I also agree that the term pixel peeping has become a bit of a derogatory term. It's not surprising that it has either. Take a trip to the forums at drpreview and you'll see a lot of folks getting wrapped around the axle over stuff that is not relevant to their situation.
I think the spectre of the internet forum "gear freak" has made pixel peeping into the black sheep of photography. It conjures up thoughts of someone who shoots pictures of test charts and brick walls for enjoyment.
But then we move on and become concerned with other things and pixel peeping drifts into the background.
It is exactly these kinds of reaction that I don't understand. I know a fine art photographer who photographs the post it notes on his fridge door at every aperture and every ISO on every camera he owns every time he buys a new lens. He then feels that he has a knowledge of how that lens will respond when he's out taking photographs and therefore he won't get unexpected results. He does this once and he's done.
I do a lot of architectural photography. Photographing a brick wall is a very handy and easy way to check how a lens distorts and therefore gives a good idea as to how its going to perform when I photograph buildings in the real world.
Dpreview and Imaging Resource are internet sites who publish test charts. Imaging resource have a strict and repeatable test regime for each piece of equipment they test. As do DxO.
Whether we find this useful or not is a matter of choice, and certainly I prefer my own methods of real world testing rather than using two dimensional test charts. But I do have a repeatable routine and therefore a useful method of comparing one piece of equipment against another. I've always done this, both before I made my living from photography and afterwards.
Its not as though it takes a long time. The two sets of comparisons I did on the Fuji X100 compared to the Olympus E-PL2 with two different lenses, took about an hour for each lens. It was extremely useful in making up my mind about which lens to keep, which to sell and for what purpose I would use them. It also gave me an excellent idea of what I could expect in terms of files from each of those cameras.
Doing this then frees me up to concentrate on what's really important, which is going out and creating photographs, without me getting any nasty surprises and making sure that I come back with a set of images I'm pleased with.
Having talked to a lot of photographers over the years, what I do is commonplace. None of us would regard ourselves as "gear freaks" or think that we were doing anything unusual. Its not a particularly enjoyable experience, though by using a location I do try and make my testing procedures as pleasant as possible, and I do enjoy the experience of seeing the results from a good piece of gear, anticipating what it might produce in the future.
I have taken the quotes above out of context, and I apologise for that. I'm well aware that there was more to your posts than I have indicated, but the phrases used and sentiments expressed are commonplace in forums and I quote them because I am genuinely surprised by how the process of testing and evaluating is often regarded.
Many of the worlds best known photographers are known for their rigorous testing procedures and indeed many have written extensively on technique. Ansel Adams and the Zone System is an obvious example. For many this testing and yes "pixel-peeping" helps us create better images, and in many ways gets us to a position whereby we are controlling the equipment we use rather than letting it control us. Just because some of us make a living from photography, doesn't make it different. All professional photographers were amateurs once, and concern about quality isn't restricted to those who charge for what they do, is it?
I'm perfectly happy with the fact that people are unconcerned about testing, but I'm not happy about how people who are concerned about it are often portrayed. I've personally never met or read about anyone who photographs test charts and brick walls for fun. If you have then please convey to them my wishes for a speedy recovery! I'm also very reluctant to make judgements about people based on a few words they write on an internet forum, and the notion of me giving advice as to what they should do and think strikes me as innapropriate.
Formula One drivers test their cars to destruction, musicians test and become familiar with their instruments, fishermen spend time getting familiar with a new rod. When a photographer does a similar thing, how do they then become a nerd or a gear head or a "pixel-peeper"? I'm not trying to be provocative here, I really don't understand it