Is pixel-peeking obsolete?

[johne37179]

<p>Has the introduction of high pixel count sensors in low and medium priced cameras and the advent of sophisticated stitching software made the pure pixel counting evaluation of a camera obsolete? You can now get 16-24 megapixels in fairly inexpensive cameras and you can effectively stitch together a dozen or more images to make a resting image with greater pixel reach than a D800 or even a high-end medium format camera.<br>

Is there a sea change afoot here?<br>

Are other factors becoming more relevant -- lens quality -- software quality -- computing horsepower...</p>

[._kaa]

You can only stitch images where nothing changes at a noticeable rate. That's a small subset of photography, almost completely within landscape and architectural genres.

[johne37179]

<p>Some changes can be accommodated effectively with anti-ghosting fairly effectively. You do have to choose your subjects carefully though.</p>

[lachaine]

What does the pixel count have to do with this?

[johne37179]

<p>You can capture a single image with a 24-36 MP frame with a high-end camera, or make a 1000MP frame with stitching software -- or now buy a 16-24MP camera for less than the cost of a kit lens.<br>

Just a number of ways to skin a cat that used to be the exclusive dooming of photographers with large bank accounts.</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>Photographers are always going to pixel-peep. It's in our DNA. You sort of answer your own question by stating that you can stitch high-megapixel images. The whole point of doing that is to have greater detail. The whole point of having greater detail is to look at it. Alas, a low-megapixel image that moves you will always be better than a high-megapixel image that doesn't.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Oh, John! You are trying to confuse us with universal truths. How perverse. Most of the art that really moves me have no pixels at all! My point is that it really is all about how you prefer to skin the metaphorical pixelated cat.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>If of course you manually stitch by using layers in an editing programme the degree of permissable movement is much greater when you can ' pick the version of reality' you want, assuming you shot plenty of overlap. It also permits one to move beyond the mere recording of a wide view into creative fields.<br>

My personal 'sadness' with stitching is that my editing programme has a limit of 10,000 pixels and I have to reduce the size of individual frames if the stitch is more than two or three shots, particularly now I am working with a 16Mp camera instead of my original 3.3Mp which taught me how to stitch :-)<br>

I had a crazy thing happen recently, not once but twice, when I used my stitch programme, CanonStitch, to compile around sixteen frames .... it stitched the left half the shots and placed them on the right while the 'right' half were nicely stitched on the left URRGH! <br>

I had to revert to using my editor ...</p>

[johne37179]

<p>JC, there are stitching programs out there that greatly enhance the capability. The limiting factor is really your CPU. I have stitched over 30 images together into true mural size images that hold a 300PPI density. Very little manual involvement after you take the images. But the involvement in taking them is not trivial. <br>

I'm not sure where all this is headed, but there is more than one way to capture all the detail one might find in a single image with a D800. That is not to say I won't get one when supply starts to meet demand.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Saying that pixel peeping is obsolete, falsely suggests that there was a time when it <em>was</em> relevant.</p>

<p>On the issue of cameras needing more pixels to get sold, see the current hoo-hah about the Nikon versus Canon strategies in their latest announcements.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>The higher mp of cameras requires more pixelpeeping and make stitching less important (or obsolete)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Folks, if we're not very careful, here's where it will all end up.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<p>A three eyed bunny?</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>maybe part of a flower?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's a rabbit peep, with a nose, you .....</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Pixel peeping at 100% from both 36 MP and 12 MPixel cameras will not compare well. This could lead to wrong impression of camera or lens quality.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Photo netters peeped a peck of pixels.<br>

A peck of pixels photo netters peeped.<br>

If photo netters peeped a peck of pixels<br>

Where's the peck of pixels photo netters peeped?</p>

[johne37179]

<p>It's the pixel pixies again.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Not to be confused with pepper peepers [<em>image Weston's pepper picture here</em>]</p>

<p>Or pickle peepers. [<em>imagine one of Fred G.'s nudes here, but only if the "pickle" euphemism is deemed PC</em>]</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>Who hasn't walked up to a print made from an 8x10 view camera to ogle the equivalent of pixels?! More pixels, more detail, more, more MORE! ;)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Sure, I peep...</p>

<p>-- to test a new lens<br>

-- to establish the sharpening radius I want to use on an image<br>

-- to fine tune sharpening of that image, both locally and globally<br>

-- to evaluate noise and noise reduction on an image</p>

<p>I also chimp some of my shots...</p>

<p>-- to verify and adjust my exposure per the histogram<br>

-- to examine critical images for focus and any unexpected problems</p>

<p>@Julie: Love it! :-) </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You can chimp and pixel peep at the same time, of course.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>How does pixel-peeping differ from examining chromes with a loupe on a light table?</p>

<p>And why would either of these practices be perceived negatively?</p>

<p>Most of my subjects don't lend themselves to stitching, compositing, HDR, or any other multiple exposure technique. Elements are moving and/or conditions are changing too quickly.</p>