| Hi Yves,
I appreciate your reference to the article mentioned but I gotta tell you, when the photographs used to illustrate a point are just plain terrible, I find it difficult to take the information that seriously. If the authors' sensitivity to content and design is divorced from concepts of beauty and esthetics how are they going to get anyone other than academic nerds to pay attention? Good grief, did this duo have to use photos of a PC sitting on a counter and cars in a parking garage? I literally fell asleep trying to read that piece. Is there a special word processor that these folks use to produce the most uninteresting verbiage possible?
In so many photographic issues it comes down to SHOW ME THE PRINTS! There are so many firm theories and absolute approaches by pixel pushers and algorithm humpers who never make a goddam print. If the final prints have soul, beauty and intrigue, who cares what "operator" was used in the production? Theoretical precision has close to nothing to do with art.
Sorry if this sounds bitter. When I awoke after trying to read that article, I was much like a bear, resentful of being disturbed during hibernation. ;^)
Dan
On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:40 PM, Yves Gauvreau wrote: basically it fails to reproduce local contrast as well as other characteristics of the original amoung which there is a potential for loosing details. If you have time take a look at Reinhard introduction (http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~reinhard/papers/tvcg2005.pdf) it's only a page and he explain all this in plain english (I think) much better then I can. |