Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #7403
View in linear mode

Subject: "Why do I pixel Peep?" Previous topic | Next topic
JohnE Nikon Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jun 2010Fri 25-Mar-11 03:28 PM
902 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Why do I pixel Peep?"


New HArtford, US
          

There are a few reasons why I may pixel peep.

While I have never printed a 30 x 50 inch print I sometimes find it helpful for the following reasons;

-With my wildlife photography I am limited by 340mm max focal length. I often get near the limitations of cropping when my subject is far away and I need/ want to fill the frame more. This is like printing a 30x 50 inch print.

-When I have a problem determining which image I should use I may decide by viewing 1:1 to determine which is sharper. (My rational is that my computer screen has a lower resolution than a print. Image softness may become apparent in a print that was not apparent on screen.)

-In assessing gear I find it easier to see minute difference in image quality.
For example if I am testing equipment subtle differences are not apparent to my eye between kit lens and pro lenses which become visible at 1:1 crop.

-I recently was evaluating a non-nikon portrait zoom and compared to my old 35-70 zoom (a lens much posted about due to ? backfocusing issues) I did 6 test shots with each lens at 35 and 70 mm focal lengths and opened up to 2.8. When images viewed at normal viewing in lightroom there was not much difference. When viewed 1:1 the difference was dramatic and consistent. I decided not to purchase the new zoom given this info. I may not have come to this conclusion if I did not pixel peep.

While pixel peeping does demand the most of your lenses and technique I do think it has its place,

- I think

JohnE Nikon
https://plus.google.com/photos/104310967428146619677/albums?hl=en

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
elec164 Silver Member
25th Mar 2011
1
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
JohnE Nikon Silver Member
25th Mar 2011
3
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
agitater Gold Member
25th Mar 2011
2
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
JohnE Nikon Silver Member
25th Mar 2011
4
     Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
agitater Gold Member
25th Mar 2011
6
          Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
JohnE Nikon Silver Member
25th Mar 2011
7
               Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
agitater Gold Member
26th Mar 2011
10
                    Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
JohnE Nikon Silver Member
26th Mar 2011
14
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
visionguru
25th Mar 2011
5
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
agitater Gold Member
26th Mar 2011
12
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
elec164 Silver Member
26th Mar 2011
13
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
dm1dave Administrator
25th Mar 2011
8
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
JPJ Silver Member
25th Mar 2011
9
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
PAStime Silver Member
26th Mar 2011
11
Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
JohnE Nikon Silver Member
26th Mar 2011
15
     Reply message RE: Why do I pixel Peep?
PAStime Silver Member
27th Mar 2011
16

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Fri 25-Mar-11 04:21 PM
1896 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

I believe Len said it best in that other thread and that is in general, the best use of 100% view is for examining the affects of sharpening halo’s and doing edits on the pixel level.

Your points are valid though in your intended uses (at least to me) and show a broader use of it. I see no problem using 100% view in judging multiple shots of the same scene taken with the same camera and judging areas of critical interest to choose the one with the best sharpness. The problem most people are running into is using it to compare the sharpness of different MP resolution cameras which can lead to wrong conclusions.

That similar issue can be problematic when using images from the same camera and using different lenses. Aside from lens quality, you need to be meticulous in your setup to insure the same plane is being chosen for the focus point. The slightest miss-focus can lead you to a wrong conclusion in your testing. That is why it is best to use resources that have proper facilities and equipment to do such tests and comparisons.

If you read my reply in another thread I did a test of achieving focus coming from both extreme ends of the lens abilities. Even at f/2.8, the lens has a DOF and the AF system will take that into account when achieving focus. So if you start at minimum distance and focus outward you will stop at a point that favors the front of the subject with the DOF. If you start at infinity and focus inward you will stop at a point that will favor behind the subject with the DOF. In both instances the main target will appear equally sharp, but one might indicate front focus where the other indicates a slight back focus I would believe. But I am no optics expert and perhaps I am wrong.

