81–90 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i just want to say thanks for pointing this out. New found possible love, stereoscopic photography. Honestly the stereoscopic effect is absolutely beautiful, even more so that each individual photo
You'll love it. There's dozens of us. Reach out if you want to learn a bit more!
What I want to know is whether those 2 photographers, Ron Risman & Eric Gendron, became friends from this extreme coincidence.
In a way this says something about human brains. Presumably both people took many pictures of many waves that day, but somehow both of them decided that this is the one that is the best from that trip. As humans we share a similar metric for beauty. I find this idea simultaneously obviously and amazing.
This is ultimately a study in bias and how we choose to take pictures of the same things.
Plus, the picture obscures it, but you can see the waves coming for a good distance. You'd expect two drummers to be on beat without much difficulty.
In a way this says something about human brains. Presumably both people took many pictures of many waves that day, but somehow both of them decided that this is the one that is the best from that trip. As humans we share a similar metric for beauty. I find this idea simultaneously obviously and amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scene is not subject to copyright (naturally occurring). If we pretend that camera sensor captures are exactly the same, then I guess it does not belong to a single photographer in this case. But usually no one cares about sensor data, people care about "deliverables", like JPEGs or printed versions, and they will not be the same because everything after sensor capture would be different for each photographer.
What do you mean by "scene"? Like, the state of the world at the time of the photograph? Why would anyone think that was "subject to copyright"?
Because it is subject to copyright in some countries. In France, for example, photographs of certain buildings cannot be published without the permission of the rights owner.
Should two photographers quote each other's work although both are completely original?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro tip: this is also how you can quickly solve those "whats different between these images" puzzles.
I wonder how widespread this understanding is. I figured it out a few years ago, but haven't heard anyone else mention it. It's a really cool hack.
It’s something I think about many times per day - I mean, I’m looking at stuff all day, and this is such a fundamental aspect of the experience of looking at something. But my impression is that most people are only barely aware of how this works?
I cropped the pictures, and rotated Ron's picture by 0.2° (it wasn't perfectly vertical), so as to line them up on the lighthouse's door: https://i.imgur.com/ISIGQrR.png https://i.imgur.com/qLtZprZ.jpeg Open both in 2 tabs on a computer, and quickly alternate between the 2 tabs, the 3D effect is quite visible because of the perspective differential :-)
Works well with cross-eyed viewing too, with the images side-by-side: https://jsfiddle.net/pimlottc/f1saz46m/1/show
As a point of clarity regarding the title of the article, that means they didn’t take the photo at the same moment.
What the title really means is that, the light from this instant in time hit each person camera sensor at the same moment.