this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
53 points (90.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

30472 readers
634 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: 1

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
    • If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

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
vatlark
forkball
Thekingoflorda
53
A very low-resolution image is probably way harder for a painter to convincingly replicate than a pristine HD image of the same scene (self.showerthoughts)
submitted 2 weeks ago by 58008 to c/showerthoughts
13 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? ๐Ÿ˜† 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 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Valmond 23 points 2 weeks ago (2 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/mยฒ 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!

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's why historical depictions of battles are often dramatic and why Jesus and His disciples are sitting at one side of a very long table

[โ€“] Valmond 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Wut ๐Ÿ˜?

The drama was because only (very) rich people could pay for a painting because paint was ludicrously expensive, who were rich? Kings. Who liked paintings of voluptuous battles? Kings.

For the last supper (jesus and his boys sitting on the same side of a large table), mebbe they didn't have to live in cramped up spaces like we do and had large tables, or maybe that would have been a boring painting with 6-7 necks in the middle. Your pick!

Art is not to paint realisticly (except for that time in history) you can, and should, make it beautiful or impressive or both!

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think the painting of Jesus was theological like a lot of religious art, meant to depict a story rather than be a realistic depiction of an event

[โ€“] Valmond 0 points 1 week ago

Well of course.

Also made to look "holy" and magical. It was surely (I haven't looked it up) a comission from the church.

[โ€“] Whatawiffer 1 points 2 weeks 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

[โ€“] NABDad 1 points 2 weeks 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.

[โ€“] Whatawiffer 2 points 1 week ago

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

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks 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".

[โ€“] Valmond 3 points 2 weeks ago

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

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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).

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

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

[โ€“] FuglyDuck 3 points 2 weeks 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.