Reading mode: Light Dark

Why I don't look at photos at 100% to judge the quality of a camera.

Go to last post
Mike Fried

Mike Fried

Veteran Member
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
6
Location
Broomfield, CO, US
Today I started thinking about my photographs and how I display them to people. I started thinking about how critical it is for a shot to be "sharp in focus". Then I took a step back. I have several shots which appear sharp and in focus at 6"x4" print size (what most people will see in my print albums). Sometimes I print at 12"x8" for my printed portfolio. Sometimes I show people full resolution on a monitor or on a video projector.

Here's a comparison of these assuming a 3072x2048 image to start from.

6x4: 512DPI -- clearly overkill. Many photographs printers are already downsampling this data to fit their 300DPI laser pattern to expose your photo paper.

12x8: 256DPI -- Just about right. Over 150DPI on a 300DPI printing system, and you're good for anything but a loupe.

100%: On a 72DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution of the 10D produces an image of 42"x28".

On a 100DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution gives you 30"x20". I have 2x Sony G500 monitors on one machine. They are 16"x12" monitors, and running them sideways at 2048x1536 resolution (their max), I could in theory show every pixel of the 10D at a size of 24"x16" (128DPI). LCD monitors (mine is 100DPI @ 1600x1200) have subpixel elements in predicatable locations could in theory be considered 300DPI x 100DPI in the two dimensions if an image application could take advantage of the subpixel elements in a meaningful way for resampling.

So if you spend all day blowing up your 1.6 central crops of your (inexpensive -- this is a relative term) lenses to 42"x28" and complain that the detail isn't sharp, all I have to say is duh. Are you actually going to print that image above 30"x20"? Most people don't print their images above 6"x4". I plan to buy an 800x600 projector (or higher resolution) sometime in the future for my home, and give slide shows of pictures (800x533 pixels for landscape, 400x600 for portrait). I also shoot slide and print film with my Elan 7, and never really notice any significant difference in sharpness (I use the same lenses).

Enough math for one day. :)
-Mike
 
Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:
you actually going to print that image above 30"x20"? Most people
don't print their images above 6"x4". I plan to buy an 800x600
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Forrest41926 said:
Every now and then I print a 4x6 to mail to someone because it fits
in a standard envelope, but this is maybe 1/20 of what I print...
Click to expand...
I find that most of the people I know with 10Ds (admittedly it is a small sample) print most pictures at 6"x4".

You might not, but perhaps you're more on the pro end of the pro-sumer market. If I printed all my photos out at 8x12, then I'd print a whole lot less, or I'd be pretty poor unless I sold them an made a profit for printing.
-Mike
 
Mike Fried said:
Today I started thinking about my photographs and how I display
them to people. I started thinking about how critical it is for a
shot to be "sharp in focus". Then I took a step back. I have
several shots which appear sharp and in focus at 6"x4" print size
(what most people will see in my print albums). Sometimes I print
at 12"x8" for my printed portfolio. Sometimes I show people full
resolution on a monitor or on a video projector.

Here's a comparison of these assuming a 3072x2048 image to start from.
6x4: 512DPI -- clearly overkill. Many photographs printers are
already downsampling this data to fit their 300DPI laser pattern to
expose your photo paper.
Click to expand...
yeah, but at this size, with practically no noise at 100%, you can crop just a tiny part of it, and make it into a picture by itself. most people will never use the entire thing as a print. they will crop some out.
Mike Fried said:
12x8: 256DPI -- Just about right. Over 150DPI on a 300DPI printing
system, and you're good for anything but a loupe.

100%: On a 72DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution of the 10D
produces an image of 42"x28".

On a 100DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution gives you 30"x20". I
have 2x Sony G500 monitors on one machine. They are 16"x12"
monitors, and running them sideways at 2048x1536 resolution (their
max), I could in theory show every pixel of the 10D at a size of
24"x16" (128DPI). LCD monitors (mine is 100DPI @ 1600x1200) have
subpixel elements in predicatable locations could in theory be
considered 300DPI x 100DPI in the two dimensions if an image
application could take advantage of the subpixel elements in a
meaningful way for resampling.

So if you spend all day blowing up your 1.6 central crops of your
(inexpensive -- this is a relative term) lenses to 42"x28" and
complain that the detail isn't sharp, all I have to say is duh. Are
you actually going to print that image above 30"x20"? Most people
don't print their images above 6"x4". I plan to buy an 800x600
projector (or higher resolution) sometime in the future for my
home, and give slide shows of pictures (800x533 pixels for
landscape, 400x600 for portrait). I also shoot slide and print film
with my Elan 7, and never really notice any significant difference
in sharpness (I use the same lenses).
Click to expand...
actually many will print at 10x14. i tend to go with a 8x12 myself. and other's do blow it up top poster size. it's always best to shoot as sharp as you can. and if need be, then go with your idea. otherwise i want it to be as sharp as possible.

---Mike Savad
Mike Fried said:
Enough math for one day. :)
-Mike
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=9050
http://www.artsig.com/go/users/view?id=52
 
Mike Fried said:
Forrest said:
Mike Fried said:
you actually going to print that image above 30"x20"? Most people
don't print their images above 6"x4". I plan to buy an 800x600
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mike Fried said:
Every now and then I print a 4x6 to mail to someone because it fits
in a standard envelope, but this is maybe 1/20 of what I print...
Click to expand...
I find that most of the people I know with 10Ds (admittedly it is a
small sample) print most pictures at 6"x4".

You might not, but perhaps you're more on the pro end of the
pro-sumer market. If I printed all my photos out at 8x12, then I'd
print a whole lot less, or I'd be pretty poor unless I sold them an
made a profit for printing.
-Mike
Click to expand...
why do they even bother with a camera such as this? there are many other camera's that are far cheaper. a 2mp camera can give a pretty good result, a 4mp is even better. if all they want to do is print postcards, why would they get such an elaborate camera? doesn't make sense.

mainly the point is, not whether you print everything at that size. it's the loss of that ability if the original isn't sharp enough.

---Mike Savad

--

http://www.pbase.com/savad/
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=9050
http://www.artsig.com/go/users/view?id=52
 
Besides having 'the eye', there's a technical side as well...

Don't you want to know if you're in focus, sharp, etc.? I do!!

'Normal" viewing is a whole different animal...

When I was doing 'wet' photography all those years ago, I wanted to know the same things...

I have to be satisfied that it's technically right before I try to display it....
Mike Fried said:
Today I started thinking about my photographs and how I display
them to people. I started thinking about how critical it is for a
shot to be "sharp in focus". Then I took a step back. I have
several shots which appear sharp and in focus at 6"x4" print size
(what most people will see in my print albums). Sometimes I print
at 12"x8" for my printed portfolio. Sometimes I show people full
resolution on a monitor or on a video projector.

Here's a comparison of these assuming a 3072x2048 image to start from.
6x4: 512DPI -- clearly overkill. Many photographs printers are
already downsampling this data to fit their 300DPI laser pattern to
expose your photo paper.

12x8: 256DPI -- Just about right. Over 150DPI on a 300DPI printing
system, and you're good for anything but a loupe.

100%: On a 72DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution of the 10D
produces an image of 42"x28".

On a 100DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution gives you 30"x20". I
have 2x Sony G500 monitors on one machine. They are 16"x12"
monitors, and running them sideways at 2048x1536 resolution (their
max), I could in theory show every pixel of the 10D at a size of
24"x16" (128DPI). LCD monitors (mine is 100DPI @ 1600x1200) have
subpixel elements in predicatable locations could in theory be
considered 300DPI x 100DPI in the two dimensions if an image
application could take advantage of the subpixel elements in a
meaningful way for resampling.

So if you spend all day blowing up your 1.6 central crops of your
(inexpensive -- this is a relative term) lenses to 42"x28" and
complain that the detail isn't sharp, all I have to say is duh. Are
you actually going to print that image above 30"x20"? Most people
don't print their images above 6"x4". I plan to buy an 800x600
projector (or higher resolution) sometime in the future for my
home, and give slide shows of pictures (800x533 pixels for
landscape, 400x600 for portrait). I also shoot slide and print film
with my Elan 7, and never really notice any significant difference
in sharpness (I use the same lenses).

Enough math for one day. :)
-Mike
Click to expand...
--
James 'Zone' Orr
http://chestnuteast.com
'Shaddap and go take some pictures!!!'
'Point? There was supposed to be a point?'

 
mike savad said:
why do they even bother with a camera such as this? there are many
other camera's that are far cheaper. a 2mp camera can give a pretty
good result, a 4mp is even better. if all they want to do is print
postcards, why would they get such an elaborate camera? doesn't
make sense.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are plenty of other reasons to go SLR besides the quality. I know the compacts are getting better, but they're still nowhere near as responsive as a true SLR is. Nevermind the EVF. Still, I would think anybody who cares about these things ( read: photography ) enough to fork out for even a D30 or SD9 would also care a good deal about the quality of their output.
 
Mike Fried said:
I find that most of the people I know with 10Ds (admittedly it is a
small sample) print most pictures at 6"x4".
Click to expand...
I'm still using a D60 ... I wouldn't be able to afford the prints if I'd upgraded!

