abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Viewing at 100%, 200% or whatever is arbitrary. That is based upon the physical size of the file. If you are viewing your pictures on a monitor, it does not matter because you are selecting a magnification the permits the entire file to fit the screen. This ignores the physical size of the file.

If, on the other hand, you are printing and using Photoshop, then I suggest that you resize the picture to the desired print size and view it at print size.

beverett Loc: los angeles

Depends on your purpose. If you are printing snapshots, yes, view them at print size. However, if your work is more serious, you should examine the files at 100-200%.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

My editing software always automatically views a file at the maximum MP size my screen will allow. So whether I took a 5MP or an 16MP shot, the screen (which can only display a maximum of 2MP when using 1920X1080 resolution but some of it is used by the tool bars, empty workspace, buttons, menus, etc.) usually displays at somewhere around 18 to 50% of the file's MP content. Zooming to 80 to 100% is more than enough to look at fine detail closely.

The time allotted for editing, if that's what you're looking for, is partially determined by what the subject is. If I am working on a person or several people as the subject, I examine each of their faces closely looking for acne, a stray hair, a spot of chocolate on a mouth edge from the cake they just ate, a glint of reflection in one eye that isn't in the other, red-eye, etc. and work on those for quite a while. That requires zooming in. But then when I look at the background for trees growing out of heads and weeds growing out of butts, that requires seeing the photo as a whole and zooming back out to the 25 to 50% full screen view to find the objects then zooming back in to 80% or so for some of the cloning or whatever to remove the unwanted object very carefully. I typically increase sharpness, contrast, and color saturation while zoomed out to see the full effect on the whole composition.

I have yet to spend a lot of time in 100% or more zoom level because what I captured was what was in front of the camera and it's not desirable (in my opinion) to tinker around with minute detail because "what is just is" and I shouldn't mess around with it. I believe that's where you're getting into using editing software for photo manipulation rather than for minor improvements.

The exception is when I scan an old photo then work on restoring it by removing dust specks, cracks, and other print imperfections. Specks are best seen at 80%+ zoom and I'll stay zoomed for however long it takes to de-speck the whole thing. I also usually scan at a very high dpi (900 to 1500 typically) so I can enlarge whatever size the original is to 8X10 at 300 dpi and the dust really comes through strong when I do that.

With that said, I may sometimes spend two hours on a digital photo file I am seriously passionate about (but not on something like a series of shots of a party or a wedding) and then leave it alone for a couple days. Then I go back and see if I like what I did previously or whether I am shocked and think I lost my mind two days earlier. I may dabble around for another hour if I like what I see and that's about it - or I might start all over with the original file as though I had never started yet.

One thing I've found is that my prints as large as 13X19 are many times better than what I was obsessing about on the screen anyway. Holding a print in hand or putting it in a frame and seeing it on the wall from several feet is a completely different experience from blood shot eyes staring at a monitor screen 18 inches from your nose - just like reading a real paper book or magazine is completely different than reading online or on a Kindle. Prints have the potential to look better partially because of the printing process, partially because of the 300ppi printer ink drops resolution compared to a monitor's resolution, the light of the room you view it in, the effect of the texture of the paper you printed it on, the gloss/matte/canvas finish of the paper, etc.

I've seen photos that looked great on a screen but when wall size they sucked. I've seen other photos that also looked great on a screen and looked awesome wall size. Editing doesn't guarantee a great final product but it can many times help.

I might also mention that, in my opinion, each photographic image has a "sweet spot" size that feels best for it. You could take a shot of an antique window in an old house that has been weathered over 100 years of harsh Nebraska weather and has a pane of glass missing, then print it at 4X6 vertical and it just doesn't work. But that same photo, when blown up to 11X14 or 16X20 vertical may be awesome. The family dog playing with a stick may look great at sizes up to 8X10 but when enlarged to 16X20 or 20X24 just looks like a total waste of ink and paper because it adds nothing to the impact and may even detract from impact.

My two cents worth... Okay, let's hear from the opposition and sticklers for detail.

forbescat

Each February I send my Aunt Emma (who will soon be 94) a couple of dozen 13X19 pictures that I print for her. It is interesting to me to see the pictures that large and how some are enhanced and some I have to just throw away. I've gotten pretty good at sensing what will work and what won't which is a good thing because it gets a bit pricey to be throwing away all that paper and ink.

Retired 1sg Loc: Central Ohio

I go above 100% to fix minor flaws in PP but I will zoom as much as possible when fixing old scanned photos