Carl Tessier

@drfrankenstein90
3 Followers
161 Following
188 Posts
A perpetually-tired, mostly-functional ADHD poindexter since 1990. Skiing, retro tech, software, geography, and other things of interest. Also a furry. FR/EN/ES/DE/日本語
Pronounshe, him, they, them, il, lui
LocationSomwehrere between Montréal and Ottawa
Twittwitter.com/DFrankenstein90
SpaceHeyspacehey.com/drfrankenstein
About to move my profile away from .social into a different. Kinda annoyed that my previous postings aren't going to follow me, tbh.
Discount retailer Don Quixote says they’re changing their beloved character Donpen out for “Dohou-chan,” a faceless, soulless katakana “do” that has arms and legs for some reason. General reaction from users is, “why?”

Wordle 542 4/6

🟩⬛⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

I have this medium format toy camera (Diana f, toy meaning plastic lens) and well, I loaded it wrong causing this roll to have overlapping frames... but I am not mad. This is even better than what I originally was looking to get. I may need to try this on *purpose* next time. Clumsy? nah, it's #lomography !
Here's an example, with Lomo Color Negative 800. Left is the lab scan, right is my own scan (Epson 4490, scanned in 48-bit colour and processed in Negadoctor).

Kodak UltraMax is supposed to be a punchy film, but my skies almost always turned out blown out, and my highlights kinda bland. I chalked it off to it being a consumer film with less latitude.

Nah, with a little tweaking, I'm able to pull a lot of colour out of those highlights.

Like, my rolls of Lomo CN 800 came out *very* grainy and washed out. I wrote it off as being a cheap film.

Upon scanning them, it seems like the lab tech had the contrast and saturation way down, and the gain way up. I think I was seeing more scanner noise than grain.

So I got a flatbed photo scanner of my own a few weeks ago, and as I'm rescanning many of my negatives, I'm learning something:

So many things about my pics that I had attributed to the film is actually just a product of how they scanned them at the lab.

It hit me this morning that often what I find frustrating in discussions around "intellectual property", piracy, large datasets for training things like CLIP, &c. is that IP is a really really poor substitute for actually useful conversations around consent and respect

Like Elsevier asking me to "pwease no steal uwu" about journal articles is very different than, like, an individual selling self-published books on the side saying "hey I need this money to pay rent, so please purchase it legit"

An artist saying "hey I don't like for-profit companies building generators from my work that I posted to deviant art" is very different than Disney cracking down on people making shit with characters they "own".

Someone saying "hey this is really personal work, I don't really want it passed around and edited without my consent" is not the same as pebbleyeet getting mad at anti-fash edits of his comics.

IP is bullshit but that doesn't mean we have to take unnuanced all-or-nothing approaches to things.

That would be like saying if you want to support squatters taking over an airbnb then you can't have a lock on your bathroom door: it's conflating such wildly different things that it's a little silly.

Wordle 536 4/6

🟨⬛🟩⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟩🟩⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