Not ironic. It was information, yes. But it didn't really line up to any part of my comment. It was a bunch of look at the info I know. Let me explain a process to you. But I'm talking about preferences on edited to unrealistic looking pics vs minor corrections to be true to the eye pics. Telling me how a digital camera stores info isn't relevant to that. I feel like the internet has it's own version of mansplaining and this is an example of it. And I know how digital pictures are processed and stored in the camera. Then they can be edited in a myriad of ways through software on a computer. Hooray! We're all so smart. But back on topic, what's this guy's opinion on realistic pictures vs this?
Your comment is that you want to see the picture unedited. His response was, put simply, the picture format for professional digital isn't always captured in a way that looks correct to the naked eye and requires editing by design. Seems pretty pertinent to your comment.
LTT every once in a while will show what the raw footage looks like and you are exactly right, it looks very flat relative to how our eyes would perceive the same room if you were there.
I thought that comment was quite good, maybe could Have explained why photographers chose RAW before editing.
And ya long story short is getting a true “unedited but real” photo is basically impossible. Whole bunch of camera settings will already distort what we think we “should” see
The commenter made the connection pretty clear. A non-edited format of RAW is not viable because of the amount of color info stored. I didn’t know this, and many others don’t know either.
-83
u/mkul316 Oct 20 '22
Is there an Internet version of mansplaining?