Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Moti, 11 months ago

Moti wrote:

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

In no logical way can you come to such a conclusion.

Second time now, do you have anything to add on the topic?

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Beyond 100%
In reply to Prognathous, 11 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

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%.

Most monitors in use do not have a pixel density high enough to warrant zooming past 100%. Is there an echo in here??

I use a 27" iMac and I don't need to be zooming beyond 100%. You're welcome to disagree for yourself but don't act like you don't know what I have been saying.

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.

LOL. You understand irony, right?

As I said above, and the fact is, most monitors that people use do not require zooming pass 100% to determine ultimate detail and sharpness. That's coming from a Sigma camera user and someone that used to do his own darkroom printing. In other words, someone that obviously cares about resolution and sharpness.

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"?

If you would not edit away the discussion as it goes then you'd see this comment of yours at the top:

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

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.

For something to be viewable and surprising (your description) at 400% over 100% on current monitors in use the differences would have to be big.

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.

Do I concede to a claim *I made?* Uh, yeah, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. I believed it when I said and I still do.

To concede to something is to admit it is true after first denying it. Since I made the claim why would I deny it only to accept its truth later on? 

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

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.

What difference does it make if you are responding to me? You actually expect people to remember specific things they have said in a previous post? The quote system is there for a reason, use it.

Pixel peeping term makes sense. Period.

It can't make sense since most people can't see pixels when they are supposedly "pixel peeping."

-- 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: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 11 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

We all know what a Pixel is.

To peep is to look at something.

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

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

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

Granted it's silly, but it is accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 5,260
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all know what a Pixel is.

To peep is to look at something.

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

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

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

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

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

Granted it's silly, but it is accurate.

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

This is a false statement. Plain and simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

I use the quoting system when i see the need for. And dont say how i have to use the quote system. If you cant remember, you can always read previous postings. I see it as an useless clutter to quote unnecessary.
--
· 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
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 11 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all know what a Pixel is.

To peep is to look at something.

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

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

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

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

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

Granted it's silly, but it is accurate.

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

This is a false statement. Plain and simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, sorry.  Move on.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CharlesB58
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,878
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. 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"?

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

Well...If I were showing photos of a trip I would consider that my friends may be more interested in the trip than my gear performance or skill as a photographer. So when you are saying you are doing 100% crops I'm hoping the details are in regards to the subject rather than simply showing off the detail itself? If so that's not really pixel peeping. That would be if you were trying to impress them with how your gear performs.

-- hide signature --

If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/
http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

I use the quoting system when i see the need for.

If you want people to know exactly what you are responding to in a particular post and expect them to continue to reply, you should always use it.

And dont say how i have to use the quote system.

I will if you expect me to continue responding to you.

If you cant remember, you can always read previous postings.

No, that's exactly why the quoting system exists, so that people don't have to do that. It keeps discussions flowing, minimizes confusion and misunderstandings, and most of all it is the considerate thing to do.

I see it as an useless clutter to quote unnecessary.

Then don't expect people to want to reply to you. I certainly will not if I have to think about what you are referring to for too long.

-- 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: 5,628
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

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

In no logical way can you come to such a conclusion.

There is nothing more logical than this. A member of a photography forum who refuses categorically to show any of his photos using all kind of arguments, doesn't have any photos to show.

Second time now, do you have anything to add on the topic?

Yes but I'll tell you when you show your photos.

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 5,260
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all know what a Pixel is.

To peep is to look at something.

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

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

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

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

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

Granted it's silly, but it is accurate.

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

This is a false statement. Plain and simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, sorry. Move on.

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

What I mean is, you will drive a thread into the ground when you think you're right. But every time you realize that you've talked yourself into a corner, you claim nobody understands you, and cut the conversation short.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Moti, 11 months ago

Moti wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

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

In no logical way can you come to such a conclusion.

There is nothing more logical than this. A member of a photography forum who refuses categorically to show any of his photos using all kind of arguments, doesn't have any photos to show.

There's nothing logical about your statement.

Second time now, do you have anything to add on the topic?

Yes but I'll tell you when you show your photos.

You're just trying to be a trouble maker now.

Discussion over.

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 5,260
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

I use the quoting system when i see the need for.

If you want people to know exactly what you are responding to in a particular post and expect them to continue to reply, you should always use it.

And dont say how i have to use the quote system.

I will if you expect me to continue responding to you.

If you cant remember, you can always read previous postings.

No, that's exactly why the quoting system exists, so that people don't have to do that. It keeps discussions flowing, minimizes confusion and misunderstandings, and most of all it is the considerate thing to do.

I see it as an useless clutter to quote unnecessary.

Then don't expect people to want to reply to you. I certainly will not if I have to think about what you are referring to for too long.

You use flat view, correct?

It's always flat viewers that have trouble following a conversation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,628
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

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

In no logical way can you come to such a conclusion.

There is nothing more logical than this. A member of a photography forum who refuses categorically to show any of his photos using all kind of arguments, doesn't have any photos to show.

There's nothing logical about your statement.

Sorry but without a prove, it remains logical. It is simple, one who's afraid to show his photos, doesn't have anything to show. Ask everybody.

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 11 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

Basalite wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all know what a Pixel is.

To peep is to look at something.

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

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

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

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

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

Granted it's silly, but it is accurate.

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

This is a false statement. Plain and simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move on already.

No, sorry. Move on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

you claim nobody understands you,

No, most people understand me just fine.

and cut the conversation short.

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,628
Like?
Re: Great Camera
In reply to Morris Sullivan, 11 months ago

Morris Sullivan wrote:

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.

Absolutely. For me, the F828 is one of the best street cameras ever made. I still have mine in perfect working condition and go out shooting with it what I want to have some fun. But as MR said, it is not a camera made for pixel peepers.

Moti

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Moti, 11 months ago

Moti wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

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

In no logical way can you come to such a conclusion.

There is nothing more logical than this. A member of a photography forum who refuses categorically to show any of his photos using all kind of arguments, doesn't have any photos to show.

There's nothing logical about your statement.

Sorry but without a prove, it remains logical. It is simple, one who's afraid to show his photos, doesn't have anything to show. Ask everybody.

Moti

Hmm, and I thought they taught logic, critical thinking and reasoning in France.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,628
Like?
Re: Images?
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Moti wrote:

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

In no logical way can you come to such a conclusion.

There is nothing more logical than this. A member of a photography forum who refuses categorically to show any of his photos using all kind of arguments, doesn't have any photos to show.

There's nothing logical about your statement.

Sorry but without a prove, it remains logical. It is simple, one who's afraid to show his photos, doesn't have anything to show. Ask everybody.

Moti

Hmm, and I thought they taught logic, critical thinking and reasoning in France.

They do, that is why the logic behind my statement is so strong. Now if you think it isn't, prove otherwise.

Moti

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 5,260
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

You misunderstood something I previously said, only because you refused to take into consideration what the entire paragraph was saying.

What was it saying? That's the problem. You never clarify ANYTHING.

You kept asking for clarification and when that wasn't enough

What do you mean "that wasn't enough" I asked for clarification and you said "read the paragraph" That's not clarification. I ready the paragraph already. That's why I posted. If I misunderstood then saying "read the paragraph" isn't going to help.

Now here we are once again and you've said absolutely nothing to clarify anything. I asked direct questions which you ignored. Answering my questions might help clarify things.

you bring something else in unrelated to what you were confused about in the first place. Whether it is from another thread or not doesn't matter.

Move on already.

No. I'm sure you will soon enough. But I'm not going anywhere until you either "clarify" or ignore me. Guess which one I'm expecting.

Here's a few things you can clarify. Ignore all previous context as if these were just fresh questions.

-=-=-

You just stated in another post that most monitors do not have a high enough pixel density to require zooming past 100%. If that's the case then you must be able to see pixels at 100%. Agree?

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

Agree?

-=-=-

In another post you claimed that you can see pixel level differences in 650 ppi prints, now you're claiming you can't see pixels in your 109 ppi display. Let alone the typical 92 dpi display.

Do you stand by both of these statements?

Why?

(and please explain, don't just say "because they are true" I'm actually interested in your explanation)

-=-=-

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.

Is this not what you meant?

If not, what did you mean?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
Re: it makes no sense for YOU, not for ME
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

I do quote, when there is a need for. In that particular posting where you asked for a quote, i did no need for. Thats all. If you dont respond to me, feel free to ignore.
--
· 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads