Earlier quoted context omitted.
hey, not accusing you of anything (bad assumptions don't lead to a conducive conversation) but did you use AI to write or assist with this comment? this is totally out of my own self-interest, no problems with its content
Upon inspection, the author's personal website used em dashes in 2023. I hope this helped with your witch hunt. I'm imagining a sort of Logan's Run-like scifi setup where only people with a documented em dash before November 30, 2022, i.e. D(ash)-day, are left with permission to write.
What an unprocessed photo looks like
261–270 of 418 posts
Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#262> As a result of this, if the linear data is displayed directly, it will appear much darker then it should be. Then -> than? (In case the author is reading comments here.)
Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also why I absolute hate, hate, hate it when people ask me whether I "edited" a photo or whether a photo is "original", as if trying to explain away nice-looking images as if they are fake. The JPEGs cameras produce are heavily processed, and they are emphatically NOT "original". Taking manual control of that process to produce an alternative JPEG with different curves, mappings, calibrations, is not a crime.
As a mostly amateur photographer, it doesn't bother me if people ask that question. While I understand the point that the camera itself may be making some 'editing' type decision on the data first, a) in theory each camera maker has attempted to calibrate the output to some standard, b) public would expect two photos taken at same time with same model camera should look identical. That differs greatly from what often…
But this is wrong. My not-too-exotic 9-year-old camera has a bunch of settings which affect the resulting image quite a bit. Without going into "picture styles", or "recipes", or whatever they're called these days, I can alter saturation, contrast, and white balance (I can even tell it to add a fixed alteration to the auto WB and tell it to "keep warm colors"). And all these settings will alter how the in-camera produced JPEG will look, no external editing required at all.
So if two people are sitting in the same spot with the same camera, who's to say they both set them up identically? And if they didn't, which produces the "non-processed" one?
I think the point is that the public doesn't really understand how these things work. Even without going to the lengths described by another commenter (local adjust so that there appears to be a ray of light in that particular spot, remove things, etc), just playing with the curves will make people think "it's processed". And what I described above is precisely what the camera itself does. So why is there a difference if I do it manually after the fact or if I tell the camera to do it for me?
Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#264Trying frantically to remember and looking for it in my bookmarks but failing miserably. If anyone remembers what blog I am talking about please leave a link.
Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#265An unprocessed photo does not “look”. It is RGGB pixel values that far exceed any display media in dynamic range. Fitting it into the tiny dynamic range of screens by thrusting throwing away data strategically (inventing perceptual the neutral grey point, etc.) is what actually makes sense of them, and what is the creative task.
Right. the statement "Here’s a photo of a Christmas tree, as my camera’s sensor sees it" is incoherent.
Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely what the author means: >There’s nothing that happens when you adjust the contrast or white balance in editing software that the camera hasn’t done under the hood. The edited image isn’t “faker” then the original: they are different renditions of the same data.
That's not how I read it. As in, this is an incidental comment. But the unprocessed version is the raw values from the sensors visible in the first picture, the processed are both the camera photo and his attempt at the end.
Conversely the output of standard transforms applied to a raw Bayer sensor output might reasonably be called the "unprocessed image", since that is what the intended output of the measurement device is.
Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#267Does anyone remember a blog post on how repeated sharpening and blurring results in reaction diffusion Turing patterns. That blog also had an article on sub pixel shift. Trying frantically to remember and looking for it in my bookmarks but failing miserably. If anyone remembers what blog I am talking about please leave a link.
Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#268Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
found the guy who didn't know about em dashes before this year also your question implies a bad assumption even if you disclaim it. if you don't want to imply a bad assumption the way to do that is to not say the words, not disclaim them
didn't even notice the em dashes to be honest, i noticed the contrast framing in the second paragraph and the "It's impressive how" for its conclusion. as for the "assumption" bit, yeah fair enough. was just curious of AI usage online, this wasn't meant to be a dig at anyone as i know people use it for translations, cleaning up prose etc
Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely what the author means: >There’s nothing that happens when you adjust the contrast or white balance in editing software that the camera hasn’t done under the hood. The edited image isn’t “faker” then the original: they are different renditions of the same data.
That's not how I read it. As in, this is an incidental comment. But the unprocessed version is the raw values from the sensors visible in the first picture, the processed are both the camera photo and his attempt at the end.