For those interested in facts....

[phancj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good thread for pixel peepers. 100% crops do nothing for me, stnami has a point in that more emphasis should be put on the photography and what the image conveys to us, which is where I sit. The Digilux 2 and E-P1 do all I want as far as gear is concerned, no matter what the 4/3 or M4/3 bashers think, leaving me to concentrate on the photography and not continually wishing my gear was just that little bit better. There are lots of people out there using M4/3 and taking great photographs. We don't hear artists continually bickering about the best brushes, canvases and paint brands - its all in their hands and eyes. Likewise photography.

 

Thats very true up to a certain extent. However, high iso performance, higher mp, smaller camera bodies allow us to take in dimmer circumstances, more freedom for cropping, bring our cameras out more often, I hardly consider it trivial.

 

Pixel peeping takes a lot of slamming and may distract from the photography itself, or may not depending on your own personal motivation. I like pixel peeping as I then know which sensor/camera/lens is the best at the point in time, and keep abreast of new technology.

 

At the same time, I also have respect for those who choose to "freeze" in time to a certain technology that will suit their needs and see no need for upgrade. Really, to each his own.

 

But to be condescending to any party is being judgmental and narrow-minded.

 

There is no way to envisage a situation where camera makers say enough is enough, likewise for photographers! Progress is unstoppable, but you can choose to follow, or stay behind. Either way is fine as long as you are happy, but do not judge others based on your personal standards.

[RichardM8]

Because you have chosen to have these two images hosted on an external site, I cannot see them and I will have to wait until I get home to respond to your comment.

 

I understand. They are detail crops that only show about 1/10th of the original images. Hardly copyright sensitive imo but I could be wrong. I used an external site this time because I didn't want to 'squeeze' them in size and make the comparison (even) less accurate.

[phancj]

I understand. They are detail crops that only show about 1/10th of the original images. Hardly copyright sensitive imo but I could be wrong. I used an external site this time because I didn't want to 'squeeze' them in size and make the comparison (even) less accurate.

 

Funny coz I can view both pictures directly on this post.

[andybarton]

Many corporate firewalls block photo hosting sites (due to copyright or "suitability" reasons, or whatever). Anyone who posts photograohs hosted on these sites runs the risk that a fair proportion of their intended audience will never see them.

[bill]

Pixel peeping takes a lot of slamming and may distract from the photography itself, or may not depending on your own personal motivation. I like pixel peeping as I then know which sensor/camera/lens is the best at the point in time, and keep abreast of new technology.

 

The problem with pixel peeping is that it has no place in the real world. Do you judge a beach by the grains of sand, or a cake by the crumbs? Do you judge a beautiful woman by her pores? If pixel-peeping had any value this thread and all it's 866 responses would not exist.

 

Judge the whole, not the part. Look in the round, don't obsess with the detail.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[RichardM8]

Now let's see if there are cameras that look great on pixel level and also look great viewing the images. Ah yes... plenty of those.

 

Now a camera that looks bad on pixel level but the images still look great. Errmm....

 

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now a camera that looks bad on pixel level but the images still look great. Errmm....

 

If you pixel peep scanned film, compared to digital the display won't look great - noise/grain, lack of detail.

 

The strange thing is prints - via inkjet - can still look superb. As Bill says you need to look (literally) at the bigger picture. Defects at 100% can disappear when viewed normally.

[tom0511]

I dont see a conflict between gear-discussion and photography.

 

One thing is the tool and the other is the process.

 

The process of phorography itself is also not necessarly independent from gear.

First the gear has to fulfil some functions and a certain quality to allow to do the process.

But there is also a subjective factor - even in my case if I like the gear than I also seem to enjoy photography if I enjoy the gear.

 

Also in my case I enjoy photography more if I have the feeling that the IQ I can get is high. If I carry a small sensor jpg camera I am often afraid that I could get a great shot and not be able to print it in a size and quality I would want.

