Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: It surely is opinion...
In reply to Mike CH, 3 months ago

Mike CH wrote:

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.

Yes, a proper photographer seeks technical and artistic excellence.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Mike CH, 3 months ago

Mike CH wrote:

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.

What it boils down to is that you don't care about maximizing the technical quality of your images. That's your  right but don't fool yourself into thinking your images are technically as good as those who do care.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Mike CH, 3 months ago

Mike CH wrote:

Basalite wrote: {something I snipped}

Go back next time and quote me properly as I don't particularly like trying to figure out what you were responding to.

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.

No, it is fact. The craft of photography encompasses both.

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...

If you have a camera, sensor and lens of high quality such a thing is much less of an issue otherwise, hence the emphasis one should place on technical excellence.

3) I think you have an issue with the expression 'pixel peeping' because you feel it is negative.

I have an issue with it because it makes no sense. It's a stupid term based on ignorance.

It is meant to be negative. To be used in the situations where 100% viewing is vastly overdone.

100% viewing can never be "overdone." It is the only way to judge the ultimate quality of a digital image.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 533Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 3 months ago

The 100% viewing of high pixel count cameras (such on 24mp) is not the only and last possible way of finding out best image quality. Like i said before, you don't get the full image and therefore some other issues are missed out. It is like watching atoms and saying what looks best. If here is someone ignorant, thab that is you. You claim for something, we do and that is good this way. But we should respect the other. Saying the opposite does not make it right. And again, i am not against 100% view. But it is not the only tool judging image quality.

-- hide signature --

· 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 SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike CH
Senior MemberPosts: 2,793Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 3 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

Basalite wrote: {something I snipped}

Go back next time and quote me properly as I don't particularly like trying to figure out what you were responding to.

So sue me

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.

No, it is fact. The craft of photography encompasses both.

Of course it does. But that is a completely different statement from your first definition of proper photography. Mores the pity for you if cannot see that.

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...

If you have a camera, sensor and lens of high quality such a thing is much less of an issue otherwise, hence the emphasis one should place on technical excellence.

Don't wiggle out. What happens when you crop? Were those pixels you removed equally important?

3) I think you have an issue with the expression 'pixel peeping' because you feel it is negative.

I have an issue with it because it makes no sense. It's a stupid term based on ignorance.

It is meant to be.

It is meant to be negative. To be used in the situations where 100% viewing is vastly overdone.

100% viewing can never be "overdone." It is the only way to judge the ultimate quality of a digital image.

Everything can be 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
Mike CH
Senior MemberPosts: 2,793Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 3 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

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.

What it boils down to is that you don't care about maximizing the technical quality of your images. That's your right but don't fool yourself into thinking your images are technically as good as those who do care.

What it really boils down to is that it is silly of me to argue with a automaton. Let this be the last post from me in this thread on this topic with you.

Oh, and you really should go easy on that projecting of yours. I nowhere claim technical excellence, and neither do I claim to strive for it. I am quite satisfied with good enough for my purposes. I do not need, neither do I care for, your definition of proper photography.

And if you are not projection, then you are setting up a strawman argument...

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
Lightpath48
Senior MemberPosts: 1,764Gear list
Like?
Images?
In reply to Basalite, 3 months ago

Basalite, could you link us to some of your images?  I looked for a gallery here but there weren't any uploaded.

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D80 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NexOffender
Regular MemberPosts: 283Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 3 months ago

I think "pixel peeping" is a great term. It's catchy, easy to remember and the first time I heard it I knew exactly what it meant. Unfortunately, I like to use acronyms and "PP" is already taken, so I am ready to join your crusade.

If we want people to stop using "pixel peeping", we need to come up with an alternative. I propose the term "Pixel Level Observance" and the handy acronym "PLO", and while we're at it, I'd like to change the word "bokeh" to "Actually, it's the quality of this blur, not the blur itself" and the time saving acronym acronym "AITQOTBNTBI"

We can do this! Like minded photographers, join the PLO movement today!

 NexOffender's gear list:NexOffender's gear list
Pentax Efina
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 533Gear list
Like?
Re: No
In reply to NexOffender, 3 months ago

No need to change widely known and accepted term. No need to relearn and confuse with a second term, which nobody can remember. If soneone don't like the term pixel peeping, he is free to not use it. But as you see and read or write the established term, everyone understands it. No problem here. Its just a term, describing a complex act. Nothing stupid.
--
· 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 SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,635
Like?
So these are the rules?
In reply to RedFox88, 3 months ago

RedFox88 wrote:

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!

Why do norms related to 4x6 prints have to dictate how we are allowed to view or display pictures today? If the practice of magnifying interesting parts in pictures viewed on an high definition television is enjoyable to those present (and it clearly is, judging by the discussion about these parts), then why avoid it?

Prog.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,635
Like?
Presentation of multiple shots vs panning within high magnification view
In reply to Beachcomber Joe, 3 months ago

Beachcomber Joe wrote:

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.

One typical reason is that these multiple subjects are not static, so you can't actually capture the same moment in multiple shots.

