5 ms·

It simply means that we no longer have measuring instruments who are used to draw accurate representation of the scene but seed samplers who are used to generat

by mrtksn 5y ago

It simply means that we no longer have measuring instruments who are used to draw accurate representation of the scene but seed samplers who are used to generate a representation of the scene, not necessarily accurately but artistically. Accuracy used to be the metric but someone figured out that most people are not after accuracy. IMHO it's not fundamentally evil, it's just that it's not the thing we are used to. Wouldn't have caused a confusion if they used some other word instead of photograph.

user-the-name 5y ago
Cameras have never, ever been "accurate". It is not technologically possible to create a photograph that is "accurate". Cameras have always made big tradeoffs to output something that actually looks good to humans.
- bigyikes 5y ago
  Sure, but there is a major difference between color correction and, say, replacing a head with a leaf. Historically cameras have merely altered the style of images. These days smartphone cameras are altering the content of images.
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    Most modern cameras have noise reduction, stabilisation, the ability to combine multiple exposures and track moving targets. They might not push the envelope as much as a cellphone, but they’re only a few years behind.
- ixfo 5y ago
  Well, no, it's not perfectly possible to recreate a singular human vision system and capture and reproduce imagery to match that. But actually, we have lots of excellent, well-researched and proven standards for accuracy in imaging. Cameras generally target those standards, certainly professional ones. Many cameras - quite clearly - can produce very accurate photographs. The more worrying trend is that of pervasive post-processing, where we depart from reality and entertain aesthetics.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    > Well, no, it's not perfectly possible to recreate a singular human vision system and capture and reproduce imagery to match that How?

by mrtksn 5y ago

user-the-name 5y ago

Cameras have never, ever been "accurate". It is not technologically possible to create a photograph that is "accurate". Cameras have always made big tradeoffs to output something that actually looks good to humans.

bigyikes 5y ago
Sure, but there is a major difference between color correction and, say, replacing a head with a leaf. Historically cameras have merely altered the style of images. These days smartphone cameras are altering the content of images.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  Most modern cameras have noise reduction, stabilisation, the ability to combine multiple exposures and track moving targets. They might not push the envelope as much as a cellphone, but they’re only a few years behind.
ixfo 5y ago
Well, no, it's not perfectly possible to recreate a singular human vision system and capture and reproduce imagery to match that. But actually, we have lots of excellent, well-researched and proven standards for accuracy in imaging. Cameras generally target those standards, certainly professional ones. Many cameras - quite clearly - can produce very accurate photographs. The more worrying trend is that of pervasive post-processing, where we depart from reality and entertain aesthetics.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  > Well, no, it's not perfectly possible to recreate a singular human vision system and capture and reproduce imagery to match that How?