p.7 #1 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
alundeb wrote:
It must be because I am an engineer and Canon gearhead with no photographic talent nor artistic vision, that I process some of my images like this and get "textures" for free:
You are selling yourself short, my friend..... If that were my image (the bottom one) -- I would make one big-ass print and proudly hang it on the wall....
p.7 #2 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
alundeb wrote:
The use of the term "pixel peeper" as a derogatory remark should for fairness sake be supplied with the common meaning:
"A digital photographer who magnifies photographs on the computer screen to critically evaluate image resolution at the pixel level."
Not that I disagree, but there needs to be more to this. It should include
''inclinded to argue about 100% pixels of different cameras, with different pixel amounts and different pixel densities, in a similar manner of comparing a cat to an elephant."
p.7 #3 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
nathanlake wrote:
Of the people that actual use their cameras (both pro and amateur), I would bet that the percentage using a camera over 20 years old is minuscule. The Canon lens mount change is no longer a real issue.
I take my Nikon F2 (purchased used in 1976) and a 50mm 1.4 out for a stroll at least once a month. I call it my "back to basics" project. Generally shoot Kodak Pro BW400CN (C-41 process B&W) and digitize with my 7d, Nikon Bellows, 55mm Micro Nikkor, and film copying attachment. Get very interesting results.....
And...... if I'm feeling froggy one afternoon, I pixel-peep THAT!!! Oh the joy of distinguishing film grain from digital noise in the same image!!!
p.7 #4 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
BrianO wrote:
I also see comments like yours that imply that if the lighting, color, and composition are good then it doesn't matter if the lens is a 35L, a non-IS 18-55 kit lens, or a pinhole in a piece of foil.
Depending on the goal, it does matter.
Better equipment can't turn a bad photographer into a great one, but better equipment can help any photographer to do his or her best.
It doesn't actually, not for those three factors anyway.
p.7 #6 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
BrianO wrote:
I also see comments like yours that imply that if the lighting, color, and composition are good then it doesn't matter if the lens is a 35L, a non-IS 18-55 kit lens, or a pinhole in a piece of foil.
Depending on the goal, it does matter.
n0b0 wrote:
It doesn't actually, not for those three factors anyway.
I disagree; I think it matters very much.
I've used all of those devices, but they are not 100% interchangeable for every goal.
p.7 #8 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
n0b0 wrote:
What devices are you talking about? Are you telling me that lighting, colour and composition can be affected by your lens? C'mon...
Lighting:
Flare?
Colour:
The color reproduction differences of Sigma and Zeiss glass is difficult to make up for in post-processing.
Composition:
I would definitely compose a pinhole image differently from a 35L image. Pinhole gives a very special look that benefits from a composition where it works.
p.7 #9 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Bloody hell... alundeb, I would suggest you read my previous post p.5 #9 to find out how my discussion with BrianO started because right now, you're way out of context... But here's the gist of it, I was talking about "3D look" comments to illustrate my point about how a lot of people give too much credit to their gear.
As usual in these discussion threads, jump in the middle of someone else's discussion without trying to find out what the context is.
Since when is flare part of lighting? Here's a tip, use a lens hood and don't shoot into a strong light source. Lens flare is an effect that should be used sparingly, it's not your standard lighting technique.
Colour, again, read my post #9 on page 5. I was talking about colour theory in that "3D look" context. You know, like cool colours tend to recede into the frame while vibrant warm colours leap out.
Composition, I was talking about composition in a general sense, you know... rule of 3rd, lead in lines, foreground interests, etc. etc.
p.7 #10 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
n0b0 wrote:
What devices are you talking about?
A 35L, an 18-55 non-IS kit lens, and a pinhole.
n0b0 wrote:
...Are you telling me that lighting, colour and composition can be affected by your lens? C'mon...
No, I'm saying that the capture of the lighting, color, and composition can be affected by the lens.
All those factors alone do not create the recorded image. You can have the most beautiful set on the planet, but unless you want to leave it set up and have people come to your studio to view it, then you need to capture it. For that, the gear also comes into play, and so depending on the goal the gear does matter. It's as plain and simple as that.
p.7 #14 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
alundeb wrote:
The use of the term "pixel peeper" as a derogatory remark should for fairness sake be supplied with the common meaning:
"A digital photographer who magnifies photographs on the computer screen to critically evaluate image resolution at the pixel level."
That is an incomplete description of how the terms is typically applied. A complete description built on your good start could be:
"A digital photographer who magnifies photographs on the computer screen to 100% or more to critically evaluate image resolution at the pixel level, and often follows up by making decisions about equipment and processes based on differences perceived at this magnification which are irrelevant in photographic prints or other means of reproduction. Further, pixel peepers may often appear to be more concerned about defining insignificant technical differences than about photographic art."
The "magnifies photographs... to critically evaluate" idea would have to include anyone who, for example applies sharpening to their images displayed at a size larger than the intended print size - and that is just about everyone. We all, I hope, "critically evaluate" our images as we work on them, and inspecting at 100% as we work on a print lets us make adjustments that can have real effects on the final print.
Whatever "logic" one might apply to their personal notions about the term "pixel-peeper," that is not the situation to which it has been applied. For example, every time I prepare a photograph for printing, at several points in my workflow I examine the image at 100% (and sometimes higher) magnification. I am "critically evaluating" aspects of my work so that I can make the best decisions about things like sharpening and so forth that will optimize the quality of my print in ways that will be visible.
Clearly, the implication goes beyond working critically - something the lots of photographers do - and clearly the main use of the term is to identify those who then misapply what they discern at huge magnifications and with careful side-by-side comparisons. There is also typically an implication that such people may be very concerned about tiny and insignificant differences in one area of technical performance, but be blind to other more significant differences and may appear to be not very concerned about the things that are actually important and compelling about photography.
p.7 #16 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
pKai wrote:
You are selling yourself short, my friend..... If that were my image (the bottom one) -- I would make one big-ass print and proudly hang it on the wall....
+1 nice banding, better than 5d2 banding structure for sure
p.7 #17 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
mttran: Thank you! Yes, the vertical banding here resembles precipitation, in harmony with the mood of this image.
gdanmitchell: I understand that you don't see yourself as a pixel peeper, and I don't want to push you into it. I just found it necessary to inlude the originating, basic definition to fill in with the one you first provided, together they describe how the term has been used and is now being used.
I can live with being a pixel peeper. When I purchase an expensive lens, that is an investment supposed to outlive a couple of camera generations. Differences in resolution that seem insignificant now, will be revealed to a more significant amount when used with cameras of higher resolution, with more careful technique, and the image printed at larger sizes.
p.7 #18 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
n0b0 wrote:
What devices are you talking about? Are you telling me that lighting, colour and composition can be affected by your lens? C'mon...
yes
you won't do natural lighting photography of slightly (or more) moving (or static with no tripod) subjects with an f/5.6 lens if the natural lighting is poor
you won't get the subject to pop out of the background with an f/5.6 lens unless you can shoot it from very close in
you won't compose the image the same way if all you have is a 17mm lens or all you have is a 400mm lens!
a lens that has tons of flare or very poor contrast or a very heavy cast will alter the colors
p.7 #19 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
mttran wrote:
So the one, who got 21Mpixel or latest canon cam then compared it to his/her/someone older cam, is not a pixel-peeper. Does this sound right to you
Comparing one thing to another does not make you a pixel peeper. Who doesn't do that?
It is how you regard the nature and importance of the comparison in the context of photographic results that makes the difference. That's why I added some words to reflect this when I expanded that description of "pixel peeping."
And, as Ansel might have said, while black and white are interesting, there is also a lot of gray in the world.
