Must you always immediately view 1:1

chrishurley

Senior Member
Messages
1,248
Reaction score
537
Location
US
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.

When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.

A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.

Disorder? Worth trying to cure?

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
 
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.

When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.
Doesn't your camera give you confirmation if the image is in focus? Like with a green colored square or something?
A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.
Question is ... how come it is not razor sharp? Are you having difficulties keeping the camera steady during shutter press?
Disorder? Worth trying to cure?

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
If you often experience out of focus / blurry pictures then you could check the photo at 100%. But shot under normal circumstances I would expect it not to be necessary per se.
 
Well yes that's my inclination, but if the picture is to be shared at a lower resolution then I check at that resolution and if that's fine it passes the test and is saved at the lower resolution.
 
Personal opinion. No. But you can if you want to. The important thing for me is what it is going to look like at the intended use. Typically for me, that is no more than full screen on my computer which is a laptop. I will typically be sharing photos at much smaller resolutions on line, so even full screen is overkill. And only rarely print anything larger than 8x10. But never concern myself with what they look like at 1:1 or 100%
 
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.
Not at all. That's the curse of the casual snapshotters making you think that.
When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.
As your Creator intended.
A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.
Scripture says that's the only way.
Disorder? Worth trying to cure?
Never. Even the best of us question our faith, so don't worry, this is normal.
Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
It is normal to drift from the Right Way at times, to test our faith, endurance and perseverance. Continue on your path. The path of Truth. The path of 1:1 pixel-level detail.
 
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.

When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.

A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.

Disorder? Worth trying to cure?

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
Chris, What we need to work on is that our work always be ofthe highest order and that means RAZOR sharp. WHY would we work on our work being less so? Less than that is simply mediocre work. We don't shoot to achieve less, we shoot to acheive more.

I personaly, if I shoot 100 shots probably choose to save maybe 10. Of those ten I might think 3 have any potential. Any potential shot is immediatly checked at 100%. If it's soft I look to see if I have another similar shot and whether I can substitute pick #2 for the first pick. If #2 is sharp at 100% I erase #1 and getit outt of ther way.

Sharp is sharp at any print size. Soft will never be sharp even printing it at 4x6. It's just not as easily noticeable. If you strive for good photography, 100% is you best friend and a very valuable tool, not your enemy!

IF being the best photographer you can be is an ailment, then yes 1:1 might be a sickness but burying your head in the sand and not knowing if your work is sharp enough to maximize its use is surely no cure!!!

John
 
Not a disorder and no need to cure! Don't worry.

Of course, you might be shooting for catalogs, technical records or other uses that require critical sharpness. In that case, forget 1:1 and go twice life size.
How do catalogs/magazines, etc. require 1:1 or 1:2 sharpness when they are printed (uncropped) at much less than even 200dpi, at typically only up to magazine sizes ???
 
Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
If it's an ailment, it's probably a genetic defect in me. I used a loupe to look at my slides decades ago, or projected them at huge sizes. Not really any different now, just easier.
But slides were projected up to 6+' screens ... so a case could be presented to pre-screen (1") slides with a loupe.

(But of course not viewed up-close, so that gave some allowance.)
 
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.

When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.
Doesn't your camera give you confirmation if the image is in focus? Like with a green colored square or something?
1.) Phase-Detect AF (in most cameras) is "fast", but not as accurate -- as Contrast-Detection (used in most "bridge" cameras).

2.) Focal-Plane shutters (used in all ILC-Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras) can introduce vibration, and some were/are notorious for unusable shutter-speeds.

3.) DSLR's in particular were particularly bad at focus-accuracy and indeed needed calibrating for every lens, (and at all distances).
A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.
Question is ... how come it is not razor sharp? Are you having difficulties keeping the camera steady during shutter press?
No-one can hold a camera perfectly steady ... the rule-of-thumb is never hand-hold at a shutter-speed longer that the reciprocal of the focal-length of the lens. (example 1/500s for a 500mm-EFL lens -- but many people need even faster SS's -- aka 1/1000+s)

(New IS/VR technology can definitely help with this, but only with stationary/static subjects -- it should not be used with moving subjects.)

And again, "LEAF" shutters (in bridge-cameras) have less inherent-vibration that can enable hand-holdiog at much longer-SS's than ILC's.

(and I have previously mentioned that "LEAF" shutters can flash-sync at all shutter-speeds for SUN-light fill-flash up to 20+feet -- compared to only 3' with FP shutter that can only flash-sync @ 1/200s)
Disorder? Worth trying to cure?

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
If you often experience out of focus / blurry pictures then you could check the photo at 100%. But shot under normal circumstances I would expect it not to be necessary per se.
 
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.

When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.
Doesn't your camera give you confirmation if the image is in focus? Like with a green colored square or something?
A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.
Question is ... how come it is not razor sharp? Are you having difficulties keeping the camera steady during shutter press?
Disorder? Worth trying to cure?

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
If you often experience out of focus / blurry pictures then you could check the photo at 100%. But shot under normal circumstances I would expect it not to be necessary per se.
Ozzie, not everybody shoots landscape where ANY camera will hit the focus.

Of what value is confirmation if the camera is NOT capable of focusing there? But it will, you say. What do you shoot? I replaced my Canon 1Dx mkll with a Canon R5 to try and improve my hit rate. The 1dx series is one of the best focusing cameras ever made but I can send you a 100 shots where the green square is dead where I want it but the focus is not! Even portraits where the subject is NOT moving the hit rate can be pretty low if its a challenging focus situation! The only way to know is to review at 100%. The R5 is an improvment buit it misses its share of focus also.

How come it's not razor sharp? Because most cameras don't focus that great all the time in challenging focus situations!

You don't say what a normal circumstance is? Normal for a landscape shooter is very different from a guy that shoots fast moving sports from 10 feet away. Even a portrait shooter using a fast lens wide open might only have 1/10th inch of CoC. If the focus indicator is on the pupal but the camera is actually focused on the eye lashes, the eye is soft. The only way to be sure is to check at 100% before you choose to print that file. NOTHING looks worse than a soft eye.

It's courses for horses and nobody's work flow is wrong if it works for them!!!

John
 
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.

When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.

A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.

Disorder? Worth trying to cure?

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
I think most rear screens and EVFs are themselves not good enough to judge quality accurately. Something like an external Atomos monitor for video can help, but still. Tethering to a high quality laptop or desktop works better, if you can do it. And that's why I wish it was easier to chimp on my smartphone's screen.
 
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.

When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.
Doesn't your camera give you confirmation if the image is in focus? Like with a green colored square or something?
A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.
Question is ... how come it is not razor sharp? Are you having difficulties keeping the camera steady during shutter press?
Disorder? Worth trying to cure?

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
If you often experience out of focus / blurry pictures then you could check the photo at 100%. But shot under normal circumstances I would expect it not to be necessary per se.
Ozzie, not everybody shoots landscape where ANY camera will hit the focus.

Of what value is confirmation if the camera is NOT capable of focusing there? But it will, you say. What do you shoot? I replaced my Canon 1Dx mkll with a Canon R5 to try and improve my hit rate. The 1dx series is one of the best focusing cameras ever made but I can send you a 100 shots where the green square is dead where I want it but the focus is not! Even portraits where the subject is NOT moving the hit rate can be pretty low if its a challenging focus situation! The only way to know is to review at 100%. The R5 is an improvment buit it misses its share of focus also.

How come it's not razor sharp? Because most cameras don't focus that great all the time in challenging focus situations!

