Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Lightpath48, 8 months ago

Lightpath48 wrote:

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.

Nothing I have said requires you to see any of my photos. Nothing.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,013Gear list
Like?
it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

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.

-- 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 a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,318
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Lightpath48 wrote:

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.

Nothing I have said requires you to see any of my photos. Nothing.

How comfortable...

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Moti, 8 months ago

Moti wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Lightpath48 wrote:

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.

Nothing I have said requires you to see any of my photos. Nothing.

How comfortable...

Comfort has nothing to do with it. It's simply fact.

Strange first post to this thread, by the way. Do you have anything to add to the topic?

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CalvinLayne
Junior MemberPosts: 28Gear list
Like?
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
In reply to Prognathous, 8 months ago

If it's not intentional I wouldn't call it pixel peeping. Pixel peeping is when someone sees an image that looks great by all means but still insists on digging deeper to see if it really looks great lol.

 CalvinLayne's gear list:CalvinLayne's gear list
A3000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to AlphaTikal, 8 months ago

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.

-- 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
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,318
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Lightpath48 wrote:

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.

Nothing I have said requires you to see any of my photos. Nothing.

How comfortable...

Comfort has nothing to do with it. It's simply fact.

The only fact that is clear to me here is that you simply do not do any photography.

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,668
Like?
Re: Beyond 100%
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

Basalite wrote:

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.

Wasn't your comment that on current monitors there's no difference in the details seen between 100% and 400% when comparing demosaicing algorithms? If so, your comment does NOT stand to reality. It's exactly on these monitors where one would need to go to 400% to see the differences, where as with old monitors that used larger pixels you could potentially see such differences when using 100%.

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,

Don't speak for "the most of us". You're obviously in a minority here.

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.

Where did I claim there's a "big difference"?

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

I didn't claim there are big differences. I claimed there are differences which are only visible when using higher than 100% magnification. You don't seem to disagree, so I'll take it that you concede the claim that "There's nothing more beyond and below 100%". Good.

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,668
Like?
Re: So these are the rules?
In reply to RedFox88, 8 months ago

RedFox88 wrote:

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.

Many people I know show me their pictures on their phone. So what? Just like those who passed around 4x6 prints during the film era, instead of doing a slide presentation, they are missing out on the ultimate way to present and view pictures (short of illuminated wall murals that is).

Prog.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,668
Like?
Re: No, just curious to hear other people's views on this
In reply to Wayne Larmon, 8 months ago

Wayne Larmon wrote:
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%.

Most of my images look nice and sharp at 100% magnification. For the ones with lower quality I can normally get away with 50% magnification.

I crop only when the whole image works better cropped. I don't crop parts for magnification, because I find the experience of doing it on the fly to be more immersive. To each his own.

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.

If I switch to 4K I can just as easily set my viewer for higher default magnification and retain the same "dive in" quality. The end result would look just as good when viewed from the same distance on a FHD screen.

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.

"Inflicting" implies that my viewers are suffering and waiting for the presentation to be over, but in practice they are very much into it as is evident by the lively dialog around the pictures, including the magnified portions.

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,013Gear list
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

Off course i respond to the pixel peeping term. Thats what we talk about here. No need to quote, if you can read previous post. Also, its your own posting.

Pixel peeping term makes sense. Period.
--
· 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 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,318
Like?
I don't get your logic.
In reply to Prognathous, 8 months ago

If you are happy about the way you show your photos on a HDTV, it is fine. But what I don't understand is what was the reason to ask this question? Lets assume for a moment the everyone here tells you that this practice IS "pixel peeping"  What's going to happen now?

Will you stop showing your photos that way? or will you go on with this practice and continue arguing with anyone who doesn't share your opinion, as you do now.

Sorry but I find this thread a complete waste of bandwidth.

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,013Gear list
Like?
Re: I don't get your logic.
In reply to Moti, 8 months ago

No. Its a question and leads to discissions. No waste of time and bandwidth.
--
· 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 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,668
Like?
Re: I don't get your logic.
In reply to Moti, 8 months ago

Moti wrote:

If you are happy about the way you show your photos on a HDTV, it is fine. But what I don't understand is what was the reason to ask this question? Lets assume for a moment the everyone here tells you that this practice IS "pixel peeping" What's going to happen now?

Will you stop showing your photos that way? or will you go on with this practice and continue arguing with anyone who doesn't share your opinion, as you do now.

Sorry but I find this thread a complete waste of bandwidth.

