[k100d]

To me, pixel peeping is looking at the image magnified 100% and trying to see how sharp it is, its resolving power etc.

i do this all the time, primarily because i've had too many unsharp photos in the past, combination of unsteady hands and high shutter speeds. i zoom in most of my photos to 12x after each photo to check. better to check while i still have the opportunity to take another crack at it

[Gooshin]

pixel peeping is human nature,

when given the ability or knowledge about anything, one desires to test his personal belongings according to this standard.

some people care about this more than others, some people are simply not aware.

for instance, one does not know how dull their kitchen knives are until they are given to try those of a professional chef.

then you have the people comming here asking "which camera is best for taking pictures of my dog"

the pixel peeping concept is lost on them as well.


the pixel peepers are the gadget loving people who spend a great deal emersed in technology and computers.

i am one of them, i also enjoy running diagnostics, pixel peeping is all but natural for me, i actualy enjoy the act of taking a lens, taking a camera, getting a controllable enviroment, and simply start testing!

its an experiment, think scientist!

and like any scientists we wish to publish our findings, we want to tell the world what we came up with.

if you wish to dismiss us, go right ahead, but do remember that the world you live in and the tools that you are using are a partial result of people like us.

(also why i suggest to all of you to lay of Rice High, that dude has done many things most of you simply dont have the patience or funds for, so dont hate)

You know, I've been observing and thinking about the stuff I have shot with my Canon 10D, Canon 20D, Canon 1Ds Mkll and my Pentax K10D's and K20D's.

I JUST DON'T SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF THEM WHEN PRINTED TO A LARGER THAN STANDARD MAGAZINE FORMAT!!! Perhaps color nuance and some grain differences when I shot at 400 or 800 iso.

I have been published with all of the above camera's. All of the magazine's I have been published in are very high grade Trendy Press book quality magazines. The output out of all of the above camera's were more than adequate for my needs.

My point is this. In terms of resolving power and for most support that most of us would imagine being published in, the Pentax K10D, K20D, K100D and K200D would suffice.

In fact my last shoot I did for "Spring Mag" with the K20D was over kill considering the size of the support i.e. about 8x10 inches. In fact I had to reduce the image size to get down to 300 dpi for Pre Press. I would have been quite comfortable with the K10D. The only grain I see when published with the K10D in double page landscape format is the "tram" grain of the printing of around 133 dpi.

Why do I bring all of this up...Pixel Peeping is totally a waste of time.

Go out and enjoy your toy and use it to express who and what you are.

That's All...

Ben

[falconeye]

Gooshin is right and Ben is right, too.

It is all about technical progress. And who needs it.

Sometimes it isn't required. Ben, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't even need to go digital to achieve your great results, still you are glad to use it, I guess.

Then, A3+ offset-prints from shots taken with amble studio lights and patient models isn't the most demanding test -- speaking purely technical here, nothing said here about how demanding models are or not

Gallery shooters for A1+ in b+w "capturing a moment" is an entirely different story already.

Or an animal shooter cropping the subject from a 300mm shot with available light and no tripod...

Not to forget... our eyes have a resolving power in its spot of sharpest vision translating to nearly 100 MPixels for an entire image (where the spot of sharpest vision is allowed to wander around).

[pentkon52]

Y
Why do I bring all of this up...Pixel Peeping is totally a waste of time.

Go out and enjoy your toy and use it to express who and what you are.

That's All...

Ben

Of course it is. I've known that for years.

I still use my D1 and D1H for my equine shows, and they can be blown up to a nice 11x14.

All that from a 2.74 Meg Pixel camera.

Dave

[SpecialK]

...Pixel Peeping is totally a waste of time.

Ben

Ben:

I believe I will have to look into this in greater detail...

[georgweb]

Yes no yes, err,
still it's not too bad to have a decent lens on the camera :-)

I've been collecting lots of manual lenses and some of them have distinct characteristics.

And yes there is the big danger of getting lost in the pixel hunt and forget about you expressing yourself through photography.

If I'd start all over again I would still carefully choose lenses, but then shurt-cut it hopefully by browsing distilled reviews like this,
Lens Performance Survey - INTERPRETED OUTPUT

and then just look at the photos taken with them, like here,
photoSIG » Lenses

My all-around approach to the technical-choice-side of photography would be:
macro-contrast: sharp sharp sharp (that's the pixel peeping side)
micro-contrast: spherical reproduction, not visible in pixel peeping, more the apearance of the picture
bokeh: again, matter of taste, proof is in the appearance of real photos, pixel peeping can't do it

Maybe I could pledge for a different kind of pixel peeping, like carefully looking at photos you really like and then ask yourself what and if the equipment has got to do with it.

And generally yes, go out (or inside) and transmit your vision through the mighty box, the equipment will seldom be the limiting factor.

All the best, Georg (the other)

[MJB DIGITAL]

may i input here?

i recently donated to a charity event. and for the donation, i was auctioning off a family portrait and the proceeds were to go to the St. Louis Childrens hospital that did brain surgery on my nephew (so HELL YES i accepted the invite)

well i printed a 16x24 child portrait to display my product.
.....and i hadnt done ANY pixel peeping. i had some haloing/aliasing among other problems...



so MEASUREBATING may be totally bad but yeah, inspect your stuff...pixel peep it.....

you want to know the minute details of what you are producing right?





p.s.....im making pretty good money off of my pentax's so dont think im slamming them...just saying.

8)

mitch

[Parallax]

..............................

If I'd start all over again I would still carefully choose lenses, but then shurt-cut it hopefully by browsing distilled reviews like this,
[url=http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand='Pentax'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22]Lens Performance Survey - INTERPRETED OUTPUT[/url.............

I looked at the survey. The impression that it left me with is that there is not a zoom lens on the market that is worth buying. (Isn't it mathematically impossible for everything to be below average?)

[Jonson PL]

Very good point.


As Sean Reid writes, from his site :
“The road to Paradise isn’t paved with resolution charts. When one finds that his or her pictures lack something, chances are that the answer is not more resolution, more frames per second, a never lens or any other technical change in the equipment… Sometimes the higher contrast and biting sharpness of a very expensive lens will be exactly what a given picture doesn’t need”


And Ron Bigelow in Advanced Composition, writes :
"...as I have viewed people's images over the last few years, I have noticed that, while the number of photographs has increased dramatically (a result of digital), the same thing can not always be said about the quality of the images. Yes, the images are properly exposed; the camera took care of that. Yes, the images are properly focused; the camera took care of that. Yes, the white balance is pretty good; the camera even took care of that. Nonetheless, many of the photographs lack impact -- that something that grabs people's attention when they view a photograph."
Advanced Composition -- Part I