Sony RX100 - Pixel Peeping

Discussion in 'Sony' started by adam, Dec 5, 2013.

  1. adam

    adam Regular

    Jan 24, 2013
    Birmingham UK
    I'm curious my friends and would welcome some feedback. This is a really super forum.

    Is the viewing of images in Lightroom at 100% the same as viewing images with a resolution of 5472 x 3648 on Flickr ? I ask as some Flickr images with a resolution of 5472 x 3648 look fabulous.

    I have imported my images ( raw - iso 160 , aperture f5.6 ) into Lightroom and have made appropriate adjustments i.e. exposure , sharpening etc - They look excellent at "normal" viewing , very good at 50% but rather disappointing at 100% - a tady mushy in appearance and more so on the frame edges. Do you have the same experience ?

    Does viewing an image at 50% on your monitor within Lightroom equate approximately to how 18" x 12" print may look and viewing an image at 100% equate to a 36" x 24" print ?

    What should I be doing to ensure that my images look at their best on i.e. Flickr following adjustments in Lightroom ? I have heard that downsizing is appropriate and produces better quality output !!!

    I guess optimum IQ is achieved via the skill of the photographer and high quality equipment i.e. DSLR or CSC with a very good quality lens or full frame, again with a very good quality lens. But then again are you serioulsy going to notice any difference in output ( between the RX100 and the aforementioned ) as long print sizes do not exceed A3/A4 and as long as you do not pixel peep beyond 50% on your monitors ?

    Thank you kindly.

    I am learning but slowly.

  2. adam

    adam Regular

    Jan 24, 2013
    Birmingham UK
    Does nobody have any opinion about this or is the question irrelevant and inappropriate.

  3. wt21

    wt21 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 15, 2010
    I am not sure on printing, but unless you have a GIANT monitor, you are not viewing pictures on flickr at 100%. If they look good at normal sizes, why do you care how they look at 100%

    Also, when you compare what you see on flickr vs on your monitor, do you mean to say the exact same pic you load up to flickr, and you are comparing it to the exact same pic at 100% in Lightroom?
  4. staticantics

    staticantics Regular

    Oct 15, 2013
    Central California
    No, there is compression and other transcoding of images when posted to web. They will never look as good on flickr.

    Disappointing is a rather subjective word. Disappointing because you wanted it to have straight lines and details at 100%? Disappointing because of reffraction of light from objects far off in the distance that causes fluctuations in the light approaching the camera? Think of it like Pointillism ... Everything looks better form far away.

    It depends on resolution of your image. Monitors display PPI (pixels per inch) Printers display DPI (Dots per inch) and a dot does not equal a pixel. A dot it subjective to the printer. Also, because paper is not back lit and the image you are printing will have a different quality the larger it gets. I see the comparison you are making and if it helps you understand why you think your images are "dissapointing" at 100%, then yes. It is an approximate conclusion.

    You cannot control what flickr does with your image once you upload it, so you should be making your pictures look as good as possible in Lightroom and not worrying about Flickr.

    Unless you are taking pictures of resolution charts, no one will care how sharp a printed image is, they will care about the subject, lighting and color saturations.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. porchard

    porchard Veteran

    Feb 3, 2013
    Devon, UK
    So true. As for the few who might care more about how sharp a printed image is, rather than about subject, lighting and colour... well, just leave them to wallow in their own pit of misguided misery.
    • Like Like x 2