Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
superior choices only
yoshotography
yosotography
yostography
yosography
yosgraphy
yosraphy
View Results
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Gentle Autist
Jun 4, 2003



i have an olympus mirrorless micro 4/3 with a nice panasonic 20mm 1.4 or something that i never use but takes nice pics

I sold all my SLR gear years ago. thatís my contribution to this thread. thanks

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gentle Autist
Jun 4, 2003



i only like prime lenses, i like the simplicity and having to kinda really think and move to get a good composition

Gentle Autist
Jun 4, 2003



Ragtime All The Time posted:

. thatís iso 25600

:eyepop:

Gentle Autist
Jun 4, 2003



didnít terry richardson blow up the spot wit h all that fidelity poo poo and make lovely cameras good, actually

Gentle Autist
Jun 4, 2003



Sagebrush posted:

here's a cool article i read about how smartphone photography works these days. there are far more computational techniques going on behind the scenes than i was aware of. obvious stuff like exposure bracketing and color correction, but also poo poo like focus bracketing, subpixel stacking, shutter coding, computational depth-mapping, ai convolution. it's nuts.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9828658229/computational-photography-part-i-what-is-computational-photography



in essence, good smartphone cameras (iphones, google pixels) don't necessarily have better optical hardware than other phones. they take the same relatively crappy input that other phones capture (physics is physics) and do extensive computational image synthesis to make the output look great. most of the improvements in phone camera quality in the last few years are just from having enough ram and processor power to pull this off.

i wonder what would happen if you combined these techniques with a full-frame sensor and a big lens?

this owns. apple make a micro 4/3 camera with an MFT mount and an A15, thanks

Gentle Autist
Jun 4, 2003



Sagebrush posted:

i would love to have all these computational features on my Z6. just have a "green square plus" mode where i can swipe between portrait/night shot/macro/etc just like on a phone and let the thing do all its instagram AI magic. or even better, let me enable and disable specific processing techniques. maybe i do want focus stacking on this one, and ML driven local tone mapping, but skip the auto-exposure bracketing because i'm going for a certain mood. i wouldn't want this as my only shooting mode, of course, but having the option there can only be a benefit.

i think the whole situation raises the question of truth in photography. what is the truest photo? we have this idea that the camera is objective and infallible -- that the image it captures is reality, and that deviating from that original capture is a violation of the image's truth. but is this the only definition of truth?

say i see the most gorgeous electric orange sunset of my life. i take a picture of it and look at it on my phone. it doesn't look right to me; the colors aren't right and it just doesn't glow like it did in real life. should i shrug and say "well, the camera must be right, i shouldn't mess with it?" or should i play with the colors and make it look like i remember? is there even an objective truth for the camera to capture? it doesn't see the same wavelengths i do. it can't even see orange light! the orange that exists in the image is a completely fictional artifact, captured as a balance of red and green responses on the sensor, processed using some algorithm a nikon engineer came up with, and displayed in red and green light on a screen that my eye happens to blend into orange. when i think of it that way, the idea of "true" colors being the ones right out of the camera is absurd. my objective truth is what i saw, and i feel completely justified in editing the image to make it look like that.

and then i wonder -- how far can i go? anything that makes the image closer to what i perceive as ideal is fine, and increases the image's value and truth. all the exposure bracketing and focus stacking and sharpening techniques are allowed. i don't see grain, or defocus, or motion blur (well, sometimes) in real life -- so unless i am trying to use those effects on purpose, there's nothing wrong with taking them out or working them over.

what about synthetic lighting? my eyes don't react to light the same way a camera's sensor does. my wife and i are out at the bar and i see her in the most beautiful soft glow. i take a picture of her and it's harsh and doesn't capture the mood. is it wrong to use the synthetic portrait lighting feature to make her look like what i saw?

what about outright editing the subjects of the image? my cousin has a giant pimple on her nose in the family photo. am i obligated to leave it in, or should i remove it? what is closer to her truth? does her self-image involve a pimple on her nose? is there a difference between her asking me to do it, me doing it on my own, or the camera doing it without either of our involvement?

and to take it even further, what is the difference between doing this in software and in camera? portrait photographers have lighting setups that allow them to tweak the image in exquisite detail, and i'm sure all the pros and grognards are fine with that. is it more "true" to life if they do it with $20,000 in flashes instead of dragging the synthetic lighting bubble around?

when i was younger i, too, had the idea that what the camera makes is inviolable. that you can do what you want with the camera, but once you press that shutter button the image is done, and anything past that is just cheap trickery. i got over that. to hell with the idea that you can only make the image with the camera optics. i see photography as an imperfect representation of a situation i remember, and i'll do whatever the hell i want to make it feel the way i prefer.

loving pass the joint dude

Gentle Autist
Jun 4, 2003



prime lens supremacy

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gentle Autist
Jun 4, 2003



Jenny Agutter posted:

do you have a UV filter on your lens so you don't have to use a lens cap?

use a lens hood instead

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply