What's the meaning of pixel peeping?

[BBQue]

(If you are printing, then please skip this, cause nothing I say here makes sense for the purpose of printing. If you take photos to be viewed on a monitor, please proceed )

So what is pixel peeping (usually uttered with a mildly derogatory overtone)? I always look at my photos at 100% magnification. I consider this the NORMAL AND NATURAL SIZE my camera produces. I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing. That means 100%. Of course, many (if not most) images get discarded right away and will never be seen at 100%, but everything I consider a keeper, 100% is a must. This is NOT pixel peeping in my opinion.

If I want to "pixel peep", I need higher magnification, about 500%. Only then can I make out individual pixels with ease. I very rarely do this, but sometimes, interesting things can be learned from it too. For example, I found that the JPG compression engine of C1 is not as good as Photoshop's. At similar file size, there are more compression artifacts on C1 JPGs compared to Photoshop JPGs. So if I want the cleanest possible JPG, I export from C1 as TIFF and then do the compression in Photoshop.

So where does "pixel peeping" start for you? 100% magnification? 500% magnification? And don't you want to see all the detail your camera produces?

 

[Sean_Jayhawk]

I think it's a phrase used by people who are annoyed that anyone would care about attempting perfection.

Like you, I view my images at 100% magnification or greater all the time. I see photography as a challenge to get the perfect composition, lighting, sharpness, etc. and looking at the 100% or greater magnification is part of my workflow and how I help determine if I did what I set out to do. Other people will view the image on Facebook or Flickr or printed and reach their own conclusions, but I have higher standards for myself.

--
My recent favorite shots

My photo page on Facebook

 

[ahaslett]

I also am a pixel peeper not a paper peeper. How much you peer into an image depends on what the subject is.

Landscape is the natural subject for looking at details. My photo album is an iPad, which gives up a bit of detail but you can use your fingers to look at an image at 700Mb and about 1.8m across.

Andrew

 

[BBQue]

I also am a pixel peeper not a paper peeper. How much you peer into an image depends on what the subject is.

Landscape is the natural subject for looking at details. My photo album is an iPad, which gives up a bit of detail but you can use your fingers to look at an image at 700Mb and about 1.8m across.

Andrew

 

[ahaslett]

The images are small, a few Mb but fully expanded on the screen a whole image would span 700Mb if you could view all of it at once.

Sorry if that was a bit unclear! You are right that the software resizes the image.

Andrew

 

[CE3]

For me, pixel peeping is around 100% magnification. I'll go beyond 100% if I'm correcting or removing something in post and need the detail, or maybe when I'm comparing adjustments (before and after) to see if I'm overdoing the processing.

I certainly don't always view my images at 100% magnification. The majority of my photo work is done on a 15" MacBook Pro. 100% goes beyond my display size and resolution. I primarily "pixel peep" during processing, or if I'm interested in a camera or lens (viewing images online), or testing a new lens or camera myself.

 

[slstr]

When reviewing pictures, if a picture captures my attention i check EXIF and view it at 100% to see if I am happy with technical aspects (focus / dof .. etc) so that I can learn and be better prepared.
When editing 100% is great to see what I'm really doing in certain areas like when lifting shadows, changing contrast etc..
When evaluating gear I often use 200%, rarely need/want 300% or beyond, currently on a 1080p screen.
In the end most pictures are viewed on 1080p screens or cellphone or not at all ..
A7RII, 42 MP fun times!

 

[sybersitizen]

I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing.

Your camera (assuming it's a full frame Sony) gives an image that is about 1 x 1.5 inches; that is the whole thing. Viewing it magnified to a whopping 8x10 inches is already pixel peeping ... so pixel peeping can't be avoided in the normal appreciation of digital images made with normal cameras. We almost always want the apparent size of the image to be much larger.

That means 100%.

The meaning of 100% is directly dependent on monitor pixel pitch, so it's a relative magnification. It might be too much for appreciative pixel peeping, but insufficient for analytical pixel peeping (which is not the same thing).

So where does "pixel peeping" start for you?

At any apparent size that's greater than the sensor dimensions. In other words, pretty much always except when viewing thumbnails.

 

[BBQue]

I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing.

Your camera (assuming it's a full frame Sony) gives an image that is about 1 x 1.5 inches; that is the whole thing. Viewing it magnified to a whopping 8x10 inches is already pixel peeping ...

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you call it "pixel peeping" if you can't even see the pixels?

At any apparent size that's greater than the sensor dimensions. In other words, pretty much always except when viewing thumbnails.

Interesting, so even when displayed on a smart phone you are already "pixel peeping"..., doesn't that somehow strip the word "pixel peeping" of all its meaning?

You are right of course about the pixel pitch of the monitor, so that qualifies what I am saying. Nevertheless, I feel a 1:1 translation (i.e. one pixel from the sensor equals one pixel of my monitor) is the "normal and natural" size for what my camera produces.

 

[sybersitizen]

I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing.

Your camera (assuming it's a full frame Sony) gives an image that is about 1 x 1.5 inches; that is the whole thing. Viewing it magnified to a whopping 8x10 inches is already pixel peeping ...

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you call it "pixel peeping" if you can't even see the pixels?

I just am choosing to define it as that. There are many commonly used English terms that don't adhere to strict literal interpretation.

At any apparent size that's greater than the sensor dimensions. In other words, pretty much always except when viewing thumbnails.

Interesting, so even when displayed on a smart phone you are already "pixel peeping"..., doesn't that somehow strip the word "pixel peeping" of all its meaning?

I can assign a meaning to it; someone else can assign a different meaning to it ... at least until there exists a widely accepted definition. Apparently you don't know of such a definition, or you would not have posed the title question.

You are right of course about the pixel pitch of the monitor, so that qualifies what I am saying. Nevertheless, I feel a 1:1 translation (i.e. one pixel from the sensor equals one pixel of my monitor) is the "normal and natural" size for what my camera produces.

What if you have a monitor that's the same size and same pixel density as your sensor?

 

[Sean_Jayhawk]

I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing.

Your camera (assuming it's a full frame Sony) gives an image that is about 1 x 1.5 inches; that is the whole thing. Viewing it magnified to a whopping 8x10 inches is already pixel peeping ...

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you call it "pixel peeping" if you can't even see the pixels?

I just am choosing to define it as that. There are many commonly used English terms that don't adhere to strict literal interpretation.

At any apparent size that's greater than the sensor dimensions. In other words, pretty much always except when viewing thumbnails.

Interesting, so even when displayed on a smart phone you are already "pixel peeping"..., doesn't that somehow strip the word "pixel peeping" of all its meaning?

I can assign a meaning to it; someone else can assign a different meaning to it ... at least until there exists a widely accepted definition. Apparently you don't know of such a definition, or you would not have posed the title question.

You're the first person I've ever seen have such a loose definition of pixel peeping. I did a quick search on Google and I don't see your definition among the many returns. Each one I check seems to define it as 100% or greater magnification. But sure, you can define terms or phrases in any way you want, but you might also prepare for some pushback from people who find your definitions incorrect. ;-)

 

[sybersitizen]

I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing.

Your camera (assuming it's a full frame Sony) gives an image that is about 1 x 1.5 inches; that is the whole thing. Viewing it magnified to a whopping 8x10 inches is already pixel peeping ...

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you call it "pixel peeping" if you can't even see the pixels?

I just am choosing to define it as that. There are many commonly used English terms that don't adhere to strict literal interpretation.

At any apparent size that's greater than the sensor dimensions. In other words, pretty much always except when viewing thumbnails.

Interesting, so even when displayed on a smart phone you are already "pixel peeping"..., doesn't that somehow strip the word "pixel peeping" of all its meaning?

I can assign a meaning to it; someone else can assign a different meaning to it ... at least until there exists a widely accepted definition. Apparently you don't know of such a definition, or you would not have posed the title question.

You're the first person I've ever seen have such a loose definition of pixel peeping. I did a quick search on Google and I don't see your definition among the many returns. Each one I check seems to define it as 100% or greater magnification. But sure, you can define terms or phrases in any way you want, but you might also prepare for some pushback from people who find your definitions incorrect. ;-)

Not a problem. There's really nothing at stake if I'm deemed wrong.

So, if 100% or greater magnification is the widely accepted answer to the question - and even that is subject to the characteristics of individual monitors - then I guess the thread has run its course ... or perhaps the OP might want to challenge it because he disagrees:

BBQue wrote: 100% is a must. This is NOT pixel peeping in my opinion.

 

[terryreid]

I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing.

Your camera (assuming it's a full frame Sony) gives an image that is about 1 x 1.5 inches; that is the whole thing. Viewing it magnified to a whopping 8x10 inches is already pixel peeping ...

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you call it "pixel peeping" if you can't even see the pixels?

I just am choosing to define it as that. There are many commonly used English terms that don't adhere to strict literal interpretation.

At any apparent size that's greater than the sensor dimensions. In other words, pretty much always except when viewing thumbnails.

Interesting, so even when displayed on a smart phone you are already "pixel peeping"..., doesn't that somehow strip the word "pixel peeping" of all its meaning?

I can assign a meaning to it; someone else can assign a different meaning to it ... at least until there exists a widely accepted definition. Apparently you don't know of such a definition, or you would not have posed the title question.

You're the first person I've ever seen have such a loose definition of pixel peeping. I did a quick search on Google and I don't see your definition among the many returns. Each one I check seems to define it as 100% or greater magnification. But sure, you can define terms or phrases in any way you want, but you might also prepare for some pushback from people who find your definitions incorrect. ;-)

How is looking at something at actual size pixel peeping, that is what your image is and what it looks like. Sometimes I look at 200% or larger or take a magnifier to a printed image but 100% tells you how sharp your image is providing it is composed correctly, but yes I always look at my photos at 100% to see if they are in focus and spot on.

--
Too Much horsepower is just enough

 

[richj20]

If you search around the internet, you will find as many opinions on pixel peeping as bokeh, meaning that is useless to discuss, since people have made up their minds, and are not likely to change.

That's OK - people like to argue. Nothing wrong with that.

However, what annoys me is there are people who derogatorily apply the term pixel peeping to anyone who looks closely at things.

I hike a lot with botanists. We carry loupes - small magnifiers - to look closely at the flower details. When I photograph flowers, I like to look at the details on my monitor in the same way, so I zoom in. The same thing with wildlife, landscapes, and even people.

A while back, on another forum, were some gorgeous photographs of birds, sized at 1200px. I commented that I wished I could see them at a larger size, like 3000px, to see the feather details more closely. Several replied that I was a "pixel peeper."

I didn't bother responding. I've always liked to post at larger sizes so that people can zoom in and scroll around to see the details.

To show you what I'm referring to, here are a few examples, first at 1200px, then a larger view. Click on "View Original" to compare.


1a. Flower, showing the fine hairs on the top of the floral tube. 1200px


1b. 3000px


2a. Landscape, a local park. 1200px


2b. 5000px


3a. Face painting at a Dia de Muertos celebration. 1200px


3b. 3000px


4a. Architecture. 1200px


4b. 5000px

I like viewing at larger sizes. I wish more people did, and would post accordingly. If this is "pixel peeping," so be it!

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[Sean_Jayhawk]

I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing.

Your camera (assuming it's a full frame Sony) gives an image that is about 1 x 1.5 inches; that is the whole thing. Viewing it magnified to a whopping 8x10 inches is already pixel peeping ...

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you call it "pixel peeping" if you can't even see the pixels?

I just am choosing to define it as that. There are many commonly used English terms that don't adhere to strict literal interpretation.

At any apparent size that's greater than the sensor dimensions. In other words, pretty much always except when viewing thumbnails.

Interesting, so even when displayed on a smart phone you are already "pixel peeping"..., doesn't that somehow strip the word "pixel peeping" of all its meaning?

I can assign a meaning to it; someone else can assign a different meaning to it ... at least until there exists a widely accepted definition. Apparently you don't know of such a definition, or you would not have posed the title question.

You're the first person I've ever seen have such a loose definition of pixel peeping. I did a quick search on Google and I don't see your definition among the many returns. Each one I check seems to define it as 100% or greater magnification. But sure, you can define terms or phrases in any way you want, but you might also prepare for some pushback from people who find your definitions incorrect. ;-)

How is looking at something at actual size pixel peeping, that is what your image is and what it looks like. Sometimes I look at 200% or larger or take a magnifier to a printed image but 100% tells you how sharp your image is providing it is composed correctly, but yes I always look at my photos at 100% to see if they are in focus and spot on.

To be fair, it's not simply 100%; rather, it's 100% OR greater. Like you, I will sometimes look at 200% or so as well.

 

[terryreid]

Not to belabor a point but who ever said pixel peeping is a bad thing? You hear some silly comments on forums but anyone criticizing a person for viewing their images at actual size has a loose screw IMO.

What is the point of using a AR7II and high end lenses to look at 25% or 50% view? Use a point and shoot or much less capable system if the quality of your images does not matter to you

Take a look at the 1200px example vs the 3000px example in richj20's message and if you are satisfied with the lesser image we beat to different drum beats. I save my images full size then two smaller versions one 4000px at 300dpi and another for email, texts, Facebook at 200 dpi at 1280px.

 

[Tuloom]

Not to belabor a point but who ever said pixel peeping is a bad thing? You hear some silly comments on forums...........

End of the story.

 

[richj20]

I save my images full size then two smaller versions one 4000px at 300dpi and another for email, texts, Facebook at 200 dpi at 1280px.

Recently, I started setting up my web site similar to DPR:

You click on the image to open into a fit-to-screen view. Then, clicking on that image expands to a larger size (3000-5000px).

Southern Sierra

- Richard

--

http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[Lightshow]

IMO, pixel peeping is anything past 100%, I never go past 100%, there's no point, since what you look at stops being a picture and become geometric forms.... I'm into photography for the pictures, not to analize the pixels to death, if you/anyone wants to, knock yourself out.

 

[BBQue]

I don't want to view a small 8x10 rendering of what my camera gives, I want to see the whole thing.

Your camera (assuming it's a full frame Sony) gives an image that is about 1 x 1.5 inches; that is the whole thing. Viewing it magnified to a whopping 8x10 inches is already pixel peeping ...

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you call it "pixel peeping" if you can't even see the pixels?

I just am choosing to define it as that. There are many commonly used English terms that don't adhere to strict literal interpretation.

At any apparent size that's greater than the sensor dimensions. In other words, pretty much always except when viewing thumbnails.

Interesting, so even when displayed on a smart phone you are already "pixel peeping"..., doesn't that somehow strip the word "pixel peeping" of all its meaning?

I can assign a meaning to it; someone else can assign a different meaning to it ... at least until there exists a widely accepted definition. Apparently you don't know of such a definition, or you would not have posed the title question.

You are right of course about the pixel pitch of the monitor, so that qualifies what I am saying. Nevertheless, I feel a 1:1 translation (i.e. one pixel from the sensor equals one pixel of my monitor) is the "normal and natural" size for what my camera produces.

No, no - I am perfectly fine with that. Just trying to seek opinions on what others think where "pixel peeping" starts. Yours is a valid definition and data point, even though a bi extreme.

I mean, how many times in your life did you call someone a "pixel peeper" cause he looked at a photo larger than the size of wrist watch?

What if you have a monitor that's the same size and same pixel density as your sensor?

Except it isn't. Nobody would call such tiny screen a monitor