Pixel Peeping

[SAERIN]

"Can't see the forest for the trees."
or
"Can't see the image for the pixel."

"The saying that someone “can't see the forest for the trees” is a reference to people who get so involved with the details of an issue that they lose sight of the larger issue. You may also hear it rendered as “so-and-so can't see the wood for the trees,” depending on regional dialects and personal preference. If you are accused of being unable to see the forest for the trees, you may want to take a step back from the situation to abstract yourself in the hopes that some clarifying and potentially interesting information emerges."

source: wisegeek.com
--
saerin

 

[John Sheehy]

This works in two ways; on the one hand, you have people who look at any image from any camera at 100% pixel view, and judge the image based purely on that. That is folly, because an arbitrary zoom into an image is not the image. On the other hand, even people who are fully aware of the real role of 100% pixel quality and study the quality are accused of being pixel peepers. So, this "insult" can be levied for two very different reasons, one justly, and one unjustly.

--
John

 

[BertIverson]

"Can't see the forest for the trees."
or
"Can't see the image for the pixel."

"The saying that someone “can't see the forest for the trees” is a reference to people who get so involved with the details of an issue that they lose sight of the larger issue. You may also hear it rendered as “so-and-so can't see the wood for the trees,” depending on regional dialects and personal preference. If you are accused of being unable to see the forest for the trees, you may want to take a step back from the situation to abstract yourself in the hopes that some clarifying and potentially interesting information emerges."

source: wisegeek.com
--
saerin

I have a 4 year old 12MP DSLR and my rule is: If my lens and situation let me fully fill the frame with my subject, (so no digital zoom is necessary) even ISO 6400 looks fine to me on 2.4MP monitor or 8x10 print. I shoot with 18-250 zoom so usually the frame gets filled. On sunny days at ISO 200, 2:1 digital zooming is OK by me.
Bert

 

[SAERIN]

Hi,

Right.

The bottom line of an image is to invoke the viewer to ponder.
--
saerin

 

[SAERIN]

Hi,

Not an insult.

A fact.

The are those who admire an image as it was taken to ponder and those who dissect the given image like a coroner.

--
saerin

 

[SAERIN]

No insult indeed.

Right wrong --- heads tails.

Take a look:

Would you dismiss his images because of grain (now called pixels)?

If so, enlighten us.

saerin

 

[SAERIN]

Sorry,

Here is the link;
--
saerin

 

[SAERIN]

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Capa

What do you and the world see? An image or grain now call pixels.

Say what.
--
saerin

 

[John Sheehy]

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Capa

What do you and the world see? An image or grain now call pixels.

Say what.

I see interesting photos in a challenged medium.

--
John

 

[SAERIN]

Hi,

Named then link them.

Your gallery is nonexistence.

Show and tell.
--
saerin

 

[Ed Rizk]

Pixel peeping is irrelevant if you're printing an image that will be small or viewed primarily on a screen or not edited too much. So many calculate the resolution of the camera and the resolution of the print, then figure if they are the same, that is all you need. This is only valid if you don't edit.

The most obvious pixel thief is cropping. All other manipulations seem to reduce detail as well; straitening, perspective correction, de-noise, sharpening, all reduce detail. Even color saturation appears to reduce detail in some colors, especially reds. Then of course there are a number of big detail killers like HDR and stitching.

The less experience one has, the more cropping and editing required for the final picture. Novices need the better cameras more than experts. As I shoot more, I can crop less and straighten less.

If you want to print large, it is better to pixel peep than to throw away prints.
--
Ed Rizk

 

[John Sheehy]

Hi,

Named then link them.

Your gallery is nonexistence.

Show and tell.

Huh? What did I write that needed a gallery to back up?

Calling for show and tell is the last resort of someone who either has poor arguments, or is just totally lost in a conversation.

--
John

 

[SAERIN]

How many have you trash.
--
saerin

 

[Chris59]

Hi,

Not an insult.

A fact.

The are those who admire an image as it was taken to ponder and those who dissect the given image like a coroner.

--
saerin

No, there is a right way and a wrong way to evaluate image quality. If you are looking at a 100% image crop to determine image quality this "pixel peeping" is entirely justified.

This is not to mistake the cropped image for the image itself which is of course wrong and will give the peeper an incorrect assessment of image quality, but whenever the term is used, it is in a derogatory sense and is usually levelled by those who are megapixel challenged in order to justify their purchase.

Not looking too hard at an image because it will reveal the flaws and faults of the sensor and lens combination is a little like burying one's head in the sand in the hope that by calling people names, they will be intimidated into keeping quiet.

As for myself, whenever I am saying good-bye to a largeish chunk of my take home pay, I like to know exactly what I am getting for it. After all, if I want to determine the health of the forest, I need to see the trees.

 

[Ed Rizk]

How many have you trash.
--
saerin

Don't know. I can't count that high.
--
Ed Rizk

 

[Dareshooter]

How many have you trash.

Not sure with digital,too many to count but when I shot slide film only 35 from a 36 exposure roll were worth keeping ;-)

 

[SAERIN]

I thought so --- same here. Hits and misses. Just keep on trekking, a long adventure it will be, but eventually you'll find Joy, it be right there and you'll say "WOW."

saerin

 

[SAERIN]

To hug I presume.

Tree huggers are OK with me.
--
saerin