4 ms·

Are we supposed to find the "uneditorialized composition" to be any less amazing than the modern renderings? Personally, I don't find that to be the case. Thou

Are we supposed to find the "uneditorialized composition" to be any less amazing than the modern renderings? Personally, I don't find that to be the case. Though I do find the "uneditorialized" version to have a greenish cast that if I were working in an old-school darkroom, I would have attempted to fix. Also I would have dodged the sky in order to bring out the cloud details. Though I admittedly don't have much experience doing such things in a darkroom for color photography, and I suspect that it's harder than for black & white. Since you don't seem to actually wish to state any thesis on your own, perhaps you'll answer a question: Which of these of these images, the "uneditorialized" or the Photoshopped version is a more accurate representation of reality, as seen by Prokudin-Gorsky's eyes on that day?

001sky 14y ago
To change the tone of this conversation -- away from being adverserial -- I'll just throw this out there. re: A more accurate representation of reality Images have information and utility. Keeping this in mind, you can avoid the notion of accurate/inaacurate and real/unreal and make deeper progress in terms of understanding how images are made and how they are used. ....... [this is from review of Hyman, 2006 opp cit] “The longer you work, the more the mystery deepens of what appearance is, or how what is called appearance can be made in another medium."—Francis Bacon, painter This, in a nutshell, is the central problem in the theory of art. It has fascinated philosophers from Plato to Wittgenstein. And it fascinates artists and art historians, who have always drawn extensively on philosophical ideas about language and representation, and on ideas about vision and the visible world that have deep philosophical roots. John Hyman’s The Objective Eye is a radical treatment of this problem, deeply informed by the history of philosophy and science, but entirely fresh. The questions tackled here are fundamental ones: Is our experience of color an illusion? How does the metaphysical status of colors differ from that of shapes? What is the difference between a picture and a written text? Why are some pictures said to be more realistic than others? Is it because they are especially truthful or, on the contrary, because they deceive the eye? The Objective Eye explores the fundamental concepts we use constantly in our most innocent thoughts and conversations about art, as well as in the most sophisticated art theory. The book progresses from pure philosophy to applied philosophy and ranges from the metaphysics of color to Renaissance perspective, from anatomy in ancient Greece to impressionism in nineteenth-century France. Philosophers, art historians, and students of the arts will find The Objective Eye challenging and absorbing. ....... I hope this helps.
- nessus42 14y ago
  Only sloppy-minded Continental philosophers would typically discard the distinction of accurate vs inaccurate. (Though there may certainly still be a large space for variation within images of equal accuracy. If this were not the case, then one might plausibly argue that there is no art in making accurate photographs.) As this book would seem to be written in the more clear-headed Analytic tradition, I am guessing, if anything, it bears light on this distinction, rather than attempting to merely subvert it. If you fall into the Continental camp of thought, then that explains why you are so hard to pin down. Continental thought is rife with meaningless hot air. Here's piece of evidence for that assertion, just in case you doubt it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair If you do fall into the Continental camp, you surely are not to blame. I blame society. On the other hand, it's never too late to replan your route to a saner road.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Try: Nietzsche. I think he lights fire to this debate pretty well. The issue at hand is about perspectivism, not relativism. And not Nihilism. All of that is boring. Like Continental philosophy. Also, Like Nietzche, I don't always write to be understood, at least noy just by just anyone. You may need to do some work or have some training. But to those that know, it will make sense. As a sidebar example: accurate/innacurate. Think about this at the pixel level. It already is innacurate (its a square). Or with Jpeg compression, its also deleting information and replacing it (less accurate--like areas of information are simplified). And then, at another leve of abstraction consider something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking. You should read this, but the tl;dr is I can make an image "sharp" by ~blurring it. So, is that "more accurate" (can see it clear) or less accrurate (its more blurry?). I've just lost data. But I gained contrast. Wait, what? So, there is a problem in continuing the discussion at this level without alot more work. Its a practical problem as well. One just need different mental frameworks to progress. Its just that simple. At the end, only then, can you come back and have a better understanding of "accurate" etc. But don't take my word for it -- that book is really good--and touches on all of this. And it is Rigorous. He's an Oxford man. Etc. Of course, there is a reason it is a book and not a Hacker News Thread. =D

001sky 14y ago

To change the tone of this conversation -- away from being adverserial -- I'll just throw this out there. re: A more accurate representation of reality Images have information and utility. Keeping this in mind, you can avoid the notion of accurate/inaacurate and real/unreal and make deeper progress in terms of understanding how images are made and how they are used. ....... [this is from review of Hyman, 2006 opp cit] “The longer you work, the more the mystery deepens of what appearance is, or how what is called appearance can be made in another medium."—Francis Bacon, painter This, in a nutshell, is the central problem in the theory of art. It has fascinated philosophers from Plato to Wittgenstein. And it fascinates artists and art historians, who have always drawn extensively on philosophical ideas about language and representation, and on ideas about vision and the visible world that have deep philosophical roots. John Hyman’s The Objective Eye is a radical treatment of this problem, deeply informed by the history of philosophy and science, but entirely fresh. The questions tackled here are fundamental ones: Is our experience of color an illusion? How does the metaphysical status of colors differ from that of shapes? What is the difference between a picture and a written text? Why are some pictures said to be more realistic than others? Is it because they are especially truthful or, on the contrary, because they deceive the eye? The Objective Eye explores the fundamental concepts we use constantly in our most innocent thoughts and conversations about art, as well as in the most sophisticated art theory. The book progresses from pure philosophy to applied philosophy and ranges from the metaphysics of color to Renaissance perspective, from anatomy in ancient Greece to impressionism in nineteenth-century France. Philosophers, art historians, and students of the arts will find The Objective Eye challenging and absorbing. ....... I hope this helps.

nessus42 14y ago
Only sloppy-minded Continental philosophers would typically discard the distinction of accurate vs inaccurate. (Though there may certainly still be a large space for variation within images of equal accuracy. If this were not the case, then one might plausibly argue that there is no art in making accurate photographs.) As this book would seem to be written in the more clear-headed Analytic tradition, I am guessing, if anything, it bears light on this distinction, rather than attempting to merely subvert it. If you fall into the Continental camp of thought, then that explains why you are so hard to pin down. Continental thought is rife with meaningless hot air. Here's piece of evidence for that assertion, just in case you doubt it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair If you do fall into the Continental camp, you surely are not to blame. I blame society. On the other hand, it's never too late to replan your route to a saner road.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Try: Nietzsche. I think he lights fire to this debate pretty well. The issue at hand is about perspectivism, not relativism. And not Nihilism. All of that is boring. Like Continental philosophy. Also, Like Nietzche, I don't always write to be understood, at least noy just by just anyone. You may need to do some work or have some training. But to those that know, it will make sense. As a sidebar example: accurate/innacurate. Think about this at the pixel level. It already is innacurate (its a square). Or with Jpeg compression, its also deleting information and replacing it (less accurate--like areas of information are simplified). And then, at another leve of abstraction consider something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking. You should read this, but the tl;dr is I can make an image "sharp" by ~blurring it. So, is that "more accurate" (can see it clear) or less accrurate (its more blurry?). I've just lost data. But I gained contrast. Wait, what? So, there is a problem in continuing the discussion at this level without alot more work. Its a practical problem as well. One just need different mental frameworks to progress. Its just that simple. At the end, only then, can you come back and have a better understanding of "accurate" etc. But don't take my word for it -- that book is really good--and touches on all of this. And it is Rigorous. He's an Oxford man. Etc. Of course, there is a reason it is a book and not a Hacker News Thread. =D