[aslyfox]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/14/your-smartphone-photos-...=.3d1f14db7111

Your smartphone photos are totally fake - and you love it

" The little camera on this phone has a superpower. It can see things our eyes cannot . . . "

I, for one, don't love it

[UncleVanya]

A lot of the wizardry was just simply HDR or RAW with lifting shadows intelligently. The more disturbing data was on Asian selfies being slimmed and smoothed by the phones automatically. The Google Pixel 3 smoothing out architecture details was worrying as well.

[DeadJohn]

I think it's a good step forward and no more "fake" than other low light photos. If the technique is misapplied the results look overprocessed but that is correctable. Combining 60 separate 1/60 second photos is just as real as taking a single 1 second exposure.

The technology being discussed in the article is mostly pushing processing to enhance brightness and colors. If a pixel only counted 5 photons, there's something dim there, so brighten that pixel in the developed photo (the actual processing is more complex). The technology is *not* pasting or drawing in things that do not exist.

Astrophotographers have been using similar techniques for decades. "Lucky imaging" takes thousands of fast, dim, and noisy photos. Software then helps find the best photos during random fleeting moments when the atmosphere was stable. More software then stacks those best photos to reduce noise. That's how telescopes on Earth can gather data that rivals the Hubble Space Telescope.

[Wheatfield]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/14/your-smartphone-photos-...=.3d1f14db7111

Your smartphone photos are totally fake - and you love it

" The little camera on this phone has a superpower. It can see things our eyes cannot . . . "

I, for one, don't love it

"real Photographers" do the same sort of image enhancing in post production and think to themselves how clever they are. Olympus has, if I am not mistaken, a mode that does pretty much exactly the same thing as the Google Pixel's Night Sight mode, and the Oly people love it.
But let a smart phone do the same thing and all of a sudden it's "faketography".
People are strange.

[aslyfox]

"real Photographers" do the same sort of image enhancing in post production and think to themselves how clever they are. Olympus has, if I am not mistaken, a mode that does pretty much exactly the same thing as the Google Pixel's Night Sight mode, and the Oly people love it.
But let a smart phone do the same thing and all of a sudden it's "faketography".
People are strange.

some,

definitely not me,

get it right straight out of the camera and don't have to " rescue " via pp

[dsmithhfx]

some,

definitely not me,

get it right straight out of the camera and don't have to " rescue " via pp

We are Borg. Resistance is futile.

[BrianR]

I wouldn't call this 'rescuing' a photo via pp, to me that implies trying to salvage a photo you screwed up at the time of capture. This is planned post-processing, and viewing the hardware capture and software processing steps all as one big photographic process that work together for a desired result.

[DeadJohn]

get it right straight out of the camera and don't have to " rescue " via pp

You don't have to process, but there are some photo visions that can only be realized with some processing. What happens when you want to show some details in shadows and other details in highlights, in a setting where flash can't be used? You end up losing one set of details. Mild HDR with 2 exposures, or just a simple move of the shadow slider with 1 exposure can work wonders.

Take it a step further and adjusting ISO gets called "a crutch". Shake reduction is for the weak. Burst mode is for those too lazy to press a button. And autofocus is a no-no.

Early analog photographers processed their photos in a darkroom.

[aslyfox]

not wanting to get into any argument

I am well aware that my opinion plus $ will buy coffee at the local diner

I am not experienced at pp and really rejoice when I get lucky and don't have to attempt it.

[dsmithhfx]

"real Photographers" do the same sort of image enhancing in post production and think to themselves how clever they are

I don't know how clever you need to be, but it does give you more control over the result, so you can truly call it your own. For me, this is where the fun begins.

[Wheatfield]

some,

definitely not me,

get it right straight out of the camera and don't have to " rescue " via pp

Are you saying you have never lifted a shadow to get some extra detail or toned down a highlight a little bit?
I have a hard time believing that, since it is something that is done pretty much automatically when doing raw conversion.

---------- Post added 11-15-18 at 02:50 PM ----------

I don't know how clever you need to be, but it does give you more control over the result, so you can truly call it your own. For me, this is where the fun begins.

The point is, we do this sort of manipulation all the time, either when doing the raw conversion or during post production, or by setting the output of in camera jpegs, I suspect without giving it a passing thought, but when it's done by a cell phone it's the end of the world.

[dsmithhfx]

Are you saying you have never lifted a shadow to get some extra detail or toned down a highlight a little bit?
I have a hard time believing that, since it is something that is done pretty much automatically when doing raw conversion.

---------- Post added 11-15-18 at 02:50 PM ----------



The point is, we do this sort of manipulation all the time, either when doing the raw conversion or during post production, or by setting the output of in camera jpegs, I suspect without giving it a passing thought, but when it's done by a cell phone it's the end of the world.

Well I give it as much thought as I can without overdoing it... I think if you mindlessly accept what the device spits out as the best it can be, then that is a limitation on creative control.

[aslyfox]

Are you saying you have never lifted a shadow to get some extra detail or toned down a highlight a little bit?
I have a hard time believing that, since it is something that is done pretty much automatically when doing raw conversion.

---------- Post added 11-15-18 at 02:50 PM ----------



The point is, we do this sort of manipulation all the time, either when doing the raw conversion or during post production, or by setting the output of in camera jpegs, I suspect without giving it a passing thought, but when it's done by a cell phone it's the end of the world.

I don't work with raw

And

Do try to do as little pp as possible

Some times I get lucky and I post sooc

[RobA_Oz]

Are you saying you have never lifted a shadow to get some extra detail or toned down a highlight a little bit?
I have a hard time believing that, since it is something that is done pretty much automatically when doing raw conversion.

---------- Post added 11-15-18 at 02:50 PM ----------



The point is, we do this sort of manipulation all the time, either when doing the raw conversion or during post production, or by setting the output of in camera jpegs, I suspect without giving it a passing thought, but when it's done by a cell phone it's the end of the world.

More to the point is that our eyes and brain work together to do “post-processing” on what we look at. All this AI manipulation is trying to do is to simulate the human seeing experience. Even the “slimming” manipulation referred to happens when some people look in the mirror.

[Wheatfield]

More to the point is that our eyes and brain work together to do “post-processing” on what we look at. All this AI manipulation is trying to do is to simulate the human seeing experience. Even the “slimming” manipulation referred to happens when some people look in the mirror.

I'm convinced that my mirror has an old and fat option turned on.