what a beautiful pic
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Agreed, spectacular scenery, but..
I'd like to hear Peter-as-Photographer's guesstimate of just how much extra colour-saturation? was thrown in (which to moi: appears to be lots) ...
'course that's all filtered through the iMac's "accuracy" /it's a conundrum, innit? unless ya gots one of those Pro- monitors as can set the color-temp -vs- time of day for ~ Reality)
When caviling.. we must all recall The Green Screen of yore and ..Rejoice! that it's Dead, Jim .. that green.
Shot on my phone (Samsung Note 9) from the window of an A380 over Los Angeles. Straight out of camera*, rotated by a degree or two to straighten the horizon.
That's just what colour it was.
Not that it matters. Photography - unless you're photographing a crime scene - is not just or even often about making a one-for-one visual copy of what's in front of you. It's about capturing the totality of the situation, and that means encapsulating - in a bunch of pixels - not just everything you could see, but also everything else - the heat, the sounds, the smells, the feeling of the ground under your feet.
Also, the human eye and the AI attached to it (in your brainmeats) processes images in a way that effectively gives us huge visual dynamic range when viewing things in person. To represent that in a rectangle of static pixels requires some manipulation.
*"Straight out of camera" is a phrase that sounds simple but isn't. All digital cameras have multiple filters and automatic processing, even when shooting raw (the sensor physically has a Bayer filter, and a UV filter, and you have to downsample the raw data to make a JPEG image anyway). Film is even more so - if developing by hand, the resultant image is entirely down to the person sloshing the chemicals around and dodging/burning/etc. For both bureau- and hand-processing, the actual film used (e.g. Kodachrome) will also make a huge difference.
In the case of digital photography, it really means "I didn't do any additional processing".
Thanks, Peter ... and ... you flew in an *A380* ?!?
for the good reminder (see most all of Ansel A's work) that..the heat, the sounds, the smells, the feeling of the ground under your feet ..are likely the ingredients of the Great pix in museums. It's just that such nuance demands virtuoso wet-ware calcs ever to achieve (I wot.)
Ya gots the cuth, the gear and the wetware and just maybe one or n- of your opera (that lovely plural of opus.. heh) shall grace the wall of an imposing Knowledge-cathedral.
While yer still perambulating!
A380 via Wikipedia:
The full-length double-deck aircraft has a typical seating capacity of 525, though it is certified for up to 853 passengers. ...
(My own first take on that monster when announced, was immediate):
Imagine ... ... shit-hits-fan.
What is the sound of [525-853] spam-in-a-can ... shrieking!!! individually in unison?
Would Ohhh...hhh...SHIT!! prevail?
I mean, bet the the cockpit-VR would pick that up through closed door [??]
In my case: I figure that flying around on Bernoulli's Principles in a fucking -AUDITORIUM is just sooo.. Tempting to Cosmic-humor's funny-bone that
I go with War Games WOPR-machine's soliloquy:
The only way to win this game is not to play at all.
Yer a Braver (..or Nuttier) guy than moi, mon frère, flying-by-UNDISCONNECTABLE-wire. (Talk to Mike, eh?)
Edited by Ashton March 12, 2019, 06:32:54 PM EDT
Because I'm not actually hysterical about flying - it's the safest (if probably the most annoying) way to travel.
I specifically don't get all panty-waisted about the Airbus planes being mostly FBW, because mechanical systems aren't a magical panacea, and also break.
Fun fact: no A380 has ever been involved in a fatal accident.
Fun fact 2: most air accidents are due to pilot error.
Edited by pwhysall March 13, 2019, 03:20:17 AM EDT
Nit. s/mostly FBW/exclusively FBW.
It's mourning in America again.