Pixel peeping
Pixel peeping is that derogatory phrase used to describe photographers who scrutinize photos at 100% resolution to see any flaws there might be. The idea is that if you do that, you lose sight of the artistic nature of photography. You might become stuck on what is in many ways, an irrelevant part of photography – technical perfection.
I do love sharp images. Being capable of consistently delivering crisp images, are important to me as a photographer. The skills matter. At some point these skills should become second nature.
Yet, the impact a photograph has, invariably trumps the technical perfection. One example that is often referred to, are the images by Robert Capa that he shot during the landing at Normandy beach. Only 11 images are to be seen – blurry and grainy – but they contain a truth about that day that deeply reverberates with anyone viewing them. Similarly, there are many many examples where a photograph’s impact has little relevance to the technical aspect of it.
For all that, I find it highly annoying when I see on a photography forum or in a FB group where someone is belittled for ‘pixel peeping’. The sheer arrogance that some photographers have, when from their high horse, they sneer at someone who is testing a lens by photographing a newspaper or brick wall. “Fortunately, none of my clients are brick walls.”
Pixel peeping is a necessity – for how else will you know if your lenses are delivering what they should? How else will you find out if perhaps your camera’s lens mount has been damaged and the edges of your photos are soft? It is important that you test your lenses to see if they deliver (enough) edge-to-edge sharpness to hold up to enlargement. A shitty lens shows you up very quickly when you are doing a 24×12 double-spread for a bride’s album.
Also, sharpening and retouching is done at 100% enlargement. That’s how it works.
So you may wonder what these sun-drenched portraits of Claudia have to do with all this:
I’m fascinated by some vintage lenses which have a distinct character. I’ve acquired a few over time, and will show more of the results in future.
One of the lenses that I found interesting, is the Helios 85mm f/1.5 lens (B&H). It is an old Russian design. It’s a heavy manual-focus lens … and relatively inexpensive. But the real attraction is the bokeh exhibited by this lens – a swirly goodness that can enhance a photo. Look at the top photo – specifically that out of focus background – winter-barren trees on the New York Highline, lit by the setting sun.
Instead of a smooth, neutral bokeh, this lens creates a swirling bokeh with oval patterns. It can be a bit much at times, but very often it brings a bit of extra in-camera juice to a photograph.
This second photo shows how easily it flares. Those circles can become crazy rainbow patterns, depending on how you position the sun behind your subject. (The 2nd photo is slightly mis-focused, as you can see even from this web-sized image.)
It’s an interesting optic – and as you might expect from an old Russian lens, not as sharp as modern lenses. But I am okay with that. I didn’t buy it for razor-sharpness. That’s what I have other lenses for. I bought it for this specific rendering.
Would I pixel-peep images from this lens? Not particularly. I did for some test shots to see that it is adequately sharp …. and, yes, it is okay as sharpness goes. But I use it for these type of portraits where the mood and the look count for more than just image sharpness.
About the lens used during this photo shoot
Helios 85mm f/1.5 – for Canon (B&H)
Helios 85mm f/1.5 – for Nikon (B&H)
Summary
We need to do some pixel-peeping. To not do so, would be to remain willfully ignorant of what our cameras and lenses do.
Pixel-peeping isn’t a sin. It’s often a necessity. But sometimes, it isn’t. Sometimes it is a compulsion that leads a photographer down a dead-end. As photographers we have to use our judgement to figure out when this is important, and when it isn’t. And above all, just be nice to others about it. I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Hi Neil and thanks for posting, its always a pleasure to visit Tangents regularly to read your ideas. I have started to play around with older Nikkor lenses from my film cameras, just to see if they can get me a different look on today’s digital bodies. I have been searching for other compatible brands to try, so appreciate the timely posting about the Helios lens.
Great piece Neil. The same people who deride pixel peeping are usually the same ones who say things like “the final print is everything” and criticise people for not printing enough and only viewing screen resolution images.
If you are printing decent sized prints you need to pixel peep or you can get caught out badly quickly when the little screen resolution pic on your mobile it or becomes looks a big mess when it gets back from the printers.
Hi Neil,
Related to the pixel peeping issue is digital noise. I commonly check images for sharpness (more out of compulsion) and I alway notice the digital noise is frequently more of an issue than focus in terms of sharpness. But, I have long wanted to do an experiment to understand how 100% pixel peeping effects my thinking of a picture vs its quality printed.
Something like correct exposure by adjusting shutter speed and allow the ISO to drift upward as I increase the shutter speed and then print at 8×10 or even 16×20 and then determine my impression of noise from pixel peeping vs a reasonably large physical print. My suspicion is pixel peeping gives me more of sense of dissatisfaction vs viewing the image as a print.
Has anyone ever done this kind of experiment and if yes, what were their results. The same kind of experiment could be done with focus, but might be a bit more difficult to control.
Thanks
I agree 100% whole heartedly. If it wasn’t for pixel peeping, I would not have seen the flaws of my Canon 24-70/ 2.8 first generation’s back focusing and getting it fixed.
If one doesn’t pixel peep, I immediately assume he’s not good at processing his files. It’s kinda the same argument made by photographers who belittle others for using photoshop to create stunning images.
You made good points about pixel peeping haters, they probably don’t print and they probably like the “natural” look of the image, whatever the heck that is.
what camera u use for this article?
Back then it was the Nikon D810, but right now it would have been a Sony mirrorless camera. This is because mirrorless cameras are just superb as manual focus cameras in the way that the image can be magnified to 100% in the viewfinder. This allows for fine-tuning of the focus in a way that DSLRs can’t compete with.
More about that here: Portraits with vintage lenses.