As to printing, well you cannot replicate on a monitor what a print will look like. It will only give you a rough idea of what a print will show.

100% view does have its place, it’s just that one needs to be mindful of what it represents and what exactly it is showing you.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
JohnE Nikon Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jun 2010Fri 25-Mar-11 04:42 PM
902 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 1
Fri 25-Mar-11 04:43 PM by JohnE Nikon

New HArtford, US
          

Pete,
I agree with everything you state.

I purposely did not mention name brand of third party lens maker as I did not perform a comparison which would be accepted on this forum as proof of inferior lens quality. I also don't want to publicly bash a brand without proof that I could stand behind and convince others of. (I have found this harder than I thought in past posts)

My test was performed hand held in a camera store. I focused on same object at same distance / focal length and similar exposure. shutter speed > 1000. I even had secondary subjects in front of and behind main subject in case the lens was ok but there was front/ back focusing issues with camera or lens. All subjects primary and secondary were softer with brand new lens on each of 6 images.

I am fully aware my test was not optimal but this is an example where I find 1:1 crop helps me make a decision and my conclusion about lenses may be flawed but the same reasoning behind 1:1 crop would extend to properly performed test.

JohnE Nikon
https://plus.google.com/photos/104310967428146619677/albums?hl=en

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Fri 25-Mar-11 04:35 PM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 0


Toronto, CA
          

>There are a few reasons why I may pixel peep.
>
>While I have never printed a 30 x 50 inch print I sometimes
>find it helpful for the following reasons;
>
>-With my wildlife photography I am limited by 340mm max focal
>length. I often get near the limitations of cropping when my
>subject is far away and I need/ want to fill the frame more.
>This is like printing a 30x 50 inch print.

Good point. But all photography shooting situations impose limits of some sort. The limits may be minor and even completely inconsequential, or they may be significant in some way. The point is, that if we don't get the framing and composition right in the first place - in camera - because we simply can't get physically close enough to a bird in order to make it fill the viewfinder using the body and lens we've chosen, pixel peeping isn't going to help. Either we have to get closer to that particular subject or just forget about it to concentrate on closer subjects - better subjects if you will. Put another way, if the gear we're using on a particular day provides its narrowest angle of view equivalent of 340mm and our subject has to be shot at 500mm to fill the frame, it's not a great choice of subject.

Working at the long limit or the short/wide limit with most zoom lenses does not make the best use of those lenses. They're just not performing at their best at either extreme.

>-When I have a problem determining which image I should use I
>may decide by viewing 1:1 to determine which is sharper. (My
>rational is that my computer screen has a lower resolution
>than a print. Image softness may become apparent in a print
>that was not apparent on screen.)

The problem with your approach is primarily, IMO, that what you're seeing at 1:1 pixel peeping is likely irrelevant at digital display sizes/resolutions and at rational print resolutions. So what are you really looking at? I think you're just looking at an image at such a large magnification that it's falling apart. At those sizes, what are you really judging and of what value are your observations to display or print sizes/output. If the answer is "not much" then the exercise is interesting but not of use for improving your photography or tweaking your AF system.

>-In assessing gear I find it easier to see minute difference
>in image quality.
>For example if I am testing equipment subtle differences are
>not apparent to my eye between kit lens and pro lenses which
>become visible at 1:1 crop.

I think you've hit an important point. If subtle differences are "not apparent to my eye" when comparing certain lenses as you mentioned, then they may not be relevant at all. Examine anything closely enough and you'll find apparent flaws that are not discernable with the unaided eye. That is the nature of things. That is the nature of magnifying a digital image beyond the point where it can be displayed or printed in any useful way. Similarly, I once examined the edge of a freshly sharpened and stropped knife under high magnification, only to find that the edge was jagged. Of course it's supposed to look like that under high magnification, so there was no other reason to think the knife would not hold its edge and cut well and it did both of those things. High magnification often reveals only the component parts or the detail of how something is assembled, but not how an image is supposed to normally appear or print.

