Bonjour

[AbsurdePhoton]

Hello everyone.

I am AbsurdePhoton, amateur photographer.

There is a 'e' at the end of Absurde because I am French. This nickname refers to the two 'states' of photons, which are at the same time particles and waves. The photons are what make photography possible. I love photons. All this is absurd

I am old enough to have known analog photography in the 70's and 80's, but at the time I didn't pay much attention: it was my father who almost exclusively took photos for the family, and from time to time I had to take some myself when he wanted to be in the photo.
Later, for myself and my own family, I used for some time some Kodak Advantix things, but it was just 'click-clack, it's in the box'. And wait for the development. That was it, utility.

What really brought me to photography, in my early 40's, was digital photography. I am well versed (well... a lot) in computing so it was natural for me to, at first, use Photoshop (which I know since its second version), then looking at what produced the images. Combine this to my love for art in general: a passion was born.
Why this interest at first : I came to it because I considered at some point (2010) that digital had "surpassed" analog, I mean in quality: sharp images, "better" ranges, etc. So I spent some years doing, and still do, digital photography.

I am in the process of writing some software, with a part to simulate analog films effects on digital images, with some success. What led me to study a lot the analog process. Now --- the more I know about digital and analog photography, the more I think I was stupid!

Digital and analog photography are NOT the same thing, digital is NOT superior to analog. Each has its pros and cons.

I'm planning to begin testing analog things myself. To begin with, surely, a Polaroid-like camera, just for fun. Then when I am ready, try to shoot using 'real' films.

This is what led me here. Expect some crazy technical questions for my software writing, and silly questions about analog photography. I have a lot to read, too.

Regards,

A.P.

 

[koraks]

Welcome aboard @AbsurdePhoton! Very much looking forward to your contributions on here and your in-depth awareness of both digital and analog media is surely a welcome addition!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

All this is absurd

Well, since 2024 marks the 100th anniversary of Surrealism, you're right on target.

Remember, there's no such thing as silly questions. Silly walks, on the other hand, are quite acceptable.

Bienvenue.

 

[AbsurdePhoton]

Silly walks, on the other hand, are quite acceptable.

Aaah, the Ministry, yes
I practice the "marche futile" from time to time.

I don't know if it was a supplemental pun, but walking "on the other hand" is something that the Monty Pythons didn't think about.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to Photrio! I wrote, developed and marketed software during much of my career in addition to doing other things, I look forward to hearing about your software endeavors.

 

[Daniela]

Bienvenue!

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

For a while I worked for a firm that made non-linear optics.

Photons are decidedly absurd. The wave/particle duality is just the start of the weirdness.

We all use polarizers. And think we understand them...

But a few minutes contemplating a pair of polarizers turns up quite a bit that is strange. The polarizers work well at polarizing - when crossed at 90 degrees no light gets through. So, if polarizers are crossed at 45 degrees why does any light get through? And why does the light dim?

Then look at the proof of Bell's Inequality using polarizers -

 

[cliveh]

For a while I worked for a firm that made non-linear optics.

Photons are decidedly absurd. The wave/particle duality is just the start of the weirdness.

We all use polarizers. And think we understand them...

But a few minutes contemplating a pair of polarizers turns up quite a bit that is strange. The polarizers work well at polarizing - when crossed at 90 degrees no light gets through. So, if polarizers are crossed at 45 degrees why does any light get through? And why does the light dim?

Then look at the proof of Bell's Inequality using polarizers -

Welcome AbsurdePhoton. I have just watched the video from the above post and think I need to go and lie down.

 

[AbsurdePhoton]

Science is almost magic sometimes

 

[snusmumriken]

I don't know if it was a supplemental pun, but walking "on the other hand" is something that the Monty Pythons didn't think about.

For that alone, you are most welcome!

If, after a few weeks of engagement with absurdly long threads, you are any closer to understanding why digital isn't a completely satisfying answer, please let me know.

 

[AbsurdePhoton]

For that alone, you are most welcome!

Thanks Jonathan. I went to see your site, you have a good sense of "à propos", like the "Habitat" one, I love it, as well as the "Exhibition". I see you found Diogenes's house in the woods, too.

why digital isn't a completely satisfying answer

You know, it already took me a long time to really appreciate black and white. One thing at a time
Lately, and it's precisely why I'm here, I worked a lot to simulate analog film shots from digital images. I had to closely look at many photos shot with film, comparing them to my results, trying to understand (not only the techniques), and really got caught. I'm currently trying to tie digital to analog, as much as I can, and it is fascinating.
I still have a lot of problems with grain though, but the rest is pretty good, and I already learned a LOT, and it is far from over.

 

[snusmumriken]

Thanks Jonathan. I went to see your site, you have a good sense of "à propos", like the "Habitat" one, I love it, as well as the "Exhibition". I see you found Diogenes's house in the woods, too.

Thanks for bothering! Very happy you found something that appealed. I hadn't made the connection with Diogenes - thanks for that!

I still have a lot of problems with grain though

Not enough, or too much? A common cause of too much grain is over-development, often in hope of a speed increase and therefore accompanied by under-exposure.

And are you printing or scanning your negatives? ...because scanning often exaggerates the apparent graininess of a negative by creating an aliasing artefact - a darkroom print may look much less grainy. Then again, if grain isn't visible at all, some folk complain that the image looks 'too digital'. I think this is an unresolved conundrum.

 

[AbsurdePhoton]

Sorry maybe I was not clear enough : I'm trying to simulate film grain. My darkroom is my computer (for the moment). In the 1st post I explained that I will slowly (and soon) start to try analog, much more seriously than before.

 

[snusmumriken]

Sorry maybe I was not clear enough : I'm trying to simulate film grain. My darkroom is my computer (for the moment). In the 1st post I explained that I will slowly (and soon) start to try analog, much more seriously than before.

My apologies, I was slow to understand.

 

[bernard_L]

Then look at the proof of Bell's Inequality using polarizers -

A nice video. Thank you for the link. Too bad my brain is so slow relative to the speech rate of the presenter.
However, I'm not convinced this is a proof of Bell's inequality. In the polarizer experiment, whether it is interpreted classically of quantum-mechanically, each time a photon goes through a polarizer, its polarization is re-defined (collapse of quantum state following a measurement). Whereas the presenter in the video seems to imply --at 2'52"and 5'38"-- that one photon about to attempt the crossing of the three polarizer has hidden variables already dictating whether it will pass through the second and third polarizers. Because of collapse/projection it is not the same photon.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

...my brain is so slow relative to the speech rate of the presenter. However, I'm not convinced this is a proof of Bell's inequality....

Same here - the faster someone talks the less I trust them. As for this proving Bell's, I'm also a skeptic.

I believe in hidden variables - in the sense there is an infinity of things we do not know and in many cases can not know.

The interesting thing about this is the vector of the polarization of light resolving to a rotated coordinate system in a statistical manner.

 

[AbsurdePhoton]

*Ahum* do you want some scones with your tea ?

Nah, just kidding, I love how my nickname inspired such discussions (I din't choose it fur nothin' you know)