you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 183 points 3 days ago (21 children)

I once shot a wedding that was scheduled around a full moon. I replaced the moon in the photos with a NASA image, color matched it, and made it like 5x bigger than the original.

Nobody noticed.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 3 days ago (10 children)

    Some phones do that by themselves hehe

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    Mine replaces the moon with a precaptured image and matches the shape and color. I'm not sure how I feel about it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    I would turn that off if possible, personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    I would, too, but I have to admit it's pretty impressive what a phone can do these days. That kind of processing power just hanging out in our pockets. It would have taken my first PC years to do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    By the description, It doesn't looks like something that requires that much processing power. Probably less than transcribing some audio, but I get what you mean, it's impressive

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Well I also think there's something to be said for the sheer uselessness of it - not only CAN it do it, it's not a major drain on battery life or anything.

    Also, my first computer was an IBM PCjr, so my comment stands - transcribing audio would have taken that blazing 4.77 MHz processor a large amount of time. 128 KB of RAM, baby - we had the upgrade sidecar. 360KB floppy disk! 16 color CGA graphics, but since few games were programmed with that in mind, it was really four color!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I hate how tech companies are now applying their fetish for a constructed unreality as "features" in photos we take ourselves.

    The citizen science website iNaturalist has to remind people to turn off features like this, because it will clobber the details that identify a species to make things look more photogenic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago*

    The sad part is, there are people who want it.

    Plenty of people out there for whom the purpose of a photo isn't to document objective reality; it's to portray a postcard-perfect version of reality they can put on social media for clout.

    If you have that mindset, then any filters or AI that make your pretend reality more sparkly than it is are all welcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Not sure if you're proud or chagrined that they didn't notice. But you know that's because you sized it right, because you were there and saw it. You made it look as magical as it felt in the moment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Wow. Meanwhile I asked then ti just slightly airbrush my balding top for the main photos, not all, just a few of the ones wed select for prints and they didnt do shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Why would you do that? Dont do that. Shave your head. Youll feel and look awesome

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Hey finny story. I got married like 5 or 6 years ago and it wasn't that bad back then but it was becoming an issue for me.

    I have since DONE THIS and holy fuck I'm a new man. Its been great. I spent about a week with a head cold shivering with a toque on but yeah total stud now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment