5 ms·

I'm so tired of this arrogant attitude. "Why should I do something in the real world when I can simulate it with a good-enough-but-ultimately-inferior digital p

by tomc1985 5y ago

I'm so tired of this arrogant attitude. "Why should I do something in the real world when I can simulate it with a good-enough-but-ultimately-inferior digital process?"

sigg3 5y ago
How is it arrogant? He's honestly asking. There might be good reason for using a digital solution, such as keeping valuable equipment intact.. We can have both. The world is not boolean.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  It's arrogant when seen in a larger trend of technologists constantly trying to substitute everything with technology. "When all you have is a hammer, everything seems like a nail" I too am an amateur/prosumer photographer who uses an entirely digital process. But tech has its weaknesses, especially in photography -- digital tech still can't replicate a lot of what analog can do, and its important to embrace that. That $4000 mirrorless still can't replicate the dynamic range of 35mm film. Photoshop still can't replicate the contrasty reds of Velvia film. And so on...
- cpach 5y ago
  Your last sentence there made me think of an old Welle: Erdball song… “Es gibt kein Kompromiss / Es zählt nur ja und nein / Wir sehn wies wirklich ist / Wir denken digital”
vecter 5y ago
I don't think the OP is arrogant. I think it's a genuine question. I didn't think of the question itself, but after it was posed, I didn't know the answer (because I have no background in photography or image processing). A few other folks have responded with a technical answer, which is that rendering this would require depth information which obviously isn't available in a 2D image.
Dig1t 5y ago
I think the many qualifications in OP's question make it clear that the intention was not to be arrogant, but simply to ask a question and maybe learn something about photography. I had the same question, not because I'm looking down on people who do this but because I genuinely don't know very much about the photography world and think that it might be possible that there are some unknown advantages to one method over the other.
IgorPartola 5y ago
I in no way meant that as arrogant. I think it’s really cool that that person figured it out. What I am wondering is in what way the effect is different when produced digitally and does it matter? A good deal do photo filters are based on real world optics. Sometimes optics that are outdated (Polaroid mode), sometimes because the physical setup is really expensive. What I am asking is whether this particular effect is hard to replicate. I feel like I’ve seen it before in digital art but don’t know if it’s the same or not and whether the physical effect is actually somehow magical or not.
- martyvis 5y ago
  I guess in simple terms, if you apply a digital filter to a regular image after capture, you can only manipulate elements there or maybe introduce artificial effects. Special filters or lens adjustments done before capture however can manipulate received light before it is normally discarded to take that regular photograph
abraae 5y ago
Chill, it didn't come across as arrogant at all to me. I had the same question. If there is an equivalent way to achieve the effect digitally, for many people that is good information and they can do that, and don't need to go to the lengths this guy did.
dang 5y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm so tired of this arrogant attitude. "Why should I do something in the real world when I can simulate it with a good-enough-but-ultimately-inferior digital process?"

sigg3 5y ago

How is it arrogant? He's honestly asking. There might be good reason for using a digital solution, such as keeping valuable equipment intact.. We can have both. The world is not boolean.

tomc1985 5y ago
It's arrogant when seen in a larger trend of technologists constantly trying to substitute everything with technology. "When all you have is a hammer, everything seems like a nail" I too am an amateur/prosumer photographer who uses an entirely digital process. But tech has its weaknesses, especially in photography -- digital tech still can't replicate a lot of what analog can do, and its important to embrace that. That $4000 mirrorless still can't replicate the dynamic range of 35mm film. Photoshop still can't replicate the contrasty reds of Velvia film. And so on...
cpach 5y ago
Your last sentence there made me think of an old Welle: Erdball song… “Es gibt kein Kompromiss / Es zählt nur ja und nein / Wir sehn wies wirklich ist / Wir denken digital”

vecter 5y ago

I don't think the OP is arrogant. I think it's a genuine question. I didn't think of the question itself, but after it was posed, I didn't know the answer (because I have no background in photography or image processing). A few other folks have responded with a technical answer, which is that rendering this would require depth information which obviously isn't available in a 2D image.

Dig1t 5y ago

I think the many qualifications in OP's question make it clear that the intention was not to be arrogant, but simply to ask a question and maybe learn something about photography. I had the same question, not because I'm looking down on people who do this but because I genuinely don't know very much about the photography world and think that it might be possible that there are some unknown advantages to one method over the other.

IgorPartola 5y ago

I in no way meant that as arrogant. I think it’s really cool that that person figured it out. What I am wondering is in what way the effect is different when produced digitally and does it matter? A good deal do photo filters are based on real world optics. Sometimes optics that are outdated (Polaroid mode), sometimes because the physical setup is really expensive. What I am asking is whether this particular effect is hard to replicate. I feel like I’ve seen it before in digital art but don’t know if it’s the same or not and whether the physical effect is actually somehow magical or not.

martyvis 5y ago
I guess in simple terms, if you apply a digital filter to a regular image after capture, you can only manipulate elements there or maybe introduce artificial effects. Special filters or lens adjustments done before capture however can manipulate received light before it is normally discarded to take that regular photograph

abraae 5y ago

Chill, it didn't come across as arrogant at all to me. I had the same question. If there is an equivalent way to achieve the effect digitally, for many people that is good information and they can do that, and don't need to go to the lengths this guy did.

dang 5y ago

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html