this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
59 points (100.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

33281 readers
999 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
59
A very low-resolution image is probably way harder for a painter to convincingly replicate than a pristine HD image of the same scene (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In computational terms, a low resolution version of an image is almost by definition 'simpler', with fewer colours and details intact, but it seems like it would be much harder to do a convincing 1:1 replication of it in a painting compared to recreating a 'clean' HD version.

Or am I way off the mark? 😆 I'm not a painter, obviously. Seems like getting all of those weird JPEG artefacts right would be something of a novel skill for a traditional painter (or even a digital painter, for that matter).

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Painters do not copy stuff.

It can't be done. Like a photo, a painting only has access to a very limited range of values (you can't paint sunlight at 2000w/m² for example) so the whole idea of an artist is "copying" is wrong, albeit widespread.

You convey, with the help of how the brain interprets things (like a circle with a bent line and two dots can be a happy face, think about that!) that is what artists do.

The impressionists were the masters of it, and you're flabbergasted by their paintings, photos of them way less because photos are subject to similar problems...

Welcome to the wonderful world of art and paint!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I just started messing around with paints. I sectioned a canvas out into a grid and it was difficult to get exact straight lines. Not sure if that has anything to do with what op was talking about but it seemed harder in that way, to get "pixel perfect" looking lines

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if the surface of a canvas is just too irregular. It might be different if you were painting a sheet of glass.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah good call thanks, maybe I'll experiment with like fancy paper or wood instead.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't have a definitive answer but I'd figure the low res might still be "easier" there is, for example a style called impressionism where they basically painted "pixels".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Well, they painted the impression of "pixels" then :-)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I mean... pixel art. For sure it is hard in a completely different way than photorealism. Less to work with (for good and bad), and a new set of rules (for pixel placement). I'm sure there's multiple valid techniques (digital first, rough planning, individual pixel canvases/swatches or some other collage etc... not to mention cross-stitching or various building toys if you count that).

I don't see the appeal in re-creating artifacts, but I'm sure there are people who can make a convincing approximation (particularly if they know any of the technical reasoning for JPEGs).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I dunno I think this lady did a good job of painting a low res Jesus

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

it would depend on the style that the artist would chose to use.

if they're going for realism, then, maybe.

But impressionism, surrealism, expressionism. anything abstract...? won't really matter.