Hacker News Reader

Comment by weekendvampire | Hacker News Reader

Can you obviously tell that the photos have been edited? That's disappointing - I thought they were all unfiltered and was really impressed.

View on HN

> Can you obviously tell that the photos have been edited?

It's incredibly obvious to me. Reality just doesn't look like that to the naked eye. Although I'm experienced in photography, cinematography and digital imaging, I'm still always surprised so many regular viewers don't realize almost everything seen in films and TV shows is carefully planned, constructed, processed and manipulated to achieve the visual looks they see as 'normal'. To be clear, I'm not only talking about the more obvious special effects and 'beauty shots'. Just making a typical scene from daily life look realistic on camera often requires painstaking craftsmanship.

You might enjoy looking at some making-of documentaries focused on cinematography. In the area of this urban nighttime noir-cyberpunk look, I'd suggest watching the behind-the-scenes material included in the Blu-Ray boxed-set of Blade Runner. It goes into fascinating detail on how cinematographer Jordan Cronenwith pioneered this look. I remember seeing Blade Runner in a theater when it first came out (I was in high school). I found the visual style to be so stunning it inspired my lifelong interest in imaging. Today, so much of what we see in movies looks 'Blade-Runner-ish' that we hardly notice it but prior to BR nothing looked like that in cinema.

Japan looks nothing like this. The second pic in the article, the entrance to Kabukicho, is about as real as it gets in that article. And that area, just a couple blocks wide, is where 99% of all “cyberpunk” photos are taken since it’s the area with the most signs and sex shops.

Most parts of basically every part of Tokyo are quite grey and plain. Not even 1% as beautiful as pictures would lead you to believe.

Nature and temple photos are the opposite. Even if they’re edited to the absurd degree these are, they don’t capture the beauty of the places in real life.

Well, to each their own. I find Tokyo's greenery and street gardens to be the most attractive parts of the city ;-). You're right about the lights and it's kind of hard to believe people think Tokyo looks like these pictures.

> Japan looks nothing like this.

As a former resident, I disagree. While they are edited, some of them remind of rainy nights in Ogikubo.

If you're interpreting photography as capturing the most accurate version of our vision system, then you're going to be very disappointed with any photograph.

I really enjoy this photographer's perspective. He captures photos as if you're viewing them from the "mind's eye." A+ work IMO.

> Most parts of basically every part of Tokyo are quite grey and plain.

I wouldn't call it plain, plenty of beauty all around.

Definitely not neon colored though. :)

> Japan looks nothing like this.

First, the artist clearly states he's not a photojournalist. He's editing the photos to suit his aesthetic.

Second, I live in Japan and have spent hundreds of nights (many of them into the middle of the night) in Tokyo and other cities. It's certainly true the edits stand out in many photos but I can tell you the feeling of walking home on a rainy evening after visiting 居酒屋 (izakaya) or 立ち飲み is pretty well captured here.

Not to imply a link between Wong and Monet but no one would look at Monet's impressionist work and say that the poppy field or lily pond is incorrect. I think photographic art deserves the same approach. For me, Wong hits on some of the impressions I have in my mind from all those nights in Tokyo. Some photos are pushed too far and lose that feeling, others are 懐かしい.

> Most parts of basically every part of Tokyo are quite grey and plain.

I couldn't agree less. Every alley and sidewalk in Tokyo was marvelous. But I'm accustomed to simple backpacks, possibly indistinguishable from the homeless when I travel, finding joy in the most simple things.

They are indeed edited, it is mentioned in the article: “My approach to photography is similar to filmmaking, in how they take a shot and build off it with color grades and adding effects. It’s less photography in the traditional sense and more of a hybrid. I’m not a photojournalist.”

Any photo is going to be a result of choices by the photographer. There’s no reason to fetishize “unfiltered” photos.

Anything that comes out of a camera is 'edited' in a sense... Camera lenses distort images versus what the human eye sees. Aperture and shutter settings change the image. Different films capture light differently. In-camera processing does the same. And that's before 'editing'.

In addition, digital cameras can't really see colors, so even these are interpreted to end up in a jpg.

Surpised others didn't catch your sarcasm. My contention isn't that they are edited, or really to the degree that they are, it's that they are both highly edited and empty of interesting subject matter combined. I think this makes the editing stand out more as a negative as opposed to if they were this edited and also had highly interesting scenes or subjects.

Obviously all extremely subjective but street photography already has a running meme of people photographing people's backs or from far away.

The article mentions that the photographer didn't see himself as a photographer for a while because he modifies the photos so much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com