>>4275102>Pseud autist has stupid opinion in his "musings"Gone is the renaissance, when an artist could take 1 day to learn something before speaking. Now bullshit remains supreme. The degenerated mind is seen as a divine seer in touch with an innocent creativity, and "intellectuals" emulate his madness hoping to gain some semblance of individuality. But they are simply not intelligent enough to contain enough possibilities within themselves to have any probability of uniqueness. They are untermensch, the hylics.
Chemistry is just another kind of photon counting.
NEITHER resemble human vision in principle, operation, or results. If anything, the eye is closer to a digital camera, since different colored electro-chemical sensors are excited, examined, and refreshed - rather than layers of chemicals permanently converted to crystals.
This is the only content in that pile of postmodern pseud garbage
"The possibilities of digital post-processing weaken the connection with the referent."
What he really said is "i am not aware of film falsification". The sad fact is, negatives are easier to fake than digital. One must only create a fake image with a higher sampling rate and dynamic range than the film (piss easy for everything but cms 20 and 50 speed slide films in 4x5, which certainly aren't being used journalistically!) and expose that image through a film camera. It is impossible, then, to tell it from an authentically exposed negative. And oh what a tragedy it is when one's faked, because so many people don't understand that they can be fake.
A digital camera, however, is capable of being built such that the hardware and firmware are open source and auditable, to detect any falsifications, and such that is employs cryptographic signing to identify an original, unedited photograph, with original GPS and time data. It's good that there's an inherent lack of trust regardless, because that encourages people to finally seek out incorrigible photographic truth.
