DSLR v Consumer Image quality

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by oink, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. oink

    Stacey Guest

    Because you decide that THIS is what everyone should do to judge "Image
    quality" and forget everything else.

    Given you can't let "pixel peeping" go, seems like an odd request to me.
    Someone saying that one needs to choose the print size to decide what to
    buy and you say they shouldn't argue with you anymore? ;-/
    Stacey, Feb 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. oink

    Mark² Guest

    You, Stacey, keep making similarly sweeping statements in the reverse.
    Practice what you spew...
    Mark², Feb 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. oink

    Confused Guest

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:26:29 GMT
    In message <pZhTd.22282$>
    "David J Taylor"
    David, please don't remind me of that again? I want one!!!!!! IBM
    seems to have worked with NVIDA and fixed the application scaling
    problems windozer apps tent to have... <whimpering> :)

    Confused, Feb 25, 2005
  4. I think that having pixels so small that you cannot see them as individual
    pixels is probably the correct thing for an imaging process. It means
    that the spatial sampling is no longer the limiting factor in what you can

    David J Taylor, Feb 25, 2005
  5. I suspected that it _had_ been done, and almost certainly for fighter
    pilots, since I knew they already had head/eye trackers.

    Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
    Graham Holden, Feb 25, 2005
  6. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    No, nature and people mostly, and although I can appreciate still-life
    I'm not good at it. Buildings leave me cold in both being able to
    enjoy a building photo (city scapes are the exception), or take one.
    Okay. Stuff like photos of Jennifer Lopez, she's quite curvy.
    I didn't realize Ansel Adams shot on APS color digital. I agree, given
    that, the guy is a genius. I don't know how he did it. His stuff looks
    just like it came from a large format B&W film.


    Keep to the topic. LF is not relevant, it's a different set of rules.
    I don't agree, you've changed the goal-posts. LF is HUGE compared to
    APS sensors or 35mm film (125mm x 100mm compared to 36mm x 24mm), so
    being fair to the printing technology, to do the comparison you'd have
    to compare an 8x10 35mm shot with a 34x27 from LF, because this shares
    the same enlargement (thus 'skill or capability' from the

    You claim LF prints look better because of printing technology, this
    just isn't the case. Resolution or printing-technology-wize, a contact
    print from LF will look as good as a contact print from a 35mm film.
    Ok, I didn't realize that. I wonder why? It certainly isn't true of
    35mm enlargements, and the same principles are in place.
    Except, most of my critiquing is done full-screen at about 33%, I only
    go to 100% to determine the effect any noise will have on my
    sharpening decision, or in the rare cases I am concerned about focus
    being out.
    They exist in the digital file, they don't exist in the 6x4, they
    don't exists in the 8x10, they do exist in the 20x24. If the target is
    8x10 or lower then they don't exist.

    Come back to what do people want from DSLR vs Consumer output - 8x10
    is the usual plateau. I'm sure you'll agree, that if you need to be
    printing 20x24s, you *should* have used MF or LF instead - it's more
    suitable because of the massive increase of negative surface.
    ...I thought we are discussing *the need* to view digital files on a
    computer at those huge magnifications. Or even the need to compare
    camera's digital files for quality at 200% when the differences are
    not discernable on the print.
    Most. You being one (who sits 3ft away from a monitor) have that
    tendency too.

    Who invented the rule? Dunno, lots of people for different
    applications, THX, SMPTE for example. They all involve your angle of
    view, that you are supposed to take in the image as a whole and not
    just part of it. That's is the *usual* intention of the photographer
    (again, subjects like aerial photos are the exception)

    Here is a calculator:

    For photographs, the viewing distance I'd strive for is approximately
    the same as the diagonal measurement of the image.

    10 inches for an 8x10
    2ft for a 20x24

    Here's an extract from Popular Photography, that demonstrates
    something similar:

    "Our 200 ppi resolution rule of thumb was based on comparisons between
    digital prints produced by the best inkjet and dye-sublimation
    printers available at the time and prints from color-negative film
    made at a top minilab. All were displayed at standard viewing
    distances and judged by both professional and amateur photographers.
    For example, 4x6-inch prints were judged from about one-foot away from
    the subject, while 8x10-inch prints were viewed at arm’s length. The
    pros among the group, who were used to viewing most enlargements up
    close or with a loupe, found the inkjet prints made at settings of
    250–300 ppi more to their liking, but agreed that prints made with
    files set at 200 ppi would have acceptable photographic quality for
    consumers. That’s why both of these resolution settings and their
    corresponding print sizes are listed in the resolution chart."

