4 ms·

Choice implies a non-processed alternative but hardware has been driven in a direction so as to make the non-processed alternative unusable (meh hardware, proce

Choice implies a non-processed alternative but hardware has been driven in a direction so as to make the non-processed alternative unusable (meh hardware, processing to fix).

lkxijlewlf 5y ago
Pretty much this. I have a Pixel 4a and if I use an alternate camera that doesn't have Google's algos, the images look like ass.
simion314 5y ago
My digital camera had Profiles for outdoors, night/dark areas, people, animals, macro. Seems to me Apple did what they do best (and credit to Gnome too) remove the Profiles options because the users are stupid and use some shit algorithm to decide what profile to use for you,
- kaba0 5y ago
  Computational photography is much more advanced than that.
  - simion314 5y ago
    Digital cameras had shit like face detection too, but yeah they are more advanced but still too stupid to just work, I remember a picture was posted where the code made a leaf appear on top of someone's face, like fuck this photos are fabricated, object are moved around, hidden or made to appear - you can't just use a photo as evidence without first knowing all the tech details on what algorithm created the photo.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      As mentioned elsewhere, that story is fake. Computational photography is more about increasing the sources of data, by e.g. reusing the shakiness of one’s hand to decompose the adjacent color channels’ input. This is a statistically correct method to increase the noise-to-signal ratio, nothing like “this is a leaf, put a leaf here”
azeirah 5y ago
Delegating the issue to hardware seems off to me. Aren't hardware manufacturers also making choices for you? I get that software allows for far broader picture manipulation but there are a decent amount of similar choices on the lens and sensor level, no?
- Scalestein 5y ago
  True but hardware makes it obvious why the image looks the way it does and is consistent. Photographers can even tell what lenses were used for a photo by looking at it. Software makes it more of a black box. The same picture taken days apart could look different due to a software update you weren't even aware of. Hardware is also a forced choice so is more deliberate which again is the opposite of the software situation of changing algos and processing.

Choice implies a non-processed alternative but hardware has been driven in a direction so as to make the non-processed alternative unusable (meh hardware, processing to fix).

lkxijlewlf 5y ago

Pretty much this. I have a Pixel 4a and if I use an alternate camera that doesn't have Google's algos, the images look like ass.

simion314 5y ago

My digital camera had Profiles for outdoors, night/dark areas, people, animals, macro. Seems to me Apple did what they do best (and credit to Gnome too) remove the Profiles options because the users are stupid and use some shit algorithm to decide what profile to use for you,

kaba0 5y ago
Computational photography is much more advanced than that.
- simion314 5y ago
  Digital cameras had shit like face detection too, but yeah they are more advanced but still too stupid to just work, I remember a picture was posted where the code made a leaf appear on top of someone's face, like fuck this photos are fabricated, object are moved around, hidden or made to appear - you can't just use a photo as evidence without first knowing all the tech details on what algorithm created the photo.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    As mentioned elsewhere, that story is fake. Computational photography is more about increasing the sources of data, by e.g. reusing the shakiness of one’s hand to decompose the adjacent color channels’ input. This is a statistically correct method to increase the noise-to-signal ratio, nothing like “this is a leaf, put a leaf here”

azeirah 5y ago

Delegating the issue to hardware seems off to me. Aren't hardware manufacturers also making choices for you? I get that software allows for far broader picture manipulation but there are a decent amount of similar choices on the lens and sensor level, no?

Scalestein 5y ago
True but hardware makes it obvious why the image looks the way it does and is consistent. Photographers can even tell what lenses were used for a photo by looking at it. Software makes it more of a black box. The same picture taken days apart could look different due to a software update you weren't even aware of. Hardware is also a forced choice so is more deliberate which again is the opposite of the software situation of changing algos and processing.