view actual pixels

i might be too critical of myself but when i review photos i have taken. the photos look good but i view actual pixels and think the image is "soft" some could be camera movement, maybe the "kit lens" isn't getting the best result.
does anyone else view actual pixels and feel disappointed, or am i overanalyzing?

man, you are over analyzing.

could be the kit lens. Usually kit lenses are cheap, not made with good glass.

Sleven wrote: i might be too critical of myself but when i review photos i have taken. the photos look good but i view actual pixels and think the image is "soft" some could be camera movement, maybe the "kit lens" isn't getting the best result.
does anyone else view actual pixels and feel disappointed, or am i overanalyzing?

The farther you zoom in, the worse quality you're going to get. Stop pixel peeping

I agree with Scotty anything over 100% is generally too much and will look soft. Now when Im photochopping I work at the 150% range, that way the manipulations will look good at 100%.

Nothing wrong with pixel peeping. Just do it where it counts, like when you do a severe crop, verifying sharp focus, or noise removal, should you need it. Not every shot needs to be seen 100 Percent.

Kit lenses generally have a reputation of looking soft when shot wide open, but are fine when closed down a stop or two.

I always pixel peep, I can't get enough. I think I'm a pixelaholic, I just can't get enough pixelhol.

Kit lenses are generally not 'quite' as good as the more expensive optics - perhaps if you're being so hyper-critical of your images it's time to upgrade your glass collection?

The other factor is that images straight from camera are never going to be as good as images that have been properly processed: proper sharpening applied at the right level in post (and not just the chainsaw in-camera settings) can make a huge difference to the final product.

Scotty wrote:

Sleven wrote: i might be too critical of myself but when i review photos i have taken. the photos look good but i view actual pixels and think the image is "soft" some could be camera movement, maybe the "kit lens" isn't getting the best result.
does anyone else view actual pixels and feel disappointed, or am i overanalyzing?

The farther you zoom in, the worse quality you're going to get. Stop pixel peeping

There's a name to it...pixel peeping? Wow didn't know that.

cwightmanphotos wrote: could be the kit lens. Usually kit lenses are cheap, not made with good glass.

Really? Damn. I can't afford a new lens right now.

Sleven wrote:

cwightmanphotos wrote: could be the kit lens. Usually kit lenses are cheap, not made with good glass.

Really? Damn. I can't afford a new lens right now.

There's a reason it's called a 'kit' lens - usually they're sold as part of a 'kit' with a camera body for a combined total of under $1,000 (or £ or €)...
Pro-spec lenses usually retail for about $£€1500 or more - there's a reason we pay that much - they're good.

Usually much better than a kit lens - if kit lenses were that good we wouldn't pay for the higher priced glass...

arkady001 wrote:

Sleven wrote:

cwightmanphotos wrote: could be the kit lens. Usually kit lenses are cheap, not made with good glass.

Really? Damn. I can't afford a new lens right now.

There's a reason it's called a 'kit' lens - usually they're sold as part of a 'kit' with a camera body for a combined total of under $1,000 (or £ or €)...
Pro-spec lenses usually retail for about $£€1500 or more - there's a reason we pay that much - they're good.

Usually much better than a kit lens - if kit lenses were that good we wouldn't pay for the higher priced glass...

Yeah the kit lenses are pretty sad for the most part now. I remember when I bought my Pentax MX the kit lens was the 50 1.8, which wasnt the best 50 but it was decent. But the lenses like the bodies are merely tools and can actually render good images if you know where their sweet spots are.

Joves wrote: Yeah the kit lenses are pretty sad for the most part now. I remember when I bought my Pentax MX the kit lens was the 50 1.8, which wasnt the best 50 but it was decent. But the lenses like the bodies are merely tools and can actually render good images if you know where their sweet spots are.

Today those 'rubbish' 50-mil lenses are the fabulous 'Nifty-Fifties'... and like you say, can render excellent results in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

arkady001 wrote:

Joves wrote: Yeah the kit lenses are pretty sad for the most part now. I remember when I bought my Pentax MX the kit lens was the 50 1.8, which wasnt the best 50 but it was decent. But the lenses like the bodies are merely tools and can actually render good images if you know where their sweet spots are.

Today those 'rubbish' 50-mil lenses are the fabulous 'Nifty-Fifties'... and like you say, can render excellent results in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

Definitely. I have a couple old 50 lenses, one of which is used more than the modern Canon one when the light is good enough to manual focus. Better image quality all around, and it's nearly 40 years old.

Go with the print preview option or "view print size." If you're happy at that level, there's no need to go the 'actual pixel' level.