I don't know all that many photographers, personally. One of the ones I do know prints only 8x10s. A couple others only view 99% of their images onscreen. I'll print 4x6s sort of as proofs to mail to people, and have the "real thing" printed at 8x12 or 10x15. I don't know ... I just don't take my smaller prints seriously. But then I'm a landscape photographer, and to me the places I shoot are larger than life ... so making big prints is the least I can do.

I think if you did a world-wide study, you'd be right; most printed photos are still 4x6 inches, or thereabouts. I get the idea that's changing with digital, though, now that you can print one in a hundred of your photos ... people can afford more 8x10s.
Mike Fried said:
You might not, but perhaps you're more on the pro end of the
pro-sumer market. If I printed all my photos out at 8x12, then I'd
print a whole lot less, or I'd be pretty poor unless I sold them an
made a profit for printing.
Click to expand...
Could be. I'm selling some of the prints, although not very many ... and that's certainly not the motivation shooting them. It's not that expensive to have them printed ( $3 for an 8x12, I think ), and the price kind of pales in comparison to what the trip cost, so it's at least worth it to me.

By the way, I don't really look at the images at 100% ( or more ) unless I'm doing something special, like sharpening, cloning a minor distraction out, or picking the sharpest picture of a bunch. I shoot with a specific composition in mind, and I want to see that, the whole frame, to enjoy the pic. That puts me at 50% to fit it on the screen.
 
For the $ we paid for our 10D's, the camera better dam well focus right, and I mean tack-sharp...and the best way to ascertain this is to study the pics at 100%...I'm not talking all the time obsession here....expecting a pic at 100% to look sharp is not unreasonable.

I realize one may not often blow up images past 6 x 4 for example, but that is not the point....the point is, for the $1,500 one pays for the stupid box with a light-hole, it better do a decent job of sharpening, and I don't mean relying on the in-camera sharpening parameter either.

Otherwise the problem may not be the camera but the lens, or user error.

Dan
Mike Fried said:
Today I started thinking about my photographs and how I display
them to people. I started thinking about how critical it is for a
shot to be "sharp in focus". Then I took a step back. I have
several shots which appear sharp and in focus at 6"x4" print size
(what most people will see in my print albums). Sometimes I print
at 12"x8" for my printed portfolio. Sometimes I show people full
resolution on a monitor or on a video projector.

Here's a comparison of these assuming a 3072x2048 image to start from.
6x4: 512DPI -- clearly overkill. Many photographs printers are
already downsampling this data to fit their 300DPI laser pattern to
expose your photo paper.

12x8: 256DPI -- Just about right. Over 150DPI on a 300DPI printing
system, and you're good for anything but a loupe.

100%: On a 72DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution of the 10D
produces an image of 42"x28".

On a 100DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution gives you 30"x20". I
have 2x Sony G500 monitors on one machine. They are 16"x12"
monitors, and running them sideways at 2048x1536 resolution (their
max), I could in theory show every pixel of the 10D at a size of
24"x16" (128DPI). LCD monitors (mine is 100DPI @ 1600x1200) have
subpixel elements in predicatable locations could in theory be
considered 300DPI x 100DPI in the two dimensions if an image
application could take advantage of the subpixel elements in a
meaningful way for resampling.

So if you spend all day blowing up your 1.6 central crops of your
(inexpensive -- this is a relative term) lenses to 42"x28" and
complain that the detail isn't sharp, all I have to say is duh. Are
you actually going to print that image above 30"x20"? Most people
don't print their images above 6"x4". I plan to buy an 800x600
projector (or higher resolution) sometime in the future for my
home, and give slide shows of pictures (800x533 pixels for
landscape, 400x600 for portrait). I also shoot slide and print film
with my Elan 7, and never really notice any significant difference
in sharpness (I use the same lenses).

Enough math for one day. :)
-Mike
Click to expand...
--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)
 
Dont you mean PPI?
Mike Fried said:
Today I started thinking about my photographs and how I display
them to people. I started thinking about how critical it is for a
shot to be "sharp in focus". Then I took a step back. I have
several shots which appear sharp and in focus at 6"x4" print size
(what most people will see in my print albums). Sometimes I print
at 12"x8" for my printed portfolio. Sometimes I show people full
resolution on a monitor or on a video projector.

Here's a comparison of these assuming a 3072x2048 image to start from.
6x4: 512DPI -- clearly overkill. Many photographs printers are
already downsampling this data to fit their 300DPI laser pattern to
expose your photo paper.

12x8: 256DPI -- Just about right. Over 150DPI on a 300DPI printing
system, and you're good for anything but a loupe.

100%: On a 72DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution of the 10D
produces an image of 42"x28".

