I think it's just cropping a piece of the image, without doing any resize..

For example, if my camera takes a picture at 1024x786, which for all practical purpose is too large to put on this forum to let others comment on my camera's noise, so I crop a 100x100 piece and put it here, which will serve the same purpose...

If you are running pe or photoshop, and you bring a pic up into it, you will see at the top in the title line what % it is. if you go into the tabs in the upper left you will also see the view tab in there is zoom in and zoom out these control the %. at 100% you are taking the original sensor size and enlargeing that to lifesize. you would end up with if printed a print that is several feet by several feet..

The use is to finely check an area of the shot. it does not represent a realistic view of your shot...

If you crop a smaller section of a copy of the original (for safety reasons of not saving over the original)....

Or if you select a smaller section of an image, copy and paste to a new document....

You then have 100% full size smaller section crops of the original larger image..

A 100% crop is not down sampled to a smaller image, but it is an original section of the complete image..

Bernd Taeger..

Thanks, all. So simple once you know what it means, yet so opaque when you don't..

AlanCP-8800..

GaryDeM wrote:.

The use is to finely check an area of the shot. it does notrepresent a realistic view of your shot..

Your explanation and the others for that matter is correct. And the statement you make above is ALSO accurate....

We here on DP Review often enough refer to those who demand a 100 percent crop as "pixel peepers.".

We say that because tiny aberations, tiny bits of noise, etc, are in fact are invisible when the image is printed..

However, stock photo companies DO pixel peep and will reject images that have no practical defects, but are not up to their arbitrary standards. They probably do this because Their customers often pixel peep..

Dave..

I think they'd reject them because their customers could be printing at any size and quality, so any noise makes the image a problem..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

Sjgcit wrote:.

I think they'd reject them because their customers could beprinting at any size and quality, so any noise makes the image aproblem..

The smaller you make the image, the less noise there is. My point here is that no noise is visible in the print. Obviously it is possible to have a image with so much noise that it will in fact be visible..

Since I print and sell images at 16 x 20, and post thumnails on this board, I can speak with a wee bit of knowledge - How much noise do you see on this thumbnail?.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

If I printed the full sized image such a print has NO noise, but if I posted a 100 percent crop, you would see some, such as this....

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

The above image would be rejected, Even though none of the visible noise would print..

The reason the noise does not print is that it is scattered and overwhelmed by the printing process itself..

This is why so many people here make fun of pixel peepers. On the other hand, you get rejected... Dave..

Now I've learned something else new; the pejorative Pixel Peeper, and how they work. Must be frustrating for someone who is trying to make some money through photography having an image rejected for invisible noise..

AlanCP-8800..

Z1Boise wrote:.

Now I've learned something else new; the pejorative Pixel Peeper,and how they work. Must be frustrating for someone who is tryingto make some money through photography having an image rejected forinvisible noise..

AlanCP-8800.

I give shows, my stuff hangs in galleries. My large prints look exactly like the thumbnail I posted. So a stock agency tells me my images are "too noisy.".

It's impossible to argue with them Because Their customers include a lot of pixel peepers. And they after all are trying to peddle their images to these same pixel peepers. .

Dave..

I would still disagree. From the agency's point of view they don't know if a customer wants to print 6x4 or 60x40. Granted you print professionally and I am not arguing against your statements, however your printing and an agency's view of it's business are not the same. You control your process and hence can balance print size and noise..

I think it's also worth pointing out that while noise takes many forms ( coloured patches, speckles, etc ), an agency probably uses automated software to measure noise. This won't discriminate noise types or it's affect on an image, and will simply throw the good out with the bad..

Agencies are middlemen, and agencies in all fields tend to make these types of arbitrary cutoff measures which, in practice, have little to do with the reality of things. Frankly I've never been happy dealing with agencies in any field/profession for this reason..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

Sjgcit wrote:.

I would still disagree. From the agency's point of view they don'tknow if a customer wants to print 6x4 or 60x40. Granted you printprofessionally and I am not arguing against your statements,however your printing and an agency's view of it's business are notthe same. You control your process and hence can balance printsize and noise..

These are very large files. The one I showed you is 4288 pixels. No matter what size you print that image, it would look just peachy..

I think it's also worth pointing out that while noise takes manyforms ( coloured patches, speckles, etc ), an agency probably usesautomated software to measure noise. This won't discriminate noisetypes or it's affect on an image, and will simply throw the goodout with the bad..

Agencies are middlemen, and agencies in all fields tend to makethese types of arbitrary cutoff measures which, in practice, havelittle to do with the reality of things. Frankly I've never beenhappy dealing with agencies in any field/profession for this reason..

Well, as I said, we more or less agree here. They after all have to sell their images to people who look at them at 100 percent. These customers, take one look and say, "Looks all noisy and blurry to me, I'll pass.".

Pixel Peepers... .

Nonetheless, it's all BS... .

My better images hold up at any print size whether large or small. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the matter..

This image would be rejected by them, because at 100 percent viewing it doesn't look that good - Yet at any print size it would look as it does here..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Dave..