Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

And detrimental.......

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And counterproductive.

Anyone who doesn't understand how DOF works might reject an image that is sharp enough for it's intended use.

Increasing the magnification reduces the DOF. Something that is within the DOF for the image as a whole is acceptably sharp.

When you zoom in and find that it has become blurred may only indicate the it's now beyond the DOF.

If you reject the image on that basis you just don't understand DOF.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

But the point is that Quality is not changed, or more specifically 'is caused any harm', by pixel peeping/magnifying.

Quality is what it is. It is the 'perception' of the worth/value of the Quality by an individual that may change due to varying viewing/working circumstances.

Hence my opinion that the below comment in your first post has not been supported by any actual 'specific examples', that have been caused to an individual. Specific examples do not include such assumptions or guesses that someone else may delete an image they are assessing due to pixel peeping.


And again absolutely nothing to do with people disagreeing or agreeing with anything I have said, I understand fully that their are many reasons/opinions as to when individuals may do it or not.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You can't hurt hurt the image by magnifying it up to the point where it becomes pixilated. But you might shoot yourself in the foot if you judge the image at 100%.

If you don't consider the ultimate size you intend for the image your perception will be distorted. You will put more effort into it than it warrants.

If you think that the image is not sharp enough at 100% you might discard the image (your loss) or try to increase its sharpness. Likewise you might see noise at 100% and discard the image or torture it with post processing to suppress the noise.

You put together a series of images and posted them here at about 1800x1200 pixels. They came from a 6000x4000 raw image. The final image can be viewed at 9% of its original size. Only two of them seem to have been taken under shady conditions and it looks like you used Auto ISO so you were still relying on the camera's meter. How much effort did your post processing take?

I posted a series of images here using a 16MP camera and I posted them at 2048x1365. My images ended up at about 17% or their original size.

Both sets of images fill my 1920x1080 display but not my 3840x2160 display. Both sets look sharp and devoid of any serious defects.

My original images were captured at base ISO 200 and f/8, mostly at 1/1000s although I lowered the shutter speed for a couple that were taken in the shade. I did not waste my time pixel peeping because I could already see what they were going to look like to everyone else. It took me seconds to prepare each image for posting.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Why waste valuable time pixel peeping, when you could be spending that time arguing for hours here about pixel peeping. Priorities, people!

Granted, I am guilty of thread peeping myself.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Lot's of use of the word "might" in the above. It still does not present an actual example of where an individuals work HAS been degraded/hurt by pixel peeping. It is purely supposition and opinion.

All I can do is laugh, "Only two of them seem to have been taken under shady conditions and it looks like you used Auto ISO so you were still relying on the camera's meter". Relevance, of any of that?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Yes, it's my opinion.

You don't agree and neither of us is going to convince the other.

So at least let's agree to stop talking about it and stop wasting everyone else's time.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Note that in the 'Watched Topics' section, you will see a link titled 'Unwatch'. It can be useful.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

Ive said this before, I have an image that has won multiple contests.
I went to join a photography club. They want you to submit photos and the experts pixel peep and
go on and on about the errors of your pic.
They knocked mine down quite a bit. Then I show them the contests it had won.
pixel peeping is a waste as far as im concerned.

User ID

You dont need that club. You can get the same abuse right here in Hawgland, with no dues owed and no travel to meetings.

Surely you can find a local source of bad coffee and stale doughnuts for enhanced authenticity in your virtual club sessions.

JimGray Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico

I want to put in a good word for camera clubs in general and the competitions they support. I have belonged to three different camera clubs since 1993. Not all of the judges are pixel peepers. In fact, they vary wildly in ability. Most give you not just a score or award, but a critique. I would rather hear what a judge says even if I disagree with her than just get a mediocre score without knowing what the problem was. You do need to have a fairly thick skin to enter competitions as often as I have.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Photography "experts" that place technical details over content are not normal people.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you look for noise in this image (it's there) you are not normal.

(Download)

EJMcD

Such a scintillating thread...YAWN.