Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,652
Like?
Beyond 100%
In reply to Basalite, 7 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%.

Try comparing your RAW files converted using different demosaicing algorithms and viewed at 100% and at 400%. You may just be surprised...

Prog.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Mike CH, 7 months ago

Mike CH wrote:

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

If you want people to understand what you are referring to and talking about it makes sense to quote someone.

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.

What "first definition" is 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.

Don't be silly; I haven't wiggled out of anything.

What happens when you crop? Were those pixels you removed equally important?

You have edited away previous posts in the discussion so now I don't even know specifically what this section of the discussion is referring to. As I said in the beginning, quote properly. That includes leaving in the previous posts.

Cropping a high quality image is obviously better than cropping a lesser quality image.

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.

And that makes sense, how?

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.

Not truth.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wayne Larmon
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,251
Like?
Re: No, just curious to hear other people's views on this
In reply to Prognathous, 7 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

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.

I zoom and pan when I am examining my own images for quality.  But I rarely want to let others see them at 100%.  Again bearing in mind that HDTV is only two megapixels, you usually can crop and still have enough pixels to resize down to, say, eight megapixels.   Eight megapixels allows for a lot of zooming and panning but your images won't look as gnarly as they often do at 100%.

Of course, eight megapixels is close to 4K so if the world switches to 4K tomorrow, then you won't be able to zoom and pan.  But on the off chance that the world won't switch to 4K in the immediate future, you'll be covered.

So getting back to your original question, looking at images at 100% is pixel peeping and often looks ugly.  But there is no reason to inflict this on others.  Modern cameras have pixels to spare.

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 4,335
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

Everything can be overdone.

Not truth.

Tell everyone you know the absolute truth about what you think of them and get back to me. (if you're still alive)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 7 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

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?

It's simply a truthful example, and one that's becoming more and more important as monitor resolutions keep increasing. With my 27" iMac I can see over 50% of my images from my Sigma camera. Lenovo just recently announced the first 4K (8.3MP) all in one computer.. At the CES show going on another company has an 8K display being teased, which is 33MP.

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: 4,335
Like?
Re: No, just curious to hear other people's views on this
In reply to Wayne Larmon, 7 months ago

Wayne Larmon wrote:

Prognathous wrote:

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.

I zoom and pan when I am examining my own images for quality. But I rarely want to let others see them at 100%. Again bearing in mind that HDTV is only two megapixels, you usually can crop and still have enough pixels to resize down to, say, eight megapixels. Eight megapixels allows for a lot of zooming and panning but your images won't look as gnarly as they often do at 100%.

Of course, eight megapixels is close to 4K so if the world switches to 4K tomorrow, then you won't be able to zoom and pan. But on the off chance that the world won't switch to 4K in the immediate future, you'll be covered.

On a 4K TV the image wont look worse zoomed in to the same level. The viewing size will be the same. It'll just look better zoomed out.

So getting back to your original question, looking at images at 100% is pixel peeping and often looks ugly. But there is no reason to inflict this on others. Modern cameras have pixels to spare.

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 4,335
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

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?

It's simply a truthful example,

What do you mean truthful. Are you taking 2mp images?

and one that's becoming more and more important as monitor resolutions keep increasing. With my 27" iMac I can see over 50% of my images from my Sigma camera. Lenovo just recently announced the first 4K (8.3MP) all in one computer.. At the CES show going on another company has an 8K display being teased, which is 33MP.

When resolutions get that high we'll be zooming past 100% when pixel peeping because we can't see the individual pixels at that size.

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
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Beyond 100%
In reply to Prognathous, 7 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

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%.

Try comparing your RAW files converted using different demosaicing algorithms and viewed at 100% and at 400%. You may just be surprised...

On most current monitors, not really. 100% would be enough. Besides, the differences between the algorithms used today by the better raw developing apps yield very little difference in detail. I test them all the time. Raw developing is very mature and pretty much maxed out at this point.

Prog.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 7 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

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?

It's simply a truthful example,

What do you mean truthful. Are you taking 2mp images?

Read *everything* I wrote.

and one that's becoming more and more important as monitor resolutions keep increasing. With my 27" iMac I can see over 50% of my images from my Sigma camera. Lenovo just recently announced the first 4K (8.3MP) all in one computer.. At the CES show going on another company has an 8K display being teased, which is 33MP.

When resolutions get that high we'll be zooming past 100% when pixel peeping because we can't see the individual pixels at that size.

Clearly.

And once again, pixel peeping is an ignorant term.

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
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 7 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

Everything can be overdone.

Not truth.

Tell everyone you know the absolute truth about what you think of them and get back to me. (if you're still alive)

That's a very silly example in your attempt to dispute what I said.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to AlphaTikal, 7 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

No need to change widely known and accepted term.

