Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:24:28 -1000, Scott W wrote:

Calvin Drayer wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:24:31 GMT, John Navas wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:15:56 GMT, Calvin Drayer
wrote in :

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:49:35 -1000, Scott W wrote:

I also would take some issue with your table of needed pixels, this is a
personal thing. For an 8 x 10 print I would say 4MP is acceptable, but
just and very good would be 8MP. And with a good printer you can see a
noticeable improvement going from 8 to 16 MP for a 8 x 10 print, so I
don't see how even 8MP could be call best for this size print.
It's clear that you never do much photography, nor printing. Even more important
than the number of pixels is the subject matter. With the right subject matter
even the images from 1.2MP cameras (with good optics) can print exceptionally
well at 8x10 sizes.
Really? Example please.

There are no cut and dried examples. Every image is a unique situation, so is
the way it is displayed and viewed. But I can explain (using words) some simple
and general examples where pixel resolution is of less to little importance.

Low resolution, large size prints:

Compositions done with an ambient atmospheric haze.
Dimly lit images shrouded in fog.
Portraiture done with blurring or softening effects.
Higher detailed images with sharp angular shapes and patterns that prevent the
eye from looking further than the bolder larger shapes.
Low contrast images.
Large bold compositions with no strong point of focus for the observer.
Socially and emotionally challenging subject matter where the content is too
overwhelming for them to ever care how it was printed or at what quality.


Conversely, to provide a point of reference:

High resolution, lower size prints:

Subject matter where only one fine compositional point of focus draws your eye,
and that focal point has important and meaningful detail.
High detailed images where the composition is in the details and would be lost
without them.
Large majestic vistas where the viewer's eye may be drawn into any portion of
it, always wanting to see more and more.


I have made some 8x10 prints from 1.2 megapixel images where the subject was so
stunning that people did not look to see if it had pixelation. They are more
mesmerized by the subject than its presentation. (The should-be goal of any
worthwhile photographer.)

More is dependent on the viewer and the subject than any cut and dried printing
resolution rules. This is why I know that all this analysis falls flat under
real-world conditions when taking into account human perception and their base
behaviors and values. Photography is not all about resolution numbers, you have
to know your audience or none of those numbers matter to anyone but another
number cruncher.

I agree with your guidelines about probable print sizes and resolutions needed,
it's a good starter graph for someone who has no experience. But you have to
take into account the subject first and foremost. The subject may, and often
will, make all those nice charts and lists totally obsolete.

So what you are saying is that since some prints the resolution does not
matter we should not worry about it?

I would think it would be good to have enough resolution so that when
you are shooting a subject that benefits from it (like 95% of the time)
you have it.

When talking about the technical quality of a print it is useful to talk
about what resolutions are needed. Technical quality is not as
important as the subject matter, but this does not mean you should
ignore it either. What you are ultimately after is a print of a good
subject with good composition with good lighting and technically good.

If the technical quality of a print really was not that important we
could have all been using Kodak disk camera back in the 80s.

Scott

Mapplethorpe could have most certainly used a Kodak Disc camera when taking his
image of a crucifix marinating in a jar of urine and still made just as large of
an impact in the art world and society as a whole. The value of resolution and
technical quality are inversely proportional to the value of the content. As the
value of the content goes down you'll have to depend on technical superiority.
(Which, sadly, only reveals the priorities of a talentless photographer.) It's
also just not as simple as content alone. You have to understand human
perception and know what draws their eye, and why. If you know that the details
in the image are larger than the individual pixels and those details are clearly
defined by those fewer pixels, they'll never look past those slightly larger
details to see the pixels, the pixels will be invisible to them. Humans have
many blind-spots, easy to induce in them (politicians do it daily), they are
easily distracted from finer details by shiny objects. Put it this way, if your
photography can't distract them from visible pixels then you're doing something
drastically wrong all along.

If you think technical quality is going to turn you into a great photographer
some day, or save your commonplace photography from its mediocrity, I know of
some swampland in Florida that you'd also be interested in. Which reminds me of
a perfect example. Someone that I was teaching photography to showed me an image
that he took on his very first 1024x786 pixel camera. It was close-up image of a
large alligator head burning in a large campfire at night. A striking image in
the way he composed that shot, worth printing. I was trying to teach him the
differences about dpi, ppi, and lpi at the time. He printed it as an 8x10 photo
one day out of curiosity, as a test to see how all this mattered. He was
startled at how large and blocky the image looked. As it should. The pixels
became way too distracting to appreciate or see the content when printed at that
size. Then I showed him how to upsample an image to smooth out those pixels, to
hide them in the print. Printed again and shown to others nobody noticed the low
resolution details in the photo. The content alone was enough so they never
noticed it. Even a 1024x768 image can be printed to 8x10 size if the content
allows it. That photo is now on display in an upscale establishment. Nobody
realizing it was taken with a camera of that low resolution. They don't care nor
notice, the content doesn't allow them to see the (lack of) technical quality.

Extra resolution is fine and dandy, but don't go basing your future on it. It
should never be a primary concern. This reminds me of the photographers that
think, "If I only had faster burst modes, or higher ISOs available, or that
better lens to improve my lack-luster compositions, then my photos will become
better and worth seeing." Same difference, same blame-the-tool foolishness.

