For those interested in facts....

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Andy "they" do go out and take photos and enjoy themselves it is just that they post on facebook etc ......... that is the place of the contented photographer

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[andybarton]

Understood.

[Guest stnami]

See here photography is sacrificed for IQ or lack of and being up there with the pixies...............

 

....overcast this morning, gonna grab the old epson and even older leica lens and take a shot or two while riding my "newish technology " electric scooter .. image taken with the old D2 technology at low resolution thus net friendly:D

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest stnami]

.......... canned that idea it started raining...........probably a lost cause anyway, my camera was 7 million effective pixels short to take a photo I only have 5 million

[phancj]

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.

 

Yup, but it would be nice to have details that are captured with a larger or better sensor? And wouldnt it be nice if you can walk up closer and the images are still good and do not look like crap? And what is a sensible distance? One cannot dictate these things, so the best way is to do the best possible so the print can look passably good at all distances, not the artificially prescribed viewing distance?

 

I personally find photos blown up by software resizing wanting in finer details and unappealing, as compared to images captured at the maximum resolution. We are in the 21st century here, and must try to harness the latest technology to do the best possible prints.

 

 

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.

 

I think people's expectations of image quality has changed, so apart from composition, lighting, now with digital photography its also about digital PP, sensor/lens/image processing algorithm in camera so a whole lot more variables are brought in.

 

Of course a $1000 cam is not gonna be like a $8000 cam, but with a lesser price difference the difference in image quality captured by the camera can be negated with proper use of software and technology. Hence I believe pixel peeping allows us to bridge that difference.

 

The die hard Leica purist may frown on this, and I respect the heritage and principle and all that but end of the day it is about creating the best photos we can, and a lot of that involves correct harnessing of sensor and PP, pixel peeping will become more important.

 

Sorry if I am responsible even to the least bit of contributing to your depression. and hope you get your holiday soon.

[h00ligan]

What is the scooter shot supposed to show us? A blurry mundane image? You can do better, I've seen it.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really dont see the problem.

 

We can pixelpeep and I can still enjoy taking photographs.

 

We can be interested in equipment and still understand that equipment is just the tool.

 

I have nice prints from 5 or 6MP cameras which still look fine, and at the same time I can be fascinated by the detail I can see in a big print from a medium format back.

 

(By the way it is and was the same IMO with 35mm film vs medium format film etc.)

 

I am also fascinated that we finally have small cameras like a x1 or m4/3 which give us many options as tools for creative photography in a small size.

 

Sometimes it sounds like talking about equipment or technical image quality would make us worse photographers. I dont believe so. IMO it doesnt hurt to learn the capabilities buit also the limits of our equipment. And for people reading forums can help to know what they can expect when they buy certain equipment.

 

The fact that some people take it as a personal "my brand .... is bigger and better than yours"-discussion is something else which I have never understood.

As well as the theses that talking about gear should make as worse photographers.

[Guest stnami]

What is the scooter shot supposed to show us?

...........it is about information who cares about pixels and focus you saw it as a scooter that's all that matters.

[Guest badbob]

Of course a $1000 cam is not gonna be like a $8000 cam, but with a lesser price difference the difference in image quality captured by the camera can be negated with proper use of software and technology. Hence I believe pixel peeping allows us to bridge that difference.

 

This would apply across the board, from $100 cameras to whatever, yes? The trick is knowing when to cut it off so you can spend more time shooting and viewing the results, and less time fixing.

[h00ligan]

...........it is about information who cares about pixels and focus you saw it as a scooter that's all that matters.

 

I see, so your point was that most people shoot things that aren't really art so it doesn't matter? You can show me a car shot with a webcam, but I'd rather look at one shot with *fill in modern camera here, or classic film, with nice lens* assuming it's the same shooter.

[phancj]

This would apply across the board, from $100 cameras to whatever, yes? The trick is knowing when to cut it off so you can spend more time shooting and viewing the results, and less time fixing.

 

Remember it also help you decide which camera to buy, so we have less fixing to do. Pixel peeping is perfect for that. Having said that, you are right, we should concentrate on the photos...

[Guest stnami]

Hooligan In the majority as long as the photo looks good and one can see what they are supposed to see is sufficient.

 

.......... about sony .............. large sensor + ok lens = great image for the net. That is where most images are viewed. The old photographic values no longer apply in the world of...... look - ahmmn - delete image.................not many put a photo on the wall and the only photo in a wallet is ID or a licence these days. Very few so called "camera nuts" or even those on this forum that see themselves as photographers print photos. Do you print large photos on a regular basis say about 30-50 a year?

 

Here on Leica there is only one vision and that is of Dr. Andreas Kaufmann, one thing is made quite clear is that it is the m rangefinder that is of central importance at leica not the Xs, Luxes or even the S2.

[tom0511]

Stnami,

Even though I would agree that overall there are probably much less people who print there are still quite some people the chance that it is quite simple to make bigger prints today at home and buy an Epson 3800 or anything similar.

Those few that I know inlcluding myself do not print that much but we do print (and in my case most often in larger sizes) and for my part I can not share the opinion that images on screen which I have printed later look totally different depending on the media.

Most often an image which looks crappy on screen also looks crappy in print, and the other way around.

When printing bigger resolution does help imo - of course you normally dont stick your nose in a 50x70cm print - but it is a nice experience if you look at it from a closer distance and still find additional detail. Not a must for certain subjects and images, but doesnt hurt for my taste.

I think there are different ways to look at an image. For some its maybe only the message, the feeling, the situation which is shown on the image that matters,

others might also/additionally take the technical image quality into account additionally.

I am something in between and in my case it also depends a lot on the subject of the image.

[Guest stnami]

Image process for the screen are different to ones for printing, factors such as dynamic range, colour space, density of colour, balance of hues dpi, sharpness, contrast etc all of these are processed in a different manner(or should be).

All the stuff I do for the net I make with that media in mind which includes file size that I keep to a minimum so all can view. In many places the internet is still dial up and not capable of handling extensive downloading. Places like twitter facebook links etc file size is minimum thus a loss of quality but it gets to a wider audience.

[Danielsan]

the scooter image looks kind of not sharp

[tom0511]

I am sure you are right .. I am not very experienced in PP anyways and most of the times I only adjust exp, WB and a little bit tones and sharpening. I found a paper where the print (when using the propper profile) looks pretty close to what I see on my screen which makes life easy. Most of the times I only might brighten the image a little bit up, resize and apply some sharpening for the print.

[timd.]

For those interested in facts....

 

i guess if the x1 hadn't been superior (at iso 100), nobody would have called this test 'fact' but 'typical photomagazine industry sponsored rubbish'

[pop]

i guess if the x1 hadn't been superior (at iso 100), nobody would have called this test 'fact' but 'typical photomagazine industry sponsored rubbish'

 

It has, and they have. Where's your proof?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[timd.]

It has, and they have. Where's your proof?

 

what's your point? did i say the test was not correct?

i didn't. at iso 100 the x1 has been attested superior iq.

 

being luf-member for >5 years now i get the impression that, whenever a test is brought up with a leica product scoring higher than others everybody's pointing out how superior in general leica cameras are, and that they've always known.

if the result was different, and others were better, the test maybe the test will be mentioned here, but with the additional important information that the test itself was not properly executed, like 'you can't compare an m-leica to a dslr, it's totally different' or the 'photo magazines are all biased by the mostly japanese camera industry, and leica doesn't have that big sponsoring money, which leaves them no chance', which i mentioned above.

 

have you never seen anything like that around here? do i really have to invest 5 minutes? do i have to proof my personal impression?

[Guest badbob]

Remember it also help you decide which camera to buy, so we have less fixing to do. Pixel peeping is perfect for that. Having said that.

 

My view of pixel peeping is this: When I see noise or something comparably bad in a photo at normal view, I don't need to pixel peep because I can see clearly what my limits are as far as modifying or cropping that image. But when I don't see noise or other problems like pixel smear in fine detail areas like hair (etc.), pixel peeping lets me know immediately how much latitude I have to make changes. And if I don't want or need to make changes, it lets me know how far below the threshold of perception the bad stuff lies. By knowing that, I know whether people with sharper eyes than mine might detect noise or smear etc. And if the bad is far enough below that threshold that sharp-eyed people won't see it consciously, I can still estimate how they might perceive the overall quality, especially if they have considerable experience viewing full-frame or medium format images that have better detail. Of course, some images are keepers no matter the pixel quality, so this applies mostly to the keep or toss decision for everything else.