Which is Worse? Pixel Peeping or Chimping?

well?

I voted for Pixel Peeping, I still print my photos, no need to see them at 100%

I vote neither. It's just annoying when people come here and obsess. "is this ok?" "does this look infect..I mean soft?" yadda yadda yadda.

Stupid n00b question: what the heck do those terms mean?

bishop13 wrote in post #2947917
Stupid n00b question: what the heck do those terms mean?

Pixel peeping refers to viewing a 100% crop magnified view of the picture on the monitor to see small minute imperfections that may not be visible in commonly made sized prints such as 8x10 or 10x14 or so on.

Chimping refers to reviewing your shots on the camera's LCD and making "Ooo Aaa..." noises like a chimp, but it can also be used to refer to checking your shots on the cameras LCD either immediately after to check or later like a slideshow.

Chimping sometimes serves a useful purpose. Pixel peeping rarely does. Can you guess which way I voted?

pixel peepers deserve to die a long slow death at dpreview

Pixel peeking, by far. Chimping is sometime necessary to check composition or or the histogram for exposure. Pixel peeping is just silly.

Mark

ibdb wrote in post #2947941
Chimping sometimes serves a useful purpose. Pixel peeping rarely does. Can you guess which way I voted?

Same as me I guess

They're both bad but on different levels. Chimping can cause one to miss a shot and just looks mildly stupid. Pixel peeping, on the other hand, is the most ridiculous phenomenon I've ever encountered. Who gives a damn what the image looks like at a 100% crop? If you print them and they look pleasing, that's really all that matters.

My opinion is that in certain circumstances "chimping" is the same as the days when we would first shoot a Polaroid to ascertain exposure,composition etc. I only see it in a bad light (excuse pun) when it's tourists or who ever with a point & shoot. It hardly seems point less when you can assess wether a shot needs taking again or if you got it right first time.

Neither.

Let those that want to pixelpeep do that and let those that chimp do that. How hard is that?

You need another option on the poll:

"Using, without explanation, terms that only forum regulars will understand"

Much worse, in my opinion...

Of the seven people who thus far have voted that neither is bad, let me be the first to defend pixel peeping.

One of the things I really like about Adobe Lightroom is the way you can just click on a certain part of an image to see it at 100%. In the initial keep/cull phase of my workflow, I use this feature on every shot. I can't tell if an image is sharp when it's downsized to fit the screen. It is common to have two images with no visible difference in sharpness at screen resolution, but the difference will be visible in a 4x6 print.

Now this does not mean that I reject every shot that isn't tack-sharp. It simply means that I have additional information on which to base a decision. I can use it to decide between two otherwise very similar images. I can use it to determine how agressively I can crop. I can use it to determine how well an image will stand up to the scrutiny of a large print. In more general terms, I can use the analysis of pixel peeping to evaluate my choice of aperture and shutter speed.

Analyzing the detail of an image is not necessarily a bad thing. What's important (and more difficult) is applying what you learn from this analysis in a meaningful way.

i peep and I get disgusted every time... so i dont peep no more! I Chimp because i like the instant gratification..of course its off set by peeping later on my moniter... oh hell, anyone wanna buy my gear..Ive had it!!