3 ms·
I also feel this photo (not the event) do not seem natural. I don't see why this opinion should be shameful in any way. It has nothing to do with the event itse
by gbog 13y ago
I also feel this photo (not the event) do not seem natural. I don't see why this opinion should be shameful in any way. It has nothing to do with the event itself or the poor people in the scene, it has everything to do with a photographer, his tools and his deontology (work ethic).
- jjoonathan 13y agoThe implication that the methods of analysis used in the article have similar or less predictive power than your intuition is dismissive, trivializes the hard work of others, and is probably false to boot (look for false positives by google image searching "HDR"). You did not make this implication but the parent post we are discussing certainly did. To be fair, the implication was probably not made maliciously, and a more appropriate response would have been "This got past the pros because such lighting is possible to achieve in outdoor photography, although it requires a level of skill, equipment, luck, post-processing, and aesthetic risk that make it uncommon outside studio settings."
- PavlovsCat 13y agoYeah, this "plastic" ("airbrush"?) HDR like look can be achieved regardless of source material. Though the fact that someone could be this... blind or heartless, I'm not sure what it is... to think this is a good "look" for this source material, might warrant a post on DehumanizationNews or something - while PoliticalNews commenters could point out that this hack job essentially turned a bunch of grieving people into an "advancing mob", and that the photographer is a total asshole for that etc. Personally, today I learned one new thing, how to figure out the position of an unseen light source via hard shadows. Awesome!