Comment

Comment on Baby sized bolete of some sort

Sal@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

It is not about colorspace conversion. Most color cameras today use a bayer filter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter . The camera captures 3 almost-overlapping images, one green, one blue, one red. Using data from these three images, it calculates the red,green,blue values for each pixel. This combines a physical technique (the byer filtering) with digital software algorithms to produce the final image.

In focus stacking, one generates a set of overlapping images while scanning the focal plane. Software is then used to combine the in-focus slices to produce an image that is in focus. So, again, we combine a physical process (movement of the focal plane) with a digital processing method.

In the first case you have a technique that has been implemented at the hardware level by camera sensor engineers. The second is a technique that is implemented at the photographer level. I see both techniques as equally ‘artificial’. In the first case the filters scan through colors. In the second case the focal plane is scanned. In the first case the people who developed the camera firmware did the work of automated processing, in the second case the photographer needs to do the processing themselves.

I don’t mean to debate your definition, I just wanted to jump in and share my perspective.

source

Sort:hotnew top

ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Yes, I know how Bayer filters work. And there is almost always some colorspace conversion because the color filters are not ideal, not to mention other math like WB.

source
- Sal@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Ah, alright! My reason for describing the details of the process was primarily to emphasize the parallels along the processing chain between different techniques.
  
  I am curious about how you draw the line between ‘artificial’ and ‘not artificial’, hope you don’t mind me asking.
  
  Is a black-and-white image produced by a camera without the color filter artificial?
  
  Is a landscape photograph generated by sticking multiple images together artificial?
  
  Is a long exposure image artificial?
  
  What about placing a monochromatic camera into a tripod, taking three different photos - one with a green, one with a blue, and one with a red filter, and then creating a color image using these three different images as an input?
  
  source
  - ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Interesting examples, we’re really splitting hairs here. Maybe you’ll catch me contradicting myself with my idea of “artificial” as “deliberately going outside what is normally possible with the technology or challenging the realist nature of the medium” and I’ll learn a lesson!
    
    Is the filter omitted for technical/practical reasons (security camera) or intentionally for artistic purposes? I’d say no and yes, respectively – the latter is specifically altering the equipment for a desired effect.
    
    Most likely I’d say yes because it’s using a technique to increase FOV. The view from any given point is spherical and one needs to introduce some perspective to map it onto a cylinder or prism. That’s not necessarily bad, but it’s an intentional way to bypass technical limits.
    
    It’s been known since the dawn of photography that longer exposures collect more light so the technique is part of the medium. So even if it’s done to create an effect that one couldn’t see with the naked eye, such as the sun “scanning” the sky arc by arc every day from solstice to solstice, I’d say it’s not artificial… unless it’s stacking exposures such as in planetary astrophotography.
    
    Artificial. A very manual and deliberate process to push the equipment’s limitations.
    
    source
    Sal@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    Interesting examples, we’re really splitting hairs here.
    
    Haha, maybe 😜 I did some reflection about why the term ‘artificial’ in the context of photography made me want to jump into the conversation in the first place. I think that the reason is that the term ‘artificial’ implies that there is a boundary between what corresponds to a ‘natural’ photograph and an ‘artificial’ photograph.
    
    Thanks for responding to those examples and giving a definition, I think now I better understand what you mean when you say ‘artificial’. I was interpreting it from a universal point of view of ‘natural/artificial’, but I see now that you meant it in the sense of the camera’s nature. So, if one simply takes a photo with the camera, it is ‘natural’ in the sense that the camera’s nature was enough to capture that image. When a human applies uses a technique that creates an image cannot be captured by the camera itself, then it is ‘artificial’.
    
    No need to continue discussing the semantics of ‘artificial’, I think we both know what each other means now 😄
    
    Still, always to chat more about these things as I enjoy talking about techniques. I am actually considering getting a monochrome industrial camera to create some color images manually. I already have filters from UV to the near-IR. Like what I mentioned in example 4. I am curious about whether I can capture noticeably better luminances throughout by using the filters manually. I’m also keeping an eye for an affordable camera with this sensor type: www.sony-semicon.com/en/…/multispectral.html …
    
    source
    -> View More Comments