Why should you pixel peep?
Nov 13, 2022 14:31:49 #
A failed image is relative.....
Mostly to the photographer.
Mostly to the photographer.
Nov 13, 2022 14:32:25 #
I suggest rather than making excuses for your results, that you consider instead: if you want better pictures, take better pictures.
Nov 13, 2022 15:07:47 #
Grahame wrote:
I would agree with that in general but it raises t... (show quote)
This is an interesting point. 1:1 review is not always necessary if the unedited image captures the vision of its creator without modification, as is often the case where the photographer has complete control of the subject and lighting. In other cases, I find additional magnification useful. I was struck by your statement about removing unwanted objects. In many cases, the best composition I can find for my subject has distracting elements in it.
For example, there is a beautiful pond within five miles of my house. It is adjacent to a dump. Due to the number of people playing at the pond and the occasional wind-blown trash from the dump, there are a lot of trash cans around the edges of the pond. The pond can be utterly beautiful, especially in the golden hours, but the trash cans are horribly distracting and ugly in many otherwise pleasing compositions. Most of the cans are fixed in place or too heavy to move, so they must be removed in post-processing. Same thing with power lines, as a major transmission path runs adjacent to the lake.
Removing these elements often requires pixel-peeping. Removing hard edges like power lines, especially against a solid background like a blue sky or as it runs behind trees, can often lead to visible artifacts even in the unmagnified image unless it's carefully treated.
Nov 13, 2022 15:30:48 #
jaredjacobson wrote:
.................................I was struck by your statement about removing unwanted objects. In many cases, the best composition I can find for my subject has distracting elements in it.
jaredjacobson wrote:
Removing these elements often requires pixel-peeping. Removing hard edges like power lines, especially against a solid background like a blue sky or as it runs behind trees, can often lead to visible artifacts even in the unmagnified image unless it's carefully treated.
My comments in that post were with respect to 'general image sharpness', e.g. is what you specifically want to be sharp, sharp.
I fully agree with what you say, and it's a good example of where some will find it necessary to magnify what you have to both assess and work on an image.
Nov 13, 2022 15:42:22 #
"A 100% view of a detail is just not relevant to an image I might post, print or offer for sale"
unless detail is the subject of the photo, some subjects demand detail
unless detail is the subject of the photo, some subjects demand detail
Nov 13, 2022 15:53:50 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The only time I don't review an image at the 1:1 pixel-level details is never.
Double negative on purpose?
Nov 13, 2022 15:58:06 #
Nov 13, 2022 16:49:06 #
Pixel peeping has its uses, however, if you can't tell if it is a good image without pixel peeping it is not a good image.
Nov 13, 2022 16:53:02 #
Rusty Lens wrote:
Pixel peeping has its uses, however, if you can't tell if it is a good image without pixel peeping it is not a good image.
Good point.
Nov 13, 2022 17:22:23 #
Rusty Lens wrote:
Pixel peeping has its uses, however, if you can't tell if it is a good image without pixel peeping it is not a good image.
Nov 13, 2022 17:24:49 #
When was the last time you did a wildlife shot and never looked at the eye to see if it was in focus without going to 100 or even 200%?
Nov 13, 2022 17:38:26 #
Drledft1 wrote:
When was the last time you did a wildlife shot and never looked at the eye to see if it was in focus without going to 100 or even 200%?
Ummm... Never?
Nov 13, 2022 18:41:24 #
Nov 13, 2022 20:10:10 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The only time I don't review an image at the 1:1 pixel-level details is never.
You just confused me. It sounds like you review all images at the 1:1 level. Is that true?
Nov 13, 2022 20:37:41 #
BudsOwl wrote:
You just confused me. It sounds like you review all images at the 1:1 level. Is that true?
Exactly. It takes 1-second to see if the image is in-focus or not. I kick everything out of focus in a 1-second review of the pixel-level details, usually just looking at the center of the frame. The only time I have just 1-version of something is when that something is shot on film. The same rule applies, but an out-of-focus film image is rare as I might prep for 30-seconds on that 1 film frame, shooting with the same focusing techniques as digital (selective AF point and BBF with AF-Servo / Continuous).
Once you've kicked the out-of-focus frames, you can look again, now looking at really-in-focus vs not-as-much. Now, it's even easier to kick the not-as-much. You need a tool that immediately renders the image (JPEG or RAW) so your 1-second decision wastes no time waiting for the image rendering.
After removing the wasted digital frames, you can now step back from the 1:1 details and look at the compositions. You still should have multiple in-perfect-focus images where you can decide which is the best composition for editing / completion.
If you're not getting multiple perfectly focused digital images, consider the ideas in this post: How to obtain sharp images in digital photography
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.