http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387554,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387554,00.asp)
www.lytro.com (http://www.lytro.com)
Exec summary: The focus point in the composition can be easily manipulated on a computer after the photo is taken (linked article and their homepage let's you manipulate examples). I.e., change the focus from foreground to background, blurring the opposite, or put the entire picture into focus.
One point they don't make clear, however, is whether or not this only fixes composition focus, and does nothing for motion-blur, or a shaky hand (that latter one would be the true revolution).
Then it's not really photography, now is it?
:lol:
I love you guys. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2011, 11:52:14 AM
Then it's not really photography, now is it?
It's still collecting light to display a graphic form, so technically, it still fits.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 26, 2011, 01:22:28 PM
It's still collecting light to display a graphic form, so technically, it still fits.
If it's beyond manipulating
film with a
camera, the light and space of the environs or the developing process in a fucking
dark room, it ain't photography.
I smell pretentious Brown University faggot art student bullshit.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 26, 2011, 11:46:32 AM
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387554,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387554,00.asp)
www.lytro.com (http://www.lytro.com)
Exec summary: The focus point in the composition can be easily manipulated on a computer after the photo is taken (linked article and their homepage let's you manipulate examples). I.e., change the focus from foreground to background, blurring the opposite, or put the entire picture into focus.
One point they don't make clear, however, is whether or not this only fixes composition focus, and does nothing for motion-blur, or a shaky hand (that latter one would be the true revolution).
I doubt it's that fine. All the gallery images seem to have trouble with objects that are fairly close in depth. It mostly seems to pick up a foreground, a background, and sometimes, a middle depth. Also, the focus doesn't seem super-clear; at best, it seems like an unsharp mask applied to a moderately blurred picture.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2011, 02:44:43 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 26, 2011, 01:22:28 PM
It's still collecting light to display a graphic form, so technically, it still fits.
If it's beyond manipulating film with a camera, the light and space of the environs or the developing process in a fucking dark room, it ain't photography.
I smell pretentious Brown University faggot art student bullshit.
I smell snotty luddite photo-curmudgeon bullshit. :)