Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started Jan 5, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Prognathous Veteran Member • Posts: 8,919
Would you call this pixel peeping:

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

 Prognathous's gear list:Prognathous's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony a6000 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron SP AF 60mm F/2 Di II LD IF Macro Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D +11 more
AlphaTikal
AlphaTikal Senior Member • Posts: 2,054
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:

Yes. As long as you know that and don't overrate single pixels, there is no problem with it. I am doing it too. Just don't forget the whole image.
--
· 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 (F004) Samsung Galaxy S7 edge +11 more
Lightpath48 Senior Member • Posts: 3,916
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:

My impression of pixel-peeping is that it is an overemphasis on pixel-level image quality. Pixel-peepers are perhaps more interested in the performance aspects of their cameras than in making photos. It doesn't seem from your original post that your primary viewing intent is to show your friends and family the pixel level performance of your camera. You're doing the enlarging to see more details in subjects that are your main interest. To my understanding this isn't pixel-peeping.

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10
Mike CH Veteran Member • Posts: 5,899
No

To me, pixel-peeping is more about the quality (of a limited amount) of pixels. It seems to me that you are more concerned with the content - and if there is interesting content in the small details, then zoom in to your hearts delight.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.5 1-5x Macro +11 more
Zone8 Forum Pro • Posts: 16,575
Oh Lordie Lordie

I thought (well, more like hoped) inflicting travel happy snaps had departed long ago.  What a way to treat your friends.  Keep doing that and they could well become your fiends!   

-- hide signature --

Zone8: Although I am a handsome genius, when I stand in front of a mirror, I vaguely recognise the ugly idjit standing on the other side!
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm
Cleaning DSLR Sensors, including Kodak DSLR Factory Cleaning method:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/KodakDCS-sensorcleaning.htm (Includes links to "bassotto's" images)
Solving back/front focus problems on Sigma and most other DSLRs
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=35565277
PDF format list of lenses you can print or download - covers Italian Flag YES/NO for DCS 14n but applies to others. http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/ItiFlagLensList.pdf

Shutterbug013 Forum Member • Posts: 98
In my opinion

For me pixel-peeping is checking that the image is sharp and clear (as oppose to hazy) at 100%.

 Shutterbug013's gear list:Shutterbug013's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Nikon D7100 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art Nik Silver Efex Pro +2 more
Laurentiu Todie
Laurentiu Todie Senior Member • Posts: 2,567
Re: Oh Lordie Lordie

Pixels peeping free-for-all

http://photo.net/learn/optics/pixel_peep/pixel_peep_part1.html

http://www.seditionart.com/laurentiu_todie

-- hide signature --

PixelsPainting.com

Prognathous OP Veteran Member • Posts: 8,919
Re: Oh Lordie Lordie
3

Zone8 wrote:

I thought (well, more like hoped) inflicting travel happy snaps had departed long ago. What a way to treat your friends. Keep doing that and they could well become your fiends!

I limit the number of pictures I show to the very best pictures (which include zero pictures I would refer to as "snaps"), usually around 30~50 pictures for a week of travel. Twice for a two week trip. Not only are people not complaining, they usually ask to see more. If people show lack of interest when viewing your pictures you might want to check the reason for that.

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

 Prognathous's gear list:Prognathous's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony a6000 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron SP AF 60mm F/2 Di II LD IF Macro Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D +11 more
Prognathous OP Veteran Member • Posts: 8,919
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:

AlphaTikal wrote:

Yes. As long as you know that and don't overrate single pixels, there is no problem with it. I am doing it too. Just don't forget the whole image.

The whole image is what I usually the only thing I show. Only when the image is packed with multiple subjects and other interesting details to I switch to higher magnification view. I'd say it happens in 10-15% of the pictures.

Prog.

 Prognathous's gear list:Prognathous's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony a6000 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron SP AF 60mm F/2 Di II LD IF Macro Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D +11 more
edispics
edispics Senior Member • Posts: 2,826
How About: Cruel and Unusual Punishment? :) n/t

No text.

lickity split
lickity split Senior Member • Posts: 2,695
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:

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

If your friends start to fall asleep while your pointing out every last detail of your vacation snaps, I won't consider that "pixel peeping" a little boring maybe.

 lickity split's gear list:lickity split's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +10 more
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,593
The Term Pixel Peeping is Idiotic
2

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

Pixel peeping is one of the most idiotic terms used in digital photography today.  Viewing an image at 100%  is no more different than viewing a slide or negative under magnification. It is the only way to determine the true technical quality of a photograph.

My advice to you is to immediately stop using such a ridiculous term and to try and get others to do the same. View your images however you want to view them and to hell with what people say.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,593
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
2

AlphaTikal wrote:

Yes. As long as you know that and don't overrate single pixels, there is no problem with it. I am doing it too. Just don't forget the whole image.

Every single pixel is important. Ironically, overrating "single pixels" is exactly what the vast majority of cameras with Bayer sensors do.

Viewing images at 100% **IS** "the whole image!"

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Prognathous OP Veteran Member • Posts: 8,919
Re: How About: Cruel and Unusual Punishment? :)
 Prognathous's gear list:Prognathous's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony a6000 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron SP AF 60mm F/2 Di II LD IF Macro Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D +11 more
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,593
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
1

Lightpath48 wrote:

My impression of pixel-peeping is that it is an overemphasis on pixel-level image quality.

There's no such a thing. Pixels make up a digital image so. All of them are important.

Pixel-peepers are perhaps more interested in the performance aspects of their cameras than in making photos.

A proper photographer is not only seeking artistic excellence but also technical excellence. Something as fundamental as maximizing image detail and sharpness can only be properly detrmined by viewing at 100%. Back in the film days that would have been done under a loupe.

It doesn't seem from your original post that your primary viewing intent is to show your friends and family the pixel level performance of your camera. You're doing the enlarging to see more details in subjects that are your main interest. To my understanding this isn't pixel-peeping.

The term pixel peeping is applied to people that view their images at 100%. It's an idiotic term.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,593
Re: No

Mike CH wrote:

To me, pixel-peeping is more about the quality (of a limited amount) of pixels. It seems to me that you are more concerned with the content - and if there is interesting content in the small details, then zoom in to your hearts delight.

All of the pixels determine "the quality" of a digital image. They are all important.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

lickity split
lickity split Senior Member • Posts: 2,695
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:
 lickity split's gear list:lickity split's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +10 more
AlphaTikal
AlphaTikal Senior Member • Posts: 2,054
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:

Its a definition problem here. Of course every pixel is important. But not the pixel alone. I am just saying he should not forget to enlarge until whole image with all pixels are seen at once. If someone does it differently, then he is free to do it.
--
· 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 (F004) Samsung Galaxy S7 edge +11 more
Mike CH Veteran Member • Posts: 5,899
Re: No
2

Basalite wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

To me, pixel-peeping is more about the quality (of a limited amount) of pixels. It seems to me that you are more concerned with the content - and if there is interesting content in the small details, then zoom in to your hearts delight.

All of the pixels determine "the quality" of a digital image. They are all important.

Perhaps.

But are they all equally important?

And are they more important when viewed in isolation? Or less?

You can easily have a whole slew of perfect pixels, which add up to a completely uninteresting image. And vice versa.

When you pixel-peep you are more interested in the quality of a limited area of the image than in the quality of the whole image (by necessity, as it is more difficult to see  the whole image when a part is enlarged to 100%). Pixel-peeping also has the bad connotation of measurebating with test charts et all...

Do note that I am not saying that you should not look at an image at pixel level. Of course you can and should as circumstances require. One should just not forget that that is not the whole story, eh image.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.5 1-5x Macro +11 more
AlphaTikal
AlphaTikal Senior Member • Posts: 2,054
Re: Would you call this pixel peeping:

Maybe there are different definitions of pixel peeping. But really, don't worry about the calling and namkng your way, if you are happy with. I thought first you described a hypotetical operation to understand the meaning of pixel peeping.
--
· 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 (F004) Samsung Galaxy S7 edge +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads