- git apologist
- 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. that’s my contribution to this thread. thanks
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2021 13:04
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 16:35
|
|
- git apologist
- 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
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2021 13:07
|
|
- git apologist
- Jun 4, 2003
-
|
didn’t terry richardson blow up the spot wit h all that fidelity poo poo and make lovely cameras good, actually
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 08:09
|
|
- git apologist
- Jun 4, 2003
-
|
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
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2022 20:33
|
|
- git apologist
- Jun 4, 2003
-
|
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
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2022 21:09
|
|
- git apologist
- Jun 4, 2003
-
|
prime lens supremacy
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2022 18:41
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 16:35
|
|
- git apologist
- Jun 4, 2003
-
|
do you have a UV filter on your lens so you don't have to use a lens cap?
use a lens hood instead
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2022 09:47
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2021 13:04
. that’s iso 25600