SteveR Loc: Michigan

How do you determine what size is 100%?

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I use the free Hornil Photo Viewer to look at my pics, and I set the view to 100%. This tells me how good my focus was and how much noise I have. The viewer also displays exif data and a histogram for each pic. I delete all but the best pics for each session I shoot.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It's a "100% Crop". That is a section cropped out of the original that is then displayed in a window that has pixel dimensions that are 100% the size of the section viewed. The significant point is that the section is not resampled to a fit the viewing window.

dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans

Shoot sports for local newspaper. Most of the time with a deadline to meet. I use Fast Picture Viewer.

Free trial at http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/

Reads SD card fast from a USB 3 card reader.
One key press copies image I'm keeping to folder of my choosing.

Hop over to Lightroom and import the folder.

Trash images stay on SD card and get formatted by camera.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

While what you said is certainly correct, sharpness concerns are probably due more to AF inconsistency or the need for MFA, assuming the lens is in good shape and good technique is used.

SwedeUSA2

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here considering the meaning of "just saying":

"a phrase used to indicate that we refuse to defend a claim we've made---in other words, that we refuse to offer reasons that what we've said is true"

"a term coined to be used at the end of something insulting or offensive to take the heat off you when you say it."

What do you say?
Just asking!

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

If they don't look sharp at 100%, they aren't sharp.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's a very high standard if you are using a 36-50 MP sensor - almost impossible to achieve. To do so you would need to use a tripod and optimize your aperture to avoid diffraction.

A more reasonable standard would be to use the largest print that you are likely to ever produce with a consumer grade printer on 13x19 inch paper. For most of us that would be a print about 12x18 inches which calls for less than 20 MP at 300 pixels per inch. Even then, 300 ppi is significant only if your normal viewer plans to get within 10 inches of the print. That might call for about 100% for a 20 MP sensor, 75% for 36 MP or 65% for 50 MP.

The only reason you might want to use 100% is if you plan to significantly crop your image or make a much larger print.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I would suggest that you blow the monitor image up to the actual size it will be printed at. Eg, if you are printing an 8x10 print, blow the picture up so that it is about 8x10 on your monitor. If you have a reasonably good monitor, you should be able to determine if it looks sharp.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The real question is if a picture is sharper than another at a 100% crop, will the difference be noticeable if the picture is displayed at maybe 25% or 30% on a 20" lcd screen or 11"x14" print? I believe it probably does, or why else would print photographers be using 50MP digital Hasselblads for their advertising work appearing in glossy magazine ads?

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

I agree since most of us do not own 50MP cameras, nor do we want to. I would guess the average is a 6000x 4000 mp file. I routinely judge my shots by whether they look sharp on my monitor at 100%. If they don't, they go into the trash. As I said, if they are not sharp at 100%, they are less than sharp!

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

100%

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

67% for me - lots of overkill at 100 ......

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

A cynical answer might be, because they can afford it, they can write off the expense and it gives them credibility to their clients. More than one wedding photographer has admitted that they use medium format because it made them look more professional to their clients and allowed them to charge more.

But aside from those flip answers, a larger format and more megapixels are easier to manage in a studio environment where you can control the scene and lighting. You have bigger files to make fine-tuning of the results easier.

Another reason for medium format is that MF lenses actually produce a sharper image for the same print size. Although the best lenses for the 24x36 mm image actually produce more line pairs per millimeter, a MF lens for a 33x44 digital sensor is just as good or better when you get to the print.

With film, when I compare my best Leica and Zeiss 24x36 format lens to much older Zeiss lenses for my 6x6 cm Hasselblad, the difference in sharpness is unmistakable. The difference extends to larger forma film - lower lp/mm in the lens but more total line pairs in the captured image

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

:thumbup: :thumbup: