1014: "Car Problems"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

obeq
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby obeq » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:18 am UTC

jpk wrote:...general trolling...


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

That one's from 2003.

I think it's partly hilarious and partly insulting that some amateur claims that professional photographers don't look at their own photos. We are talking about people living for photography and you claim that they haven't made a consious choice on what equipment they use?

Seriously.

EDIT: Nick mixup, sorry...

adho
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:21 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby adho » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:29 am UTC

jpk wrote:To me, this is the end of photography. If you get some pleasure out of looking at distorted and artifacted images, I'm happy for you. I find them repulsive. One can recognize the intent of the photographer, but there's nothing worth looking at there.


Photography is far more alive then it has ever been before, if we look solely at sheer quantity. You are unnecessarily concerned with the pure quality and format of a picture.
To my mind, photographs are far more about their contents and context, than their interference and disruption levels.
To be fair, film has its own pitfalls - noise in grain rather than artifacts.

As an aside, if this is all some extended attempt to annoy people, I hope you mature one day.
blah blah

I found this comic brilliant, maybe because I know people exactly like this.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby jpk » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:09 pm UTC

adho wrote:Photography is far more alive then it has ever been before, if we look solely at sheer quantity. You are unnecessarily concerned with the pure quality and format of a picture.


Thanks, I think that's about the last word on this from me.
Yes, if you're interested in sheer quantity, there's more imagery being generated. If you're unnecessarily concerned with whether any of it is any good, then you're out of luck. Finally, some agreement.

As an aside, if this is all some extended attempt to annoy people, I hope you mature one day.


That's right, of course. Anyone who disagrees with you is just out to annoy you. Very perceptive.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1842
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:24 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
Webzter wrote:
jpk wrote:The only reason people put up with digital photography is they don't actually look at the pictures they take, they just put them in flickr feeds that their friends ignore.


I do have to say, though, excellent troll attempt. :D

Then obviously he'd be shooting large format film not 35mm... or, at the very least, he'd be shooting medium format.


Back atcha.

Seriously, though, if you think a digital image can be compared to chemical photography, then you have no business bringing in distinctions of format. Digital imagery is great for a few things: journalism, stuff that's destined for the digital realm (obviously) and playing with the artifacting. But pretending that it makes an image that can be compared to serious photography is just silly.


...

Hm. My wife (who is a professional photographer) uses solely digital, for three reasons:
1. Cost. A roll of film, developing chemicals, photo paper, etc. versus her laptop, printer, and a film card that can hold several thousand pictures.
2. Unless you are enlarging something absurdly huge, the difference between 35mm and digital is imperceptible (to most people). A digital shot she took in 2005 with an 8 megapixel DSLR (Nikon D70) printed at 36" x 48" was the same quality as one done with a 35mm Nikon.
3. Immediate gratification, in that you can see whether or not a picture is good instantly, instead of having to go back to the dark-room, developing it, etc. When you are out working in the field for days at a time, finding out right away that picture is good is worth hundred of dollars of wasted time.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
dotancohen
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:18 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby dotancohen » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:35 pm UTC

jpk wrote:What they, and you, don't seem to understand, is that there is no image processing software that doesn't compress and distort your image. So you end up with detail turning into blur, patterns turning into digi-fuzz, and subtle variations of hue turning into blotches. You're happy to ignore it because you're not actually looking at the image, and the algorithms are actually pretty good, if you're not paying attention. But look at one of those pictures some time and you'll see it.


At the risk of feeding a troll, I would love for your to point these things out to me.

A few years ago I did something stupid and decided to compare CD music with MP3s (good quality, 360bps at least). Now, the flaws of MP3 stand out for me and I cannot enjoy listening to encoded audio. I suppose that wine snobs suffer similarly, and thus need expensive wines to be satisfied while us ignorami are more than happy on the cheap stuff.

So please, ruin digital photography for me. Point me to resources where I can learn to no longer appreciate my DSLR.

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby neoliminal » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:03 pm UTC

"The subject in the driver's seat is obscured by the gases in the car."
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

kelvinc
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:24 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby kelvinc » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:13 pm UTC

No better way of proving the truth of this strip than the way this thread is going.

This is why I still haven't bought a DSLR, despite already knowing that I have no photo-taking device that doesn't seems to suck in some way.
Seems like there are many entry-level DSLRs that I can't figure out which is better, because every review suggests that, well, it's okay, but not great if you're not willing to spend double what you're looking at.
At least when I take crappy stuff on my phone, people shut up about quality because it's assumed to be crap.

User avatar
BrianB
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:50 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby BrianB » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:42 pm UTC

Hey everybody - THE CAR IS ON FIRE!

Now shut up about your petty discussion of digital vs chemical photography.

User avatar
whateveries
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby whateveries » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:25 pm UTC

dotancohen wrote:
...A few years ago I did something stupid and decided to compare CD music with MP3s (good quality, 360bps at least). Now, the flaws of MP3 stand out for me and I cannot enjoy listening to encoded audio. I suppose that wine snobs suffer similarly, and thus need expensive wines to be satisfied while us ignorami are more than happy on the cheap stuff...


oh you seriously wasted your time on this one, you should have been aware that all music has sucked since those morons stopped using analog gear, or was it when they stopped using valves, or was it when...

when you went hunting the difference what you inadvertantly did was to create neural pathways whose only job is to seek the faults within the media and report back, and this is what poor little jpk has done to himself with digital images, and SirMustupha has done to himslef with xkcd, fortunately it is easy to overcome, you just need to practice focusing on something else, like the content.
it's fine.

HermanVonPetri
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:15 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby HermanVonPetri » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:34 pm UTC

You might as well be lecturing Michelangelo on what type of marble to use.
Photography is an art of compromises. The Artist is the person who gets to choose how to best transmit his or her vision.

Every image you view on a webpage is compressed with artifacts regardless if it was from a digital camera or scanned from slide film. Every uncompressed image you view on a monitor has to be tone mapped to fit the color range of that monitor regardless of what type of monitor you have. All RAW image files from a recent digital camera contain a greater range of color and luminance than any monitor can reproduce for you. No print you view can show you how a scene looked to your eye and no camera can capture the range of contrast that the human eye can regardless of if your camera was digital or film, or whether the print was chemical bath or dye-sublimated.

Every photographic print, slide, or screen image contains various artifacts varying from color distortion, grain, noise, banding, sharpness, etc. that vary depending on the medium whether digital or chemical. Some of these faults fall well within the range of acceptability for both the artist and the intended audience.

SteevyT
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:41 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby SteevyT » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:19 pm UTC

I'm currently going over a photograph that I know for a fact was taken digitally with a magnifying glass to try and spot the errors. I'm just not finding them.

jj7947
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:45 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby jj7947 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:53 pm UTC

Very Funny. Like some days going to work.

reffu
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:42 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby reffu » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:26 am UTC

furgle wrote:I found it funny that there was an establishing photo of the car not on fire. To prove that the car is not always on fire.

Why it took him 13 days to take a photo of his car on fire I have no Idea, and in the 13 days you'd think he would have set up the perfect photo.


Except it didn't take her 13 days to take a picture of the car on fire. It only took her 1 day since she said she found it this morning on fire. This implies that before today, it was not on fire. The photo of the car from two weeks ago could have just been the most recent picture of the car.
"With great power comes bigger batteries and longer recharge times"

User avatar
Exkakx
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:37 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby Exkakx » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:32 am UTC

BrianB wrote:Hey everybody - THE CAR IS ON FIRE!

Now shut up about your petty discussion of digital vs chemical photography.


But it's more interesting than discussing cars on fire...
I'm too awesome for a signature...

madaco
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby madaco » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:00 am UTC

jpk wrote:
As an aside, IF this is all some extended attempt to annoy people, I hope you mature one day.

That's right, of course. Anyone who disagrees with you is just out to annoy you. Very perceptive.
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

project2051
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:20 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby project2051 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:18 am UTC

Exkakx wrote:
BrianB wrote:Hey everybody - THE CAR IS ON FIRE!

Now shut up about your petty discussion of digital vs chemical photography.


But it's more interesting than discussing cars on fire...


It's amusing, it's a Image

adho
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:21 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby adho » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:24 am UTC

jpk wrote:Thanks, I think that's about the last word on this from me.
Yes, if you're interested in sheer quantity, there's more imagery being generated. If you're unnecessarily concerned with whether any of it is any good, then you're out of luck. Finally, some agreement.

Well, how else will we deem the end of photography in an objective sense? More photographs are being taken, more photos are being appreciated. I think that's brilliant.

We can look at any iconic photo (or other artwork for that matter) and pick holes in the colouring, the focus, the exposure, the print itself, the digital errors you claim are so apparent, if we wish. Nothing is without flaw.
Why should we? They are so much more than that.

jpk wrote:That's right, of course. Anyone who disagrees with you is just out to annoy you. Very perceptive.

The key 'if' has already been pointed out for me, it is just that your opinion differs wildly from most I have heard before, and there are a great many people who take some perverse enjoyment from driving people to annoyance. My apologies. Evidently I am not very perceptive, hence the clarifying clause.


