Light L16

Has anyone seen anything about the Light L16 camera? I first heard of
it through a Pop Photo email.

Here is the link:
https://light.co/?utm_source=adwords...gSHwodjcIC7 Q


Any opinions?
--
Michael

In article , Michael
wrote:

Has anyone seen anything about the Light L16 camera? I first heard of
it through a Pop Photo email.

it's been discussed extensively in various blogs, podcasts and other
forums.

Here is the link:

https://light.co/?utm_source=adwords...r and-Exact-G
eo-US-GP&utm_term=light&gclid=COHonK2E3MgCFYgSHwodjcIC7 Q

your link contains tracking information.

the actual link is: https://light.co

Any opinions?

computational photography is the future, and this is just the beginning.

however, it has not yet shipped, so how well that particular camera
performs is unknown. it will also not be the only one.

unfortunately, there are the usual idiots who will argue that it's not
'real photography'. they're wrong. it's very real.

On 10/24/2015 05:28 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Michael
wrote:

Has anyone seen anything about the Light L16 camera? I first heard of
it through a Pop Photo email.

it's been discussed extensively in various blogs, podcasts and other
forums.

Here is the link:

https://light.co/?utm_source=adwords...r and-Exact-G
eo-US-GP&utm_term=light&gclid=COHonK2E3MgCFYgSHwodjcIC7 Q

your link contains tracking information.

the actual link is: https://light.co

Any opinions?

computational photography is the future, and this is just the beginning.

however, it has not yet shipped, so how well that particular camera
performs is unknown. it will also not be the only one.

unfortunately, there are the usual idiots who will argue that it's not
'real photography'. they're wrong. it's very real.


"Real photography" is basically creating an recorded image using light.
You can create an image using paints and a brush on canvas, but that's
not photography, it's painting.

This device creates a recorded image using the light reflected from the
scene, so it is "real photography".

By using multiple image captures and combining the images, it can create
the best possible ("best possible" for that device- certainly there will
be improvements in the future.) recorded image with little or no thought
expended by the "photographer". The "photographer" doesn't have to put
much effort into his image creation.

So of course it's "real photography". Just like the Kodak Pocket
Instamatic was "real photography". It harkens back to the early days of
Kodak: "You push the button, we'll do the rest."

If you'll excuse me, I'll continue thinking about my photography as I do it.

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

the actual link is: https://light.co

Any opinions?

computational photography is the future, and this is just the beginning.

however, it has not yet shipped, so how well that particular camera
performs is unknown. it will also not be the only one.

unfortunately, there are the usual idiots who will argue that it's not
'real photography'. they're wrong. it's very real.

"Real photography" is basically creating an recorded image using light.
You can create an image using paints and a brush on canvas, but that's
not photography, it's painting.

This device creates a recorded image using the light reflected from the
scene, so it is "real photography".

exactly.

however, many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
*exactly* that in the darkroom.

By using multiple image captures and combining the images, it can create
the best possible ("best possible" for that device- certainly there will
be improvements in the future.) recorded image with little or no thought
expended by the "photographer". The "photographer" doesn't have to put
much effort into his image creation.

the more that the device can do the better the results will be.

the same thing happened when autofocus appeared. the usual idiots
whined that they can focus better than any camera. they were wrong.

So of course it's "real photography". Just like the Kodak Pocket
Instamatic was "real photography". It harkens back to the early days of
Kodak: "You push the button, we'll do the rest."

it's nothing at all like an instamatic.

If you'll excuse me, I'll continue thinking about my photography as I do it.

do whatever you want, but you're stuck in the past.

Ken Hart:
So of course it's "real photography". Just like the Kodak Pocket
Instamatic was "real photography". It harkens back to the early days of
Kodak: "You push the button, we'll do the rest."

I'm guessing that image quality here will be a cut above that of the
Instamatic. Just guessing.

If you'll excuse me, I'll continue thinking about my photography as I do it.

And I'll keep an open mind. When I've tried one, if I like it, I'll buy
one.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 10/24/2015 05:28 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Michael
wrote:

Has anyone seen anything about the Light L16 camera? I first heard of
it through a Pop Photo email.

it's been discussed extensively in various blogs, podcasts and other
forums.

