BrettOssman Loc: near Tampa, Florida

Hope it is OK to just ask a question on here?

I typically judge a photo at a normal viewing distance, as a whole. I don't zoom in and look at it.

However, I know this type of analysis is the norm in the industry. What is the purpose of zooming in so close to analyze a photo, when you can't see the issue(s) without zooming? Is it for printing or blowing up?

Thanks :-)

conkerwood

Thats actually a really good question. In the digital world if you are going to look at pics or print pics in small size then obviously much will be lost and perhaps it is fairly pointless to offer critique on the fine details. And if someone puts up a small sized pic saying this is the size that I want your critique to be based on then looking at the fine details serves no purpose, though of course there is still much to look at in terms of composition, subject matter, impact etc even at a small size. Certainly there are those poor obsessed souls out there who would want to blow everything up to 400% and identify a single errant pixel but fortunately, in most cases, common sense prevails. But the reality is that computers do allow us to zoom in, modern SLRs do provide the scope for greater and greater resolution and we are able to print full size pics (if you can afford the printing costs) so it seems reasonable to me that a critique should be based on the pic viewed at full size. You say that you don't zoom in and look at it whereas the reality is that if you are looking at it at less than full size then by shifting your perspective you can equally say that are actually zoomed out to view it.You ask what is the purpose of zooming in so close to analyze a photo when you can't see the issue whereas I would reverse the question and say what is the purpose of remaining zoomed out to smaller than full size because by doing so you miss the details that were there in the original. Please understand I am not trying to be confrontational in saying this rather I just want to give a different perspective on what is a really interesting question

Regards

Peter

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I like to zoom in to check the focus and sometimes to see the details, though I don't think anything more than 100% is necessary. I am not sure what you mean by normal viewing distance. If you mean looking at the thumbnails you can't see detail, if normal viewing distance is what you get on download, I would agree that that is usually large enough for me, but there have been times that even that doesn't let me see the detail in the photo.
This question should probably be in the photo discussion area, but I will have to let Nightski do that if she thinks it necessary.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I also think it is an excellent question, and I think it belongs here because it's a critique question. My own take on the answer is, it depends: I tend to think "normal" viewing distance is "comfortable" viewing distance, and it is relative. Viewing distance scales to the size of the original. Looking at prints, say, if you have a 4x6" print in your hand you'll probably look at it quite close, no more than around 18 inches, for the purpose of seeing details. If you take the same picture and enlarge it to, say, 8x12", you're apt to hold it about twice as far away, arm's length to get it all in—comfortable viewing distance, but you can also get closer to see detail. Enlarge it again to billboard size and you'll probably want to be 60 or more feet away. A picture that big will start to break into component pixels if you get too close and you'll see nothing.

I am a "sharp freak," so I like to check my own stuff at 100% to be sure it's in my "acceptably sharp" ballpark (which also varies), but I tend not to worry a lot about "noise" (which I persist in thinking of as "grain" ;) ). That's because I also consider "noise" to be relative (as opposed to noisy relatives :D ). I will accept a noisy picture if it's sharp enough since at "comfortable" viewing distance, which is relative, I'm more likely to notice fuzziness than noise. Very generally I will not show a picture that is not sharp.

I very much enjoy this new forum, but I often do not weigh in on a particular picture because, being a "sharp freak," that is the first thing I look at, and I like to look at the download. If someone submits a bird picture I look at the bird's eye in the downloaded version. If it's not sharp, quite honestly, I'm apt to move on without comment, but that's my predilection. The picture may otherwise be gorgeous, but for me if it's not sharp… :cry:

Bushpilot Loc: Minnesota

I submit photos to a particular stock photography website, because the photos are used in anything from a website, advertising, magazines or billboards the focus is critical, also digital noise is critical. The submissions are routinely examined at 100% for focus and the presence of noise.
I guess it depends on your photos intended use.

BrettOssman Loc: near Tampa, Florida

Great replies by everyone. Thanks again, and to any that follow.

I didn't like the term "normal" either, but couldn't think of anything better. :-) Maybe "typical or "casual"?

I've done stock too, so I get that part. The "intended use" approach makes a lot of sense. To me full-size will most likely will be what fits on my computer screen, no scrolling. :lol: I RARELY print.

David Denham Loc: Lewiston, ID/Clarkston. WA

I tend to be a sharp freak, as Chuck said, and his comment on "grain/noise" reminded me of a class I took years ago sponsored by Leica. We shot M3's/M4's using Panatomic-X B&W film and developed in Microdol-X. We enlarged to 11 x 14, and the final product was very sharp, but did show a moderate amount of grain (noise), that was deemed very acceptable. How times have changed. :)

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

In the days of traditional photography, the normal viewing distance was the diagonal of the print. People intuitively adjust it because we fit the print into the same viewing angle of the eye. Consequently, the sharpness and size of the print wind up being the same.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I like to take the entire photo in as a whole photo. I am not a test lab. So, zooming in for whatever purpose doesn't provide any visual benefit in appreciating the final work.

The only time I check for extreme detail is during the process of making a print. I'll use a magnifier specially made for focusing and I make sure the grain is sharp. If the grain is sharply in focus, then the print will be.
--Bob

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I'm frequently struck by the difference between viewing a picture in the forum and viewing it full-screen after download. The downloaded picture can look sharper, more detailed and in some cases it can look brighter or darker than the forum picture.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I don't know for certain, but I believe the pictures that run on the forum are different—somehow—than the downloaded ones. Someone has a term for the ones on the forum. I tried to find it (can't remember it) but can't, except that the word "brochure" comes to mind, as in "brochure pics." Or something like that. The main thing is that, as I understand it, the downloaded versions should look sharper, more detailed and in some cases…brighter or darker. I'm pretty sure it's the reason why it's best to make the pictures shown on the PC&A Forum downloadable even if the poster doesn't want them touched. :)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I can appreciate that they need to keep file sizes small to minimise the forum's storage requirements (which must be huge). Maybe they use some form of compression in addition to Jpeg.

[EDIT - Good point about using the Download option in the PC&A section].

Nightski

Thumbnail. If you don't click the "store original" they call it a thumbnail, and you can't do much with it if you download it that way.