Why I (gasp) pixel peep

Unless ALL of your photography is carefully posed still life or landscapes I'd go as far as to say if you aren't getting some technical non-keepers (i.e. missed focus) you are missing shots by being too deliberate and missing the unexpected; if you aren't getting compositional or creative non-keepers (i.e. tried that on purpose and it just didn't work) you are being too creatively cautious.

lungdoc wrote in post #5323177
Unless ALL of your photography is carefully posed still life or landscapes I'd go as far as to say if you aren't getting some technical non-keepers (i.e. missed focus) you are missing shots by being too deliberate and missing the unexpected; if you aren't getting compositional or creative non-keepers (i.e. tried that on purpose and it just didn't work) you are being too creatively cautious.

Yes.

What I find utterly amusing is how many people admonish others for caring whether their photos are "tack sharp" and a lot of the time, they are the same ones who notice that a photo is "a little soft" before they notice anything else about it. Can't have it both ways, ya know!

Wow, interesting thread so far.

Here is my personal experience: In bright environments, with long focal lengths, trying to focus on a dark spot surrounded by say white color, will very often throw the AF a bit. I remember one time a long while back, I was trying to photograph a group inside the shade of a building, while I stood in the sun, with the brightness in front of me. The 70-200 would hunt and hunt. Surely, eventually the sub-mirror failed and had to be replaced.

But Autofocus is tricky, regardless.

About pixel peeping. Bollocks. As soon as a technology emerges, we find ways to judge others behavior. When Pentax added the light meter on the side of the viewfinder, the old school boys kept bragging about calculating exposure by sight. Us younger punks could just use extra thought on composition, and let the darn needle do the job. Hope the silly comparison made some sense.

I could type a lot, but I think the point has been hit by someone above. You got an LCD, use it. You got burst mode, and only one chance to get the shot right, use it. Some old melon may come around and say "Oh, I could take a photo of that ball connecting with the bat in a single frame"... talk is cheap. I often go "excuse me, I am trying to work".

Long story short. About the Focus, the brightness could be an issue at such fine light angles. Also, look for consistent results, whether AF or OoF. This will determine wether the effect is constant, or incidental (say only when the wind blows, or when the AF center point reads white and goes nuts about it. Have you tried Manual Focus?... That in theory, should give you more uniform results.

About pixel peeping, I see nothing wrong with it. I pixel peep whenever I look at my Blackberry, my Laptop, my TV, my Printer's LCD, my iPod, and so many other things.

chauncey wrote in post #5322017
There are certain occupations that failure is not an option. I belonged to such an occupation and because of that am very obsessive about my equipment.

Well that was THAT occupation and now we are talking about photography, which is primarily a creative occupation with strong technical aspects. So you can carry on thinking in your old way, more of the same but in a totally different context, or you can take waht may be useful from that but also start thinking in a new way that better suits the context. The former will allow you to get to a certain level and no doubt help you shoot 'sharp but dull' shots consistently. The latter will allow you to get further I suggest.

Pick up an old manual focus prime lens, like a Zeiss 35mm 2.4 or a Pentax 50mm 1.4, and go shoot with it for a few months. That is what I did and I still do that regularly. Teaches composition and exposure very nicely. Look at images like those at the bottom of my signature, or pick up some books. Can help you to 'see'. Technical perfection is easy enough to achieve in photography but most won't be moved by that. I suppose each photographer decides what they are most interested in. As in many areas of life a balance is usually most helpful: art, craft, technical understanding.

I agree with Condyk. No newbie to photography should be even considering a 1DsIII imho. You'd get better photos with a Rebel, a Nikon 35 f.2 MF lens, and a lot of practice with it.

chauncey wrote in post #5322017
You guys talk about keeper rate. That phrase is foreign to my left brain as it denotes/assumes a certain failure rate.

There are certain occupations that failure is not an option. I belonged to such an occupation and because of that am very obsessive about my equipment.
If it malfunctions I want to know why and do everything that I can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

While it's good to always want to improve, you can curb the obsessive pursuit of perfection because no one dies if you misfocus every now and then. Get a 1Ds III if you want, but don't for one second think it's going to make all your photos perfect.

cdifoto wrote in post #5324799
While it's good to always want to improve, you can curb the obsessive pursuit of perfection because no one dies if you misfocus every now and then. Get a 1Ds III if you want, but don't for one second think it's going to make all your photos perfect.

Precisely!

To draw an analogy, I'm a sound engineer. When I started mixing 14 years ago, had I started on the arena/stadium systems I use occasionally now the learning curve would have been so steep I wouldn't have actually learned anything. Instead I started on small club systems and as my knowledge increased, I started using larger, more complex systems. Only by going through that process of starting small and working my way up could I fully understand every stage of what I was actually doing. Jump in at the deep end and you're unlikely to fully get to grips with things. As well as mixing I'm also a bassist (for my sins). Give my beautiful £1349 G&L L2500 bass to an absolute beginner and it will generally sound pretty terrible, but give an experienced player a cheap, crappy £80 second hand beaten up Squire P. Bass and he'll make it sound good.

Another similar analogy with regards to technical and creative. I use what are known as line array systems (speakers that hang in a long strip, basically). When setting these systems up I have computer prediction programs that help me ensure the system is flown correctly for the venue so I can get a balanced, even sound everywhere in the auditorium. That's a purely technical task and one that if I get wrong, several thousand people could end up asking for their money back, which neither I or the band particularly want. Getting that system technically 'right' is great, but if I then fail to mix the show in a tasteful, musically sensitive way; basically if I just turn that nicely set up rig to the max and hurt people's ears with it, all that is technically correct is absolutely meaningless.

To me the same applies in photography, and I think that's the point people are trying to make. I shoot a lot of aviation, and that absolutely has to be tack-sharp. It won't be accepted onto websites I upoad to if it isn't, so shooting aviation is a great way to practice getting the technical aspects of photography right but even then, technique and knowledge should be relied on more than the technical capabilities of your gear.

My main aviation lens is a Sigma 50-500, but the aperture's seized on that so I'm using my Tamron 28-300 XR Di at the moment; a lens many people slate for being soft. Sure, it is softer than my Bigma, but why is it I can still shoot with a 30D and the 28-200 alongside many people shooting with 1D's and a 100-400L IS and get better results than them? Because I've learned that there's more to a good image than looking at a 100% crop and writing images off because it 'isn't as sharp as it would be with xxxxx lens'. This is where, to me, pixel peeping is utterly pointless and all it will do is make you lose images instead of creating them.

Equipment doesn't make photos; photographers do. That's my main point. I've seen 14 year olds create images on a Powershot point and shoot that have left me stunned. Had they taken them with a DSLR and 17-40L they may have been technically superior, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be any more impressive.

chauncey wrote in post #5321033
In closing, would suggest you peruse this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/c​ameras-matter.shtml .

I think someone was a little angry when they wrote that article as it goes the long way around actually saying nothing of any real use. All it says is basically 'don't listen to Ken Rockwell, listen to us!' At least Rockwell's article to which it referrs is based largely on an artistic point of view where the main priority is to do that thing we photographers are supposed to do; create images.

On a closing note, I'd just like to say my words are not in any way intened to offend, Chauncey. I'm simply expressing my opinion and you can take it or leave it as you wish. As with anything artistic, you often find people have very strong feelings as to what's the 'correct' way to do things. The only 'correct' way is the way that works for you. All I and others can do is give opinions.

Anyway, best of luck in however you choose to shoot.

Paul

cdifoto wrote in post #5324799
Get a 1Ds III if you want, but don't for one second think it's going to make all your photos perfect.

I agree, I'd be the last to tell someone how to spend their money, but you definitely don't need to spend $8000 on a camera to get good, consistent, in focus pictures. Practice and understanding how the system works will be the biggest help.

Good luck!

True. Most of the time I use my 1Ds Mk.II in full manual focus and manual exposure.

condyk wrote in post #5324624
Pick up an old manual focus prime lens, like a Zeiss 35mm 2.4 or a Pentax 50mm 1.4, and go shoot with it for a few months.

Or just use the Canon 50mm f/1.4 in manual focus.

Karl C wrote in post #5325464
Or just use the Canon 50mm f/1.4 in manual focus.

Yeah true, if ya have the discipline not to flip that switch also, when I was teachin' myself the Canon cost over £200 and the Pentax and Zeiss a third of that together ... and better IQ Rather a Sigma 30mm 1.4 anyway ... in MF.

chauncey wrote in post #5322017
You guys talk about keeper rate. That phrase is foreign to my left brain as it denotes/assumes a certain failure rate.

This is photography - failure is part of the game. There is no such thing as perfection in photography. If you are unable to come to grips with this notion, you're going to be one unhappy person.

We all get frustrated with photography; it's not easy. It takes a lot of practice over a period of time before we maintain a high keeper rate. If you expect every photo to be perfect, you're setting up yourself to becoming a mental case. And, as previously posted, if you seek technically correct photos all the time, you'll also become creatively constipated. You'll miss out on taking good, creatively solid photos.

Good luck.

condyk wrote in post #5325584
Yeah true, if ya have the discipline not to flip that switch also, when I was teachin' myself the Canon cost over £200 and the Pentax and Zeiss a third of that together ... and better IQ Rather a Sigma 30mm 1.4 anyway ... in MF.

I have the discipline since I enjoy the challenge. Of course, using an AE-1P for many years, manual focus is easy for me.

Just out of curiosity, I did a search for a Zeiss 35mm on Fleabay. The only ones available were in Poland, IIRC. With the GBP/dollar conversion, there were in the $160 range, plus buying an M42 adapter.

Tempting considering the Sigma 30mm is substantially more expensive.

Karl C wrote in post #5325606
Just out of curiosity, I did a search for a Zeiss 35mm on Fleabay. The only ones available were in Poland, IIRC. With the GBP/dollar conversion, there were in the $160 range, plus buying an M42 adapter. Tempting considering the Sigma 30mm is substantially more expensive.

Well the 35mm is a classic ... very nice, naturistic IQ if you like that feel. I sold mine to a US guy for way too cheap I think. They pop up quite regular over here on eBay and tend to go for around £50-60. The adaptors are cheap these days. I still have the Pentax 50mm 1.4 and use it. I paid £70 or so for it. Dunno what it's worth these days. I think the Sigma is as good but slightly 'warmer' feel. A super cheap MF lens to play with is the 55mm 2.0 Helios. Russian build. Very sharp and natural and goes for daft money, like £5-10.