Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What an unprocessed photo looks like

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 418 posts

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#361

Post by Edman274 »

svara wrote: post #266
viraptor wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But mapping raw values to screen pixel brightness already entails an implicit transform, so arguably there is no such thing as an unprocessed photo (that you can look at). 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.

Would you consider all food in existence to be "processed", because ultimately all food is chopped up by your teeth or broken down by your saliva and stomach acid? If some descriptor applies to every single member of a set, why use the descriptor at all? It carries no semantic value.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#362

Post by shiandow »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #325
shiandow wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that's bad? Imagine finding out that all video still encodes colour at half resolution simply because that is how analog tv worked.

I don't think that's correct. It's not "all video" - you can easily encode video without chroma subsampling - and it's not because this is how analog TV worked, but rather for the same reason why analog TV worked this way, which is the fact that it lets you encode significantly less data with barely noticeable quality loss. JPEGs do the same thing.

It's a very crude method, with modern codecs I would be very surprised if you didn't get a better image just encoding the chroma at a lower bitrate.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#363

Post by NetMageSCW »

dheera wrote: post #72
zmgsabst wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure — but people reasonably distinguish between photos and digital art, with “photo” used to denote the intent to accurately convey rather than artistic expression. We’ve had similar debates about art using miniatures and lens distortions versus photos since photography was invented — and digital editing fell on the lens trick and miniature side of the issue.

Journalistic/event photography is about accuracy to reality, almost all other types of photography are not. Portrait photography -- no, people don't look like that in real life with skin flaws edited out Landscape photography -- no, the landscapes don't look like that 99% of the time, the photographer picks the 1% of the time when it looks surreal Staged photography -- no, it didn't really happen Street photography -…

Nothing can be staged spontaneously.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#364

Post by Edman274 »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #329
littlestymaar wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the qualifier in “ ultra -processed food”

But that qualifier in stupid because there’s no start or stopping point for ultra processed versus all foods. Is cheese an ultra-processed food? Is wine?

There actually is a stopping point , and the definition of ultra processed food versus processed food is often drawn at the line where you can expect someone in their home kitchen to be able to do the processing. So, the question kind of goes whether or not you would expect someone to be able to make cheese or wine at home. I think there you would find it natural to conclude that there's a difference between a Cheeto, which can only be created in a factory with a secret extrusion process, versus cottage cheese, which can be created inside of a cottage. And you would probably also note that there is a difference between American cheese which requires a process that results in a Nile Red upload, and cheddar cheese which still could be done at home, over the course of months like how people make soap at home. You can tell that wine can be made at home because people make it in jails. I have found that a lot of people on Hackernews have a tendency to flatten distinctions into a binary, and then attack the binary as if distinctions don't matter. This is another such example.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#365

Post by littlestymaar »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #329
littlestymaar wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the qualifier in “ ultra -processed food”

But that qualifier in stupid because there’s no start or stopping point for ultra processed versus all foods. Is cheese an ultra-processed food? Is wine?

With that kind of reasoning you can't name anything, ever. For instance, what's computer? Is a credit card a computer.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#366

Post by JumpCrisscross »

raphman wrote: post #211
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> modern photography is just signal processing with better marketing I pass on a gift I learned of from HN : Susan Sunday’s “On Photography”.

Thanks! First hit online: https://www.lab404.com/3741/readings/sontag.pdf Out of curiosity: what led you to write "Susan Sunday" instead of "Susan Sontag"? (for other readers: "Sonntag" is German for "Sunday")

> Out of curiosity: what led you to write "Susan Sunday" instead of "Susan Sontag"?

Grew up speaking German and Sunday-night brain did a substitution.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#367

Post by delecti »

marxisttemp wrote: post #342
wolvoleo wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, though in the case of the Kindle they're not really intrusive (only appearing when it's off) and the price to remove them is pretty reasonable ($10 to remove them forever IIRC). As far as ads go that's not bad IMO)

The price of an ad-free original kindle experience was $409. The $10 is on top of the price the user paid for the device.

Lets not distort the past. The ads were introduced a few years later with the Kindle Keyboard, which launched with an MSRP of $140 for the base model, or $115 with ads. That was a substantial discount on a product which was already cheap when it released.

All for ads which are only visible when you aren't using the device anyway. Don't like them? Then buy other devices, pay to have them removed, get a cover to hide them, or just store it with the screen facing down when you aren't using it.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#368

Post by Grimm665 »

acomjean wrote: post #169
kccqzy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember using some photo editing software (Aperture I think) that would allow you to customize the different coefficients and there were even presets that give different names to different coefficients. Ultimately you can pick any coefficients you want, and only your eyes can judge how nice they are.

>Ultimately you can pick any coefficients you want, and only your eyes can judge how nice they are. I went to a photoshop conference. There was a session on converting color to black and white. Basically at the end the presenter said you try a bunch of ways and pick the one that looks best. (people there were really looking for the “one true way”) I shot a lot of black and white film in college for our paper. One of…

> I shot a lot of black and white film in college for our paper. One of my obsolete skills was thinking how an image would look in black and white while shooting, though I never understood the people who could look at a scene and decide to use a red filter..

Dark skies and dramatic clouds!

https://i.ibb.co/0RQmbBhJ/05.jpg

(shot on Rollei Superpan with a red filter and developed at home)

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#369

Post by bondarchuk »

tpmoney wrote: post #192
sho_hn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretending that "these two things are the same, actually" when in fact no, you can seperately name and describe them quite clearly, is a favorite pastime of vacuous content on the internet. Artists, who use these tools with clear vision and intent to achieve specific goals, strangely never have this problem.

But that was the point the OP was making. Not that you couldn’t differentiate between white balance correction and generative fill, but rather that the intent of the change matters for determining if an image is “fake”. For example, I took a picture of my dog at the dog park the other day. I didn’t notice when framing the picture but on review at home, right smack in the middle of the lower 3rd of the photo and conve…

Everyone knows what is meant by a real vs fake digital photo, it is made abundantly clear by the mentions of debayering and white balance/contrast as "real" and generative fill as "fake". You and some others here are just shifting the conversation to a different kind of "fake". A whole load of semantic bickering for absolutely nothing.

Re: What an unprocessed photo looks like

#370

Post by LegionMammal978 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #339
NetMageSCW wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All colors exist. Color is not the same as wavelength, color is the human perception of a collection of one or more wavelengths of light. They are all real.

I think this very quickly gets into semantics and then philosophy to the point that it’s not really a useful thing to disagree on. We can objectively measure the properties of the radiation reaching eyeballs and we can detect sensor differences in some eyeballs in various ways. But we can’t ever know that “red” is the same sensation for both of us. The concept of “red” is real, made concrete by there being a word for…

> But most colours can be associated with a primary wavelength… except purple. So by that definition, they don’t really exist.

And white, and black. Physically, you'll always have a measurable spectrum of intensities, and some such spectra are typically perceived as "purple". There's no need to pretend that light can only exist in "primary wavelengths".

Even if there's no empirical way to extract some 'absolute' mental notion of perceived color, we can get a pretty solid notion of perceived differences in color, from which we can map out models of consensus color perception.

Post reply on HN