the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Democratic photography

Democratic photography

March 18, 2015 JimK 1 Comment

A few days ago, I posted a picture I was having trouble with:

[Group 9]-_DSC0846 (2)__DSC0959 (2)-114 images_0000-Edit

Then I messed around with the channel mixer and got something I liked better:

[Group 9]-_DSC0846 (2)__DSC0959 (2)-114 images_0000-Edit-2

Eric Hanson posted a comment here saying that he liked the first image better. Intrigued, I posted both images on Facebook yesterday, asking which one people preferred.

Some expressed a strong preference. Chuck Davis and Kim Weston, for example, photographers whose work and eyes I deeply respect, went for the one that I liked — let’s call it “dark tree”. Some hemmed and hawed. I totted up the votes as best I could, and came up with 6 for “dark tree” and 4 for “light tree”.

Then I had an inspiration. I went back to Lr, and exported both photos as layers to Ps. I put light tree on the bottom, and dark tree on top. I set the opacity on dark tree to 60%. Now I had a composite of the two images with a weighting proportional to the collective preferences of my Facebook commenters.

The registration wasn’t perfect, since I had rotated both photographs a little differently. I made a clumsy stab at fixing that, and here’s what I got:

[Group 9]-_DSC0846 (2)__DSC0959 (2)-114 images_0000-Editcomb

It’s not half bad! In fact, in some ways I like it better than the dark tree one. It’s definitely better than the light tree one in my book.

This brings up a new — well, new to me — possibility for Internet collaboration. The photographer creates two or more images that share registration and posts them  The audience votes. The photographer produces an image that mixes the candidates in proportion to their vote, and posts it. Or exhibits it. Or prints it in a book.

Of course, every person who voted would be a co-artist on the piece. What a good way to get a lot of people to the opening reception!

Or, here’s another possibility, that needs some computer wizardry to pull off. Put the n candidate images on n flat screen monitors in the gallery. Figure out a way to limit the exhibition attenders to one vote. Have one more flat screen that continually displays the current composite image. Make a movie of the evolution of the image throughout the run of the show.

The Last Word

← Craft versus content Bokeh with 3 Normal lenses at f/1.4 on a D810 →

Comments

  1. Eric Hanson says

    March 18, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    That is very cool. The exhibit idea sounds nice as well. An interactive display with voting perhaps using nfc tags. I may have to check out your FB page. 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.