Another reason is that slowly panning within a magnified image works differently on the viewer than showing a series of static shots. I'm not saying one is always better than the other, but it's a different (and sometimes preferable) way to present the interesting parts of a scene. This is very common when displaying a panorama. I find that showing the whole image and then displaying it in high magnification and panning slowly from one side to the other frequently provides a more compelling presentation than just showing additional images of specific parts of the panorama.

Prog.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wayne Larmon
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,108
Like?
Cake? Eating? Choose one.
In reply to Prognathous, 3 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

Beachcomber Joe wrote:

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.

One typical reason is that these multiple subjects are not static, so you can't actually capture the same moment in multiple shots.

Another reason is that slowly panning within a magnified image works differently on the viewer than showing a series of static shots. I'm not saying one is always better than the other, but it's a different (and sometimes preferable) way to present the interesting parts of a scene. This is very common when displaying a panorama. I find that showing the whole image and then displaying it in high magnification and panning slowly from one side to the other frequently provides a more compelling presentation than just showing additional images of specific parts of the panorama.

You are defining a problem that has no easy solution. In this post, you say that you need to zoom and pan in order to provide a more "compelling presentation". But in your original post, you said

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.

It appears that you need a substantial upgrade to your equipment (FF camera with professional quality lenses, etc.  Or to medium format, if you are now using FF.), so that when you zoom images enough to show the details you need to show, that they won't show "technical shortcomings."

Or you could do what I do.  When I have an image that I know contains detail that warrants zooming, I make a copy and crop enough so that the detail is apparent when displayed full screen.  (I don't crop so much that the image will end up at 100% when displayed on a two megapixel 1080P HDTV.  That is a lot of cropping.  Or zooming.)  And then save the copy with a slightly different name.  This way there is no zooming during the presentation.  And it works when the images are printed as 4x6s.

But if you want to have your cake and eat it too (be able to zoom and pan without exhibiting technical shortcomings), you need to upgrade your equipment.  No?

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,635
Like?
Re: I have both :-)
In reply to Wayne Larmon, 3 months ago

Wayne Larmon wrote:

You are defining a problem that has no easy solution. In this post, you say that you need to zoom and pan in order to provide a more "compelling presentation". But in your original post, you said

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.

It appears that you need a substantial upgrade to your equipment (FF camera with professional quality lenses, etc. Or to medium format, if you are now using FF.), so that when you zoom images enough to show the details you need to show, that they won't show "technical shortcomings."

Note that I wrote "if image quality is lacking it's tough for me not to notice it". Image quality is normally more than fine, and if the picture was taken at daylight there's usually nothing for me to even nitpick about. In short, I only mentioned this aspect to demonstrate that magnifying images for presentation can have pixel peeping aspects to it, even if this is not the original intention. Personally I'm fine with it and don't intend to stop using "magnified presentation" for some of my pictures, but I was curious to hear other people's point of view about this practice. Whether the name people prefer to use for it is "magnified presentation" or "pixel peeping" doesn't really change what it's all about for me.

Or you could do what I do. When I have an image that I know contains detail that warrants zooming, I make a copy and crop enough so that the detail is apparent when displayed full screen. (I don't crop so much that the image will end up at 100% when displayed on a two megapixel 1080P HDTV. That is a lot of cropping. Or zooming.) And then save the copy with a slightly different name. This way there is no zooming during the presentation. And it works when the images are printed as 4x6s.

A simpler solution which I employ if the image quality is sub-optimal is to use 50% magnification. Works like charm

But if you want to have your cake and eat it too (be able to zoom and pan without exhibiting technical shortcomings), you need to upgrade your equipment. No?

It turns out I don't have to upgrade. I'm really happy with the image quality I'm getting from the A77 and my assortment of lenses and have no plan to move to FF in the foreseeable future.

Prog.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wayne Larmon
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,108
Like?
Are you trolling?
In reply to Prognathous, 3 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

Wayne Larmon wrote:

When I have an image that I know contains detail that warrants zooming, I make a copy and crop enough so that the detail is apparent when displayed full screen. (I don't crop so much that the image will end up at 100% when displayed on a two megapixel 1080P HDTV. That is a lot of cropping. Or zooming.) And then save the copy with a slightly different name. This way there is no zooming during the presentation. And it works when the images are printed as 4x6s.

A simpler solution which I employ if the image quality is sub-optimal is to use 50% magnification. Works like charm

In your original post you said

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.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52844525

Which is why I wrote assuming that you always zoomed to 100%.

You still might want to consider cropping and saving with a slightly different filename.  So that your collection doesn't depend on you manually zooming and panning to point out the interesting parts.   Think of posterity.

And is this maybe a first world problem?

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 533Gear list
Like?
Re: Are you trolling?
In reply to Wayne Larmon, 3 months ago

I think I understand. The feeling standing in a big poster and searching for details is like diving into another world. That is how I understood and why different files cannot be compared to one single big image. Somehow the connection gets lost and you don't have the feeling of zooming and finding whats in that mini spot is.

-- hide signature --

· 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 SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,635
Like?
No, just curious to hear other people's views on this
In reply to Wayne Larmon, 3 months ago

The fact that I feel comfortable using "magnified presentation" doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the possibility of it being interpreted as "pixel peeping". Some people in this thread consider it such and some don't, but all in all I think many interesting views were presented here.

Wayne Larmon wrote:

In your original post you said

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.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52844525

Which is why I wrote assuming that you always zoomed to 100%.

Well, if you're curious about my exact "magnified presentation" flow, then I always start at 100%. I'm using FastStone viewer where this is done by either pressing "A" for prolonged view or by holding the left mouse button pressed for a more temporary look. Then if image quality is problematic I zoom out a few times (pressing "-") until it looks good. This btw doesn't work with the mouse method. Usually 50% magnification looks good enough even for high ISO files or cropped ones.

Should I have included all this information in the original post? I don't think so.

You still might want to consider cropping and saving with a slightly different filename. So that your collection doesn't depend on you manually zooming and panning to point out the interesting parts. Think of posterity.

It's an option, but I find direct zooming and panning to be much more immersive. If you're using FastStone you might want to try it. Just hover with the cursor over an interesting spot, then hold the left mouse button to "dive in" (to steal AlphaTikal's terminology), and slowly glide around surrounding parts to explore other interesting details.

BTW, for some reason FastStone defaults to 200%. The first thing I do when installing it on a new machine is change the default to 100%.

And is this maybe a first world problem?

All of the "problems" discussed in this forum are first world problems

Prog.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Lightpath48, 3 months ago

Lightpath48 wrote:

Basalite, could you link us to some of your images? I looked for a gallery here but there weren't any uploaded.

For what purpose?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Mike CH, 3 months ago

Mike CH wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

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.

What it boils down to is that you don't care about maximizing the technical quality of your images. That's your right but don't fool yourself into thinking your images are technically as good as those who do care.

What it really boils down to is that it is silly of me to argue with a automaton.

What does such a statement have to do with anything I have posted?

Let this be the last post from me in this thread on this topic with you.

OK, but there's no reasonable reason for such a dismissal.

Oh, and you really should go easy on that projecting of yours. I nowhere claim technical excellence, and neither do I claim to strive for it. I am quite satisfied with good enough for my purposes. I do not need, neither do I care for, your definition of proper photography.

And that's your right, but as I said before the best photography has always been about artistic *and* technical excellence.

And if you are not projection, then you are setting up a strawman argument...

No strawman at all. I am going by your own words and facts that pertain to what photography is all about.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

The 100% viewing of high pixel count cameras (such on 24mp) is not the only and last possible way of finding out best image quality.

Of course it is. There's nothing more beyond and below 100%.

Like i said before, you don't get the full image and therefore some other issues are missed out.

That would depend on the pixel density of your monitor. With a 2MP monitor I can see the entire image at 100% on my iPad.

That said, the viewing of an image at 100% with most monitors is to determine the quality of the finest detail, not to evaluate the entire image for content and composition. That's apples and oranges.

It is like watching atoms and saying what looks best.

That's an awfully silly comparison when we are talking about magnification. Viewing a digital image at 100% shows something that one can make out to be greater than itself, not so when "watching atoms."

If here is someone ignorant, thab that is you.

You haven't proven it yet.

I'm also not the one comparing atoms to pixels.

You claim for something, we do and that is good this way.

I don't know what you are saying.

But we should respect the other. Saying the opposite does not make it right.

I have not shown anyone disrespect. Saying something that is correct and "opposite" to what someone else says is "right."

And again, i am not against 100% view. But it is not the only tool judging image quality.

For ultimate quality, yes it is. You could make a huge print but that is a reproduction stage that introduces other variables that affect image quality.

-- 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
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 3,725
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 3 months ago

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

The 100% viewing of high pixel count cameras (such on 24mp) is not the only and last possible way of finding out best image quality.

Of course it is. There's nothing more beyond and below 100%.

Like i said before, you don't get the full image and therefore some other issues are missed out.

That would depend on the pixel density of your monitor. With a 2MP monitor I can see the entire image at 100% on my iPad.

Are you taking 2mp images?

That said, the viewing of an image at 100% with most monitors is to determine the quality of the finest detail, not to evaluate the entire image for content and composition. That's apples and oranges.

It is like watching atoms and saying what looks best.

That's an awfully silly comparison when we are talking about magnification. Viewing a digital image at 100% shows something that one can make out to be greater than itself, not so when "watching atoms."

If here is someone ignorant, thab that is you.

You haven't proven it yet.

I'm also not the one comparing atoms to pixels.

You claim for something, we do and that is good this way.

I don't know what you are saying.

But we should respect the other. Saying the opposite does not make it right.

I have not shown anyone disrespect. Saying something that is correct and "opposite" to what someone else says is "right."

And again, i am not against 100% view. But it is not the only tool judging image quality.

For ultimate quality, yes it is. You could make a huge print but that is a reproduction stage that introduces other variables that affect image quality.

-- 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads