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.