A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Light L16



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 24th 15, 10:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Michael[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default 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

  #2  
Old October 24th 15, 10:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Light L16

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.
  #3  
Old October 24th 15, 10:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Light L16

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

  #4  
Old October 24th 15, 11:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Light L16

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.
  #5  
Old October 24th 15, 11:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default Light L16

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
  #6  
Old October 25th 15, 06:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Dale[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Light L16

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
  #7  
Old October 25th 15, 02:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Light L16

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

  #8  
Old October 25th 15, 03:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Light L16

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.

  #9  
Old October 25th 15, 04:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Light L16

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.
  #10  
Old October 25th 15, 04:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Light L16

In article [email protected],
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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
low light movie works better than low light still photos why? Brian[_9_] Digital Photography 19 June 14th 09 07:44 AM
LED flashlight (torch light) as cheap video light [email protected] Digital Photography 6 April 24th 08 03:02 PM
Bright up your advertising with a slim light box !----11 mm LED light box in China! [email protected] Digital Photography 1 June 28th 07 06:37 AM
LED light box display--Only 11 mm LED slim light box in China! jenny Digital Photography 0 May 24th 07 10:01 AM
LED light box display--Only 11 mm LED slim light box in China! jenny Digital Photography 0 May 24th 07 10:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.