[ChristianRock]

Buying a Zeiss Otus might cure it...

[LensBeginner]

Buying a Zeiss Otus might cure it...

Nope, there will still be technique and subject movement...

[BigMackCam]

Pixel-peeping has its uses in RAW development and editing, of course, but an obsession over sharpness / detail / luminance noise / tiny amounts of fringing etc. is counter-productive and unnecessary, IMHO.

With that in mind, I offer three tried-and-tested cures:

(1) Shoot with lower-resolution bodies. High resolution sensors are one the major factors that have fed this pixel-peeping obsession, revealing every tiny flaw in lenses. Shoot with a 10MP K10D, or better still a 6MP *ist DL, and see if the obsession fades. You can always step back up to your high resolution cameras when you've recovered

(2) Shoot only with commonly-available, low and mid-range vintage lenses for a while. For me, this started a completely different obsession, albeit a rewarding one... to enjoy the overall rendering of film-era lenses. Whilst there's some wonderful old glass out there, much of it isn't heavily corrected, and resolution isn't always the best. Over time, you adjust your expectations with vintage lenses, and start looking for different properties, aspects and results in a 100% reproduction.

(3) Make your processing target to achieve good-looking images when viewed full-screen on your laptop or desktop PC at typical viewing distance. If it works like that, then in my book it's good enough. Actually, I aim to make my photos look good at 50% reproduction on my 17" laptop and 23" desktop monitors, but anything that looks good when viewed full-screen is still a keeper.

[gifthorse]

That is a habit that will lead to blindness.

I'll only do it until I need glasses.....

[stevebrot]

Pixel-peeping has its uses in RAW development and editing

Indeed, particularly when severe sharpening and/or changes to local contrast are done. If artifact starts to show at 100%, things can only get worse downstream.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

Indeed, particularly when severe sharpening and/or changes to local contrast are done. If artifact starts to show at 100%, things can only get worse downstream.

Agreed. In fact, for sharpening at 100% repro I tend to be extremely gentle, only applying enough so that it just becomes visible. Any further sharpening is normally applied to the exports (and is, again, very gentle in most cases).

I also like to do my colour noise reduction, CA correction and spot removal (amongst other things) at 100% repro...

[Alex645]

I am guilty of being a pixel peeper. I used to shoot 35mm Kodachrome 25 and Kodak Tech Pan until I discovered the world of medium format.

I use both a darkroom and Photoshop, and for digital I'm a FF + prime lens addict.

How to cure being a Pixel Peeper? Do poster sized prints from 645 film scanned and FF digital and an iPhone6, and see that the iPhone6 image gets more likes online and in the gallery despite its highly compromised optics, pixels, noise, etc. Most viewers care about the narrative, the light, the composition, and how the image affects them emotionally more than any technical standards I think are important.

[08amczb]

Look for good lighting!

Nothing to do with it at pixel level and makes the image much better then pure sharpness.

[officiousbystander]

Show them this Robert Capa photo.
D-Day | 100 Photographs | The Most Influential Images of All Time

[MJKoski]

I do pixel peep but for the sake of trashing the file or keeping it. It is not a main motive.

However, when I purchased 4x5" setup and a good scanner the need to zoom for detail has gone down a bit. BW tonality is so much better that even a slightly misfocused photo looks better as a whole compared to super sharp digital image with boring output. Should the output be critically sharp I have the possibility to use pixel shift with K-1.

[Digitalis]

I used to shoot 35mm Kodachrome 25 and Kodak Tech Pan until I discovered the world of medium format.

you should try Tech pan on 8X10 format.... your mind will be blown.

[Alex645]

you should try Tech pan on 8X10 format.... your mind will be blown.

I can imagine with gelatin silver all over the walls and ceiling. The last two times I was blown away:

--An exhibition where the photographer shot stereo 8x10 color transparencies and had them backlit and there was a viewer so that you'd achieve the binocular effect of 3D. It was like real life but everything was frozen. Think of a viewmaster toy with (2) 8x10 and glass optics instead of (2) 110 with plastic.

--When I was an undergrad in the UCLA film school, we watched original silver nitrate films in a special theatre that had all the safety equipment to project those gems. It gave a new meaning to "the silver screen" and those black & white cinematic images made everything on 'safety film' pale in comparison.

[Rondec]

There is no cure, nor does there have to be one. Just let these people be. Watching images at 100% is not harming the environment, other people or contrary to the public interest. I will do it myself occasionally, just to see whether I'm stronger than that and can resist the temptation for the next few images. Works really well for the self esteem. Really.

Pixel peeping causes a general dissatisfaction with one's gear which can bleed over to a lot of negativism on the Forum and elsewhere. I'm pretty tired of looking at comparison 100 percent magnified bits from DP Review's camera comparison widget or swatches from Imaging Resource's comparison shots. The reality is that the most important aspects of a photograph -- light, composition, and subject -- have nothing to do with pixel level sharpness.

I don't try to take blurry photos, but I need to remember that it is more important to take meaningful photos than sharp ones.

[LensBeginner]

Pixel peeping causes a general dissatisfaction with one's gear which can bleed over to a lot of negativism on the Forum and elsewhere. I'm pretty tired of looking at comparison 100 percent magnified bits from DP Review's camera comparison widget or swatches from Imaging Resource's comparison shots. The reality is that the most important aspects of a photograph -- light, composition, and subject -- have nothing to do with pixel level sharpness.

I don't try to take blurry photos, but I need to remember that it is more important to take meaningful photos than sharp ones.

...or can lead to new acquisitions...

[Gimbal]

That IS the question.
Some sits there looking at their pics in 100% and over and worries.

100% pixelpeeping, what are you a beginner?
Once you go past 200% there is no going back.