The issue is not WHAT you measured, but HOW you measured it and how you treated the measurement uncertainties.

Something like this graph.

The way to calculate the error bars is to perform many times *the very same measurement* at different conditions (temperature, time of day, etc.)

Then the error marks are calculated by the Standard Deviation method.

For example, if the bars are +/- 1 SD (what means 2 SD total) then you are 99.5% certain that another measurement of the same data point will fall inside the uncertainty bar.

Ya know... for people without math training, a measurement is just that, a fixed value. But once you go down the (math) rabbit hole, you'll discover that - for example - if you measure 100 times the voltage of same battery with, you'll get 100 different values. That is the nature of reality.

Just make this mental experiment: measure the length of a table. If your use a simple ruler, you'll get always the same reading. **BUT** if you use a measuring slide with a resolution is 1/20 of an inch, each time you measure the table you'll get a different rading.

"

Maybe... but my point was not to talk about (spicy) argentine politics, but about the impact AI is already having on commercial photography, and - in general - graphic arts.

In the distant past (a couple of months ago) to create something like this would have taken a photograph to grab the people, and then a Photoshop operator to create the whole composition. Not any longer.

It was only matter of time that AI generated images would make their debut in mainstream media...

This one appeared in a political article in the most important newspaper in Argentina today.
Source: https://www.clarin.com/politica/javier-milei-compartio-provocativo-meme-radicales-redes-luego-cayera-ley-omnibus_0_e7cKkSebhE.html

It has all telltale signs of a crude AI generated image (like the extra finger in the guy with the blue t-shirt) and it is far inferior to the ones I'm able to create, but the trend is clear. No more commercial graphic artists, photoshopers, etc. This one was made in a couple of minutes, not hours.

Still the letters on the t-shirts are correct and also the image of the argentine congress building in the background is correct.

Amazing.

First:

"Calibrating an instrument means a statistical procedure in which it is compared to an instrument of higher accuracy and which is traceable to a standard."

This holds, because it is the *very definition of calibration" It is true for light meters, volt meters, even tuning forks and rulers.

Second:

"The camera is not such thing, it has many more sources of inaccuracy like shutter speed, iso and aperture, plus in camera processing."

Still holds. While it is true that modern cameras are more accurate than film, still can not be used as a standard to compare any instrument (light meter, or whatever) because:
a) you don't know if your camera had any calibration issues after it was released from the factory
b) it lacks a laboratoy certificate of calibration

Believe me, I design electronic instruments and had to study this trough and in fact, in a occasion - because I lacked a proper meter (assistant forgot it) - I tried to make a make a luminance metering of a road with my A7C and it had such a dispersion that it was not statistically meaningful.

The next night, I could perform the measurement with a proper meter with a valid certificate.

Besides, a illuminance or luminance meter should be calibrated once a year (typically after DIN 5032 Part 7) , after that the certificate is no longer valid.

Besides 2, we are talking engineering here. Any statement without a number is meaningless... your curves lack the one and two standard deviation markers, se we really don't know what they mean. "

DMWAE rule.

Calibrating an instrument means a statistical procedure in which it is compared to an instrument of higher accuracy and which is traceable to a standard.

The camera is not such thing, it has many more sources of inaccuracy like shutter speed, iso and aperture, plus in camera processing.

Therefore, as some pointed out, if it is a light meter - aka luxmeter - then NIST is the solution (for a fee, of course)

Awesome !!

I'd rather wouldn't go outside...

Down here, when the sky looks like this, probably a turbonada is coming. (A kind of horizontal tornado... kills people, destroys stuff)

Hmmm... Interesting.

Color blind people lack the photoreceptors for one of the three colors (RGB)

For the illusion to work you don't need the green receptor to see the green dot, everything happens in postprocess (brain + optical nerve)

I'd be interested to hear what a true color blind person actually sees. Anyone on the group?

Why? The cow can be pasted again into the composition.

Because it causes reflections, unless it is also very good coated... in which case it might cost well north of $100

Shot right now with MR. Crappy phone (in RAW an pp with Snapseed)

1) Sony's do charge when connected to USB
2) I've got a cable harness connected to my rig
3) USB was designed to connect and disconnect
4) I've wrote a program that detects the camera, downloads all photos to predefined directories, backups they y to NAS, checks file integrity, and then deletes them from the camera.

Si, I usually keep my camera connected behind my monitors, and grab it when needed.

0

RAW shooters tends to outlive JPEG shooters

No, the process is the same for both beans.

Besides, Robusta tends to have more caffeine than Arabica

Watch this https://youtu.be/Z2fNQOYHWYA?si=kE2Jghv8RTc8LF9r,

I'm a coffee freak... got expresso machine, adjustable electric grinder, every imaginable coffee gadget, buy fresh beans, etc.

I'd NEVER brew nor drink decaf, I believe decaffeinating coffee is a blasphemy and should be punished by burning at the stake.