Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 21, 2011, 9:31 AM   #11
Senior Member
mtclimber's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143


How do those photos from your new Nikon S8100 look at 100%?

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2011, 8:01 PM   #12
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Niagara Falls, NY
Posts: 98

Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post

How do those photos from your new Nikon S8100 look at 100%?

Sarah Joyce
I think they look very good. How can I get a couple to you so you can judge ?
rebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2011, 12:16 AM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 516

I do not think you Can be Too critical...depending on the picture and what you are going to do with it.
I mean, I had just a couple of 'make do' shots of two rattle snakes with a piece of, er, junk camera and don't quibble over the quality...couldn't ask them to wait until I could got a good one out of the trunk, hold still, not bite me. Just aimed and shot.
Then there are the pics when You DO want to see every nitpicking zit, see if you can print, I do, to that 8x10 of the bee on the lavender bud...and see the tiny little hairs on his legs...then think about blowing that up to a 11x14 and up. There are some I want to make into larger prints. so, yes, I do want to know it will be worth the enlarging.

Last edited by lisalonewolf; Mar 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM. Reason: bee is not size of pic
lisalonewolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2011, 2:03 PM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093

It seems to me that there are multiple definitions of "pixel peeping" based on threads here and several equivalent theads over at DPR. Some (a minority) equate pixel peeping as viewing the full image (after the cropping done for compositional values) at a magnification that fills the screen. Others, myself included, call the full image at 100% magnification "pixel peeping". 100% is the magnification such that 1 pixel in the file = 1 pixel on the monitor and one must scroll around to see the full image. finally there is another group that doesn't call it "pixel peeping" until the magnification reaches at least 200% or, if my math's correct, 1 pixel maps to 4 pixels on the monitor.

My observations are that if I view an image (again as cropped for composition) at full screen on an approx. 14" monitor (15" wide screen) and it looks sharp it will make a good 8x10 and likewise for a 19" monitor (26" for wide screen) it will make a good 11x14. If you can make those two then you can make any size you want if you are controlling the display of the prints. I generally reserve 100% viewing for those prints that don't meet full screen criteria to find out why. Did I mis-focus or was there inadequate DoF? Camera or subject movement? ISO too high?

My other use of 100% is to compare cameras and lenses. If the cameras have differing pixel count and I can use the same equivalent focal length I first resize the image of the larger to match the smaller and then evaluate at 100%. Typically I then resize the smaller to match the larger and see if my judgement holds.

A. C.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2011, 5:33 PM   #15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,130

Well good and bad are entirely subjective terms so I would say pixel peeing is neither. The issue also varies by camera class.

The issue that usually brings about disagreement is the senselessness of comparing two images at 100% from, let's say, 2 pinhead sensor P&S cams. Well both look bad, especially once you get to say, ISO 200, so it becomes more a matter of the degree of bad. Adding to that, if the largest print that's going to be made is at 50%, then viewing it at 100% is senseless, especially since most P&S cams present a very nasty image at 100%, especially as the ISO increases even slightly.
Disclaimer: I take photos of life rather than live to take photos and my opinions of cameras are reflected accordingly.
FiveO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2011, 7:55 AM   #16
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2

Originally Posted by billy View Post
It all depends on what type of images you are peeping. If you're going to critically dissect images from your $200-$350 point-n-shoot, I think you're going a bit overboard. If the images look good at normal, full-screen viewing on your PC monitor (average 17-19", or larger), it will more than likely look good for small to mid sized prints.

When it comes to dSLRs, I think peeping is more important, but the same thinking from above applies to this as well for the average consumer.

To professionals or enthusiasts, peeping seems to be much more important, especially when large prints are involved.
Thanks for the information. I have the same experience with peeping as well for my amateur photo's. I sometimes peep them, but not too often.
Photonewbie101 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 AM.