If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
I started to wonder how all this brouhaha over sensor-noise and resolution came to be the determining factor in quality photography. Then it dawned on me. Before digital cameras only people working in their own darkrooms studied their negatives and slides with a good powered loupe. Usually only 5x, 8x, or at the most 10x power. In fact I have my old 8x loupe sitting beside me right here, a little desktop reminder of my darkroom days. The average photographer and snapshooter, of which there are millions today, used to be happy with recovering their pack of prints or 8x10s from the local lab. Never once looking at the quality of the negatives or slides beforehand--no more than looking at it to see if it was a pleasing image and there wasn't too much blur to allow appreciation of the subject. The subject being the whole point of photography. Today they all easily take a high-powered loupe to every photo ever taken. Do the math on how much magnification you are seeing by viewing a 3648 pixel-width image from a 10-megapixel camera on an average 96-dpi LCD monitor at 1:1 resolution. That's like looking at a negative with a 38x-power dissecting microscope. Zooming into the negative or slide with magnifications far beyond what the professional darkroom photographers even had with their loupes, just to see what is there. To see if their image is worth appreciating or worth printing. In film photography days, sure, sharpness and resolution was important, but the experienced photographer knew that the subject of the photograph itself was far more important than any technical quality of that image. Without a decent subject and composition then all the technical quality in the universe was meaningless, and still is. If a subject and composition was good it would even withstand a lot of grain (noise) in the image when printed. In fact grain was often incorporated to give certain photographs the right mood and feeling. Heavens forbid that any pixel-level noise should be in any photo today, noise of such small nature that it literally disappears when printed. But not so to the pixel-peeper beginner photographer who wants to pretend they are an instant pro. Does everyone here forgot how many ways we used soft-focus filters, put meshes in front of our lenses, or even smeared vaseline (even noise-oil in an emergency) on filters just to reduce the contrast (dynamic range) and resolution of a photo to obtain the style and mood that we needed in order to obtain a useful and marketable image? Today, we have millions of "Insta-Pro Snapshooters" who incessantly believe and promote their inane belief that technical quality will always compensate for their snapshot subjects and compositions. Just because it's so easy for them to take that high-powered 38x loupe to their digital negative and desperately look for something that might be worthwhile in their snapshots at a pixel level. Not finding it, then they think there's something wrong with their camera instead of themselves. They have totally missed the big picture .... and probably always will. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:44:31 -0500, Brad Sanborne
wrote: Do the math on how much magnification you are seeing by viewing a 3648 pixel-width image from a 10-megapixel camera on an average 96-dpi LCD monitor at 1:1 resolution. That's like looking at a negative with a 38x-power dissecting microscope. Correction. Let's for the sake of argument take a 10-megapixel P&S camera at 3648 pixels wide and a sensor width of 5.75mm. That's 634.5 pixels per mm. That's 16,116 pixels per inch. On a 96-dpi monitor viewed at 1:1 that's like looking at a negative with a 168x microscope. Or how about a 15.1 megapixel dSLR at 4752 pixels wide and a sensor width of 22.3mm. That's 213 pixels per mm. That's 5,410 pixels per inch. On a 96-dpi monitor viewed at 1:1 that's like looking at a negative with a 56x microscope. Even if we take a 36mm width as a standard 35mm-film frame for a virtual equivalent negative-size for both, then the P&S image is being viewed with a 29x magnifier and the dSLR image is being viewed with a 36x magnifier when viewed at 1:1 on a 96-dpi monitor. The cause for all this erroneous "technical quality" soap-boxing by beginner snapshooter pixel-peepers becomes obvious. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
There is a reason for pixel-peeping, sometimes. When evaluating a new piece
of gear, like a lens, you can reallysee what it can or cannot do by examining the resulting files at full magnification. Then, after you know the capabilities of the gear, you use it accordingly. Not all pixel peeping is a waste of time. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
Brad Sanborne wrote:
I started to wonder how all this brouhaha over sensor-noise and resolution came to be the determining factor in quality photography. Then it dawned on me. Before digital cameras only people working in their own darkrooms studied their negatives and slides with a good powered loupe. Usually only 5x, 8x, or at the most 10x power. In fact I have my old 8x loupe sitting beside me right here, a little desktop reminder of my darkroom days. The average photographer and snapshooter, of which there are millions today, used to be happy with recovering their pack of prints or 8x10s from the local lab. crud snipped They have totally missed the big picture .... and probably always will. And you're missing a much more important point. High quality gear is expected to provide high quality results. This was true in 1900, 1925, 1950, 1975, 2000 and now. However, dollar for dollar we are getting ever increasing quality and capability not to mention immense time/cost savings from avoiding film and unneeded prints. This means that the average snap shooter is getting commendable technical (and often aesthetic) results with far less than would have been neccessary in the past. Further Mr. Snappy takes more photos (no cost/convenience issues) and gets better at it and gets more useful results more often. The future bodes well for all. For us "serious" photographers, whether amateur or pro, it means we can do routinely now what was not routine or easy in the past. Whether sports, pj, nature, even portraits, it is much easier to get the results. And that is a result of the ever increasing capability of the cameras. (Esp. the ability to instantly review for exposure, lighting, composition, etc.). Pixel peeping permits understanding more about the abilities and limitations of the gear and more importantly to push further with their gear because those limits (or reduction in limits) are understood. It is quite fair to say that a recent pano that I did, which my friend wants printed to nearly 5 metres long, would have been less likely to be "printable" to that size from slide film (unless a lot more shots were taken). And at a mere $110 per the quote I just received from the store. (Regrettably my printer doesn't handle roll paper else I could do it for about $50.00). Anyone serious about anything wants to understand it more profoundly for both the understanding and to both eek out maximum performance or establish generous margins. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:21:03 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:
There is a reason for pixel-peeping, sometimes. When evaluating a new piece of gear, like a lens, you can reallysee what it can or cannot do by examining the resulting files at full magnification. Then, after you know the capabilities of the gear, you use it accordingly. Not all pixel peeping is a waste of time. Yes! I heartily agree! By all means, pixel-peep after you have just purchased your equipment. I do it all the time. But by no means do I use that as the deciding factor. So much more comes into play--adaptability, reach, ergonomics, etc. Pixel-peeping will allow you to know if you lucked-out and got the best of the best in that production line. I was summarily surprised when I found out that one of my P&S cameras surpassed all others reviewed, and reported by similar owners online, when it came to noise-levels (the silicon chip they cut my CCD from is capable of noise-free images to ISO400. ISO800 and ISO1000 also acceptable). Even a well-documented (but hard to detect) background hum in the audio section of this make and model for video and audio clips was bereft of that minor annoyance, only detected by audiophiles. Others even surprised that such silence was unheard of (pun not intended) in this make and model of camera in the audio section when I posted them a sample recorded from a quiet room. However, on the downside, I found that as the camera locks in on auto-focus, it *very* *slightly* defocuses the camera from its original decision as it locks in the pre-determined focus point. I only notice this when I have it set on maximum zoom and manual-focus assist magnification is set to max. It's an annoyance that I know exists, and it could be better (if I had the know-how and tools I'd reset it), but for all the other pluses that I lucked out on, I'm not about to send it in and get that checked, then have them replace something that could never be duplicated again, performance-wise on all other aspects. No two cameras are the same, whether they have the same make and model number or are only 10 units apart in serial numbers. So yes, by all means, pixel-peep when you first get your camera. I never intended to imply that. I'm 100% for pixel-peeping when you first get your camera. But after that, it has probably already surpassed every 35mm film camera you have ever possessed. Put the pixel-peeping away if you are satisfied. Never mention it again, never look back at it again. Get on with capturing and creating those artistic masterpieces that no pixel-peeping in the world will ever be able to improve upon. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
Alan Browne wrote:
Brad Sanborne wrote: I started to wonder how all this brouhaha over sensor-noise and resolution came to be the determining factor in quality photography. Then it dawned on me. Before digital cameras only people working in their own darkrooms studied their negatives and slides with a good powered loupe. Usually only 5x, 8x, or at the most 10x power. In fact I have my old 8x loupe sitting beside me right here, a little desktop reminder of my darkroom days. The average photographer and snapshooter, of which there are millions today, used to be happy with recovering their pack of prints or 8x10s from the local lab. crud snipped They have totally missed the big picture .... and probably always will. And you're missing a much more important point. High quality gear is expected to provide high quality results. Today's pixel peeper have no idea what "high quality" even means. This was true in 1900, 1925, 1950, 1975, 2000 and now. However, dollar for dollar we are getting ever increasing quality and capability not to mention immense time/cost savings from avoiding film and unneeded prints. But it's never good enough to those who substitute technology for art. -- Ray Fischer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:44:31 -0500, Brad Sanborne wrote:
They have totally missed the big picture .... and probably always will. Hear hear. Poor composition, and not being ready for the shot are much more important than attaining the ultimate quality. I took a small, very fast, waterproof P&S camera on vacation last week - family reunion type of thing - and got far better images, and videos, of people than I would have with my usual camera, which is capable of sharp 20x30's. That said, I always have a hard time accepting an image that's satisfactory, but slightly out of focus, so I guess I'll have to plead guilty to my share of pixel peeping too, LOL. I think there's still gold to be had from those who can transplant their film experience into the digital world, and do so convincingly and entertainingly, as you have. Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful article. -- Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
Mike Russell wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:44:31 -0500, Brad Sanborne wrote: They have totally missed the big picture .... and probably always will. Hear hear. Poor composition, and not being ready for the shot are much more important than attaining the ultimate quality. I took a small, very fast, waterproof P&S camera on vacation last week - family reunion type of thing - and got far better images, and videos, of people than I would have with my usual camera, which is capable of sharp 20x30's. That said, I always have a hard time accepting an image that's satisfactory, but slightly out of focus, so I guess I'll have to plead guilty to my share of pixel peeping too, LOL. I think there's still gold to be had from those who can transplant their film experience into the digital world, and do so convincingly and entertainingly, as you have. Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful article. What a butt kissing reply. LOL! There was very little thoughtfulness in his "article". Regurgitation at best of what most of us know and have written about here in spades. Assume that those of us who push our cameras are not only able to compose for what we want, expose properly for the light and desired outcome and that focus is something that if not mastered, is not the top concern on what we need to learn more about. Further, do not assume we were (or are) not film photographers as well. I've been shooting film for a long time. I still do. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:11:52 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: .... High quality gear is expected to provide high quality results. This was true in 1900, 1925, 1950, 1975, 2000 and now. However, dollar for dollar we are getting ever increasing quality and capability not to mention immense time/cost savings from avoiding film and unneeded prints. This means that the average snap shooter is getting commendable technical (and often aesthetic) results with far less than would have been neccessary in the past. Further Mr. Snappy takes more photos (no cost/convenience issues) and gets better at it and gets more useful results more often. The future bodes well for all. For us "serious" photographers, whether amateur or pro.. Very well put. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
missing cache of stolen photos - gone missing! | Alienjones[_3_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | April 11th 08 03:09 AM |
missing cache of stolen photos - gone missing! | Alienjones[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | April 11th 08 03:09 AM |
what is Dynamic PIXEL and Real Type pixel means | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | September 19th 06 11:57 AM |
Nikon D70 Mem Card Anomalies? | pipex | Digital Photography | 30 | September 5th 04 08:03 AM |