4 ms·
"Cameras are supposed to capture reality" This seems like an ironic fantasy to me, because I don't think there is such a thing as an objective reality. Human v
by jp555 9y ago
"Cameras are supposed to capture reality"
This seems like an ironic fantasy to me, because I don't think there is such a thing as an objective reality. Human vision is not objective in the slightest. The objective reality we think we see is actually a fiction made up in real-time by the brain (https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/what-colour-are-the-strawberries-in-this-picture-no-the-answer-is-not-red-1664755 https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/what-colour-are-the-strawberrie...).
- grandalf 9y agoSure I can use a tiny fish-eye lens and some algorithms to create something that looks good, but if the goal is to start with an accurate representation of reality, then the algorithm does not necessarily help. Some of the landscape photos and portraits shown are difficult shots that professionals can achieve after understanding lighting. Using a filter to simulate this is fine. I don't judge it. I am not a professional photographer and use filters some of the time. The issue is calling it a review of a "camera" when it is really a review of filters. Debating over which company's fake bokeh is better is like debating whose animated kitten ear filter is more lifelike.