ZEROJPEG
Due to the incredible success of neural networks, AI, “smart” processing programs and generating images and photos, I came up with the idea to create a direction in photography, which I called 'ZEROJPEG'.
'Zero' is translated from English as 'zero/zero', i.е. pictures in jpeg format (and other non-RAW formats) without additional processing.
Principles of ZERO JPEG (v0.0.4):
- Digital photographs must be taken in non-RAW format, i.e. ready for viewing/printing/publishing. These formats should not require specialized software to properly 'develop' the digital image. Such formats, for example, include JPEG/JPG/TIFF/HEIC/BMP/DNG. Any image storage format is suitable that allows you to get an unambiguous / identical image result when decoding data.
- Pictures in RAW format, that is, in a “raw” form, must be converted to one of the non-RAW formats without making additional settings in the converter program in order to “improve / change” the image (the so-called “stupid” conversion).
- You can use all acceptable image quality control methods built into the camera, camera, or any device that allows you to take a digital picture. Such settings include correction of the level of control of brightness, saturation, sharpness, clarity, tonality, etc., as well as the use of built-in modes multiple exposures, HDR, panoramas, etc.
- It is allowed to use programs for changing the resolution of images while maintaining frame proportions, as well as programs for setting the correct orientation of images (horizontal or vertical).
- It is possible to include data in text format on the picture, such as copyright, date, time and place of shooting, direction “ZERO JPEG”, etc.
main idea - get immediate results. The result is without deep post-processing. Honest, naked, and at the same time “high-quality” source image. ZERO JPEG can be a bit like film photography, which basically gives you the “final result” right away. Although film photography has many loopholes in image manipulation.
It seems to me that such an approach will focus more on the very reality of what is happening, on the shooting process, on the search for and creation of “beautiful”, and not on the post-processing and / or generation process.
I have sketched the rules in broad strokes so far, suggest your ideas for improving them in the comments.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval.
Do you think neural networks will kill photography as art and photo stocks? Cool, but kind of sad at the same time...
The film during development has many loopholes, the undeveloped film is RAW only analog.
Already killed
It's too early to say yet. We'll see in 5 years.
Well, less than a year has passed, and already people cannot distinguish 5 out of 8 generated forms from reality
Here's how to eat jpeg as it is. Chamber 1dm3 and sigma 15-30.
Photography will become more popular in the larger world by the process and not by the result.
At the same time, everything is oriented towards the result, and only a small part of the soul is not much taken over by the result, but in the larger world it is caught in the process.
Most of the people are not fixed in the development (converting RAW to jpg), it is important to take pictures in jpg or RAW + jpg. In the professional sphere, there will be a strong shortness of time, reportage photographs will be less affected, the most well-oriented are stocks, subject matter, etc. But I don’t think that neurons will drive the photo industry. When they said so themselves about those CDs that were beaten in vinyl .. and what in fact? yakby everything was so easy people would not buy fujifilm instax but would take pictures on their iPhones. and in a flash in more vipadkiv in the camera you can effectively adjust the profile for jpg and take the receiving result out of the box. That's how I work.
Unfortunately, the combination of a camera and a monitor does not allow you to convey what the human eye sees live. Therefore, we have to expand the dynamic range in order to somehow get closer to reality ...
strange, and what, now everything is in HDR to shoot?
It depends on why you shoot! If you shoot a reportage - you can at least somehow and at least for anything. But if you try to bring the picture closer to the one that a person sees, you will have to tinker.
A person, in principle, “sees and feels” a moment of life in a completely different way than a camera does. Sometimes you even look through the viewfinder and see - HERE IT IS! You take a bunch of shots, but it’s not at all the same on them ... Apparently, the microdynamics of an event of 0,5 - 1 second, which a person perceives as an “instant”, gives such an effect. And the camera can't actually capture it.
HDR alone will not create a realistic photo. It will only show what is in the lights and shadows. And the final picture will be built by the brain ...
and why shoot the way a person sees?
This is just a zen answer! Thanks Arkady.))
The very concept of “Photography” implies the formation of an image as a person sees it. And we don't have any other standards for seeing the world... In the context of your ZERO JPEG philosophy, as I understand it, we don't want to embellish the original image. But, a photo taken immediately from the camera without processing is not a reflection of reality. In this form, it simply does not live up to reality.
Yes at all not necessarily, very narrowly think.
who says that photography is a reflection of reality? this idea does not apply to ZERO JPEG
For several years now, albeit unconsciously, I have been following this path. It was only necessary to find a camera that I like 100% with its final result, both in colors, in halftones and everything else. She became Fuji X-Pro1. Small adjustments of contrast and saturation in the camera itself and go ahead, shoot in jeep.
Point 3 is controversial.
Controlling the brightness curve makes it possible to transform the image beyond recognition.
Control of sharpness and clarity includes Clarity and Texture, which greatly transform the image. For example, with their help you can add drama, or you can add a soft effect. Moreover, the addition of software was also in some digital digital complexes “inside”, such as the same Casio.
Stitching panoramas is such a thing that... If someone is not familiar, they can Google the phrase “small planet”.
So I would like to be more specific here. For example:
1) Exposure control can be used without restrictions. You can adjust the black level within 0,33 EV. Overexposure can be restored within 0,33 EV.
2) You can stitch together panoramas, but so that the final viewing angle does not exceed the original one by more than one and a half times.
3) When converting from RAW, you can use standard unsharp masking settings or lower ones (except for negative ones, i.e. those associated with adding blur).
4) You can use color profiles to simulate standard film, including black and white. Imitation of cross-process is prohibited. Manufacturers' standard color profiles can be used.
5) You can use a lens profile to eliminate CA and vignetting. You can adjust the barrel or cushion of a rectilinear lens, if available.
6) Vignetting can be added up to 3,5 EV relative to the fully corrected image, or more if the uncorrected lens has more.
This is just an example based on my personal thoughts, so I don't insist.
This is just great, you can do it right away - but that’s the whole point
Patient zero, heh))).
Overall, this is quite interesting, Arkady! Has the right to). Although, I like a different approach - it’s the opposite, extremely aggressive processing, when little remains of the original photo. Those. I perceive the source as just a semi-finished product, unsuitable for use, and subject to processing in order to ultimately get something similar to “as I see”. I’m “sort of like an artist,” hahaha. ))). This approach is something like a process of existential apperception. That is, I don’t care how it really was there, the main thing is how I perceive it.
Photography as a whole has never been an absolutely impartial reflection of reality. Even when we are dealing with a report, between reality and its reflection, there is always an intermediary agent in the form of a photographer, who a priori cannot be neutral and objective. The photographer, at a minimum, places accents. And at the most... In general, you can distort everything that happens, to the point of complete inversion. Modern media have succeeded in this...
So what am I talking about? Who knows how realistic the photo is and how accurate the color rendition is. The main thing is that it was beautiful :).
By the way, neurons and computational photography really fascinate me.
You here.
Usually, if they want to emphasize that the file has not been processed, they write “SOOC JPEG” –