By Robert Roaldi
You know, I've often read pixel-peeping articles on various web sites and the follow-up discussions on their respective forums. After a while, by the second and third pages, when the arguments become too esoteric I just give up. If I tried to, I am sure I could study the subject matter, follow the discussions, and even add something intelligent to the debates. But what I've noticed is that I only read those articles when I'm at work and need a break. When I'm at home on my own time, I never give them a second thought. I choose my camera gear today the same way I did 30 years ago: I buy the most expensive gear I can afford, use it, and ignore the better stuff that's for sale because I am never going to own it.
I have read some forum threads in which the participants discuss in great detail the optimum aperture of some lens/sensor combo and I get the impression that some people only take pictures for which the exposure falls within those parameters. I picture them carrying around depth-of-field charts and resolution charts from the testing that they've done on their equipment and use that info to determine which pictures to take. Do people actually do this?
I often take pictures at less than optimum apertures and shutter speeds. At 1-to-1 on my monitor I can often see the blur that is the result of too low a shutter speed and too much coffee. But I can often fix those pictures by just reducing the magnification and printing them anyway and pretending that I never saw them at 100%. It seems to eliminate the problem.