There is when it makes no sense. A "term" that describes something should make sense and be truthful.

No need to relearn and confuse with a second term,

Since it makes no sense it is inherently confusing.

which nobody can remember.

It's easier to remember things that make sense.

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.

Wrong. The typical amateur to digital photography is typically confused by it, unsurprisingly.

No problem here. Its just a term, describing a complex act. Nothing stupid.

Yes, it's "stupid" because it does not describe properly a supposedly "complex act."

-- 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: 4,335
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

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?

It's simply a truthful example,

What do you mean truthful. Are you taking 2mp images?

Read *everything* I wrote.

What do you mean?

You said:

"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 is a complete statement meaning you can see "the entire image at 100%" on a 2MP monitor. The only way that would be possible is if you were dealing with a 2MP image. I thought that was not likely to be the case, so I asked.

If I misunderstood, please explain rather than just telling me to read everything.

and one that's becoming more and more important as monitor resolutions keep increasing. With my 27" iMac I can see over 50% of my images from my Sigma camera. Lenovo just recently announced the first 4K (8.3MP) all in one computer.. At the CES show going on another company has an 8K display being teased, which is 33MP.

When resolutions get that high we'll be zooming past 100% when pixel peeping because we can't see the individual pixels at that size.

Clearly.

And once again, pixel peeping is an ignorant term.

Nope, because you'll be blowing it up to 400% so that you can make out individual pixels. It's a silly, but accurate term. I have no problem with people who pixel peep their own images. It's a minor step in quality assurance in my opinion. If I'm going to print large I don't want to look at it at 16% on my monitor. However, if I'm printing 5x7 I couldn't care less what 100% looks like.

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
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,652
Like?
Re: Beyond 100%
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:
On most current monitors, not really.

Actually, it's the opposite. Modern monitors usually have smaller pixels, so it's now more difficult to see the differences in demosaicing algorithms without going to higher-than-100% magnifications.

100% would be enough.

"Would be enough" is very different than what you previously stated - "There's nothing more beyond and below 100%". This makes what you say subjective rather than objective, and in line with this, others could say that for them 50% magnification "would be enough" (or alternatively, they might just use completely different methods to estimate image quality, ones that go beyond human visual scrutiny).

Besides, the differences between the algorithms used today by the better raw developing apps yield very little difference in detail. I test them all the time. Raw developing is very mature and pretty much maxed out at this point.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

Unless something changed significantly in the last year, I'd expect the differences between different demosaicing algorithms to be as easily visible at 400% as the difference between a good lens and and superb lens ...when both are set to optimum aperture

Prog.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Beyond 100%
In reply to Prognathous, 7 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

Basalite wrote:
On most current monitors, not really.

Actually, it's the opposite. Modern monitors usually have smaller pixels, so it's now more difficult to see the differences in demosaicing algorithms without going to higher-than-100% magnifications.

My comment stands.

100% would be enough.

"Would be enough" is very different than what you previously stated - "There's nothing more beyond and below 100%". This makes what you say subjective rather than objective, and in line with this, others could say that for them 50% magnification "would be enough" (or alternatively, they might just use completely different methods to estimate image quality, ones that go beyond human visual scrutiny).

Of course there is nothing beyond 100% of what makes the image what it is. A high enough ppi could potentially force one to zoom in closer but that's not the same thing for the way most of us view and edit our images today, and certainly not a situation affected by the big differences you claim from different raw processing algorithms in use today, because those big differences don't exist.

Besides, the differences between the algorithms used today by the better raw developing apps yield very little difference in detail. I test them all the time. Raw developing is very mature and pretty much maxed out at this point.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

Unless something changed significantly in the last year, I'd expect the differences between different demosaicing algorithms to be as easily visible at 400% as the difference between a good lens and and superb lens ...when both are set to optimum aperture

Nothings changed. Your claims of big differences between the raw developers of today simply don't exist.

Prog.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 7 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

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?

It's simply a truthful example,

What do you mean truthful. Are you taking 2mp images?

Read *everything* I wrote.

What do you mean?

You said:

"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 is a complete statement meaning you can see "the entire image at 100%" on a 2MP monitor. The only way that would be possible is if you were dealing with a 2MP image. I thought that was not likely to be the case, so I asked.

If I misunderstood, please explain rather than just telling me to read everything.

Consider the whole paragraph.

and one that's becoming more and more important as monitor resolutions keep increasing. With my 27" iMac I can see over 50% of my images from my Sigma camera. Lenovo just recently announced the first 4K (8.3MP) all in one computer.. At the CES show going on another company has an 8K display being teased, which is 33MP.

When resolutions get that high we'll be zooming past 100% when pixel peeping because we can't see the individual pixels at that size.

Clearly.

And once again, pixel peeping is an ignorant term.

Nope, because you'll be blowing it up to 400% so that you can make out individual pixels.

One doesn't have to see actual individual pixels to determine ultimate image quality. You want to get as close to but let's be realistic. When I view an image at 100% on my 27" iMac I can't see individual pixels at the normal viewing distance but it is close enough to determine ultimate image quality such as resolution and sharpness. Viewing at 100% is enough to determine ultimate image quality with the ppi of most monitors in use today.

It's a silly, but accurate term.

It's an ignorant term, with nothing accurate about it. The fact that what people call pixel peeping are situations when you can't even see the individual pixels should explain to a reasonably intelligent person that it makes no sense.

I have no problem with people who pixel peep their own images. It's a minor step in quality assurance in my opinion. If I'm going to print large I don't want to look at it at 16% on my monitor. However, if I'm printing 5x7 I couldn't care less what 100% looks like.

You would be wrong in thinking what can be seen at 100% on most monitors with most digital cameras can not be seen on a 5x7.

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: 4,335
Like?
Re: No
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

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?

It's simply a truthful example,

What do you mean truthful. Are you taking 2mp images?

Read *everything* I wrote.

What do you mean?

You said:

"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 is a complete statement meaning you can see "the entire image at 100%" on a 2MP monitor. The only way that would be possible is if you were dealing with a 2MP image. I thought that was not likely to be the case, so I asked.

If I misunderstood, please explain rather than just telling me to read everything.

Consider the whole paragraph.

NO damn you. Just explain.

and one that's becoming more and more important as monitor resolutions keep increasing. With my 27" iMac I can see over 50% of my images from my Sigma camera. Lenovo just recently announced the first 4K (8.3MP) all in one computer.. At the CES show going on another company has an 8K display being teased, which is 33MP.

When resolutions get that high we'll be zooming past 100% when pixel peeping because we can't see the individual pixels at that size.

Clearly.

And once again, pixel peeping is an ignorant term.

Nope, because you'll be blowing it up to 400% so that you can make out individual pixels.

One doesn't have to see actual individual pixels to determine ultimate image quality. You want to get as close to but let's be realistic. When I view an image at 100% on my 27" iMac I can't see individual pixels at the normal viewing distance but it is close enough to determine ultimate image quality such as resolution and sharpness. Viewing at 100% is enough to determine ultimate image quality with the ppi of most monitors in use today.

If you can't see individual pixels then you are no different than someone not viewing at 100%. The discussion here is about blowing an image up till you can distinguish actual pixels. If you're not doing that, then congratulations you are not a pixel peeper.

It's a silly, but accurate term.

It's an ignorant term, with nothing accurate about it. The fact that what people call pixel peeping are situations when you can't even see the individual pixels should explain to a reasonably intelligent person that it makes no sense.

AHA apparently your are not understanding the term pixel peeper. It's specifically referring to people who view individual pixels.

If you have a 24 megapixel monitor then of course you are going to be looking at images at 100% but that's not the case for anyone I know. But if you're looking at 100% or higher on a 92 dpi monitor you are clearly pixel peeping (ie. looking at pixels)

I have no problem with people who pixel peep their own images. It's a minor step in quality assurance in my opinion. If I'm going to print large I don't want to look at it at 16% on my monitor. However, if I'm printing 5x7 I couldn't care less what 100% looks like.

You would be wrong in thinking what can be seen at 100% on most monitors with most digital cameras can not be seen on a 5x7.

A 16 megapixel photo printed 5x7 is about 650 dpi. I don't need to view it at 100%. Do you think detail at 650 dpi is visible in a print under normal viewing? Do you think typical prints can even resolve 650 dpi?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 21,728
Like?
Re: So these are the rules?
In reply to Prognathous, 7 months ago

Prognathous wrote: If the practice of magnifying interesting parts in pictures viewed on an high definition television

All the people I know share photos on social media or by email not be TV.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lightpath48
Senior MemberPosts: 2,046Gear list
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

I'm hoping to see the technical mastery of your images at the pixel level. You write as if you've attained it.

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Nikon D3300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Lightpath48, 7 months ago

Lightpath48 wrote:

I'm hoping to see the technical mastery of your images at the pixel level. You write as if you've attained it.

I attained that when I bought my first Sigma camera. The images speak for themselves. Or are you suggesting it takes some special skill or tricks to get the kind of detail inherent in Sigmas cameras?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lightpath48
Senior MemberPosts: 2,046Gear list
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Basalite, 7 months ago

It seems to me that if you're really writing from a position of accomplishment in image-making, you ought to be able to supply... well, images.  But I think I know where this is going, after three requests and still nothing in your gallery, and no link to your images anywhere else, either.  I'm moving on.

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Nikon D3300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads