A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 22nd 09, 10:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Brad Sanborne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 0
Default 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  
Old August 22nd 09, 11:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Brad Sanborne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 0
Default 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.

  #4  
Old August 22nd 09, 05:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 310
Default 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  
Old August 22nd 09, 06:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 22nd 09, 07:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Brad Sanborne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 0
Default 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  
Old August 22nd 09, 07:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default 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  
Old August 22nd 09, 07:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mike Russell[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default 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  
Old August 22nd 09, 07:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old August 22nd 09, 09:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.