3 ms·
That's how photos are in general. No camera captures exactly what the eye sees. Is setting an ISO radically changing things? Is setting an exposure time radic
by malfist 3y ago
That's how photos are in general. No camera captures exactly what the eye sees.
Is setting an ISO radically changing things?
Is setting an exposure time radically changing things?
Is having an RGGB bayer pattern radically changing things?
Is having only a 91% quantum efficiency sensor radically changing things?
The questions keep going, I could ask about hot pixel removal, denoise, contrast and saturation, wavelength response curves.
Cameras aren't eyes.
Photos aren't biochemical reactions.
- crazygringo 3y agoNo, there's a huge difference. Regular consumer cameras are designed to be as close as possible to what the human eye sees. They're very obviously chosen to be responsive to R, G and B. Not infrared, yellow and UVB. An image like this is not meant to try to match the human eye. To try to say all cameras don't match the eyes is a false equivalence. Some are purposefully trying to match, some are purposefully trying not to (like this one).
- malfist 3y agoI'd argue it isn't a false equivalence. Every time someone drags that contrast and saturation slider up they're doing something that's no different than assigning RGB to sulfur II, hydrogen alpha, and oxygen III. It's all false color to make something look good.
- crazygringo 3y agoThat's photo editing, not camera settings like ISO or shutter speed. Cameras are still designed to try to be able to match what the human eye perceives, regardless of what you edit afterwards. An infrared telescope is not. Totally and utterly different. They're not the same.