>-I recently was evaluating a non-nikon portrait zoom and
>compared to my old 35-70 zoom (a lens much posted about due to
>? backfocusing issues) I did 6 test shots with each lens at
>35 and 70 mm focal lengths and opened up to 2.8. When images
>viewed at normal viewing in lightroom there was not much
>difference. When viewed 1:1 the difference was dramatic and
>consistent. I decided not to purchase the new zoom given this
>info. I may not have come to this conclusion if I did not
>pixel peep.

I think the important thing to derive from your test in this case is that at normal viewing sizes/view magnifications, there was insufficient difference to warrant the purchase of the other lens. Once again, using a view magnification high enough to start revealing individual pixels is not very useful.

The software used by retouchers (Photoshop mainly) is frequently used with enormous images - 400MB and larger - based on either medium format digital images or drum-scanned medium or large format film. Retouchers need lots and lots of pixels to move around. All of the features used by retouchers - the people who really beat up on Photoshop year after year after year - have over the years filtered down to the software that common photographers use regularly (ACDSee Pro, Capture NX/NX2, Lightroom, etc.. etc.). That software we use contains the ability to view digital images at absurdly high magnifications. All that we're doing when we use those magnifications - most of the time - is revealing the limits of the image sizes/resolutions (compared to the ones used by retouchers) provided by APS-C and full frame digital cameras. Note that I wrote "limits" not flaws.

Where is pixel peeping useful with 5mp-16mp images? For certain kinds of retouching of course! Use ACDSee Pro to magnify an image to 400%, then click Repair Tool/Clone to start getting rid of the blemishes on somebody's face.

Using pixel peeping to determine relative differences in lens sharpness is very, very hard to do, the results are most often either inconsistent or unreproducible by someone else using the exact same equipment.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
JohnE Nikon Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jun 2010Fri 25-Mar-11 04:56 PM
902 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 2


New HArtford, US
          

>>There are a few reasons why I may pixel peep.
>>
>>While I have never printed a 30 x 50 inch print I
>sometimes
>>find it helpful for the following reasons;
>>
>>-With my wildlife photography I am limited by 340mm max
>focal
>>length. I often get near the limitations of cropping when
>my
>>subject is far away and I need/ want to fill the frame
>more.
>>This is like printing a 30x 50 inch print.
>
>Good point. But all photography shooting situations impose
>limits of some sort. The limits may be minor and even
>completely inconsequential, or they may be significant in some
>way. The point is, that if we don't get the framing and
>composition right in the first place - in camera - because we
>simply can't get physically close enough to a bird in order to
>make it fill the viewfinder using the body and lens we've
>chosen, pixel peeping isn't going to help. Either we have to
>get closer to that particular subject or just forget about it
>to concentrate on closer subjects - better subjects if you
>will. Put another way, if the gear we're using on a particular
>day provides its narrowest angle of view equivalent of 340mm
>and our subject has to be shot at 500mm to fill the frame,
>it's not a great choice of subject.
>
>Working at the long limit or the short/wide limit with most
>zoom lenses does not make the best use of those lenses.
>They're just not performing at their best at either extreme.


I agree its not the best, but if I can get a sharper image at 100% it will allow me to cheat and get an image where otherwise would have none.
The higher MP lets me cheat and get the image I would otherwise have needed a 500mm for. When "cheating" like this image quality is highly susceptible to lens quality but more importantly to technique.
>
>>-When I have a problem determining which image I should
>use I
>>may decide by viewing 1:1 to determine which is sharper.
>(My
>>rational is that my computer screen has a lower
>resolution
>>than a print. Image softness may become apparent in a
>print
>>that was not apparent on screen.)
>
>The problem with your approach is primarily, IMO, that what
>you're seeing at 1:1 pixel peeping is likely irrelevant at
>digital display sizes/resolutions and at rational print
>resolutions. So what are you really looking at? I think you're
>just looking at an image at such a large magnification that
>it's falling apart. At those sizes, what are you really
>judging and of what value are your observations to display or
>print sizes/output. If the answer is "not much" then
>the exercise is interesting but not of use for improving your
>photography or tweaking your AF system.