Read thispost. It will answer all of your questions, but beware, opening it is going to consume bandwidth

Prog.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,668
Like?
Side note: First recorded use of the term "pixel peeping"
In reply to Prognathous, 8 months ago

The oldest occurrence of the term "pixel peeping" or "pixel peeper" that I can find is actually from this very forum. See this post from Jan 1, 2004:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/7123452

Was it actually coined by Donald Cooper? Anyone knows about an older sighting of the term?

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wayne Larmon
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,251
Like?
It was Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape
In reply to Prognathous, 8 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

The oldest occurrence of the term "pixel peeping" or "pixel peeper" that I can find is actually from this very forum. See this post from Jan 1, 2004:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/7123452

Was it actually coined by Donald Cooper? Anyone knows about an older sighting of the term?

Michael Reichmann (Luminous Landscape) coined the term. The post you linked to is discussing Michael's use of the term:

Here's the thing that the pixel peepers don't get. My testing has shown that photographs produced by this camera can be of professional grade — suitable for stock use, professional publication and fine-art exhibition. The fact that it is somewhat noisier than other cameras at any given ISO, and that there is some occasional CA really has little to do with its usefulness as a photographic tool.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml

On the bottom of this review has a reference to an update on Dec. 2003, so the MR review was originally written before then.

As I remember, MR had been sprinkling a few technical measurements into his camera reviews. He was attacked (usually by DPReview posters) for not being as rigorous with his testing as Phil Askey was with DPReview camera reviews. So he got a bit snippy about what he perceived as an excessive emphasis on technical measurements and started using terms like "Pixel Peeping." (He also stopped including technical measurements in his reviews.)

The OP in the thread you linked to has the link to the MR review.

Also note that the sentiment expressed in the 2003 MR quote, above, is similar to the point he expressed in his more recent The Full Frame Myth essay (that was also widely attacked on DPReview.)

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Prognathous
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,668
Like?
Re: It was Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape
In reply to Wayne Larmon, 8 months ago

Wayne Larmon wrote:
Michael Reichmann (Luminous Landscape) coined the term. The post you linked to is discussing Michael's use of the term:

Here's the thing that the pixel peepers don't get. My testing has shown that photographs produced by this camera can be of professional grade — suitable for stock use, professional publication and fine-art exhibition. The fact that it is somewhat noisier than other cameras at any given ISO, and that there is some occasional CA really has little to do with its usefulness as a photographic tool.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml

On the bottom of this review has a reference to an update on Dec. 2003, so the MR review was originally written before then.

Cool. This is good to know! Thanks for pointing it out.

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 4,492
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 8 months ago

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).

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.

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

Granted it's silly, but it is accurate. Some take offence to the term, some don't. Sounds like a personal issue if you do.

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 4,492
Like?
Great Camera
In reply to Wayne Larmon, 8 months ago

Wayne Larmon wrote:

Prognathous wrote:

The oldest occurrence of the term "pixel peeping" or "pixel peeper" that I can find is actually from this very forum. See this post from Jan 1, 2004:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/7123452

Was it actually coined by Donald Cooper? Anyone knows about an older sighting of the term?

Michael Reichmann (Luminous Landscape) coined the term. The post you linked to is discussing Michael's use of the term:

Here's the thing that the pixel peepers don't get. My testing has shown that photographs produced by this camera can be of professional grade — suitable for stock use, professional publication and fine-art exhibition. The fact that it is somewhat noisier than other cameras at any given ISO, and that there is some occasional CA really has little to do with its usefulness as a photographic tool.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml

I really enjoyed my F828. The swivel body was a great design. Over-head or waist level, it kept the controls consistent with your hand position regardless of where the lens was pointed. Plus you could lay on the ground and still use the viewfinder looking straight down for ground level shots.

On the bottom of this review has a reference to an update on Dec. 2003, so the MR review was originally written before then.

As I remember, MR had been sprinkling a few technical measurements into his camera reviews. He was attacked (usually by DPReview posters) for not being as rigorous with his testing as Phil Askey was with DPReview camera reviews. So he got a bit snippy about what he perceived as an excessive emphasis on technical measurements and started using terms like "Pixel Peeping." (He also stopped including technical measurements in his reviews.)

The OP in the thread you linked to has the link to the MR review.

Also note that the sentiment expressed in the 2003 MR quote, above, is similar to the point he expressed in his more recent The Full Frame Myth essay (that was also widely attacked on DPReview.)

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike CH
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,046Gear list
Like?
Bingo!
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 8 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

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.

Matches my sentiments exactly.

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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads