[beholder3]

Shot with k-3, Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 ~50% crop processed in LR

Yes, I'd scrap this image, but not because of some pixel aspects, but because of poor composition (e.g. big ugly right side of image takes up about 50%) and poor choice of subject (e.g. most interesting part of main image with face and eyes is in the shadow).

First start to learn about photography and aesthetics. Afterwards you can start worrying about pixels.

[BigMackCam]

Yes, I'd scrap this image, but not because of some pixel aspects, but because of poor composition (e.g. big ugly right side of image takes up about 50%) and poor choice of subject (e.g. most interesting part of main image with face and eyes is in the shadow).

First start to learn about photography and aesthetics. Afterwards you can start worrying about pixels.

I really enjoy the light and shadow in this photo and see nothing wrong with the composition. The area on the right adds a lot of context to the size of the bird and the environment. Lastly, the colours in the entire frame are complementary. Furthermore, we don't always get the chance to have the light falling on a subject just as we'd like - especially when it's a small bird. Sometimes, a good shot with less than ideal lighting, and less than ideal content to the sides, above, behind and in front, is still way better than no shot at all.

Clearly it's subjective... Some will like the photo, others won't. But - with respect - I see no reason to criticise the OP's composition when his concerns are very clearly stated to be about the sharpness of the image.

Just my two cents...

Again, to the OP, I like your photo. I'm not saying that to be encouraging, but because I really like it

[Gimbal]

You have had good advice, i would add one thing. Do not look at your image at higher than 100% otherwise it becomes pixelated.

Pff, only a beginner pixel peeper would stop at 100%.

[pschlute]

Pff, only a beginner pixel peeper would stop at 100%.

I have obviously been going wrong all these years ! Anyone know how long it takes to graduate to Master Pixel-Peeper ? Does one need to sit an exam ?

[normhead]

The purpose of pixel peeping, in my mind is not to help discard image, but to pick the best image.

Since I usually shoot in 6-23 image bursts, I have lot of images. Once I've gone through the first wave , and removed all the images with either composition of focus problems, I'll usually have 5-10 images that I like. At that point I'll pixel peep. If you have that many similar images why not pick the one that is sharpest pixel peeping to save? If you ever print it could make a difference. I have many images like this where the bird's angle to the camera is such that both the eye and the feather detail are sharp. The downside to that is many of my images looks similar. Different bird, same or similar pose.

Correct (by my definition) angle to the camera


To me it's matter of, if you have two similar images take the one that's sharper.
If you don't, have an image that has razor sharp detail, it can still be a good image.
I love this type of shot. Too far away to be high res, but great context.


But I want one or the other, pixel peeping sharpness or a nice clean composition. Images can appeal in different ways... not all depend on sharpness, but those that do better be sharp. No one wants to see that peanut feeder, but they might overlook it if the bird is razor sharp.

Especially on bird images, pixel peeping sharpness can distract from the usual situation, which is , no control of composition.

Those birds are really poor at following the photographers instructions with regards to where we want them to perch.

[BAKrueger]

The purpose of pixel peeping, in my mind is not to help discard image, but to pick the best image.

Since I usually shoot in 6-23 image bursts, I have lot of images. Once I've gone through the first wave , and removed all the images with either composition of focus problems, I'll usually have 5-10 images that I like. At that point I'll pixel peep. If you have that many similar images why not pick the one that is sharpest pixel peeping to save? If you ever print it could make a difference. I have many images like this where the bird's angle to the camera is such that both the eye and the feather detail are sharp. The downside to that is many of my images looks similar. Different bird, same or similar pose.

Correct (by my definition) angle to the camera


To me it's matter of, if you have two similar images take the one that's sharper.
If you don't, have an image that has razor sharp detail, it can still be a good image.
I love this type of shot. Too far away to be high res, but great context.


But I want one or the other, pixel peeping sharpness or a nice clean composition. Images can appeal in different ways... not all depend on sharpness, but those that do better be sharp. No one wants to see that peanut feeder, but they might overlook it if the bird is razor sharp.

Especially on bird images, pixel peeping sharpness can distract from the usual situation, which is , no control of composition.

Those birds are really poor at following the photographers instructions with regards to where we want them to perch.

normhead,
Thank you for posting these pic's as it gives me an idea of what to look for in sharpness. I too shoot in bursts your post will help me alot with culling as well

Thank You again
Brian

[normhead]

No problem, it's what we do here.

[northcoastgreg]

Yes, I'd scrap this image, but not because of some pixel aspects, but because of poor composition (e.g. big ugly right side of image takes up about 50%) and poor choice of subject (e.g. most interesting part of main image with face and eyes is in the shadow).

Those issues, even if they are reckoned as critical, can easily be fixed with some PP-TLC: crop out the right side of the image, lighten up the face of the image. Whatever sharpness issues the image may suffer from might also be fixable. Sharpening software is getting better and better over time.

I, too, agree with everyone else who says not to view images at 200%. The DA* 300 is a sharp lens — but no lens that I'm aware of provides tack sharp images at 200%. I expect that's a physical impossibility. Or if it is possible, the sharpness wouldn't look natural. If the image is moderately sharp at 100%, you're doing pretty good.