sensors. This does not change the fact, that single pixel are not important as you desceibe. At least, not in all cases.

Ok a test for you. Replace 100 pixels randomwise in your foeon generates image. Enlarge the image to fi whole screen. Look at it from (normal) distance.

I don't know if you understand what i try to explain or if you just don't want understand. What you describe as facr is not a fact, because you say it is one.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ontario Gone
Senior MemberPosts: 3,802Gear list
Like?
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

Just to clarify, as you told the same thing again and again. I already know bayer and foveon sensors. This does not change the fact, that single pixel are not important as you desceibe. At least, not in all cases.

Ok a test for you. Replace 100 pixels randomwise in your foeon generates image. Enlarge the image to fi whole screen. Look at it from (normal) distance.

I don't know if you understand what i try to explain or if you just don't want understand. What you describe as facr is not a fact, because you say it is one.

What is a fact is some people enjoy and even prefer to focus on individual spots within an image when they look at it. I myself do this, it doesn't matter what the image is, i appreciate each and every little piece. Read my posting history, it's no coincidence i promote the usefulness of a wide DOF (as opposed to razor thin FF @F1.2 DOF), i like a photo to show the entire scene. Not always but very often. Neither you or the next guy have the right to tell me i am looking at a photo in the wrong way, and if pixel level performance enhances the detail in how i like to view an image, then it is of benefit.

So this is where you say that most people don't view it as i do, as if that matters. The fact is there are a lot of people who like to look at smaller individual portions of a photo and like it to be clear and sharp and detailed. If this is not you, great, enjoy your 2MP camera that you can view in all it's glory on your 1080p computer monitor. I however will not let judgmental people like you pretend you know what is best for me.

 Ontario Gone's gear list:Ontario Gone's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,536Gear list
Like?
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
In reply to Ontario Gone, 11 months ago

What is your problem? When did i told you such a thing? Where did i wrote whats best for you? I am discussing with a different guy, who tell to everyone its a fact that evry pixel counts. I am not twlling how you should view your image and whats best for you. Please tell me where i did.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike CH
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,532Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Ontario Gone, 11 months ago

Ontario Gone wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

To me, pixel-peeping is more about the quality (of a limited amount) of pixels. It seems to me that you are more concerned with the content - and if there is interesting content in the small details, then zoom in to your hearts delight.

All of the pixels determine "the quality" of a digital image. They are all important.

Perhaps.

But are they all equally important?

And are they more important when viewed in isolation? Or less?

You can easily have a whole slew of perfect pixels, which add up to a completely uninteresting image. And vice versa.

I think it depends on what the photo is meant for. If you are taking it in order to sell, as a photojournalist ect, the actual photo matters and perhaps the pixel level is less important. I, like the op, happen to take enjoyment out of my own personal photos by being able to see small details within the whole.

And that is perfectly fine. I approach many of my images in the same way. I just have an issue with Basalite claiming it is the only way... that's all.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike CH
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,532Gear list
Like?
It surely is opinion...
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Lightpath48 wrote:

My impression of pixel-peeping is that it is an overemphasis on pixel-level image quality.

There's no such a thing. Pixels make up a digital image so. All of them are important.

Pixel-peepers are perhaps more interested in the performance aspects of their cameras than in making photos.

A proper photographer is not only seeking artistic excellence but also technical excellence. Something as fundamental as maximizing image detail and sharpness can only be properly detrmined by viewing at 100%.

And it is certainly yours.

No, it is fact.

No, it is opinion. Facts which are not nigh universally acknowledged are really only opinions.

But you are welcome to it. If if rocks your boat...

But is it universal?

Obviously not amongst those ignorant enough to be using the idiotic term pixel peeping.

Or are you projecting your conceptions of proper photography unto the world?

No, it is fact.

Yes, you are.

Mind, personally I cannot stand technically inferior images passed of as art, when a little bit of effort could have improved the image. But I cannot go as far as to claim that technical excellence is the only proper way of photography.

Read again what I wrote.

I did. You are defining - for your own purposes and needs - what proper photography is. And that boils down to opinion. To which you are heartily welcome. And with which I am certainly allowed to disagree.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike CH
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,532Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote: {something I snipped}

1) You said that a proper photographer seeks to excel both artistically and technically; moreover you claim that as fact. It is not, it is opinion - albeit one you appear to hold dearly.

2) What happens when you crop? Those pixels used to be part of the image, and thus according to you, equally important to the image...

3) I think you have an issue with the expression 'pixel peeping' because you feel it is negative. It is meant to be negative. To be used in the situations where 100% viewing is vastly overdone.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,536Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Mike CH, 11 months ago

Hey Mike, i am on same boat like you.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beachcomber Joe
Contributing MemberPosts: 530Gear list
Like?
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
In reply to Prognathous, 11 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

When I'm showing pictures from a trip to friends, I prefer to display the picture on my FullHD 50" TV rather than pass around small prints. In some cases, the picture contains multiple subjects and many interesting details, so I switch to 100% magnification and show specific parts which include details I consider worth focusing on.

I wouldn't call it pixel peeping. To me pixel peeping is examining an image at high magnification solely to determine sharpness and other flaws.  The term is often associated with camera gear collectors who obsessively focus on minute differences in image quality which are unobservable under the conditions which images are typically displayed.

If your images "contains multiple subjects and many interesting details" I wonder why you did not consider those aspects of the image worth their own photographs.  I would think that going from an overall photo to well composed photos of the interesting bits would make for a far more pleasing presentation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads