For landscape - I use 100% view to "learn my lenses" - I've found most lens hyper focal scale settings are not accurate and of course zooms don't have the scale - knowing where to set your lens HF setting is a nice asset - each lens has it's sweet spot - get to know them and you can stop wondering why things are not what you wanted. A great lens is worthless if it's not focused correctly.
When I get a new lens I pixel peep like crazy to make sure I haven't been supplied with a duff copy (does happen). Once I have satisfied myself that I have a good copy I further pixel peep to understand how different apertures give different image results. This helps me chose the "best" aperture when using the lens, pixel peeping derived knowledge isnt the only factor of course, but a useful one.
Once I am happy with my lens, and am convinced it autofocuses accurately then I tend to relax and lay off pixel peeping with that piece of kit.
To me pixel peeping is like ordering a full survey on a house, just to make sure you are getting what you paid for.
However, I have enough experience with lenses now to know that at 100% no lens on the planet with give total quality all over the frame and at every aperture. All lenses are inevitably some sort of compromise and 100% will definitely show this up.
Pixel peeping is fine provided you know what it is reasonable to expect.
mMontag wrote:
For landscape - I use 100% view to "learn my lenses" - I've found most lens hyper focal scale settings are not accurate and of course zooms don't have the scale - knowing where to set your lens HF setting is a nice asset - each lens has it's sweet spot - get to know them and you can stop wondering why things are not what you wanted. A great lens is worthless if it's not focused correctly.
This is a great point, and I do the same thing - not to check for a "bad copy," but to jump-start the process of understanding the characteristics of the lens so that I may apply that knowledge more quickly and effectively to photographs using the lens.
Another situation where I work at 100% is when doing output sharpening for print, where careful and slight over-sharpening compensates for dot gain (ink spread) on the printer/paper combination. I also do general smart sharpening at 100% so that I can more easily detect and control things like halos. (I do USM at much lower magnifications.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
This is a great point, and I do the same thing - not to check for a "bad copy," but to jump-start the process of understanding the characteristics of the lens so that I may apply that knowledge more quickly and effectively to photographs using the lens.
Another situation where I work at 100% is when doing output sharpening for print, where careful and slight over-sharpening compensates for dot gain (ink spread) on the printer/paper combination. I also do general smart sharpening at 100% so that I can more easily detect and control things like halos. (I do USM at much lower magnifications.)
Pixel peeping is fine as long as Canon knows what's wrong . [ and I get a better lens next release ]
Maybe some of you print out an image and have someone tell you - if you had pixal peeped this you would know how bad this shot is .
All I get is " can / will you make me one to ? " - I always have to say - " don't touch till ink is dry . "
I have only been asked for negatives 3 times and the Raw file 7 times from " pros " 2 from my 10-22 2 from the 17-55 the rest from other lenses .
So thank you to all the pixal peepers who tell canon what is wrong . The rest , a 10 mp normal size is " I think " is 36 X 54 inches - who prints at that ?
Roy Morales wrote:
So thank you to all the pixal peepers who tell canon what is wrong . The rest , a 10 mp normal size is " I think " is 36 X 54 inches - who prints at that ?
That is not "print size" that is "100% view onscreen" (~ 75ppi). Or the same 10MP at 300 ppi is around 9x14 and lots of people print at that size (even bigger, too!) and the (healthy, young) eye can see pixel-sized imperfections when viewing that from around 1 foot.....
Thanks , did not know that . It says image size , I thought that was print size .
I do the rotate thing - landscape or portrait, crop sometimes , never really considered when I say print , it is being cropped .
I have 5 printers , all HP's - 3 because they take same ink carts .
A 4X6 , 5X7 , a portable 8 1/2 X 14 and 2 desktop 8 1/2 X 14 - [ one I have done 8 1/2 X 20 on ]
The 4X6 and portable 8 1/2 X 14 are in Mexico .
Granted , I have not looked - but where do you buy 9 X 14 paper and printers ?
The few shots I print are generally either 5X7 or something close to 8 X10 and fit in a cheap 8 X10 photo frame .
The only time I see someone look at a picture from 1 foot is generally an older person that can not see well .
If interested , my monitor is a 19 inch crt - I am retired , wear glasses and been getting SS for a few years .
So , if my XTI picture is supposed to be 9 X14 what is the size of the 7d coming Monday going to be ?
By the way - thanks again , I am to old to feel insulted when I am corrected or learn something .
If I have multiple of the same shot I look at them to see if one is sharper than the other.
Generally when I get a new lens just shoot some objects around the house / outside, look at them at 100%, unless they are soft there is no problem. Also to look for mis focus issues and then to micro adjust.
I think i generally am not THAT concerened abot the absolute sharpness of lenses, or maybe I have just got lucky with all my lenses and have good copies. I think this is unlikely, and alot of people like to whine about soft images, especially when the most likely cause is thier lack of skill. Thankfully this doesnt happen much here
rhorta wrote:
Pixel peeping usually stands in my way.
A good shot is more than a technically perfect shot.
Ruy
But a good shot that is technically excellent is better than the same shot with technical flaws. There is nothing that says that you must make a choice between aesthetic quality and technical excellence.
Some think they go hand in hand in much of the best photography.