 

I also do like to know the limits of the gear I have. For example I allways knew the M8 for my expectations is fine until 640ISO and if Iwould go higher I had to expect compromises.

 

I believe its clear that a good camera alone doesnt make a good image, and talking about gear doesnt either.

[tom0511]

Now let's see if there are cameras that look great on pixel level and also look great viewing the images. Ah yes... plenty of those.

 

Now a camera that looks bad on pixel level but the images still look great. Errmm....

 

 

also depends how many pixel you have and at what size and resolution you want to print;)

[phancj]

I dont see a conflict between gear-discussion and photography.

 

One thing is the tool and the other is the process.

 

The process of phorography itself is also not necessarly independent from gear.

First the gear has to fulfil some functions and a certain quality to allow to do the process.

But there is also a subjective factor - even in my case if I like the gear than I also seem to enjoy photography if I enjoy the gear.

 

Also in my case I enjoy photography more if I have the feeling that the IQ I can get is high. If I carry a small sensor jpg camera I am often afraid that I could get a great shot and not be able to print it in a size and quality I would want.

 

I also do like to know the limits of the gear I have. For example I allways knew the M8 for my expectations is fine until 640ISO and if Iwould go higher I had to expect compromises.

 

I believe its clear that a good camera alone doesnt make a good image, and talking about gear doesnt either.

 

Agreed, but we can take nice pictures AND talk about gear and pixel peep as a diversion. No harm in that?

[phancj]

The problem with pixel peeping is that it has no place in the real world. Do you judge a beach by the grains of sand, or a cake by the crumbs? Do you judge a beautiful woman by her pores? If pixel-peeping had any value this thread and all it's 866 responses would not exist.

 

Judge the whole, not the part. Look in the round, don't obsess with the detail.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Pixel peeping per se does not help photography, but may influence choice of equipment which might.

 

We can still take great pictures using our current equipment and still chat about gear and pixel-peep as a diversion and with a view to maybe the next gear we acquire surely that does not ruin our photography?

 

Details can be important, whether you see it or not, or maybe not now but in future.

 

Meanwhile, we can still take great photos and enjoy some pixel peeping and gear talk, unless it is not your cup of tea.

[RichardM8]

Well said phancj.

 

The thread started about IQ and pixel peeping so if it doesn't have your interest or even irritates you, don't read or respond. Easy enough. Way better than to jump on the pulpit to tell people how wrong they are, don't understand what it's all about etc...

[Guest badbob]

Pixel peeping takes a lot of slamming and may distract from the photography itself, or may not depending on your own personal motivation. I like pixel peeping as I then know which sensor/camera/lens is the best at the point in time, and keep abreast of new technology.

 

When I'm editing an image, I keep several windows open with different views of the image in progress, at different view levels. The actual editing mostly (but not always) takes place at 100 percent, sometimes 200 percent or more if correcting bad artifacts. In any case, I always monitor what I'm doing with a normal view of the full image fitted to the screen, because editing any other way will compromise the final result.

[johnwolf]

Judging by the amount of "print talk" on this forum most here don't even print photos and just either look at them on a backlit screen or as net images so all this IQ talk is pretty much bullshit as the images are srgb and of a small gammut space and 256 unique sRGB colour values.

 

...... and yes I do print my own images.

 

I find myself agreeing with Imants a lot lately. (Should I be worried?)

 

Seriously, I lost confidence in online comparisons when I started printing regularly. My 5DII files, for example, clearly beat my GF1 files when viewed on a monitor. But I can't see any differences in prints of a reasonable size. And I doubt the X1 or other Leica digital bodies would change that.

 

But online display is a viable medium now, and many use it alone. So comparisons are reasonable, but probably only at typical web sizes. Of course, that's as great an equalizer as a print.

 

And then there's the issue of post-processing and printing skills, which seem to me to be at least as important as, if not more so, than camera/lens combination.

 

John

[phancj]

When I'm editing an image, I keep several windows open with different views of the image in progress, at different view levels. The actual editing mostly (but not always) takes place at 100 percent, sometimes 200 percent or more if correcting bad artifacts. In any case, I always monitor what I'm doing with a normal view of the full image fitted to the screen, because editing any other way will compromise the final result.

 

Precisely, and I believe that to be really prudent and good practice IMHO always better to be safe than sorry. But some are of the opinion we only need to do what is good for the print size, but what if we want larger prints? I believe in doing the best, and that involves what many will see as pixel peeping. Come to think of it when is pixel peeping considered that? At 100%? 150%?There is no clear definition. We are all pixel peeping here, if you ask me, thats digital photography. It's all pixels, no?

[andybarton]

This thread is making me very depressed, I have to say.

[phancj]

I find myself agreeing with Imants a lot lately. (Should I be worried?)

 

Seriously, I lost confidence in online comparisons when I started printing regularly. My 5DII files, for example, clearly beat my GF1 files when viewed on a monitor. But I can't see any differences in prints of a reasonable size. And I doubt the X1 or other Leica digital bodies would change that.

 

But online display is a viable medium now, and many use it alone. So comparisons are reasonable, but probably only at typical web sizes. Of course, that's as great an equalizer as a print.

 

And then there's the issue of post-processing and printing skills, which seem to me to be at least as important as, if not more so, than camera/lens combination.

 

John

 

It depends on the print size we are looking at, and future proofing our requirements. You may want to blow up a picture that has grown on you over the years, and what a bummer if coz you thought it was sufficient at 5MP so what then? Some may consider photographs treasures of fond memories and would like to future-proof as much as they can. I for one believe I should invest in the best technology I can afford so down the road I will not be found wanting too much. You are entitled to disagree.

[stunsworth]

You may want to blow up a picture that has grown on you over the years, and what a bummer if coz you thought it was sufficient at 5MP so what then?

 

I've sold 40"x30" prints that were taken with a Canon 300D with a 6 mp sensor. I could have sold a billboard sized version of the same prints. Walk up to a billboard and look at the image. It will look crap. From a sensible viewing distance it will look just fine.

[Guest stnami]

Andy photography as it was say a decade ago has been through a radical change most of the old values don't seem to fit the digital worlds.

 

Still photographers especially PJs struggle and are forced into photographic essays, the hobbiest in inandated with millions of images everyday on the wwwdot world. The only guys who are pretty much still on the beaten track are the ones involved in advertising their horizons have been enhanced with the coming of digital.

 

The pixel peepers who are the loudest voices on forums have sacrificed visual aesthetics for image quality and the camera companies are just that: camera companies.

 

One redeeming feature is PhotoShop and the likes that have allowed many to go beyond photography and others to enhance their traditional style of image making. Sure playstation(PhotoShop) has also created a lot of so called negative situations but all in all it has been a blessing for photographers especially with the advent of applications such as aperture, lightroom capture one etc

 

So there are reasons for some to be in a depressed state when we see facebook etc as the greatest vehicles of photography today where the image role is basically to show and inform on a everyday, "this is not exceptional" level ......... or as in many cases on a very trivial level. But that too has some great benefits but few for the "serious" photo hobbiest.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[andybarton]

What I find depressing is that we are expected to have to pixel-peep at 150% to correct aberrations in images in order to make them acceptable.

 

Nowadays, it appears that we need to have software correction of Leica lenses, for crying out loud.

 

No. We. Don't.

 

There is a better way, if only we would open our eyes to see it.

 

Why don't people just go out and take photographs and enjoy them any more?

 

Furthermore, why do we need to navel-gaze at 150% pixel level to see whether the lens on our £1200 compact is as good as a 50mm Summilux on a £5,000 digital body? For that is what is being implied here. HELLO! It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It isn't.

 

A £1200 camera isn't going to give you the same quality as a £8000 camera and lens. That £8000 camera and lens won't give you the same quality as a £25000 camera and lens. That's life.

 

Good grief - I need a holiday.