You don't say what a normal circumstance is?
Good question. I meant indeed an "easy" circumstances picture. Daylight, non-moving subject. I should have mentioned that.
Normal for a landscape shooter is very different from a guy that shoots fast moving sports from 10 feet away. Even a portrait shooter using a fast lens wide open might only have 1/10th inch of CoC. If the focus indicator is on the pupal but the camera is actually focused on the eye lashes, the eye is soft. The only way to be sure is to check at 100% before you choose to print that file.
Nothing wrong with that. I am just a beginner and my 'experience' is mainly holiday photos. They are always sharp, so for that matter I don't necessarily need to check them each time at 100%. However, tere is nothing wrong with checking each photo at 100%.
NOTHING looks worse than a soft eye.

It's courses for horses and nobody's work flow is wrong if it works for them!!!

John
 
Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
If it's an ailment, it's probably a genetic defect in me. I used a loupe to look at my slides decades ago, or projected them at huge sizes. Not really any different now, just easier.
But slides were projected up to 6+' screens ...
That's what I said.
so a case could be presented to pre-screen (1") slides with a loupe.
I liked to look as closely as I could, any way I could.
(But of course not viewed up-close, so that gave some allowance.)
I absolutely viewed projected slides up close - in addition to the usual way.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking this is probably a disorder that I need to work on.

When I look at photos either on the camera or during processing, I immediately go 1:1 to judge the sharpness.

A lot of times I have what I think is a good capture and then when I go 1:1 I find that it isn't razor sharp and I immediately devalue the shot.

Disorder? Worth trying to cure?

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
I do the same. Specifically, I check to confirm that the eye of the bird or other wildlife subject is tack sharp. If it is and other elements are to my liking, I give the photo a rating that qualifies it for processing. That doesn't guarantee it will get processed but being in sharp focus is a standard I observe.

I don't consider this a disorder or ailment. I call it, having standards. It's a step in a process that ensures I'm sharing only my best work.

It's also a reminder to continue to work to improve. There have been more than a few photos where I've liked the composition but had to pass on the image by because I missed focus. It sucks but there are consequence for missing the mark. I'm the only person who's going to hold me accountable for delivering work that meets a certain standard.

There are occasional exceptions. For example, I occasionally drag the shutter in low light situations to emphasize movement in a photo. But these account for less than 1% of all photos I process.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com
 
Last edited:
I shoot extreme macro up to 10x ,its all about 100% I shoot live bugs and the smaller the better, more detail they have to be captured.

and i like shooting uncropped.











 
Last edited:
Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
If it's an ailment, it's probably a genetic defect in me. I used a loupe to look at my slides decades ago, or projected them at huge sizes. Not really any different now, just easier.
But slides were projected up to 6+' screens ...
That's what I said.
so a case could be presented to pre-screen (1") slides with a loupe.
I liked to look as closely as I could, any way I could.
(But of course not viewed up-close, so that gave some allowance.)
I absolutely viewed projected slides up close - in addition to the usual way.
For many years, with digital I did projected competitions That would be to project a digital image onto a screen using a digital projector. The rule was it had to be 1500 pixels on the longest side. That's a pretty small file but they looked VERY good on the screen! Projected images look good even at small sizes. I don't think that projecting a slide translates the same!

John
 
Anybody else suffer with this ailment?
If it's an ailment, it's probably a genetic defect in me. I used a loupe to look at my slides decades ago, or projected them at huge sizes. Not really any different now, just easier.
But slides were projected up to 6+' screens ...
That's what I said.
so a case could be presented to pre-screen (1") slides with a loupe.
I liked to look as closely as I could, any way I could.
(But of course not viewed up-close, so that gave some allowance.)
I absolutely viewed projected slides up close - in addition to the usual way.
For many years, with digital I did projected competitions That would be to project a digital image onto a screen using a digital projector. The rule was it had to be 1500 pixels on the longest side. That's a pretty small file but they looked VERY good on the screen! Projected images look good even at small sizes. I don't think that projecting a slide translates the same!

John
i want our club to buy a 65inch oled monitor for projected image comps 😁
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top