You may be correct but if I can't decide on which image to use based on more important criteria composition, exposure, subject appearance etc instead of flipping a coin I use sharpness at 100%.
>
>>-In assessing gear I find it easier to see minute
>difference
>>in image quality.
>>For example if I am testing equipment subtle differences
>are
>>not apparent to my eye between kit lens and pro lenses
>which
>>become visible at 1:1 crop.
>
>I think you've hit an important point. If subtle differences
>are "not apparent to my eye" when comparing certain
>lenses as you mentioned, then they may not be relevant at all.
>Examine anything closely enough and you'll find apparent flaws
>that are not discernable with the unaided eye. That is the
>nature of things. That is the nature of magnifying a digital
>image beyond the point where it can be displayed or printed in
>any useful way. Similarly, I once examined the edge of a
>freshly sharpened and stropped knife under high magnification,
>only to find that the edge was jagged. Of course it's supposed
>to look like that under high magnification, so there was no
>other reason to think the knife would not hold its edge and
>cut well and it did both of those things. High magnification
>often reveals only the component parts or the detail of how
>something is assembled, but not how an image is supposed to
>normally appear or print.
>
>>-I recently was evaluating a non-nikon portrait zoom and
>>compared to my old 35-70 zoom (a lens much posted about
>due to
>>? backfocusing issues) I did 6 test shots with each lens
>at
>>35 and 70 mm focal lengths and opened up to 2.8. When
>images
>>viewed at normal viewing in lightroom there was not much
>>difference. When viewed 1:1 the difference was dramatic
>and
>>consistent. I decided not to purchase the new zoom given
>this
>>info. I may not have come to this conclusion if I did
>not
>>pixel peep.
>
>I think the important thing to derive from your test in this
>case is that at normal viewing sizes/view
>magnifications, there was insufficient difference to warrant
>the purchase of the other lens. Once again, using a view
>magnification high enough to start revealing individual pixels
>is not very useful.
>
>The software used by retouchers (Photoshop mainly) is
>frequently used with enormous images - 400MB and larger -
>based on either medium format digital images or drum-scanned
>medium or large format film. Retouchers need lots and lots of
>pixels to move around. All of the features used by retouchers
>- the people who really beat up on Photoshop year after year
>after year - have over the years filtered down to the software
>that common photographers use regularly (ACDSee Pro, Capture
>NX/NX2, Lightroom, etc.. etc.). That software we use contains
>the ability to view digital images at absurdly high
>magnifications. All that we're doing when we use those
>magnifications - most of the time - is revealing the limits of
>the image sizes/resolutions (compared to the ones used by
>retouchers) provided by APS-C and full frame digital cameras.
>Note that I wrote "limits" not flaws.
>
>Where is pixel peeping useful with 5mp-16mp images? For
>certain kinds of retouching of course! Use ACDSee Pro to
>magnify an image to 400%, then click Repair Tool/Clone to
>start getting rid of the blemishes on somebody's face.
>
>Using pixel peeping to determine relative differences in lens
>sharpness is very, very hard to do, the results are most often
>either inconsistent or unreproducible by someone else using
>the exact same equipment.
>

I guess pixel peeping was my only way of distinguishing the lenses so that was what I used. When assessing new equipment I'm not sure how else I could distinguish the difference between 2 lenses, especially if I can't evaluate a lens at home over an extended period of time.

To my eye at f8 my 55-200 kit lens is as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 vrii when viewed normally. When pixel peeping or cropping is when I can see the difference and just barely.

JohnE Nikon
https://plus.google.com/photos/104310967428146619677/albums?hl=en

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Fri 25-Mar-11 07:03 PM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 4


Toronto, CA
          


>To my eye at f8 my 55-200 kit lens is as sharp as my 70-200
>2.8 vrii when viewed normally. When pixel peeping or cropping
>is when I can see the difference and just barely.

Precisely. Nikon and all the other top lens makers have for years been telling us that all their lenses are sharp. So it's reasonable then to suggest the best way of comparing various lenses is to observe differences in contrast, distortion, CA and build quality.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
JohnE Nikon Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jun 2010Fri 25-Mar-11 07:30 PM
902 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 6
Fri 25-Mar-11 09:51 PM by briantilley

New HArtford, US
          


Thanks.

For the non pro unless your really need wide aperture it seems to be wasteful to get pro glass. Distortion and CA is automatically fixed in Lightroom on my import. I can always bump up contrast in post as well although I realize having more contrast before manipulation is better.

As far as build quality again, the Nikon kit lenses have gone up mountains in subzero weather, in the dusty southwest, on the beach , x-country skiing etc. with me with no problems. I never dropped my glass but have bumped a few things and when hiking and climbing I often have my camera out of the case because I find I will not take a picture if I have to slow down to retrieve and replace it. To spend 5-10x on glass for build quality if you are not a pro shooting 8 hours a day would seem wasteful IMHO.

I have read over and over to invest in glass and not a camera but am starting to wonder how valid this advice is.

JohnE Nikon
https://plus.google.com/photos/104310967428146619677/albums?hl=en

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Sat 26-Mar-11 02:51 AM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 7


Toronto, CA
          


>For the non pro unless your really need wide aperture it seems
>to be wasteful to get pro glass. Distortion and CA is
>To spend 5-10x on glass for
>build quality if you are not a pro shooting 8 hours a day
>would seem wasteful IMHO.
>
>I have read over and over to invest in glass and not a camera
>but am starting to wonder how valid this advice is.

It's been emphasized frequently in a variety of threads on Nikonians - one recent one in particular with which you may be familiar - that most photographers get far more out of their current camera body and lens by improving technique and by repeated use which helps the photographer learn to recognize preferential photo ops, lighting and subjects in/with which their familiar set of gear performs best. The more we use a particular camera and lens, the better we understand its limits and, more important, its capabilities.

I disagree with Malcolm Gladwell's proclamation in his book, Outliers, that it takes approximately 10 years or 10,000 hours of dedicated practice to become expert at a vocation or profession. His observations are, to say the least, unscientific. That said, there is no question in any rational mind that consistently dedicated and regularly practiced photography must take place, in the main, over hundreds (if not thousands) of hours before the practitioner is capable of producing salable photos or photos worthy of printing and framing or photos worthy of inclusion in a genuinely interesting slide show, and so on. Then again, practice without perspective and constructive criticism - peer review, essentially - may be largely pointless. There are exceptional photographers out there who learn much faster and achieve a high level of quality, accuracy or vision quite quickly - but they're uncommon.

So how does one achieve hundreds or thousands of hours of photography practice? I think it's done by picking a set of gear (it's hard to find a bad combination choice among Nikon camera bodies and Nikkor lenses) which suits the creative need, using it exclusively for months or years, and resisting adding more gear. As the person gets better at photography, public posting of photos invites constructive criticsm, compliments and unfortunately some derision too. But as long as the photographer pays attention to the criticism, enjoys the compliments, ignores the derision and keeps working with the same combination of gear, he or she will only get better and better.

That's why so many photography contests are led by winners and runners-up who use older non-pro gear or older pro gear. They have come to know it so well and have used it for so long and have improved through constructive criticism to the point where they're getting the very best out of the gear in a way which clearly reflects their photography vision.

The more often people introduce new lenses and new camera bodies into their camera bags, the more they dilute the amount of attention and time they have to spend with any particular combination. Frequently, the result is that their photography either does not improve, or improves very slowly, or in some extreme cases actually deteriorates.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
JohnE Nikon Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jun 2010Sat 26-Mar-11 11:21 PM
902 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 10


New HArtford, US
          

Howard,
Instructive post.


