So what are you saying here?

That if people aren't interested enough in posts or pictures, to comment on them, that's somehow their fault?

Eh?

People are way too touchy. If what you post attracts no comment, maybe post something more interesting

I still think cliques are more about exclusion. I reply to posts that catch my interest in some way, and not to ones that don't. Certainly some people's posts catch my interest more than others', and I tend to notice those more.

I expect the same is true of others, so perhaps all we're saying is that different people are interested in different things. I don't think that's anything to do with cliques, which tends to have negative connotations.

Not sure about *much* greater.

If you take 100 pixels from a K-3 sensor and put it on a monitor, it will occupy the same width as 100 pixels from a K-5 sensor.

However, the 100 pixels from the K-3 sensor is a smaller part of the image.

How much smaller? Well, 24 MP vs 16 MP is 1.5x the number of pixels in the same area. So the linear dimensions in pixels are scaled up by a factor of the square root of 1.5 = 1.225.

So a little more than 1.2, not less than 1.2 as kh1234567890 claimed.

It's basically an enlargement 22.5% more than the same number of pixels from the K-5.

So it will look less sharp viewed from the same distance, but whether it will look enough less sharp to account for what Jon is seeing, I'm not sure. I'm hoping he'll elaborate a bit on the effect he's describing.

Cliques are more usually associated with some sort of exclusivity.

For instance, this.

If you weren't implying exclusivity, then fair enough. Call the frequent posters a clique, if you want, but I think it will be misleading.

Usually when people start accusing people of being cliquey, there is at least the implication that there is some kind of exclusion going on.

Which clearly isn't the case here - as I say, we can all post if we want, not if we don't.

A 100% crop is a portion of the image displayed so that you see 100% of the pixels, that is, one pixel from the original image in each monitor pixel.

If you display a 3000 x 2000 pixel image on an 800 pixel wide part of the monitor, inevitably some of the pixels in the original image have to be averaged out and thrown away.

To create one, you just have to crop out a small enough part of the image so that it will be displayed without being resized. Then you'll see all the pixels in that section of the original image.

What is this rubbish about cliques?

How is a clique even possible in a public forum?

Post if you want, don't if you don't. How that can be anything about a clique?

"Too polite", "Can't be bothered" - quite likely. But the notion that it's got anything to do with a clique is just paranoia.

I don't really understand what's wrong with this. By 'smeared', do you mean 'lacking detail'?

Nothing in that crop looks all that sharp, so I'm not clear what the specific issue is. The buildings are more contrasty than the patches of green, so they'll look sharper - but I don't think they are.

Am I missing something?

Well you should

Yes. The discussion in places has been a lot less vacuous.

In general, things are a lot more interesting when people aren't just agreeing all the time. I'm still figuring out what to say about the Doc's dark pics, since mostly I don't like them very much, despite the accolades from everyone else. When I've figured out why, I'll write something. It may just be because at 800px, they're just too small.

That limitation is probably the single thing that gets my goat on this forum more than anything else - it's either that the powers that be are too stupid to realise that no-one uses a 1024x768 monitor any more, or they like to keep the pics small to ensure that there's plenty of room for the adverts.

Either way, it really annoys the bejezus out of me.

Technique, schmechnique. Baby birds, what's not to like.