    Aaahh, you aren't concerned with the print, you want to see faults in
    the technique. Suddenly you are a student. That's a different
    argument. In this case, you'd be imagining that every 35mm or APS
    sensor shot needs to be enlarged to 20x24, and you spend time hunting
    down these flaws. (again, I don't know *what* these are, because you
    have still failed to give an example). This makes more sense, but is
    significantly different to the OPs question of DSLR vs Consumer and
    subsequent discussion that comparisons at 200% are not required.
    Neither does an 4x6 print. Unless you've got access to a 500ppi
    continuous tone printer that is superbly sharp. Optical prints from
    4x6 are nowhere near that, and digital wet prints are usually between
    300 and 400 ppi, but I wouldn't call them 'sharp' like some ink-jets
    can do - but then ASAIK, no ink-jets are continuous tone.
    Use curves or levels slider to do a temporary adjustment to see into
    the shadows, it works a lot better than zooming.
    Owamanga, Feb 25, 2005
  7. oink

    Big Bill Guest

    What's really funny is that some people who throw random gobs of paint
    at a canvas think they are artists!
    What's even funnier is that there are some who consider themselves
    'art connoisseurs' who agree with them!

    What is "art"? This has been asked here before; the best answer, IMHO,
    is that that question can't be answered except to say, "I know it when
    I see it."
    Except that, in my own case, I can't say that. :-(
    Big Bill, Feb 25, 2005
  8. oink

    rafe bustin Guest

    By what means have you or Owamanga demonstrated
    understanding? I haven't seen any images from
    him, and barely a handful from you (on screen)
    way back when.

    I suggested *several* times to do an exchange
    of real, physical prints with you and you turned
    down each request.

    You can argue arcane gear and lenses with the
    best of 'em, Stacey, and that's a matter of
    public record. Arsats, Flektagons, Kievs,
    Tessars.. you've got how many dozens of these
    in your collection?

    You just got your first digicam two months
    ago. You've never seriously scanned film,
    never made a print profile. You run an unprofiled,
    uncalibrated monitor. But now suddenly you're
    a sage on the digital darkroom?

    I understand the differences between technical
    merit and "artistic" merit but I don't believe
    online forums are suited to discussions of the

    And if I were to discuss the latter, I'd insist
    on doing it in a respectful manner. We haven't
    quite established that respect yet.

    rafe b.
    rafe bustin, Feb 25, 2005
  9. oink

    Skip M Guest

    I currently have work in the San Diego Art Institute/Museum of the Living
    Artist, Gallerie d'Art Internationale, Escondido Municipal Gallery and have
    been published in "How to Photograph the Nude," published by RotoVision.
    Does that give me cachet to speak for anyone but myself?
    If you weren't just being argumentative, you'd have to admit that what
    Owamanga says is right, the majority of the population, photographers or
    not, generally "just like to stand back and admire."
    Skip M, Feb 25, 2005
  10. oink

    Larry Guest

    Thats what I shoot for..

    So that I, or, hopefully, someone else, can stand back and LOOK.

    I have nothing hanging anuwhere, except in customers homes, and in my own..

    I have only been published in small, limited circulation magazines, but I
    dont think I would have gotten even THAT much done if I spent as much time
    PIXEL PEEPING as some.

    I'm sitting here in my little Office/Media room in my home, and Im surrounded
    by landscapes, people, horses, dogs, cats, flowers, et al, that wouldn't be
    there if I was worried about "how many pixels can you fit through the eye of
    an idiot". Dont you agree Skip?? Owamanga??
    Larry, Feb 25, 2005
  11. oink

    Scott W Guest

    In photography it is all too easy to get the ends and the means
    backwards. The reason I want god detail and low noise in a photo is so
    that I can make a good looking print from it. And so I worry about
    detail and noise, I judge cameras to an extent on what detail they can
    capture and how low of noise they can do it with. But detail and low
    noise are not an end in themselves, they are only a means to the end of
    a good looking print. I think people get so caught up in the means to
    getting a good print that they forget that it is not what they are
    really after. And so we get people looking at photos blown way up on
    the screen, and we get people looking at there prints with a loupe,
    they are not happy with good looking prints as much as prints that have
    more detail.

    I have heard from a number of people who get upset that the public
    prefers 8 x 10 prints from digital cameras over 8 x 10 prints from film
    cameras even though they can prove to you that the film print has more
    detail. They want to hand you a magnify glass and say "see there is
    more detail if you look really close, so you should like my print
    better". And when the general public ends up liking what looks good
    to them some of these people will complain that the general public are
    not well suited to say what is a good photo and what is not.

    Even I get from time to time get caught up in this, sometime when I am
    showing a photo to friends I catch myself saying, "look at the
    detail, see you can even read this street sign here". You know what,
    they don't care, nor should they, they just want to look at the

    What I have come to realize is that people know how to look at
    photographs, it is us that have forgotten.

    Scott W, Feb 25, 2005
  12. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    Of course. Take the most beautiful model in the world, and let these
    guys walk up to her, study her pores with an 8x loupe and claim she's

    It just makes no sense to me.
    Owamanga, Feb 25, 2005
  13. oink

    rafe bustin Guest

    Alas, "the general public" can be an idiot,
    as I'm reminded each time I walk past a
    Kincaide gallery.

    rafe b.
    rafe bustin, Feb 25, 2005
  14. oink

    Larry Guest

    That "Eye of an idiot" thing just JUMPED OUT OF MY FINGERS while I typed.. I
    think I like it! I think I'll USE it.
    Larry, Feb 25, 2005
  15. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    In what way? That there aren't as many people in there as there are in
    Dunkin Donughts. I agree. Kincaide is underrated.


    ...or is it that under a 8x loupe you loose sight of the magic in the


    I can't put my finger on why those pictures are so fascinating to so
    many people. I guess it appeals to the 'child' in us.
    Owamanga, Feb 25, 2005
  16. oink

    Larry Guest

    I'm sure, at the molecular level, Bo Derek was NEVER pretty, but if you stood
    back and gave her a look, even today, shes a Knockout!

    A cow can be a beautiful and peacefull thing to see, and to watch, under the
    right circumstances, but a hamburger, is just ground beef.

    Well, it snowed another 12 inches last night, giving me a nice BRIGHT
    landscape, right out side my house... I think I'll take some pictures (should
    I shoot one flake at a time?? or the whole landscape, then clean my lenses,
    charge my batteries, check my flash units, roll my backgrounds Stow my
    Umbrellas in their travel sleeves. (I have an indoor shoot this Sunday).
    Larry, Feb 25, 2005
  17. oink

    Owamanga Guest

    Hmm, it's lunchtime and the hambuger's sounding *pretty* good to me
    right now, compared to the cow, but anyway...
    Actually, you may already have missed an oppertunity. Sunny snow
    scenes are too damn common in my opionion. Succesfully capturing snow
    actually falling could make for a far more interesting photograph.

    ...but, deep fresh snow, blue sky?.. it's an opertunity you can't pass

    Remember, it's not the lighting, composition, exposure, emotion,
    choice of lens, cropping ratio or subject matter that counts. It's the

    Owamanga, Feb 25, 2005
  18. Yes. Ideally, you'd never be able to see individual pixels except as
    points, and only then when they're significantly different in brightness
    than adjacent ones.

    I've seen an IBM monitor that was probably a prototype for the 221.
    Screen resolution was 300 PPI. It was wonderful to look at, and my eyes
    could not see individual RGB points at all without a magnifier. The
    difference between it and the typical ~100 PPI LCDs was quite apparent.

    But even 300 PPI can resolve only ~6 lp/mm. The eye's luminance
    resolution is higher than that (at reasonable viewing distances), and
    many varieties of digital printers can exceed this. Even higher pixel
    density would not be wasted.

    Dave Martindale, Feb 25, 2005
  19. It depends on image content and context. It's certainly true for
    billboards and posters. But it's *not* true for large-size prints of
    landscapes made from large-format negatives (or sufficiently high-res
    digital data). These represent a wide angle of view, so it's natural to
    view them from up close (to fill a wide angle for the viewer). I find
    that I tend to move closer until the image starts to get mushy through
    lack of resolution. If the image was printed from a large enough
    negative, that distance may be quite close - say 12-15 inches).
    That's going a bit overboard. Just assume that all prints will be
    viewed from 15 inches, whether they are 4x6 inches or 4x6 feet in size.

    Dave Martindale, Feb 25, 2005
  20. oink

    Skip M Guest

    I agree, emphatically. The only reason I listed all those places was that
    rafe seemed to thing those things are credentials necessary to speak in
    general terms of what the general populace seems to think. I don't happen
    to agree, I think that being a member of that general populace entitles one
    to have, and express, an opinion of those feelings.
    BTW, I prefer the term "how many pixels will dance on the head of a pin,"
    but that's a personal choice! <G>
    Skip M, Feb 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.