5 ms·

"interpretation of that moment" from a camera it is not a photograph, it's a fake image kidnapping the word "photograph".

by drtgh 3y ago

autoexec 3y ago
It's impossible to enforce, but it'd be a more honest if people called them something else. iPictures maybe? As in "Hey, check out this iPicture™ of my kid taking his first steps!"
Toutouxc 3y ago
A photograph is always an interpretation. A photograph from, say, a modern $2000 big boy camera: Does not capture the color of every pixel, and merely infers it from the surrounding ones. Is usually viewed on a sRGB screen with shitty contrast and a dynamic range significantly smaller than the one of the camera, which is significantly smaller than the one of human eyes, which is still significantly smaller than what we encounter in the real world. Does not capture a particular moment in time, but a variable length period that’s also shifted between the top part of the image and the bottom part (a couple of ms for mechanical shutter, tens or hundreds of ms for electronic). Has no idea about the white balance of the scene. Has no idea about the absolute brightness of the scene. Usually has significant perspective distortion. Usually has most of the scene out-of focus and thus misrepresents reality (buildings aren’t built and people aren’t born out of focus).
- drtgh 3y ago
  Yep, of course, the colors, the sensor or the film chemicals that react to the frequencies of those photons, the angles of those photons through the lenses, all adapted to our range of view and color perception could be considered even are in the limit of the physics within natural perception, what also could be being crossed when the parameters and mechanics takes certain values, and from MHO its more or less acceptable, our naked eyes can discern how are being evaluated those parameters and mechanics. Nevertheless, what we are seeing with the post-process of the cameras described in the OP cross the threshold of what until this moment in the history is considered natural "photograph" that can be obtained analogically. Those are manipulated images, undetectable for the naked eye, that are incorporating elements, those are a "composition" that can not be obtained analogically. those images are fakes, lies. and by the read in the comments it seems the user can not even disable such composed interpretation.
- octacat 3y ago
  good enough. decompiling photography make all the magic go away.

"interpretation of that moment" from a camera it is not a photograph, it's a fake image kidnapping the word "photograph".

by drtgh 3y ago

"interpretation of that moment" from a camera it is not a photograph, it's a fake image kidnapping the word "photograph".

autoexec 3y ago

It's impossible to enforce, but it'd be a more honest if people called them something else. iPictures maybe? As in "Hey, check out this iPicture™ of my kid taking his first steps!"

Toutouxc 3y ago

A photograph is always an interpretation. A photograph from, say, a modern $2000 big boy camera: Does not capture the color of every pixel, and merely infers it from the surrounding ones. Is usually viewed on a sRGB screen with shitty contrast and a dynamic range significantly smaller than the one of the camera, which is significantly smaller than the one of human eyes, which is still significantly smaller than what we encounter in the real world. Does not capture a particular moment in time, but a variable length period that’s also shifted between the top part of the image and the bottom part (a couple of ms for mechanical shutter, tens or hundreds of ms for electronic). Has no idea about the white balance of the scene. Has no idea about the absolute brightness of the scene. Usually has significant perspective distortion. Usually has most of the scene out-of focus and thus misrepresents reality (buildings aren’t built and people aren’t born out of focus).

drtgh 3y ago
Yep, of course, the colors, the sensor or the film chemicals that react to the frequencies of those photons, the angles of those photons through the lenses, all adapted to our range of view and color perception could be considered even are in the limit of the physics within natural perception, what also could be being crossed when the parameters and mechanics takes certain values, and from MHO its more or less acceptable, our naked eyes can discern how are being evaluated those parameters and mechanics. Nevertheless, what we are seeing with the post-process of the cameras described in the OP cross the threshold of what until this moment in the history is considered natural "photograph" that can be obtained analogically. Those are manipulated images, undetectable for the naked eye, that are incorporating elements, those are a "composition" that can not be obtained analogically. those images are fakes, lies. and by the read in the comments it seems the user can not even disable such composed interpretation.
octacat 3y ago
good enough. decompiling photography make all the magic go away.