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

What is pixel peeping?

 
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: 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 a registered member)
cameraperson
Senior Member
Avatar
811 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: 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
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 214
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Oct 01, 2017 02:13 |  #63

Pixel Peeping ruins the enjoyment of photography.


Cheers,
.
Bear Dale
.
Some of my photos featured Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,282 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3543
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Oct 01, 2017 06:50 |  #64

Wow, a mummy thread.... :)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Goldmember
Avatar
1,493 posts
Gallery: 691 photos
Likes: 3527
Joined Mar 2010
Location: 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
Likes: 59
Joined Aug 2009
Location: 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
Avatar
2,207 posts
Likes: 148
Joined Aug 2005
Location: 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!


Summer 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]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: 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 https://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
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 214
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
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:


Cheers,
.
Bear Dale
.
Some of my photos featured Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,282 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3543
Joined May 2002
Location: 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
7,699 posts
Gallery: 526 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1475
Joined Dec 2010
Location: 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
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,726 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 395
Joined May 2004
Location: 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
Avatar
2,162 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 441
Joined Dec 2010
Location: 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
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 214
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Mar 28, 2018 01:17 |  #74

Amazing that there's no entry in Wikipedia for 'Pixel Peeping'.


Cheers,
.
Bear Dale
.
Some of my photos featured Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,282 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3543
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. (12 edits in all)
     
Mar 28, 2018 06:30 |  #75

Pixel peeping is nothing more than the photographic equivalent of a jeweler using a loupe to look at gemstones, or a collector using a magnifying glass to inspect a rare baseball card or coin, or good car detailer getting in really close to check out the condition of the clear coat or paint, and his/her detailing job, or a developer taking a snippet of code out of an application that is over 1M lines to measure that section's execution time, guaranteeing it performs optimally.

There are many professions and hobbies that employ the act of "getting in close" to verify the quality of the product they are creating. Does that make them anal? No, but as a business owner, those are the types of people I want working for me. There is always the risk of being too much of a "perfectionist" however, and that has to managed accordingly.

If I care about the quality and details of my photographic deliverables, I will most likely, at some point, view my images at 80-100% of the resolution to see what is going in the image, whether I am looking for artifacts from the camera, lens, or my post processing skills.

If a person ridicules this practice and demeans those that do it, then they are ridiculing professionals in many industries all over the globe, and in my opinion, that makes them seemingly ignorant, or at a minimum, petty. When they are laying on a hospital bed, and are being run through all kinds of technology (MRI, Xrays, etc), they should remember both the hardware and software were scrutinized down to each line of code and and each component of the hardware to make sure a person isn't injured or killed by use of that equipment. That is the equivalent of pixel peeping in the medical industry, and that very act has a purpose, in many industries. :)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

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

47,778 views & 34 likes for this thread
What is pixel peeping?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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 brotherbear86
873 guests, 372 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.