Camera which allows focusing after the picture is taken

[Mark_Heli (Mark)]

I know that the Lytro camera has been discussed on the forum in the past, but there are some new articles in todays papers. It is a camera which allows focusing after the picture is taken.

Apparently it will be available in Australia next month for ~$500.

It would be interesting to know what the long term uses might be for astronomy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226481683991

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/c...926-26kaa.html

Cheers,
Mark

[ZeroID (Brent)]

So I can defocus the clouds and see the stars .. ???
Oh well, never mind .....

Sounds clever though. From what I've read it only works within a limited focal depth ie it cannot 'focus' something that is just a blur in the far background.
Useful if you botch those important wedding photos though ..

[leon]

Just how far can they go, it just isn't photography anymore, were one would capture the light and that was it.

Some time ago a good photographer would use the available light and just get it right, now it really doesn't matter any more as it can be manipulated for that great picture.

Leon

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Until you can control the exposure time it's astronomical use will be limited to the Moon.

[bloodhound31]

Originally Posted by leon

Just how far can they go, it just isn't photography anymore, were one would capture the light and that was it.

Some time ago a good photographer would use the available light and just get it right, now it really doesn't matter any more as it can be manipulated for that great picture.

Leon

I echo your sentiments there Leon. Makes me want to give up sometimes..I wonder how far away that day is, when my skills mean nothing because a camera can do it all on it's own?

Part of what makes photography of any sort such fun, it it's difficulty in getting it right and fine-tuning one's skills for a pleasing image.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Even Ansel Adams post-processed his images so that the final product (the print) would be to his liking.

If it was alright for him, it's alright for me.

H

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Yep - magic in the darkroom is where it happened for these guys. Dodging, burning - all familiar darkroom terms which are imitated by Photoshop these days. Only difference is that instead of jiggling a paddle-pop stick with a circle of cardboard glued to the end of it under the enlarger beam over the paper to lighter parts of the image (by stopping light making it to parts of your image while it was exposing) - you use a mouse. It's all the same stuff.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

We used stencils to make psychedelic patterns over our prints. Blocking the light a little, then moving it on to another part of the image.
It's a lot cleaner these days.

[leon]

What you say maybe true, but you all know it just isn't the same.

I too did darkroom stuff, and may have come up slightly with a sharper or whatever pic.

It is nothing compared to today's digital world, that can make images look like pics they were not at the time of taking.

Some images are processed so much they don't even look real, and very plastic looking.

Maybe we should put out a challenge and have an out of the camera shoot out with absolutely no processing of any kind

Choose a subject, and post the results.

Leon

[Octane (Humayun)]

But, why?

H

[troypiggo (Troy)]

It must have a pretty small sensor, and not sure about its max aperture. See how close the subject has to be to the lens to get the depth look? It's like a webcam. For most applications, ie most focus distances, it looks like the depth of field is so huge that most things are in focus anyway.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

I'd like to see it in it's 3rd or 4th generation. There is so much potential in this technology.

[MikeyB (Michael)]

Originally Posted by troypiggo

It must have a pretty small sensor, and not sure about its max aperture. See how close the subject has to be to the lens to get the depth look? It's like a webcam. For most applications, ie most focus distances, it looks like the depth of field is so huge that most things are in focus anyway.

A light field camera doesn't work like a webcam (some of which can refocus), or a wide-angle lens with a large depth of field. Using the Lytro (which has an f/2, 8x zoom lens), the field of focus is selectable after taking the picture.

Have a look at the photos in this article to see the effect: 12 'focus later' Lytro photos that will make you look twice

[troypiggo (Troy)]

Yes, but those shots all have something well in the foreground (like well under a metre away from the camera) and way in the background. I'd like to see a shot taken with that camera with a subject at, say, 5m away, and the other at 10m away. My guess is that the depth of field would be so great at that focus distance (for that lens and sensor) that both would be near enough to be in focus anyway. ie there's no need for the adjusting the focus afterwards.

I understand what it does, refocusing after the image is taken. What I'm saying is that for most shots taken with such a camera, you probably wouldn't need to refocus it. The shots they've posted are exaggerated to show of its capabilities, but at the end of the day, it seems like a bit of a gimmick for now. Perhaps the technology will develop into something more extensible, who knows.

[leon]

Don't read to much into it H, you of all people know that post processing can make or break a pic.

You may not agree, that is your prerogative, and i respect your views.

However I disagree, and still think that picture taken of bygone years was nothing compared to today's image taking and post processing, to a point that some photos just don't look real, and don't come close to the image that came out of the camera, in the first place.

But who am I to know ??

Leon

[Octane (Humayun)]

I'm not reading into it, mate. I just want to know what the point would be of such a comparison?

I still shoot film, because I love the joy it brings, but, I don't see how using a digital camera (and, exploiting the technology) makes us any less of a photographer than the people that came before us.

Ansel processed his images in the darkroom not just to sharpen them, but, for contrast and tonality in the final print (he took his photos with this in mind, and, if you see some of the originals of his work before he processed them, you'd see that they looked rather bland and average). I have said before that you can't polish turds; if you capture a bland object in bland light, there's no way to make it look good. However, using software to correct white balance, enhance contrast, lift shadows, increase or decrease saturation, sharpen, are all pretty much the same tools being used.

If you'd like to start a thread in the terrestrial forum showing images as they've come out of the camera with absolutely NOTHING done to them in RAW development software, I'd be more than happy to participate. They'll all look pretty crap, but, still happy to join in.

Sorry for the thread hijack, Mark.

H

[leon]

No one said anything about being less of a photographer H, you and many more here are top photographers mate, and some of your work and others are beautiful captures.

The point i was trying to make was that photographers of today can manipulate any image to make it look better, than what used to happen years ago on film, were there was only so much one could do to improve the image.

Surly you agree one that one ??

Leon

[Octane (Humayun)]

It's definitely easier today, I'll agree with that.

As with everything, photography also progresses.

It's a bit like star hopping to find an object, as opposed to using goto systems.

H

[troypiggo (Troy)]

It's a bit like walking or riding a horse from Brisbane to Sydney, versus driving a car, versus flying in a plane.

[leon]

Might just leave it at that, I think. !!!

Leon