Lens Sharpness, Pixel Peeping & Prints...

The sharpness of a lens it is just a thin slice of the whole pie. Try taking a "low cost" lens thru rough weather, test focus speed in dim lighting, and you will start to see why they ahove different prices. The same goes for dSLR bodies. Any dSLR in the hands of a SKILLED photographer will produce impressive images. Pro gear does not mean that it is expensive. It means that it will deliver images under most situations. Most iconic images have NOTHING to do with sharpness or gear. It is all about content.

ah yes, it is mostly an obssesion within our little selfs.

Truth is there is no discernable difference.

I've been pondering whether I should go smaller and lightly by switching to Fuji simply for the fun factor, and try to capture stuff that I ain't capturing enough.

What an interesting thread.

silvex wrote in post #16655820
Most iconic images have NOTHING to do with sharpness or gear. It is all about content.

somewhat, but there are famous "iconic" pictures that would not be the same without high IQ, like that one of the afghan girl:

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Afghan_Girl

i saw it printed in the magazine and it was beautiful in colors and detail. if it was a grainy bw photo, it would not have had nearly as much interest.

another photograph similar to that, another girl:

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bibi_Aisha

again, beautiful picture.

nice topic
I don't print photos because they are digital photos
if they comes from an old film camera then I have to print

20x30, you may be able to see the difference. Much easier to see it on PC since you can put the images side by side. Super sharp lenses have the flexibility of large crops when you screw up composition.

plus the lenses in question have elite levels of sharpness, differences will be minor at ANY size. Compare a consumer zoom vs L prime and you'll probably see the difference at smaller sizes. I have a few shots printed to 12x18 and no way can you figure the lens based on sharpness. I can even list the lenses, and no way to distinguish the lens based on sharpness.

moltengold wrote in post #16656135
nice topic
I don't print photos because they are digital photos
if they comes from an old film camera then I have to print

Having tangible prints are really nice. Guests can go through an album real fast. Sometimes I'll just put on a sideshow and be done with it, but people love viewing my album. It's a different experience than online/TV.

I have shown these comparisons a number of times. These are 100% crops. They correspond to 60 inch wide prints

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …ison_zps4bd2a96​f.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …/70200_18200com​p.jpg.html

This thread makes me smile

I was starting to feel alone in my lack of pixel-peeping give a darn.

I never view a shot at more than 1:2 in LR when editing, and that's usually just to check focus or use the brush tool more effectively. I've got a 20x30 hanging upstairs from a superzoom on a 20D and it looks brilliant. I plan on getting an even larger print for my living room in the near future... haven't decided what to print it on though, maybe canvas.

I shot side by side with my dad's 24-70/2.8 (albeit mk1) and my Vivitar S1 70-210mm and apart from any obvious differences in FL, the shots rendered incredibly similarly, pretty much equal in terms of sharpness. You can be darn sure the client couldn't tell the difference

I hope this keeps going. Most interesting thread here for a while imo

My Dad still has a poster-size picture he took back in the 1980's of a Scottish loch with perfect reflections on the water.
It was taken about 6.30 in the morning as he went out to get the paper.
He's not a photographer, he just had a Kodak P&S to hand.

Pictures are all about composition and the right lighting.
When it all comes together your gear makes no difference.

Charlie wrote in post #16656173
Having tangible prints are really nice. Guests can go through an album real fast. Sometimes I'll just put on a sideshow and be done with it, but people love viewing my album. It's a different experience than online/TV.

I've spent a small fortune investing in printing. tons of Canon paper, Pro-100, precision ink refill kit and a x-rite colormunki photo calibrator/icc profiler.

To be able to print accurately and hold in my hand what I have taken is just simply amazing. It's since I've printed over 400 images in the past month have I realized I was too hung up on sharpness and pixel level perfection.

I've printed shots that were slightly out of focus and with the right PP and printing to 8x10 you could not even tell at a distance of about 2' away. THIS was the real eye opener. The particular shot would of been a trash shot but when printed it looked good enough to hang on the wall and for family/guests to view.

In general printed shots look better I think. Before digital how many shots looked great at 12x8 from the darkroom. They looked good and there was no practical way to check focus or sharpness in an eye for example, larger than the eye was printed on the photo. Many could be oof if zoomed in by today's 1:1 standards of viewing

Talley wrote in post #16657393
I've spent a small fortune investing in printing. tons of Canon paper, Pro-100, precision ink refill kit and a x-rite colormunki photo calibrator/icc profiler.

To be able to print accurately and hold in my hand what I have taken is just simply amazing. It's since I've printed over 400 images in the past month have I realized I was too hung up on sharpness and pixel level perfection.

I've printed shots that were slightly out of focus and with the right PP and printing to 8x10 you could not even tell at a distance of about 2' away. THIS was the real eye opener. The particular shot would of been a trash shot but when printed it looked good enough to hang on the wall and for family/guests to view.

I figured out a long time ago that home printing was not worth it. Sold off all my paper, CIS, and printers. Costco is just too cheap , 13 cent for a 4x6 and 2.99 for 12x18..... it's a no brainer. If they screw up, they reprint. It was a pretty common issue for me to screw up large prints. Cartridges would streak, uneven color, run out.....

I've had shots look like webcam shots turn out OK on print. Great expression and composition, so I kept it. Personally, it really bothered me with poor quality stuff on my wall, so it eventually went away. My next item I want to test are metal prints. Large landscapes are my favorite to print.

You should try creating a really nice landscape and print it. Pretty awesome for me.

Charlie wrote in post #16657531
I figured out a long time ago that home printing was not worth it. Sold off all my paper, CIS, and printers. Costco is just too cheap , 13 cent for a 4x6 and 2.99 for 12x18..... it's a no brainer. If they screw up, they reprint. It was a pretty common issue for me to screw up large prints. Cartridges would streak, uneven color, run out.....

I've had shots look like webcam shots turn out OK on print. Great expression and composition, so I kept it. Personally, it really bothered me with poor quality stuff on my wall, so it eventually went away. My next item I want to test are metal prints. Large landscapes are my favorite to print.

You should try creating a really nice landscape and print it. Pretty awesome for me.

For the cost I spent on ink/paper it's about 5.5 cents for 4x6, 10c for 8x10 and about 50c for a 13x19. However, I'm not in it for the money. To have complete control is the best reward.