Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 24 Aug 2006 (Thursday) 08:39
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

What is pixel peeping?

 
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Joined Aug 2010
MN
Apr 09, 2011 09:40 |  #61

People can evaluate their own equipment as they please. What annoys me are reviewers or test sites who use 100% to compare sensors of different pixel density. While the analogy isn't perfect, back in the film days, reviewers compared fine grain to general purpose to high speed (generally coarser grain) at the same image magnification. They did not magnify all of these so the grains were the same size --- that would be silly. Same with pixel peeping to compare sensors of differing pixel density. Since the point is pictures, comparing them at the same image magnification is the only comparison that is pertinent. The rest is filling pages in review sites while appearing to be relevant (and misleading potential buyers).


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
cameraperson
Senior Member
cameraperson's Avatar
811 posts
Joined May 2010
Atlanta, GA.
Jul 02, 2011 12:22 |  #62

I don't think pixel peeping starts until after 100%. I was being super critical of my photos and then I found at 100% the looked pretty good. After that I started seeing the blocky look with the pixels.


Xsi, 18-55

LOG IN TO REPLY
fotoworx
"I get 'em pregnant"
fotoworx's Avatar
4,574 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Oct 01, 2017 02:13 |  #63

Pixel Peeping ruins the enjoyment of photography.


.
Jim
.
f o t o w o r xexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,913 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Oct 01, 2017 06:50 |  #64

Wow, a mummy thread.... :)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Oct 01, 2017 08:17 |  #65

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18463842 (external link)
Wow, a mummy thread.... :)

It is getting close to Halloween :-)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Moscow
Oct 01, 2017 08:45 |  #66

The times change, but the arguments remain. To think that when this thread started, it was in talk about cameras that, at best, had around 16mp of resolution, unless you had access to a scanning back. And here we are today still pixel-peeping at up to 50MP... although I have to admit if you shelled out for such a camera, I think you'd want to be sure you're getting your money's worth.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
sjones's Avatar
2,190 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Chicago
Oct 01, 2017 09:35 as a reply to TeamSpeed's post |  #67

Actually, second time Fotorworx has resuscitated this thread...that's dedication!


Asheville to Chicago 2016-2017 (external link)
Eggleston's photography is superb. Deal with it!
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,020 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Oct 01, 2017 11:36 |  #68

sjones wrote in post #18463908 (external link)
Actually, second time Fotorworx has resuscitated this thread...that's dedication!

Dead Threadication


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
fotoworx
"I get 'em pregnant"
fotoworx's Avatar
4,574 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Oct 01, 2017 17:45 |  #69

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #18463876 (external link)
The times change, but the arguments remain. To think that when this thread started, it was in talk about cameras that, at best, had around 16mp of resolution, unless you had access to a scanning back. And here we are today still pixel-peeping at up to 50MP... although I have to admit if you shelled out for such a camera, I think you'd want to be sure you're getting your money's worth.


That gave me a chuckle :lol:


.
Jim
.
f o t o w o r xexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,913 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Oct 01, 2017 18:46 |  #70

I pixel peep to help drive my post processing filters that I construct, this way I know at the viewing size scale all is good.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Oct 02, 2017 07:59 |  #71

I now have a 27" monitor with 5K resolution (219 PPI), and it really helps my images to look good, and many of the older images won't come close to filling the screen at even 100%, actually I could get close to showing two of my 300D images side by side at 100%. So now I will actually check output destined for the web, such as 1280px images for POTN at 200%, since that better represents the actual magnification that the image will be viewed at on screen on most "normal" resolution monitors. One nice thing about the high resolution monitor is that I am actually able to view many images in their entirety, without the need for interpolation.

What I would really like is an 8K monitor at about a 32" size, since that will actually be running at just about 300 PPI, which would mean that finally screen resolution was catching up with camera resolution. By my reckoning you should be able to display a 24 MP 3:2 ratio image at 100% on an 8K 16:9 screen without losing any pixels. My 5K display is only 288 pixels short of fitting my 15 MP images from my 50D vertically, although if you rearranged the total number of pixels available to a 3:2 ratio the 50D images still wouldn't quite fit.

When it comes to working in Ps though I will often work on the image at 800%, usually when painting in layer masks to ensure that they are pixel perfect in placement. Of course during that process I'm not really concerned with the overall image, just applying edits to exactly the right locations so that I don't for instance get a halo around an object from less than perfect masking. For some parts of the overall process of editing an image, the image matters, for other parts of the workflow it is the pixels at matter, it's just a case of being able to keep the two phases in the correct order.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Cream of the Crop
RDKirk's Avatar
12,493 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Oct 02, 2017 10:08 |  #72

Wait, don't stray from posts #4 and 5 for the best definition of the activity of "pixel peeping."

Looking at the image at highest resolution to determine whether your process or a particular image meets your photographic requirements is not "pixel peeping."

Back in the wet darkroom days, I used a "grain magnifier" to determine maximum sharpness when focusing my enlarger. This was an optical gizmo that sat on the paper easel (atop a piece of scrap paper the same thickness as my enlarging paper) and enlarged the projected image of the negative so much that the silver grain pattern was visible. You got the silver grain pattern sharp--so you knew the image detail was as sharp as it could get.

But was that "pixel peeping?" No.

Pixel peeping is when you let such activities become your primary photographic activity and your basis of judging the merits of your equipment and your work.




LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
AZGeorge's Avatar
Joined Dec 2010
Southen Arizona
Oct 02, 2017 12:07 |  #73

Sure, we talented humans can misuse anything, but getting down near the pixel level is often useful.

Why, for example, does TeamSpeed's excellent avatar stand out so well? I know because I did a screen capture, zoomed in to a ridiculous level, and learned or relearned something about the use of making small graphic objects appear to have better fine detail than is actually possible.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

38,937 views & 12 likes for this thread
What is pixel peeping?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00114 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is Ginn
807 guests, 296 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016