4 ms·

Way way way way way too much image processing. Good grief, is reality really that shitty?

SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
The couple of photos by Blair Bunting in that article that have people in them look so over processed that I hesitate to believe they aren't entirely AI or otherwise computer generated.
- MerelyMortal 3y ago
  I don't know. I have pictures of one of NASA's U2's and the cockpit looks completely different. Granted there are different versions of the U2.
dylan604 3y ago
While I'll stipulate that every artist is allowed to have their own style, I too would love to have seen some of these same images much less stylized. I want to see the plane! So I would not be buying a coffee table book with this overly stylized imagery, but I'll restrain myself from calling it shitty. Part of the article stipulates that much of the plane is still classified to a certain extent, it could be possible that there were requirements to not show too much detail. That would lend to the highly stylized look to being used. I'd have assumed some photoshopping to paint over areas that needed redacting.
yathern 3y ago
I thought the extreme HDR look went out of fashion when it became too easy for phones to do, and was overused. These pictures don't have bad HDR artifacts (EG haloing) but even a casual observer will notice they don't feel natural at all. It's a shame because the framing and colors of those pictures are really nice, but the contrast (both high and low freq) gives them a completely synthetic feel. I'm guessing the sky was swapped out with a very dramatic overcast version, which also adds to the uncanny valley effect.
- fps-hero 3y ago
  Isn’t it amusing to be discussing HDR processing artefacts when the subjects have full sun illumination, yet the background is pitch black. Without some measure of artistic license, you’re not going to get an image with any contrast without manipulation.
kmote00 3y ago
According to the article, the "colors ... are, importantly, not added for dramatic effect — these photos and all aspects of them, are real." What processing are you referring to?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  real != raw an example of the postprocessing can be seen in the first photo, where the yellow painted flight line is glowing in the dark
- yathern 3y ago
  The colors may have been there in the raw image, but it's clear to anyone who has experience in photography and photo editing that these images were at the very least, enhanced to bring out those colors. The simplest version of doing this is turning the saturation knob way up - but professionals typically use much more nuanced tools than that. Especially in the ground pictures, a lot of work was done on the global/local contrast to achieve detail across the brightness range. In addition, manually brightening and darkening some of the areas to guide the eye. These are things photographers have always done since the early days of photography - however with modern tools, it's easier to achieve a look that goes too far, and starts coming off as "synthetic" or "video-gamey". I also think they just did a swap of the sky in some of the dramatic cloudy shots.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  I don't deny the colors are real. It's just that they're now an exaggeration of what was there.
outside1234 3y ago
I honestly thought they were screenshots from Microsoft Flight Simulator and that this whole thing was going to end with him at a PC and an advertisement to join Xbox Live so you can flight the U2 as well.

The couple of photos by Blair Bunting in that article that have people in them look so over processed that I hesitate to believe they aren't entirely AI or otherwise computer generated.

MerelyMortal 3y ago
I don't know. I have pictures of one of NASA's U2's and the cockpit looks completely different. Granted there are different versions of the U2.

dylan604 3y ago

While I'll stipulate that every artist is allowed to have their own style, I too would love to have seen some of these same images much less stylized. I want to see the plane! So I would not be buying a coffee table book with this overly stylized imagery, but I'll restrain myself from calling it shitty. Part of the article stipulates that much of the plane is still classified to a certain extent, it could be possible that there were requirements to not show too much detail. That would lend to the highly stylized look to being used. I'd have assumed some photoshopping to paint over areas that needed redacting.

yathern 3y ago

I thought the extreme HDR look went out of fashion when it became too easy for phones to do, and was overused. These pictures don't have bad HDR artifacts (EG haloing) but even a casual observer will notice they don't feel natural at all. It's a shame because the framing and colors of those pictures are really nice, but the contrast (both high and low freq) gives them a completely synthetic feel. I'm guessing the sky was swapped out with a very dramatic overcast version, which also adds to the uncanny valley effect.

fps-hero 3y ago
Isn’t it amusing to be discussing HDR processing artefacts when the subjects have full sun illumination, yet the background is pitch black. Without some measure of artistic license, you’re not going to get an image with any contrast without manipulation.

kmote00 3y ago

According to the article, the "colors ... are, importantly, not added for dramatic effect — these photos and all aspects of them, are real." What processing are you referring to?

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
real != raw an example of the postprocessing can be seen in the first photo, where the yellow painted flight line is glowing in the dark
yathern 3y ago
The colors may have been there in the raw image, but it's clear to anyone who has experience in photography and photo editing that these images were at the very least, enhanced to bring out those colors. The simplest version of doing this is turning the saturation knob way up - but professionals typically use much more nuanced tools than that. Especially in the ground pictures, a lot of work was done on the global/local contrast to achieve detail across the brightness range. In addition, manually brightening and darkening some of the areas to guide the eye. These are things photographers have always done since the early days of photography - however with modern tools, it's easier to achieve a look that goes too far, and starts coming off as "synthetic" or "video-gamey". I also think they just did a swap of the sky in some of the dramatic cloudy shots.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
I don't deny the colors are real. It's just that they're now an exaggeration of what was there.

outside1234 3y ago

I honestly thought they were screenshots from Microsoft Flight Simulator and that this whole thing was going to end with him at a PC and an advertisement to join Xbox Live so you can flight the U2 as well.