> does applying the same transfer function to each pixel (of a given colour anyway) count as “processing”?

This is interesting to think about, at least for us photo nerds. ;) I honestly think there are multiple right answers, but I have a specific one that I prefer. Applying the same transfer function to all pixels corresponds pretty tightly to film & paper exposure in analog photography. So one reasonable followup question is: did we count manually over- or under-exposing an analog photo to be manipulation or “processing”? Like you can’t see an image without exposing it, so even though there are timing & brightness recommendations for any given film or paper, generally speaking it’s not considered manipulation to expose it until it’s visible. Sometimes if we pushed or pulled to change the way something looks such that you see things that weren’t visible to the naked eye, then we call it manipulation, but generally people aren’t accused of “photoshopping” something just by raising or lowering the brightness a little, right?

When I started reading the article, my first thought was, ‘there’s no such thing as an unprocessed photo that you can see’. Sensor readings can’t be looked at without making choices about how to expose them, without choosing a mapping or transfer function. That’s not to mention that they come with physical response curves that the author went out of his way to sort-of remove. The first few dark images in there are a sort of unnatural way to view images, but in fact they are just as processed as the final image, they’re simply processed differently. You can’t avoid “processing” a digital image if you want to see it, right? Measuring light with sensors involves response curves, transcoding to an image format involves response curves, and displaying on monitor or paper involves response curves, so any image has been processed a bunch by the time we see it, right? Does that count as “processing”? Technically, I think exposure processing is always built-in, but that kinda means exposing an image is natural and not some type of manipulation that changes the image. Ultimately it depends on what we mean by “processing”.

▲

henrebotha 15 hours ago | parent [-]

It's like food: Virtually all food is "processed food" because all food requires some kind of process before you can eat it. Perhaps that process is "picking the fruit from the tree", or "peeling". But it's all processed in one way or another.

▲

littlestymaar 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Hence the qualifier in “ultra-processed food”

▲

NetMageSCW 7 hours ago | parent [-]

But that qualifier in stupid because there’s no start or stopping point for ultra processed versus all foods. Is cheese an ultra-processed food? Is wine?

	▲	Edman274 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There actually is a stopping point , and the definition of ultra processed food versus processed food is often drawn at the line where you can expect someone in their home kitchen to be able to do the processing. So, the question kind of goes whether or not you would expect someone to be able to make cheese or wine at home. I think there you would find it natural to conclude that there's a difference between a Cheeto, which can only be created in a factory with a secret extrusion process, versus cottage cheese, which can be created inside of a cottage. And you would probably also note that there is a difference between American cheese which requires a process that results in a Nile Red upload, and cheddar cheese which still could be done at home, over the course of months like how people make soap at home. You can tell that wine can be made at home because people make it in jails. I have found that a lot of people on Hackernews have a tendency to flatten distinctions into a binary, and then attack the binary as if distinctions don't matter. This is another such example.
	▲	littlestymaar 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		With that kind of reasoning you can't name anything, ever. For instance, what's computer? Is a credit card a computer.