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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 25 Aug 2011 (Thursday) 15:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Pixel peeping?!

 
Ziffle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,896 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Big "D" - Texas
     
Aug 26, 2011 00:12 |  #16

RPCrowe wrote in post #12999657 (external link)
I think that Ansel Adams would have been the KING OF PIXEL PEEPERS if digital imaging had been available in his day.

if said sarcastically... then agree.

otherwise i just don't see this....


_______________
Wedding Photog's rule ........... just not sure what???
--
Gear List ~ VIAweddingPhoto(DOT)co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cassidyphuey
Senior Member
379 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Aug 26, 2011 01:42 |  #17

To be hoenst, don't start it. It's a bad habit and you'll go crazy for every lens you try to buy. You're keeper rates for lenses in general will go down.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andy_Cam
Senior Member
Avatar
385 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Aug 26, 2011 03:06 |  #18

I used to dislike pixel peeping when I had my 40D, as I was never happy with the results on that level. The 5DII images at 100% just fill me with a warm and fuzzy feeling each time.


Gear | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ianfp
Goldmember
Avatar
1,775 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Apr 2006
Location: UK
     
Aug 26, 2011 06:28 |  #19

I started pixel peeping when I had my 20D and EF-S 17-85 and I was never really happy with the details. Now I am fortunate enough to have a 5D2 and some Ls, I don't need to do it because I know the detail is there if I zoom in.


Ian
Nikon D850, 85mm f/1.4G
5D2
EF17-40 f/4.0 L, EF135 f/2.0L EF200 f/2.8L

EF24-105L, EF100 f/2.8L Macro. EOS-M, 22mm f/2
Hasselblad 500C/M, Planar 80mm f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ni$mo350
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,011 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Portland, OR
     
Aug 26, 2011 07:44 |  #20

I don't pixel peep so much as pixel edit. Shooting primes, I no longer ask if it's sharp, I just know it is so that's a big relief. I do clean up skin though depending on the person and the look I'm trying to achieve. Some need it more obviously than others but the end result is obvious (to me anyways).


-Chris-Website (external link)|| (external link)Facebook (external link)|| My Flickr (external link)|| Follow me!!! 500px (external link) || (external link) 5D mkii || 35L || 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKII || My bank account hates you all :cry:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jaomul
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Cork, Ireland
     
Aug 26, 2011 07:59 |  #21

Maybe I'm wrong but if you look at a photo on your screen, is it not dots per inch and not pixels. So in fact if you zoom in far you actually are still seeing (72) dots per inch, so could in theory zoom in where the dots outnumber the pixels, hence peeping to the extreme. Sorry about that...

Most photographs that look good at print size on your screen I find look better in print. A print is the real test of a photograph IMHO


flickr (external link)
Olympus EM5,Nikon d7200,
Olympus 12-50mm, 40-150mm,17mm f2.8,Nikon 50mm F1.8, Tamron 90mm vc, 18-105mmVR, Sigma 18-35 f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
harcosparky
Goldmember
2,431 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 61
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Harford County - ( Bel Air ) Maryland
     
Aug 26, 2011 08:09 |  #22

jaomul wrote in post #13002721 (external link)
I find look better in print. A print is the real test of a photograph IMHO

This is what matters most ..... what does it look like after the ink hits the paper.

I've printed out some fantastic 8X10's and larger that did not look good when " pixel peeped ".

Pixel Peeping <---- What's the point! :D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ni$mo350
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,011 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Portland, OR
     
Aug 26, 2011 08:15 |  #23

^ lots of shots don't even hit paper anymore. Sad, but true. Thanks to blogs, websites and social networking, the point of printing hasn't been this low since print started imho. I print for myself and a few clients have bought large prints from me but the percentage is low compared to the work I put out digitally.


-Chris-Website (external link)|| (external link)Facebook (external link)|| My Flickr (external link)|| Follow me!!! 500px (external link) || (external link) 5D mkii || 35L || 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKII || My bank account hates you all :cry:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Aug 26, 2011 08:20 |  #24

ni$mo350 wrote in post #13002779 (external link)
^ lots of shots don't even hit paper anymore. Sad, but true. Thanks to blogs, websites and social networking, the point of printing hasn't been this low since print started imho. I print for myself and a few clients have bought large prints from me but the percentage is low compared to the work I put out digitally.

^This!!


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wfarrell4
Goldmember
Avatar
2,551 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2011
Location: NJ
     
Aug 26, 2011 09:04 |  #25
bannedPermanent ban

Pixel peeping with my 5DII images makes my jaw drop. Everyone I share my pictures with wants to see the detail and it delivers.


Will: flickr (external link)
Canon EOS

Merry Christmas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Aug 26, 2011 09:24 as a reply to  @ wfarrell4's post |  #26

The anti pixel peepers here are an obnoxious little click. These self appointed do-gooders jump on anyone who has the audacity to view their own images at 100%. The normal members here should adopt the name pixel police for the members of said click. :lol: Let's face it, if an image is sharp at the pixel level, it is razor sharp for any use, that is just common sense. Personally, if normal folks want to view their images at 100% and see critical detail to evaluate their equipment and technique, that would seem to be the smart thing to do. The pixel police will just have to get over it.


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hermeto
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,674 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 26, 2011 09:32 as a reply to  @ wfarrell4's post |  #27
bannedPermanent ban

Ziffle wrote in post #13001669 (external link)
RPCrowe wrote in post #12999657 (external link)
I think that Ansel Adams would have been the KING OF PIXEL PEEPERS if digital imaging had been available in his day.

if said sarcastically... then agree.

otherwise i just don't see this....

No sarcasm here..
Although it was not technically, 'pixel peeping', Ansel Adams was known for being extremely anal when it comes to printing.
He used to make endless adjustments and fine tuning of his prints until they looked exactly the way he wanted.


What we see depends mainly on what we look for.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wfarrell4
Goldmember
Avatar
2,551 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2011
Location: NJ
     
Aug 26, 2011 09:54 |  #28
bannedPermanent ban

Image: ISO 1600, 24mm, 1/40 handheld, f3.5

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'


Uploaded with ImageShack.us (external link)

100% Crop

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'


Uploaded with ImageShack.us (external link)

Peeping allows you to see what you can't in the normal image.

Will: flickr (external link)
Canon EOS

Merry Christmas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,604 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Aug 26, 2011 09:58 |  #29

District_History_Fan wrote in post #13003102 (external link)
The anti pixel peepers here are an obnoxious little click. These self appointed do-gooders jump on anyone who has the audacity to view their own images at 100%. The normal members here should adopt the name pixel police for the members of said click. :lol: Let's face it, if an image is sharp at the pixel level, it is razor sharp for any use, that is just common sense. Personally, if normal folks want to view their images at 100% and see critical detail to evaluate their equipment and technique, that would seem to be the smart thing to do. The pixel police will just have to get over it.

Ironically, now you are attempting to police what opinion I can have. :lol:


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Aug 26, 2011 10:15 |  #30

tkbslc wrote in post #13003257 (external link)
Ironically, now you are attempting to police what opinion I can have. :lol:

No attempt was made to police you. I simply defined the group you admit your participation in, the Pixel Police. Please sir, educate me of the evils of viewing my own images at 100%. Do it for the children. :lol:


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

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

6,858 views & 0 likes for this thread
Pixel peeping?!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Lousyboy
685 guests, 233 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.