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.