Please define "pixel peeping".

Started May 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 16,101
Re: Please define "pixel peeping".

BobT wrote:

OK.  This has developed into an almost heated debate.  Didn't expect that.  But should have, I guess.

Don't know if anyone is game for this, or if this is even possible, BUT....could anyone post a "pixel peeped" image showing a good image and also a bad image noted as a result of their pixel peeping?

I for one, would like to see such an example.

"Good" and "bad" in this context relate just to image quality, of course.  A picture can be badly composed and of a boring subject even if its IQ is stunning.

Let's imagine we need a really crisp image of something, say because we need to illustrate some fine detail in a building.  Look at this image: it seems reasonably OK.

But if you look at the original you'll see that the clock face (among lots of other details) isn't very clear.  Why is this?  Poor lens or camera?  Because, if so, we'd need to spend money on better gear to satisfy the brief.  Note: to see this clearly you should "save picture as" and then look at it in your browser at 100%.

Or is it poor technique?  Perhaps knowing that it was taken from a fast-moving boat gives a clue.  Look at this, taken within a minute of the other.  Every brick, every detail of the clock is crystal clear.

At the small size used for web it really doesn't matter about the slight motion blur; but at some larger size of print it would matter.  The crucial thing is that the camera and lens used are demonstrably able to take crisp images capable of significant enlargement.

-- hide signature --

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow