Pixel peeping rant
Tue, Sep 1 2009 07:29
| General Photography
| Permalink
Please indulge me writing down some thoughts here... I think it is important to elaborate a bit about pixel peeping, it's one of those new verbs brought to us by the digital photography revolution, and it has a profound impact on photography these days.
According to online dictionaries pixel peeping is the act of examination of digital imaging with maximum scrutiny often down to the very individual pixel level.
A benign statement in itself, but as I hinted in the title I think it has a profound impact on how a new generation of digital photographers now looks at their images. And also how a whole industry is actually taking advantage of it to their economic benefit! Let me explain:
In the old days the only way images were seen was on the paper they were printed on, or on the wall where the dia positive was projected, this was the case at least for most amateur photographers. So you ended up in fact with a complete overview of the picture and as such the images were also judged.
Digital photography in combination with computers and software changed all that. Now it is possible to zoom in to the individual pixel of the 24 million that are present in the file from a high-end camera. It has changed the way we view and judge images now profoundly: when examining a photograph I have not encountered a single person who does not use the magnifying glass, at least to zoom in to 100%.
There is a whole group of "technophobe-photo-enthusiasts" out there populating the Internet photo community sites and fora who love testing and comparing different equipment by the technical quality of the images made with it at the pixel level, in the process the actual image itself is not that important anymore. Things like chromatic aberration, noise artifacts, pixel sharpness etc has become so important at these pixel levels, while viewing the picture as a whole they are completely unimportant. When browsing these fora, you get the feeling it's not about photography itself at all anymore, it's about technology.
It's also a great way for manufacturers to sell more camera's and other equipment! How do they do this? Simple: by playing along with the technology hypes in a handy way. Take a look at how many different camera models they now produce, the differences between subsequent models are mostly not that earth shattering. But they feed on the eagerness of those who lust after the best equipment they can get. Pixel peeping plays an extremely important role in this: by having the ability to examine at 100% you can see the improvements at the pixel level from the newer vs the older camera. In all fairness though when you take 2 identical pictures and look at them as a whole there is in most cases no difference at all to be seen. You have to go into zoom mode to start detecting differences... and thus the craving for the newer machine becomes a reality. So it has become much easier for the manufacturers to introduce new equipment multiple times a year, each time with marginal [sometimes bigger] improvements and continue to... sell and sell.
If the only way to look at our images would be the paper print from the olden days, there would be no compelling reason to buy new equipment, the images would still look practically the same using the 6-year old camera. Put the image on a 24-30 inch monitor though and you get a whole different story: whip out that wallet and buy the latest and greatest because look at these differences!!!
Now for the manufacturers it's also a double edged sword. Remember the case when Canon introduced the new 5DMarkII and on all those pixel peeping forums 100% crop images popped up showing what looked like a defect in the rendering of the image next to very bright spots -> you got a black spot... This is a 21Mpixel camera, so when viewing the image in it's own this hardly showed, if it did at all [and also only in certain circumstances] but that was it, the message was out and the fora and bulletin boards were full of it and more and more examples cropped up. I bet Canon would have cursed those pixel peeping Tom's at that moment ;)
The whole pixel peeping tendency is also fueled by the magazines of course [online and in print] by their frequent "battle of the camera" articles where they put different manufacturers head to head. Of course documented with the imperative 100% crops from all contenders... look at how these pixels differ from camera to camera. Of course it would be pointless to show the complete image in print because there would not be much comparing to do.
I personally welcome the extremely high granularity in which we can alter and fine tune our images now using the digital darkroom techniques. But at the same time I grew to dislike the "push" in the market for getting newer equipment all the time, something that only became possible at this level now that everyone is looking with a giant digital magnifying glass at their [and each other's] images.
According to online dictionaries pixel peeping is the act of examination of digital imaging with maximum scrutiny often down to the very individual pixel level.
A benign statement in itself, but as I hinted in the title I think it has a profound impact on how a new generation of digital photographers now looks at their images. And also how a whole industry is actually taking advantage of it to their economic benefit! Let me explain:
In the old days the only way images were seen was on the paper they were printed on, or on the wall where the dia positive was projected, this was the case at least for most amateur photographers. So you ended up in fact with a complete overview of the picture and as such the images were also judged.
Digital photography in combination with computers and software changed all that. Now it is possible to zoom in to the individual pixel of the 24 million that are present in the file from a high-end camera. It has changed the way we view and judge images now profoundly: when examining a photograph I have not encountered a single person who does not use the magnifying glass, at least to zoom in to 100%.
There is a whole group of "technophobe-photo-enthusiasts" out there populating the Internet photo community sites and fora who love testing and comparing different equipment by the technical quality of the images made with it at the pixel level, in the process the actual image itself is not that important anymore. Things like chromatic aberration, noise artifacts, pixel sharpness etc has become so important at these pixel levels, while viewing the picture as a whole they are completely unimportant. When browsing these fora, you get the feeling it's not about photography itself at all anymore, it's about technology.
It's also a great way for manufacturers to sell more camera's and other equipment! How do they do this? Simple: by playing along with the technology hypes in a handy way. Take a look at how many different camera models they now produce, the differences between subsequent models are mostly not that earth shattering. But they feed on the eagerness of those who lust after the best equipment they can get. Pixel peeping plays an extremely important role in this: by having the ability to examine at 100% you can see the improvements at the pixel level from the newer vs the older camera. In all fairness though when you take 2 identical pictures and look at them as a whole there is in most cases no difference at all to be seen. You have to go into zoom mode to start detecting differences... and thus the craving for the newer machine becomes a reality. So it has become much easier for the manufacturers to introduce new equipment multiple times a year, each time with marginal [sometimes bigger] improvements and continue to... sell and sell.
If the only way to look at our images would be the paper print from the olden days, there would be no compelling reason to buy new equipment, the images would still look practically the same using the 6-year old camera. Put the image on a 24-30 inch monitor though and you get a whole different story: whip out that wallet and buy the latest and greatest because look at these differences!!!
Now for the manufacturers it's also a double edged sword. Remember the case when Canon introduced the new 5DMarkII and on all those pixel peeping forums 100% crop images popped up showing what looked like a defect in the rendering of the image next to very bright spots -> you got a black spot... This is a 21Mpixel camera, so when viewing the image in it's own this hardly showed, if it did at all [and also only in certain circumstances] but that was it, the message was out and the fora and bulletin boards were full of it and more and more examples cropped up. I bet Canon would have cursed those pixel peeping Tom's at that moment ;)
The whole pixel peeping tendency is also fueled by the magazines of course [online and in print] by their frequent "battle of the camera" articles where they put different manufacturers head to head. Of course documented with the imperative 100% crops from all contenders... look at how these pixels differ from camera to camera. Of course it would be pointless to show the complete image in print because there would not be much comparing to do.
I personally welcome the extremely high granularity in which we can alter and fine tune our images now using the digital darkroom techniques. But at the same time I grew to dislike the "push" in the market for getting newer equipment all the time, something that only became possible at this level now that everyone is looking with a giant digital magnifying glass at their [and each other's] images.