This morning.
Clontarf from the North Bull Wall.
Thanks Joe Stuart
Last night.
Burrow Beach in Sutton, Dublin 13.
Meryl Diab writes:
The colours are real – no filter.
Previously: How Low?
Sponsored Link
Everything. As It Happens.
These are wonderful photos. Great sky.
I understand that the ability to tweak the colours, brightness, contrast, etc of photographs through “filters” seems to suggest that not doing this we are left with a more “real” image, but it’s not really true. All photos are essentially filtered by the software algorithms of the cameras shooting them. An unfiltered photograph does not exist. There is no pure, true photograph: a photograph cannot be an objective rendition of colour. Indeed, no such thing exists. Before digital cameras, the colours visible in the final photograph were a product of the film type (itself designed to produce certain responses under different conditions) and the development of said film. Many variables, many decisions made. In a digital camera, similarly, the hues are a result of complex software decisions. Every different camera model producing slightly different results under identical circumstances. Digital photos have a certain look to them (somewhat over-saturated blues and greens on a sunny day, for example), that are very recognisable and yet don’t actually look much like what we see with our eyes. In those cases applying filters can help bring the photo back towards a closer approximation of what the average person would be seeing. If you want a photo to look as “real” as possible, some kind of filter is probably necessary. But applying filters towards that end is a very skilled and complicated task.
Interesting idea, (and there are many variations of what different people actually see, how their particular cones and rods translate a signal to form that image).
Love those photos !
Bray this morning.