You've been able to make "unlifelike" photos ever since you could adjust the aperture, white balance, focal length, and choose the framing. How many times have you seen the Pyramids at Giza in pictures and films? How many of those times were framed to include the nearby city slums and dumped rubbish?
Not outright saying it (and not you, your comment was just a place to hang another comment off) but parent comments in this chain saying "people already fall for it" about computer adjusted photos and software might adjust how "red the flowers are" or how "green the grass is", and the parent comment saying "you can turn all this off and get RAWs" - as if they believe there is some objective truth which RAWs capture and which cameras used to show that they now don't show because of software post-processing.
My point is that there never has been, cameras have always let you adjust the shot - including "how red the flowers are" by changing light source, film type, shadows, which contrasting other colours are nearby, etc.
Of course they do. Why would they want lifelike photos? To remind them of how utterly crap things actually are? No, people want to have that idea of what life was like. Sharing a lifelike image on socials would get laughed off the platform. enhance, Enhanced, ENHANCE get all the likes
doesn't require one to be British to be thoroughly unimpressed with a photo and want to enhance to improve on the situation to be more in agreement with one's imagination.
You've been able to make "unlifelike" photos ever since you could adjust the aperture, white balance, focal length, and choose the framing. How many times have you seen the Pyramids at Giza in pictures and films? How many of those times were framed to include the nearby city slums and dumped rubbish?
https://www.destinationtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/P...
https://smarthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Giza_pyr...
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/view-side-slums-egyptian-pyr...
No one is saying otherwise. I'm sorry, I don't know what your point is.
Not outright saying it (and not you, your comment was just a place to hang another comment off) but parent comments in this chain saying "people already fall for it" about computer adjusted photos and software might adjust how "red the flowers are" or how "green the grass is", and the parent comment saying "you can turn all this off and get RAWs" - as if they believe there is some objective truth which RAWs capture and which cameras used to show that they now don't show because of software post-processing.
My point is that there never has been, cameras have always let you adjust the shot - including "how red the flowers are" by changing light source, film type, shadows, which contrasting other colours are nearby, etc.
1 reply →
Of course they do. Why would they want lifelike photos? To remind them of how utterly crap things actually are? No, people want to have that idea of what life was like. Sharing a lifelike image on socials would get laughed off the platform. enhance, Enhanced, ENHANCE get all the likes
Are you British? It doesn't look dreary and depressing everywhere in the world.
Silicon Valley is pretty famously nice out most days. (Except for all those old strip malls in the way of the nature.)
doesn't require one to be British to be thoroughly unimpressed with a photo and want to enhance to improve on the situation to be more in agreement with one's imagination.