When I first joined my local photographer's club, one of the masters there told me that I need to accept that all the photos I will take will have been probably already shot by someone else.
Obviously not that realistic, but articles like this sure make it sound more plausible.
Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
21–30 of 219 posts
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, what was working in Antarctica like?
I was working on a long-duration balloon payload (ANITA-IV), so I was in a hangar much of the time. Since it was summer, it wasn't that cold, but the constant daylight is disorienting. The isolation from the rest of the world is the hardest part, even though at McMurdo, unlike pole, there is (slow) internet all day long. McMurdo is an interesting place with a lot of fascinating people and the scenery is very beautifu…
Maciej Ceglowski wrote about McMurdo:
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#23This has always been one of my favorite photographic coincidences. https://calculatedimages.blogspot.com/2013/05/3d-lightning.h...
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#24When I first joined my local photographer's club, one of the masters there told me that I need to accept that all the photos I will take will have been probably already shot by someone else. Obviously not that realistic, but articles like this sure make it sound more plausible.
> all the photos I will take will have been probably already shot by someone else
> Obviously not that realistic
Depends on how literally you want to take it. Lighthouses have definitely been photographed before. Photos depicting the man vs wild nature archetype too.
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#25Two professional photographers having independently selected the exact same frame from two different bursts they captured with their cameras is an interesting instance, illustrating the pro-AI argument in photography and possibly adjacent creative domains.
Grossly simplified, two humans went through dozens or hundreds of shots with identical internal “algorithm” and did the same work twice. This shows that the algorithm can be “abstracted away”, and the work can be done for them by the machine.
I can roughly see the counter-argument to be made, considering true creative self-expression and art losing value as its hardest aspect becomes optional (“natural selection” of produced work via artist’s taste)—but it’s hard to argue, in the light of this example, that professionals would find such a tool indispensable.
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
would be insane if it were a marketing stunt too! Taking the same picture of the same moment of a huge unplanned wave would be a feat worth of the marketing purpose.
Well you could trigger pictures from the same clock and wait until something interesting happened...
the article says that at least ron was shooting for 45 minutes. Which is an average time, but if you consider how many photos a modern camera takes per second...
its technically possible to plan, but just as likely to happen on accident. And its definitely a wonderful example why the idea of intellectual property for photographs is a flawed concept.
But its not an easy topic and photographers still need to earn their living. That means some protection from publishers that just take their shots without paying.
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#27Literally the same millisecond (according to timestamps), or ‘only’ the same tenth of a second or so (as demonstrated by the pictures being near identical)? Those would both be unlikely and remarkable events, but one is 100 times more unlikely than the other :)
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#28Alternate title: two photographers learn about the birthday paradox...
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#295d's image looks remarkably better in terms of colour depth and details.. wondering whether it's due to the sensor size (full frame vs aps-c) or some other factor?
Are you just looking at the low resolution images in the article? If so, I think most of it can be attributed to post-processing. At that resolution the sensor size isn't going to make a big difference.
But I wonder why I cant get the same "look" (despite post-processing for ever) similar to the wallpapers of yesteryear which were mostly 720p :)
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#30Literally the same millisecond (according to timestamps), or ‘only’ the same tenth of a second or so (as demonstrated by the pictures being near identical)? Those would both be unlikely and remarkable events, but one is 100 times more unlikely than the other :)
Timestamps are not useful for this since the cameras clocks are likely off by more than a millisecond.
I think a millisecond is too strong of a claim, but it's almost certainly much less than 1/10th of a second. (a simple though experiment that you could turn into a real experiment if you have a camera: If you take a 1/10th second exposure of something like this the magnitude of the motion blur will be much greater than the differences between the wave shapes on the two cameras).