On a 100DPI Monitor, the 3072x2048 resolution gives you 30"x20". I
have 2x Sony G500 monitors on one machine. They are 16"x12"
monitors, and running them sideways at 2048x1536 resolution (their
max), I could in theory show every pixel of the 10D at a size of
24"x16" (128DPI). LCD monitors (mine is 100DPI @ 1600x1200) have
subpixel elements in predicatable locations could in theory be
considered 300DPI x 100DPI in the two dimensions if an image
application could take advantage of the subpixel elements in a
meaningful way for resampling.

So if you spend all day blowing up your 1.6 central crops of your
(inexpensive -- this is a relative term) lenses to 42"x28" and
complain that the detail isn't sharp, all I have to say is duh. Are
you actually going to print that image above 30"x20"? Most people
don't print their images above 6"x4". I plan to buy an 800x600
projector (or higher resolution) sometime in the future for my
home, and give slide shows of pictures (800x533 pixels for
landscape, 400x600 for portrait). I also shoot slide and print film
with my Elan 7, and never really notice any significant difference
in sharpness (I use the same lenses).

Enough math for one day. :)
-Mike
Click to expand...
--



Steve
10D
300D
 
Steven said:
Dont you mean PPI?
Click to expand...
PPI (Pixels or Points Per Inch) is the same as DPI (Dots Per Inch). Unless of course you are distinguishing one of the terms to consider "subpixel elements" (typically for LCD screens and Dithering Patterns), in which case, you generally need to state explicitly what you are talking about to avoid confusion. I generally use DPI.
-Mike
 
Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:
why do they even bother with a camera such as this? there are many
other camera's that are far cheaper. a 2mp camera can give a pretty
good result, a 4mp is even better. if all they want to do is print
postcards, why would they get such an elaborate camera? doesn't
make sense.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are plenty of other reasons to go SLR besides the
quality.
Click to expand...
The above sentence is the stupidest sentence I've ever read on this site! Quality is the whole freakin mission and point of the D10!!!!!!!!!!!

You're logic is killing me man!

I know the compacts are getting better, but they're still
Forrest41926 said:
nowhere near as responsive as a true SLR is. Nevermind the EVF.
Still, I would think anybody who cares about these things ( read:
photography ) enough to fork out for even a D30 or SD9 would also
care a good deal about the quality of their output.
Click to expand...
--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)
 
My standard printer is an Epson 1280. I bought it instead of a 980 not because I want to print 8-up 4 by 6 prints but because I want to print 13 inch wide prints.

I do print some 4 by 6 prints, but in terms of total area, most are probably 8.5 by 11, actually. A print this size uses the full capture resolution of the 10D, especially if the image is cropped (it is at this aspect ratio).
 
But would you not agree, that a 100% view of your pic to see if its in focus or etc. would produce a better quality at 4*6, I generay view at 100% to check the quality of focus or detail, if its there at 100 percent its gonna be superb at 4*6, and if its not there its generally gonna print well at 4*6 anyhow. But I check to see how well I am doing in the focus and detail part.

--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
 
LovCom said:
LovCom said:
Actually, there are plenty of other reasons to go SLR besides the
quality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
LovCom said:
The above sentence is the stupidest sentence I've ever read on this
site! Quality is the whole freakin mission and point of the
D10!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Replaced immediately by this, from a man who doesn't understand sharpness in the digital realm...

For you quality might be the only reason to use a digital SLR, but this would be a pretty short-sighted type of "logic." Have you ever wondered why people used SLRs before digital, when you could get the exact same film into a compact camera?
LovCom said:
You're logic is killing me man!
Click to expand...
 
and is controlled by the printer driver. PPI refers to the monitor display. They are not the same.

Rich
Mike Fried said:
Steven said:
Dont you mean PPI?
Click to expand...
PPI (Pixels or Points Per Inch) is the same as DPI (Dots Per Inch).
Unless of course you are distinguishing one of the terms to
consider "subpixel elements" (typically for LCD screens and
Dithering Patterns), in which case, you generally need to state
explicitly what you are talking about to avoid confusion. I
generally use DPI.
-Mike
Click to expand...
 
Ease of use, more control, dof, RAW, lens, choices, features to name a few. I think many here would argue that a 10D produces better looking images than a 1D. Which would you prefer to own?

Forrest you may be many things but I don't think you would ever make a statement as brash as the one quoted below. BTW repeat after me 10D, 10D, 10D.
Forrest41926 said:
Forrest41926 said:
The above sentence is the stupidest sentence I've ever read on this
site! Quality is the whole freakin mission and point of the
D10!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Replaced immediately by this, from a man who doesn't understand
sharpness in the digital realm...

For you quality might be the only reason to use a digital SLR, but
this would be a pretty short-sighted type of "logic." Have you
ever wondered why people used SLRs before digital, when you could
get the exact same film into a compact camera?
Forrest41926 said:
You're logic is killing me man!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top