Has digital photography worsened the experience of images at all from a scientific point of view? How could storing light chemically differ from electronically in any aesthetic sense? What can advancements in technology do for art?
>>16910771Image sensors are designed by engineers to maximize some objective fidelity metrics, not to produce images that look good. The "looking good" part is offloaded to software and editing, under the assumption that if the signal is good in the information-theoretical sense, it can be manipulated later to look any way you like. In reality, it just ends up looking soulless, because what makes an objectively good signal covers only the bare basics of what makes a subjectively pleasing image. Software can never reproduce the organic complexity of chemical film and people playing around with Photoshop filters can't compete with the judgment of world-class experts meticulously tweaking proprietary formulas that exist as a result of century of technological evolution driven by the demand of actual artists. Good film is designed to actually look good, not to sound good on paper. It's that simple.Technology started regressing in the 90s and it's been degenerating art for a while now.
>>16910771>Lower skill of entry to use>Can be captured and seen instantly>Much easier to copy, transfer, and print>No film needed so no worry about exposing it to light>Probably the most important, image doesn't degrade unlike analog photosOriginally digital cameras were terrible since unlike analog which uses chemicals to capture the light, digital instead saves the image in a computerized file. Unironically photographs from the 1800s were much better quality than early digital cameras. Digital cameras have greatly improve since then and now basically every human has a lifelike camera in their pocket. So there is no longer an advantage to an analog camera unless you wanna process the photo by hand.
>>16910954>So there is no longer an advantage to an analog camera unless you wanna process the photo by hand.Exactly the opposite is true: there is no advantage to a digital camera unless you wanna process the image by hand. This is explained in the post right above yours. Yes, real photographs degrade, but digitally preserving one isn't any issue anymore.
>>16911022The post above is written by a retard
@16911025>my IQ is 90 and i have no qualia
>>16910786I agree with you, but I think the cinema industry is mature enough to make digital work, there's probably several popular movies that have succeeded this way already. these people know their craft, if they have to get there
>>16911051Sure, it's possible to make something with a pleasing aesthetic and actual character out of sensor data, provided you have the editing expertise. Which most people do not have, nor is it reasonable to expect them to have it. Manufacturers are well-aware of this problem, so high-end digital cameras come with firmware that tries to do some of the stuff you get for free out of good film, but show me one example that actually nails it without plenty manual intervention.
The problem is the demosaicing algorithms.
>>16911060I'm not an expert in digital sensors so it'd be silly of me to attempt that task, I guess that a sensor finetuned must exist though, since that'd be the main target for consumer grade cameras, maybe iphone and samsung cameras?
Film has worse dynamic range and linearity than any halfway decent digital instrumentation camera. You only prefer film because it's what you grew to with, literally no different than someone who claims vacuum tube amps sound better even though they distort the shit out of everything.
>>16911098>Film has worse dynamic range and linearityWhatever dynamic range your image sensors have, you're still going to view it on a normal screen or as a print, which means it'll have to be compressed. The non-linearity of film does this compression inherently, and it's precisely by virtue of it being part of the exposure that film doesn't suffer from over-saturation the way digital cameras do. A sensor trying its best to be linear will never be able to handle the range encompassed by a logarithmic scale. It's obvious that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, in any case, so you're not getting any more (You)s.
>>16911080Of course image sensors are fine-tuned, but they're fine-tuned to have minimum character and this is considered to be their virtue. Consumer-grade cameras rely on software to help the user get a particular look, but you won't be getting that dreamy Fujifilm Pro 400H look out of it. You probably won't be getting anything organic-looking out of it. Just look at the photos people post. Almost all of them scream "digital camera" and "digital color manipulation" for thes imple reasons I've already explained.
>>16911118>take le soulless pic>apy fujifilm le dreamy filter>???????>Profit
>>16911235>Simulacra and Simulation identifies three types of simulacra and identifies each with a historical period: >...>Third order, associated with the postmodernity of Late Capitalism, where the simulacrum precedes the original and the distinction between reality and representation vanishes. There is only the simulation, and originality becomes a totally meaningless concept
>>16911244k
>>16910771digital photography has less impact on how the image is perceived than display technology has, and current display technologies are utterly incapable of faithful spectral reproduction
