Must you always immediately view 1:1

[JohnSil]

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

How many members do you have? This one is almost $9000 but they seem to start at about $1500!!! Maybe if you each kicked in a few hundred bucks??? LoL

John

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1652499-REG/lg_65ep5g_b_ep5g_b_series_65_class.html/?ap=y&smp=y&smpm=ba_f2_lar&lsft=BI%3A514&gad_source=1

 

[PHAER]

Always! Doesn't mean that I only keep shots that come out tack sharp viewed at 100% but I want to know exactely what it is haha.

 

[Ozzie SD]

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.

Wow ... very nice pictures!!!

 

[jrtrent]

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?

Based on other posts here and in past threads, viewing pictures at 1:1 seems quite common, especially for people like you who process their images. However, the fact that you're thinking it's a disorder and something you need to work on makes me think you need to try stepping away from that habit for a while.

My normal practice is not to look at pictures on my camera or to process them further once I've pressed the shutter button. I download them onto my computer in an appropriately named subdirectory, then enjoy viewing them as a slide show using FastStone.

Anybody else suffer with this ailment?

Again, it's not something I consider an ailment, but I have to believe that something's telling you your time could be put to better use or that defects you don't see unless viewing at 1:1 maybe shouldn't be as important to you. You might try committing to just shooting straight-out-of-camera JPEG's without chimping and simply viewing them at full size for a year to see how you get on with it.

 

[FingerPainter]

... to compare photos from two different cameras at the same % zoom, if they have different pixel counts.

For instance, if you have a 24MP FF camera like a Z6 and a 45MP camera like a Z7, and you take a shot of the same scene using the same lens at the same settings, the Z6 shot will probably look sharper at 1:1 than will the Z7 shot , but the Z7 shot will actually be sharper.

 

[chrishurley]

thanks for the comments...

As to why the photos aren't razor sharp- various reasons. AF missed the target, I was in a hurry, shutter speed too slow, etc... Lots of reasons.

The point wasn't that most aren't sharp- the point is that I always check 1:1, 100% of the time. I was curious where everybody else was on that.

I was thinking maybe I should just judge if there is an actual picture there first and if there is, it might be able to overcome a technical issue.

As with a lot of things, there is no one answer.

 

[Howard V]

thanks for the comments...

As to why the photos aren't razor sharp- various reasons. AF missed the target, I was in a hurry, shutter speed too slow, etc... Lots of reasons.

The point wasn't that most aren't sharp- the point is that I always check 1:1, 100% of the time. I was curious where everybody else was on that.

I was thinking maybe I should just judge if there is an actual picture there first and if there is, it might be able to overcome a technical issue.

As with a lot of things, there is no one answer.

The best answer for me, is your own. I hope you’ll keep doing what you’re doing, and enjoy it.

As for me, I unashamedly like the instant gratification of seeing the image just created. For too many years I had to wait days or hours.

 

[Mackiesback]

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 ???

Are they? I am an illustrated book publisher and I am 300dpi in both books and catalogs. I can't answer for magazines but I employ some magazine writers and they always plan for 300dpi. There is really no reason not to. Where are you getting your info?

As to magazine sizes, that's a fair point. We run a minimum of 4" on the long side but production much prefers 7-8" for flexibility.

I have run a number of images over the years that were not critically sharp but knew they would be fine at the size I was gonna run em.

 

[MyReality]

have run a number of images over the years that were not critically sharp but knew they would be fine at the size I was gonna run em." That sentence is the key.

Publisher requirements are a different issue. They probably do not use all the resolution anyway. 300 dpi for an 8x10 in. magazine cover does not equate to a very large file. Issues viewed at 1 1: will never be seen.

Side comment: If you have a reputation like the pro David Doubilet, you can shoot Conde Naste Magazine covers with a Contax T2 and Velvia 50

 

[PhotoTeach2]

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 ???

Are they? I am an illustrated book publisher and I am 300dpi in both books and catalogs. I can't answer for magazines but I employ some magazine writers and they always plan for 300dpi. There is really no reason not to. Where are you getting your info?

But even if 300dpi is required, "8"mpx is sufficient for typical magazine size, (without cropping).

As to magazine sizes, that's a fair point. We run a minimum of 4" on the long side but production much prefers 7-8" for flexibility.

I have run a number of images over the years that were not critically sharp but knew they would be fine at the size I was gonna run em.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

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 ???

Are they? I am an illustrated book publisher and I am 300dpi in both books and catalogs. I can't answer for magazines but I employ some magazine writers and they always plan for 300dpi. There is really no reason not to. Where are you getting your info?

But even if 300dpi is required, "8"mpx is sufficient for typical magazine size, (without cropping).

For a large magazine size (17 inches and more), 8Mp gives 200ppi not 300.

8Mp 3:2 aspect ratio is 3464x2309 pixels. 3464/17 = 203 pixels per inch.

 

[steve_z]

Only when checking/applying noise reduction and/or sharpening.

 

[BrianYarvin]

Wow! My comments stirred up a bit of storm. I'd better explain.

In my experience, catalog and magazine editors are tough customers. I double check everything that goes their way because of how picky they are when sizing up my work. This has nothing to do with how much dpi you need for a given repro - it's about pleasing clients and getting return business.

 

[sybersitizen]

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!

You're right - it doesn't. A 35mm slide displayed with a good analog projector can show much better detail than a 1.5mp digital version contains.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

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 ???

Are they? I am an illustrated book publisher and I am 300dpi in both books and catalogs. I can't answer for magazines but I employ some magazine writers and they always plan for 300dpi. There is really no reason not to. Where are you getting your info?

But even if 300dpi is required, "8"mpx is sufficient for typical magazine size, (without cropping).

For a large magazine size (17 inches and more), 8Mp gives 200ppi not 300.

8Mp 3:2 aspect ratio is 3464x2309 pixels. 3464/17 = 203 pixels per inch.

I stated "typical", (which are indeed slightly larger than 8"x10"), but how many 17" magazines are there today, (LIFE magazine is gone, etc.).

But my POINT was that it does not take 100mpx for sufficient magazines, (of any size).

 

[lumigraphics]

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 hereby sentence you to one year with a film camera only. That'll fix your wagon.

 

[Bill Ferris]

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 hereby sentence you to one year with a film camera only. That'll fix your wagon.

Cruel & unusual punishment?

 

[John Sheehy]

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?

It's only a "disorder" if you fail to recognize the contextual meaning of pixel-level sharpness, and ignore what your composition would actually look like, shown at the size that you wish it to be viewed at.

When a person tries a camera with smaller pixels and/or uses a TC with a slow telephoto, for example, and then goes to 1:1 pixel view in background bokeh on a large-pixel monitor and goes "yuck" and deletes the image, then they may have made a very foolish mistake.

 

[lumigraphics]

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 hereby sentence you to one year with a film camera only. That'll fix your wagon.

Cruel & unusual punishment?

One can only hope.

 

[JohnSil]

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 ???

Are they? I am an illustrated book publisher and I am 300dpi in both books and catalogs. I can't answer for magazines but I employ some magazine writers and they always plan for 300dpi. There is really no reason not to. Where are you getting your info?

But even if 300dpi is required, "8"mpx is sufficient for typical magazine size, (without cropping).

For a large magazine size (17 inches and more), 8Mp gives 200ppi not 300.

8Mp 3:2 aspect ratio is 3464x2309 pixels. 3464/17 = 203 pixels per inch.

I stated "typical", (which are indeed slightly larger than 8"x10"), but how many 17" magazines are there today, (LIFE magazine is gone, etc.).

But my POINT was that it does not take 100mpx for sufficient magazines, (of any size).

No not 100mp. I think that one of the highest pixel dense magazines is/was Arizona Highways. Don't know what the prerequisites are but it seems to have always been the reputed leader in quality photography, as I've heard. Of course anything magazine size is still small compared to larger prints.

John