I have long wished that I could have the camera take a frame and analyze all of the pixels for exposure. It wouldn't be good for action but would be great for still lifes, landscape etc.
On October 24, 2018 8:21:11 AM PDT, Igor PDML-StR <[email protected]> wrote: > >While I agree that there is a certain limit of how much can be done >AFTER >the photographic information is recorded. (Note the careful language >here!) > >But the software can play a big role in actually recording that >photographic information: it can "thoughtfully" control the hardware to > >improve the initial quality of that photographic information. Simple >examples are multiple shots with bracketing of >exposure/focus/...(possibly >focal length, separately aperture and exposure time, e.g. for >DOF-related >effects, etc.). > >(But then, with a more capable and complicated (or specialized) >hardware a >more sophisticated software can have more options.) > > >I'd say that a large portion of what we SEE is what we THINK what we >see, >i.e. a large portion of the image that we see is done in the processing > >(in the brain), - and not just what is recorded by the sensor(s) (the >eyes). >The eye would not have been such an amazing and irreproducible optical >instrument if weren't for the brain's ability to process the >information >it receives from the eye. >And just in case you forgot, - it starts with a simple thing: the image > >we see is upside down. :-) > >And mind that what you and I "see" could be very different. Just >because >our software (aka brain) is different. >But we cannot compare the image in your head to that in mine. > >And those in Canada, now, can legally affect that software to boost >those images. (What is called "creative effects" in cameras and >cellphones.) > > >Cheers, > >Igor > > > >P. J. Alling Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:35:08 -0700 wrote: > >There's really only so much you can do with code, before you're no >longer >recording a scene, and are actually generating it, which is art not >photography. Personally I prefer my art to be produced by humans not >by >machines mainly because machine art is kinda dull. > > >On 10/23/2018 10:10 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > > https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/22/the-future-of-photography-is-code/ > > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