>
>I disagree with Malcolm Gladwell's proclamation in his book,
>Outliers, that it takes approximately 10 years or 10,000 hours
>of dedicated practice to become expert at a vocation or
>profession. His observations are, to say the least,
>unscientific.

I just finished reading Visual Poetry by Chris Orwig. He uses the same quote and goes on to describe why it is not valid and may stifle the aspiring photographer. After shooting a profound photo he realized his preparation for the photo was 315,569 hours (his life). Who we are determines what we see.

>
>The more often people introduce new lenses and new camera
>bodies into their camera bags, the more they dilute the amount
>of attention and time they have to spend with any particular
>combination. Frequently, the result is that their photography
>either does not improve, or improves very slowly, or in some
>extreme cases actually deteriorates.
>
I could not agree more and now barely read anything about new gear. I'm trying to optimize what I have and it already seems like too much.

JohnE Nikon
https://plus.google.com/photos/104310967428146619677/albums?hl=en

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

visionguru Registered since 03rd Nov 2008Fri 25-Mar-11 05:37 PM
210 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 0


Chicago, US
          

>While pixel peeping does demand the most of your lenses and
>technique I do think it has its place,

Not only pixel peeping has its place, but also it's the only way a camera maker can push the technology to the next level. What's the point of having more pixels if one doesn't care about their performances?

99% of my pictures will never print. 99% of my pirnted pictures are 4x6 or less. Shouldn't I be happy with a webcam?

I understand that for professional photographers, pictures are taken for clients, as long as they look good at certain print size or certain sized screen, mission accomplished. For people like myself, a picture is a captured moment, I want every single pixel carrying as much information as possible, of course I'm pixel peeping


Jay
- Chicago Nikonian

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Sat 26-Mar-11 02:08 PM
3862 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 5


Toronto, CA
          


>99% of my pictures will never print. 99% of my pirnted
>pictures are 4x6 or less. Shouldn't I be happy with a webcam?

One thing doesn't follow the other mainly because you've chosen the lowest possible camera quality (a webcam) as a comparator. You, and all the rest of us too, are way beyond that here. Webcams aren't even satisfying for people engaged in Skype/video web calls. Webcams are just a stopgap until bandwidth improves to the point where better quality/higher resolutions are routinely possible. I don't think webcams have any place in a creative photography discussion. Then again, Chase Jarvis and his slightly-better-than-webcam-quality iPhone photography might shake up that notion.

>I understand that for professional photographers, pictures are
>taken for clients, as long as they look good at certain print
>size or certain sized screen, mission accomplished. For people
>like myself, a picture is a captured moment, I want every
>single pixel carrying as much information as possible, of
>course I'm pixel peeping

I think that's a somewhat baleful and somewhat narrowly categorized opinion of professional photographers. All of the professional photographers I know (half a dozen, not more) strive on a daily basis to create "captured moments" as you so aptly put it.

Some professionals (thousands upon thousands of them actually) are wedding photographers who have to be so on top of their game at every wedding that they employ assistants so that the drudge work at every wedding can be handled while the photographer concentrates on photography. A successful professional photographer shooting a wedding understands better than most of us that the particular wedding will take place only once, and that each moment which passes by unrecorded is a moment that will never happen again for that wedding couple. That photographer has to be preternaturally alert, tremendously creative, fast and thoroughly familiar with his/her gear in order to be successful. So I think most pro photographers - obviously I'm not referring to shooters doing catalog work in a studio with fixed lighting and an assembly line of 1,200 product shots to get through - are as creative and as keenly focused on creating "captured moments" as anyone else doing photography.

Similarly, successful professional photojournalists are only those ones who manage to capture the essence of important or dramatic or gleeful or tragic moments in their efforts to support news stories. The photos produced by professional photojournalists who don't achieve that standard are often not published, and the PJ who produces only workmanlike photos gets far less work.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Sat 26-Mar-11 03:47 PM
1896 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 5


US
          

>99% of my pictures will never print. 99% of my pirnted
>pictures are 4x6 or less. Shouldn't I be happy with a webcam?
>

If all you are doing is printing 4x6 family album snapshots or web posting, well then yeah maybe you could be happy with a web cam.

Howard already covered the limited creative ability point, but another is pixel resolution. For web posting even a 2MP camera is overkill being that to display the image full screen you would need to down-sample it anyway. And printing your D7000 images at 4x6 you are also throwing away significant amount resolution whether you realize it or not (I don’t believe there is a color printer out there presently that can print at 821 PPI).

It really depends on you intent. And sometimes the camera you have with you is the best one. For instance this was taken with my 1.9MP cell phone of a brazen duck that thought nothing of walking within 3 feet of my high octane GSD (luck for the duck she is well obedience trained).



Can you tell it was a low quality camera that took it, well yes you can. Did my wife almost fall off of her desk chair laughing when I text this picture to her at work, yes she did and it brightened her day. Will I be printing this out even at 4x6, I doubt it. Would I have gotten a better image if I had my D7000 with me, probably.

But the image served its purpose, and that was brightening my wife’s day at work with a picture of her baby in a funny circumstance. Not all pictures need to be a work of art.

Pete



Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

dm1dave Administrator Awarded for high level knowledge and skills in various areas, most notably in Wildlife and Landscape Nikonian since 12th Sep 2006Fri 25-Mar-11 07:58 PM
11059 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 0


Lowden, US
          

Good post John!

I agree that viewing at 100% has its uses.

I use 100% magnification when sorting and choosing between similar images and sometime just to marvel at the detail that can be captured. I usually make my final determination of image sharpness and decide what to keep or toss by viewing at 50% though

Dave Summers
Lowden, Iowa
Nikonians Photo Contest Director

Nikonians membership -
"My most important photographic investment, after the camera"

My Nikonians Gallery | SummersPhotoGraphic.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showcase your best work in any of our 7 Monthly Nikonians Photo contests.

Wildlife | Landscape | Macro | Sports | Travel | Underwater | Online Assignments| Best of 2014

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

JPJ Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Aug 2009Fri 25-Mar-11 11:31 PM
1327 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri 25-Mar-11 11:32 PM by JPJ

Toronto, CA
          

John,

You make some good points, although remember no one is going to view a 30"x50" print at as close a distance as you view images on a computer monitor at 100%.

Sadly, we only seem to see 100% viewing posts accompanied by claims such as:

- all Nikon <insert model> have faulty AF
- all Nikon <insert model> produce soft images
- my lens and/or camera body front and/or back focuses, but not all the time and not always the same way.

etc, etc.

100% viewing gets a bad rep because of these threads imo. It certainly has its uses. I use it when I sharpen as has been suggested in this thread and another, but I don't judge overall sharpness at 100%.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Sat 26-Mar-11 11:33 AM
2669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 0


Kingston, CA
          

@John: good thread, thanks. I'd argue however that we've got the wrong definition of pixel peepers. I view pixel peepers as individuals who obsess at the edge of some technological performance parameter (e.g., sharpness) at the expense of the original intent, making emotion evoking images. Non-pixel peepers view images at 100% as it is a familiar zoom benchmark for comparisons between images and in between image manipulations (e.g., how badly did I accentuate the noise in that sharpening step).

@Howard: well said!

Peter

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
JohnE Nikon Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jun 2010Sat 26-Mar-11 11:24 PM
902 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 11


New HArtford, US
          

Thanks Peter.
I agree and am probably not really a pixel peeper.
Maybe I should have titled this; "Why do I view 1:1 images".
But this does not seem as catchy of a title.

JohnE Nikon
https://plus.google.com/photos/104310967428146619677/albums?hl=en

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Sun 27-Mar-11 01:34 AM
2669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: Why do I pixel Peep?"
In response to Reply # 15


Kingston, CA
          

Agreed pixel peeper is a catchy title.

I think all of your reasons for viewing at 1:1 are good ones.

Cheers,
Peter

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #7403 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.