Any printer that prints at multiples of 200dpi (eg 600dpi, 1200dpi) can print at 200dpi.

--
cmyk
"Scott W" wrote in message ...
cmyk wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:21:44 GMT, ClarkJohnson
wrote in :

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:10:43 +1100, "cmyk" wrote:

You would do well to take time to study this instead of peremptorily
dismissing it. Your response betrays a certain lack of
understanding of some fairly basic issues.

Your whole post betrays your lack of experience with reality and
photography in
general. Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it
will ever do
with PPI settings.

And a difference of a few percent is totally meaningless.


John,

That few percent makes *all* the difference. The practical limit for
your camera with an 11x14 print is 200dpi - with the excess
pixels cropped off. The theoretical limit might be 209dpi, but can you
print at 209dpi? No, the nearest you can get without interpolation is
200dpi (and either get a slightly larger print or crop a few percent
from the image dimensions)

When you send an image with data for 209dpi to a 216dpi printer, the two
systems are out of phase. So the printer interpolates all
those out-of-phase pixels and the only ones that actually line up are
every 209th pixel horizontally & vertically from your camera
and every 216th pixel horizontally & vertically from the printer.
Everything in between is a composite made up of various
proportions of 4 adjoining pixels from your camera - if you downsample
to 200dpi instead of cropping to the right pixel count for
your print size, the printer could be using parts from as many as 9
pixels from your camera.

Either way, the end is a softening of the image. True the print might
look OK when printed at 216dpi - but not as good as it could look with a
bit of cropping and reprinting at 200dpi.

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/techc...uary_2006.html
or any of the many similar articles that are readily available on the
subject. Then you might actually be able to contribute something useful
to the discussion instead of digging a hole for yourself.


What printer do you know of prints at 216 ppi?

For that matter what printer do you know of that prints at 200ppi.

I know of printer that print at 300, 320, 360, 720 and 254 ppi, but I
don't know any that print at either 216 or 200ppi.

Scott

"John Navas" wrote:

Lots of carefully calculated constants ruthlessly snipped

FWIW, in my tests, if I can see a difference at 100% (actual pixels) on the
screen, I can see a difference in a 300 ppi print. More significantly,
people I hand prints to can see that difference as well.

Try this.

Take a 600 x 600 crop from an unsharpened image from your camera. Make a
copy. Sharpen one so that it looks noticeably snappier at 100% on the
screen. Print them next to each other an A4 or 8x10 sheet of quality photo
paper on a good printer at 300 ppi. See what percentage of people can tell
the difference.

You might want to repeat at 200 ppi and the other common ppi levels you
print at.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:18:40 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

Calvin Drayer wrote:

Extra resolution is fine and dandy, but don't go basing your future on it. It
should never be a primary concern. This reminds me of the photographers that
think, "If I only had faster burst modes, or higher ISOs available, or that
better lens to improve my lack-luster compositions, then my photos will become
better and worth seeing." Same difference, same blame-the-tool foolishness.

I don't blame my tools, I give them credit, when someone asks how I get
such good photos I tell them that a large part of it is having the right
camera and the right lens.

With all due respect, you're missing his point -- none of the great
photographers I've ever heard of have given a "large part" of the credit
for good photos to their tools. All more sophisticated tools add is
convenience, not goodness. Photographers make good (great) photos, not
cameras.

And when I see others photos that often look like crap often I blame
their lack of tools more then their lack of skill. I have seen a ton of
photos that would have been very good, but the camera was just not up to
the job.

Hard to say without actual examples, but I think more likely a lack of
skill.

As for higher iso, I do have higher iso and wish more people did as
well. We might see a lot less photos taken with the on camera flash.

Not necessarily -- high ISO can't really make up for poor lighting.

Is it ok if I use a tripod when shooting in low light, or is it silly of
my to expect that using technology like a tripod would make my photos
any better?

Why would you think it essential? I've gotten many great low light
photos just by putting my camera on an available firm surface, including
one I posted here recently.

Is it ok for me to worry about getting the wight balance
right,or is this just more stuff that gets in the way of composition.
How about exposure, I probably don't need to worry about that either as
long as I have the composition right.

A good photographer does deal with technique, and doesn't depend on
tools to do it for him/her.

The point is you really would like all the elements right and just
because composition is important does not mean you can ignore the
technical details of your photo or print.

The point is that a great photographer can make great images with
ordinary tools.

Better tools help those with lesser skills to make technically better
images, but those still aren't likely to be great images.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"Scott W" wrote in message ...
cmyk wrote:
Any printer that prints at multiples of 200dpi (eg 600dpi, 1200dpi) can print at 200dpi.


It would be crazy to crop to get a 200 ppi image for a 600ppi printer.
If the image was very sharp you would some loss going from 216 to 200ppi, but that is not what the print driver would do, it would
up sample to 600ppi, and there would be next to no loss there., or perhaps you have an image that would show loss of detail when
going from 216 to 600ppi?

Scott

Pay attention Scott:

The only way an FZ8 can generate an 11*14 print is by printing at a low resolution.

A minor correction is in order: You can get an 14*11 print at a higher resolution than 200ppi. If you've got a 1440dpi printer, you
can't print at 200dpi but you can print at roughly 206dpi, meaning you can eke that last extra bit of resolution from the pic. With
with a maximum image size 3072*2304, you have the options of a 14.9*11.2 print @ 206ppi or a 15.4 *11.5 print @ 200ppi. Or you can
crop either file down to suit a smaller output at either of those resolutions.

--
cmyk

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:22:56 +1100, "cmyk" wrote:

"Scott W" wrote in message ...
cmyk wrote:
Any printer that prints at multiples of 200dpi (eg 600dpi, 1200dpi) can print at 200dpi.


It would be crazy to crop to get a 200 ppi image for a 600ppi printer.
If the image was very sharp you would some loss going from 216 to 200ppi, but that is not what the print driver would do, it would
up sample to 600ppi, and there would be next to no loss there., or perhaps you have an image that would show loss of detail when
going from 216 to 600ppi?

Scott

Pay attention Scott:

The only way an FZ8 can generate an 11*14 print is by printing at a low resolution.

A minor correction is in order: You can get an 14*11 print at a higher resolution than 200ppi. If you've got a 1440dpi printer, you
can't print at 200dpi but you can print at roughly 206dpi, meaning you can eke that last extra bit of resolution from the pic. With
with a maximum image size 3072*2304, you have the options of a 14.9*11.2 print @ 206ppi or a 15.4 *11.5 print @ 200ppi. Or you can
crop either file down to suit a smaller output at either of those resolutions.

I believe you two bickering fools are resident-troll rejects from
alt.comp.periphs.printers when they got tired of your anal-retentive nonsense
there too. So you thought you'd come here to play out your "DIP-Show" (oops, did
I mean "DPI-Show"?) to see how it would play to a different audience.

Spend more time learning how to become a decent photographer and you'll find out
that none of what you have lost your minds in will matter.

On 17 Nov 2007 11:47:50 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:49:35 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
[SNIP]

Well I don't see how looking at the screen at %25-33% can tell you how
the print is going to look, unless you are making a very small print.
Say you start with 8MP and view at 25%, you effectively are throwing out
15 out of 16 pixels in your viewing, reducing your 8MP image down to 0.5 MP.

Viewing at 100% on screen would only be comparable to printing if your
screen had the same high resolution as the printer, but it's not even
close, as I tried to explain.

I suspect there are two quite different uses of 100% here. I suspect
by 100% you mean the image fills the screen.

I actually mean 1:1 mapping of pixels.

Whereas many image
editors take 100% to mean a pixel for pixel mapping, which with
today's cameras means that you only see a small bit of the image on
the screen, and have to scroll around to see the rest. At that kind of
100% you can see every pixel which owuld be visible on your printer,
...

The problem is that you see things on screen that way that aren't
visible in a print, since the screen is so much coarser than a good
printer.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:34:28 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

The point is that a great photographer can make great images with
ordinary tools.

Better tools help those with lesser skills to make technically better
images, but those still aren't likely to be great images.

I once saw a photo of what one of the National Geographic photographs
took with him when he traveled, just about filled a room.

Some do; some don't. Depends on the photographer and on the assignment.
My late father shot not only for Nat Geo, but also Life, Time, and other
major publications with just a Leica rangefinder.

The tools matter, top photographer might not talk about it since they
just assume they are going to be buying and using good gear.

Top photographers know that what counts is the photographer, not the
tool.

Do a search a PBase.com for whale and look at the photos that are really
impressive and then check out what kind of camera took that photo, and
what lens was used.

Check out great photographers who used modest cameras. Start with Henri
Cartier-Bresson.

the point is that is is very easy to find lots of great
whale photos taken with good camera, but very hard to find a good one
that is taken with a P&S

Popularity on PBase is meaningless.

The gear matters.

What matters is the photographer. Always has. Always will.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:25:37 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

So try a Fuji Frontier.

There is not a lot of choices around here, we are just lucky to have a
Costco.

Fair enough, but a sample of one does not a real case make. The printer
at your local Costco might be misadjusted, poorly maintained, or just
plain poor.

That's a kind of pixel peeping.
I compare prints with normal viewing.

In looking at the same image printed from Costco to the inkjet print the
inkjet print is sharper, at my normal viewing distance.

Here is a 100% crop of a 300 ppi scan of both

100% crops are pixel peeping. Your display is much coarser than the
printer.

In any event, I suggest you try a better commercial printer.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:29:21 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

The only P&S that I have used that had raw output was my Sony F828, it
was very slow at saving RAW images so I did not do this often, but the
benefit of using raw with it was much greater then with either of our
DSLRs. It is not that it over compresses the jpeg image, it is that it
does far too much noise filtering trying to make a clean looking image.
In particular any larger area of blue it seems to assume is sky and
filter this very strongly.

Other camera may not do this, the only point is you can loss a lot of
detail even if the image is not over compressed.

What's being lost isn't necessarily detail (luminance) if noise
reduction is working mostly on chrominance -- you can have color
smearing without losing much detail.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)