Here is the link:

https://light.co/?utm_source=adwords...r and-Exact-G
eo-US-GP&utm_term=light&gclid=COHonK2E3MgCFYgSHwodjcIC7 Q

your link contains tracking information.

the actual link is: https://light.co

Any opinions?

computational photography is the future, and this is just the beginning.

however, it has not yet shipped, so how well that particular camera
performs is unknown. it will also not be the only one.

unfortunately, there are the usual idiots who will argue that it's not
'real photography'. they're wrong. it's very real.


Kodak R&D had "pleasing" color algorithms when I worked there, mainly
used where consumer "pleasing" color is preferred over accurate color

algorithms that do balances based on scene, SBA

Qa was a metric for the overall "quality" of a picture, more consumer
oriented as far as I know

they also a lot of experience with building films more "pleasing", using
DIR/DIAR couplers, etc., look profiles could be built on this


--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

On 2015-10-25 12:34:35 +0000, "MC" said:

nospam wrote:

... many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
exactly that in the darkroom.


This is true. The photography bit is the actual process of selecting a
scene and recording it by placing the image on the film or sensor.
What happens after that is not strictly photography. Call it editing,
manipulation or whatever but is seperate from the photography bit.
Both compliment one another to create the final viewable image but the
second part of the process cannot be done without the actual recording
process and this is why both processes seem to be associated as a
single process which we all call "photography".

MC

Traditional wet darkroom work is by definition pure photography. One
uses light from an enlarger, passing through a negative to "paint with
light". Dodging and burning to modify the print is photography. This is
photography in its essential form, and is an integral part of creating
an image by recording a scene or subject with light.
This is why the wet darkroom played a major part in the creative
process of photographers like Adams. His works were not just products
of the camera, and that is a reason they might be emulated but not
truly reproduced by photographers shooting the same scenes.

Digital post processing is something else all together. It is digital
mimicry of the darkroom process.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-10-25 10:25, Savageduck wrote:

Traditional wet darkroom work is by definition pure photography. One
uses light from an enlarger, passing through a negative to "paint with
light". Dodging and burning to modify the print is photography. This is
photography in its essential form, and is an integral part of creating
an image by recording a scene or subject with light.
This is why the wet darkroom played a major part in the creative process
of photographers like Adams. His works were not just products of the
camera, and that is a reason they might be emulated but not truly
reproduced by photographers shooting the same scenes.

Digital post processing is something else all together. It is digital
mimicry of the darkroom process.

It is mimicry where the processes are analogs of the darkroom processes.
But it's also introduced a wealth of new techniques and abilities that
were impossible or impractical in a wet darkroom.

In article , MC
wrote:

... many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
exactly that in the darkroom.

This is true. The photography bit is the actual process of selecting a
scene and recording it by placing the image on the film or sensor.
What happens after that is not strictly photography. Call it editing,
manipulation or whatever but is seperate from the photography bit.
Both compliment one another to create the final viewable image but the
second part of the process cannot be done without the actual recording
process and this is why both processes seem to be associated as a
single process which we all call "photography".

all of it is photography.

In article 2015102507255071720-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

... many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
exactly that in the darkroom.

This is true. The photography bit is the actual process of selecting a
scene and recording it by placing the image on the film or sensor.
What happens after that is not strictly photography. Call it editing,
manipulation or whatever but is seperate from the photography bit.
Both compliment one another to create the final viewable image but the
second part of the process cannot be done without the actual recording
process and this is why both processes seem to be associated as a
single process which we all call "photography".


Traditional wet darkroom work is by definition pure photography. One
uses light from an enlarger, passing through a negative to "paint with
light". Dodging and burning to modify the print is photography. This is
photography in its essential form, and is an integral part of creating
an image by recording a scene or subject with light.
This is why the wet darkroom played a major part in the creative
process of photographers like Adams. His works were not just products
of the camera, and that is a reason they might be emulated but not
truly reproduced by photographers shooting the same scenes.

Digital post processing is something else all together. It is digital
mimicry of the darkroom process.

it's not mimicry. it's exactly the same, just done with math rather
than chemicals, producing the same results when the same steps are
applied.

however, digital is not limited to what can be done chemically. it's
*much* more powerful, faster, easier, non-toxic, repeatable and
produces more consistent results. plus there's undo, something simply
not possible in a wet darkroom.