Thank you, Mark for the book recommendation.
I took a quick glimpse, and I've found some of the clinical cases it
uses as examples quite fascinating.
Human's body, and especially human's brain is such a fascinating and
challenging topic! I think we know more about the physics of remote
Stop peeking at me! ;-)
And what are you doing in my bathroom, anyway?
Larry Colen Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:34:27 -0700 wrote:
That might explain why the guy in the mirror is so damn good looking.
Daniel J. Matyola wrote on 10/25/18 9:17 AM:
Igor said:
"I'd say that a large portion
That might explain why the guy in the mirror is so damn good looking.
Daniel J. Matyola wrote on 10/25/18 9:17 AM:
Igor said:
"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
"Daniel J. Matyola" wrote:
>Igor said:
>
>"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). "
>
>That is very true, as
Igor said:
"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). "
That is very true, as many experiments and optical
Great examples for a valid point (which I've been advocating for quite
some time).
... with an exception:
Sometimes, while waking up, I am getting all sorts of blur in what I see,
and I am pretty much motionless.
And it is what I see, and not what I think I see, because at that point,
I'd just like to automate my own workflow when setting exposure and get it
more accurate.
I come from a background of shooting slide film and with all that is
available with today's digital camera, it couldn't be easier for getting
proper exposure - simply look at your histogram and adjust
Igor PDML-StR wrote on 10/24/18 3:55 PM:
But I hear you that it would be nice to have the camera doing a more
careful metering based on the entire image, not just a small portion.
And to do that, essentially, in real time (as opposed to pre-metering,
which is what happening now)
I suspect you are referring to a strict-algorithm-based processing.
But you can have "[safe-]learning" machines where the parameters of
the algorithm are varied by the machine itself in order to produce the
"desired" result.
In that case, initially identical machines would produce different
Larry, I suspect you are making some inadvertent switching in the logic
here.
The part of the in-camera software (that does optimization for JPEG)
is actually "post-processing". I.e. it is what happens after the RAW image
has been acquired by the sensor, and is being converted to JPEG.
I
A whole lot of photography isn't recording what we actually see.
(or, to be pedantic, what we think we actually see)
Some examples:
o A black-and-white print (except for a few individuals)
o Long exposures of waterfalls (or, for that matter, any of my panned
motorsports shots with
And those in Canada, now, can legally affect that software to boost those
images. (What is called "creative effects" in cameras and cellphones.)
Ah, the Mary Jane effect.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Igor PDML-StR"
P. J. Alling wrote on 10/24/18 12:39 PM:
It already does that and if it could everything would be recorded in a
uniform grey.
No, it uses a much smaller number of sensor sites to take a guess at
exposure, rather than looking at everything, setting the raw exposure so
that only at most a
It already does that and if it could everything would be recorded in a
uniform grey.
On 10/24/2018 2:20 PM, l...@red4est.com wrote:
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
That depends in this case on how you define photography, is it an art or
a craft, in photography you are taking something that's already there
and recording it. The photographer applies his skills in camera and in
processing to make it better in some way. If he's (English makes this
the non
But is it really "machine art"? Or is it "Art" made by people using machines?
Ultimately the tool you choose doesn't matter as much as your skill using those
tools and how well you you are able to show others what you've "seen" with your
mind's eye.
If you can communicate your vision, then
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 wrote:
>
>While I agree that there is a certain limit of
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
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 02:46:25PM +, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
> >En martes, 23 de octubre de 2018 16:12:45 CEST, Daniel J. Matyola
> > escribi??:
>
> https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/22/the-future-of-photography-is-code/Dan
> Matyolahttp://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola--
>
>
>
>En martes, 23 de octubre de 2018 16:12:45 CEST, Daniel J. Matyola
> escribió:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/22/the-future-of-photography-is-code/Dan
Matyolahttp://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola--
Very interesting and true. Thanks.
I have a friend who has a smart phone review
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,
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/22/the-future-of-photography-is-code/
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
22 matches
Mail list logo