Also, how is she going to get insurance money? Will her policy cover spontaneous combustion?

typo
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:12 pm UTC
Location: East of the Don and west of the Rouge

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby typo » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:33 am UTC

project2051 wrote:It's amusing, it's a Image

I don't have permission to view "fight-internet-spiderman". And the filename really doesn't provide much information about its content.

mxyzptlk914
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:04 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby mxyzptlk914 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:28 am UTC

typo wrote:
project2051 wrote:It's amusing, it's a Image

I don't have permission to view "fight-internet-spiderman". And the filename really doesn't provide much information about its content.


It's also here behind the spoiler under a different URL:

Spoiler:
Image

toadpipe
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:44 am UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby toadpipe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:52 am UTC

Exkakx wrote:
BrianB wrote:Hey everybody - THE CAR IS ON FIRE!

Now shut up about your petty discussion of digital vs chemical photography.


But it's more interesting than discussing cars on fire...


Huh? No sorry, bickering about personal preference in toys isn't nearly as interesting as a good solid problem solving session. The question, "What is wrong with this picture," is not hard to answer literally. Literally, there is nothing wrong with the picture, it displays fine, that's what pictures do. Everything else is just the quality of the picture not meeting personal ideals which doesn't address the question in any way at all. Now, what is wrong in the picture is easy too, there is a car on fire. Cars are not meant to be on fire, that is wrong. So, how is it burning? For how long? How did it start burning? When will it stop? Was it set a fire on purpose? Who may have set the fire? Will they serve jail time?

The list goes on and on, these questions would be fun to answer.

Arguing who's toy takes the best picture is just dull, there is really fun work to be done here.

User avatar
ElWanderer
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby ElWanderer » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:34 am UTC

kelvinc wrote:Seems like there are many entry-level DSLRs that I can't figure out which is better, because every review suggests that, well, it's okay, but not great if you're not willing to spend double what you're looking at.


In terms of quality of the camera itself, there's little to choose between all the entry level DSLRs of the big brands - they're all good*. The usual suggestion is to try them out in a shop or borrow from a friend and pick based on what seems most comfortable to use. It's very unlikely you'd need the extra capabilities of a more expensive camera (are you intending to become a professional wedding photographer or shoot late-night football? In those cases the better performance in low light matters). Generally, the lenses you stick on the front are far more important, and by picking a camera body, you limit yourself to the lens system for that camera. Fortunately, there are shed-loads of lenses available for all the big brands.

* if you can only bring yourself to buy "the best", photography can be a very expensive hobby to get into. A bit like building your own computer from only the latest, most high-powered components.
Now I am become Geoff, the destroyer of worlds

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby J L » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:05 pm UTC

dotancohen wrote:A few years ago I did something stupid and decided to compare CD music with MP3s (good quality, 360bps at least). Now, the flaws of MP3 stand out for me and I cannot enjoy listening to encoded audio. I suppose that wine snobs suffer similarly, and thus need expensive wines to be satisfied while us ignorami are more than happy on the cheap stuff.


That is so true ... and I'm glad I am short-sighted, else I would probably spend all my money on expensive HD television sets :)

Also: http://xkcd.com/915/

forbz1
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:30 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby forbz1 » Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:43 pm UTC

...and there's no driver at the wheel. And the sewers are all muddied with a thousand lonely suicides. And a dark wind blows...


Can't believe I'm not the first one to make a Godspeed You! reference. GOOMHX!

Oh and, http://type.method.ac/#!/4/286/389/452/548/forbz.

jawshoeaw
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:46 pm UTC

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby jawshoeaw » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:59 pm UTC

Freakonomics radio did a thing on wine snobs, I mean experts, not being able to tell good from great wines. I'm a coffee snob who sneaks instant coffee sometimes, so I can relate. So much perception is couched in, well, perception. environment. Emotional state. I vaguely recall a claim that taking a bight of cheese destroys one's ability to discern various wines from each other. More importantly, differences between the experience of two adjacent objects are orders of magnitude more apparent than the experience of those objects taken say a day apart. Damn it, what is that called again?


I think the megapixel reference in the cartoon was not meant to be connected to chromatic aberration since artist is not an idiot. there is the phenomenon of purple fringing associated with high megapixel / image sensor size, though again I assume artist knows that is not the normal meaning of chromatic abberation, even though it is a literal aberration of color.

Webzter
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: 1014: "Car Problems"

Postby Webzter » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:09 am UTC

kelvinc wrote:Seems like there are many entry-level DSLRs that I can't figure out which is better, because every review suggests that, well, it's okay, but not great if you're not willing to spend double what you're looking at.


When you buy a camera, you don't buy the camera, you buy the lenses. What I mean is, by the time you start acquiring camera stuff, the body is going to be one of the cheaper parts of it all (in aggregate).

If you want to buy an (D)SLR, then you should really take the time to try on various lenses as well as various cameras. Plenty of camera stores offer rental bodies and lenses... might be a good idea to drop some money on renting for a weekend before you commit to anything.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests