| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2015 10:32:45 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 10:38:05 AM · #2 |
| i read this article last week, i stopped reading because i couldn't figure out what it was trying to say. i still dont. |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 10:47:31 AM · #3 |
Very brief overview. It makes "sense" to me, in the sense that I can understand what's being talked about.
Originally posted by article:
Veteran digital commentator Kevin Connor says, âThe definition of computational photography is still evolving, but I like to think of it as a shift from using a camera as a picture-making device to using it as a data-collecting device.â |
Originally posted by article:
Mark Levoy, formerly of Stanford and now of Google puts it this way, âExcept in photojournalism, there will be no such thing as a âstraight photographâ; everything will be an amalgam, an interpretation, an enhancement or a variation â either by the photographer as auteur or by the camera itself.â |
Originally posted by article:
While the photographic world wrestles with even such basic tools as Photoshop there is no doubt that weâre moving into a space more aligned with Cubism than Modernism. It will not be long before our audiences demand more sophisticated imagery that is dynamic and responsive to change, connected to reality by more than a static two-dimensional rectangle of crude visual data isolated in space and time. Weâll look back at the black-and-white photograph that was the voice of truth for nearly a century, as a simplistic and incomplete source of information about what was happening in the world. |
|
|
|
|
09/02/2015 11:01:12 AM · #4 |
I'm probably cynical but I think ppl will tire of gimmicks when it comes to the images the article is predicting. Even the one image shown is ridiculous - if there was a storm right there, those players better get the f- in the dugout! =D
e.g.: I have yet to see images as basic as the Lytro camera online other than in articles predicting it will be the future.
There is a certainty to a simple photograph - regardless of whether it has been processed or not. It can be copied, shared, printed, projected, painted, recreated with beads ⦠whatever. To say it will disappear is like saying books and radio will disappear. We may access them in new ways, but they exist.
ETA: mind you; real-estate already benefits from interactive panoramas and I'm sure photojournalism could use an immersive virtual-reality type file to bring their audiences "there" ... but simple 2D image will be around for a good while, IMHO.
Message edited by author 2015-09-02 11:04:52. |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 11:07:14 AM · #5 |
I wanted to completely dismiss the article as another rant about how digital has killed photography, but in fact there are at least a couple good thoughts there; photography is evolving, for sure.
The lead-in line that "In the future there will be no such thing as a straight photograph" is misleading at best. Here are some thoughts on specific statements from the article:
Originally posted by Stephen Mayes:
Digital capture quietly but definitively severed the optical connection with reality... |
What a crock of shite. He seems to believe that the RGB filter, which he (accurately) describes as resulting in two thirds of the digital image being interpolated values, results in an image that for some reason is a less accurate representation of reality. Bunkum. Today's RAW files contain so much more *accurate* information than a typical color film emulsion that it is just not funny.
Originally posted by Stephen Mayes:
...this requires a profound reassessment of words like âmanipulationâ that assume the existence of a virginal image file that hasnât already been touched by computational process. |
There's a point worth making here, but the implication that the "computational process" somehow defiles the image is a bit ridiculous. Camera manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure that the RAW file is as accurate a representation of what is seen by the lens (note that I didn't say "reality") as possible. The computational process is simply what has to happen to make the acquired data into something that humans can interpret.
Originally posted by Stephen Mayes:
Things will go even further with the development of curved sensors that will allow completely different ways to interpret light... |
I fail to see how curved sensors are such a departure; the human eye has a curved sensor. Today's optical designs go to great lengths to approximate the result of this curved sensor by correcting the optics, since curving the sensor is very difficult. Not that it hasn't been done, it has, back in the film days.
The author seems to think that all of the additional data that may be collected or generated, such as GPS, facial recognition, LIDAR, yadda yadda somehow change photography. Again, I call bullshit. They augment the image, they do not change it. The one thing he really does not address is light field photography, which does change how we think about the image, since with that technology we can now change the DoF and focus plane as we wish in post. So overall, I'm really not impressed with the depth of thought that went into the piece, and I certainly disagree with his lead-in line.
Message edited by author 2015-09-02 11:08:52.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2015 12:19:54 PM · #6 |
it's a person trying to elevate themselves to the masses by using carefully constructed half-truths and technical terminology that will baffle novice photographers and the general population.
Originally posted by "Random Person":
If I don't understand what he's saying, and he's using these terms all over the place, he MUST be an expert! |
This is the same form of chicanery that "Snake oil salesmen" are notorious for - "baffling and bamboozling average people into believing what they are selling".
The sensor may interpolate data; fine - so does your brain. Your brain draws on your own experiences to make sense of what you are witnessing, you are biased in Everything you See/Do/Hear/Feel, those are interpolated responses from your brain.
Just because there is an ability to alter the image does not mean that the image is altering perceived reality - again because of our brains interpolation - there is no way a person with any amount of common sense will see a picture that "defies reality" and not question it to some degree. If you do not possess this basic qualification called "common sense", I have some investment opportunities I'd like to talk to you about.... :p |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 12:34:43 PM · #7 |
| Getting all the way back to Rene Descartes here, we are :-) |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 12:55:53 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Very brief overview. It makes "sense" to me, in the sense that I can understand what's being talked about.
Originally posted by article:
Veteran digital commentator Kevin Connor says, âThe definition of computational photography is still evolving, but I like to think of it as a shift from using a camera as a picture-making device to using it as a data-collecting device.â |
Originally posted by article:
Mark Levoy, formerly of Stanford and now of Google puts it this way, âExcept in photojournalism, there will be no such thing as a âstraight photographâ; everything will be an amalgam, an interpretation, an enhancement or a variation â either by the photographer as auteur or by the camera itself.â |
Originally posted by article:
While the photographic world wrestles with even such basic tools as Photoshop there is no doubt that weâre moving into a space more aligned with Cubism than Modernism. It will not be long before our audiences demand more sophisticated imagery that is dynamic and responsive to change, connected to reality by more than a static two-dimensional rectangle of crude visual data isolated in space and time. Weâll look back at the black-and-white photograph that was the voice of truth for nearly a century, as a simplistic and incomplete source of information about what was happening in the world. |
|
+1
I have always thought of my camera as a data-collecting device. I liked what I read here.
Humans in general have let their technology dominate their world view. Photographers are in general dominated by the technology of the camera. But 'everything' an individual knows is not everything there is to know. We let ourselves be limited by what we think is possible, by what we believe is true. There is so much more out there.
Message edited by author 2015-09-02 13:12:39. |
|
|
|
09/02/2015 01:48:24 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I have always thought of my camera as a data-collecting device. I liked what I read here... |
In many ways, so have I. That's not to say that we don't have dramatic input on what data is collected, and that's what I think the author is missing. The data collection is definitely subject to artistic decisions made by the photographer. The data processing, of course, is also subject to said interpretations, as it has been since the dawn of photography.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/22/2025 12:04:28 PM EDT.
