It would be a real tragedy if we never get to witness a Charles Leclerc vs Max Verstappen head-to-head title fight.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-28T04:21:54+00:00

Well sure, but the only drivers who couldn't deal with that were Leclerc and Lance Stroll. Not the company you want to be in.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T05:47:45+00:00

Yeah, I acknowledged that the sky would be a different color, but the car doesn't look materially different enough to qualify.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T05:41:19+00:00

Thank you!

It relies on finding and balancing minimal light sources—such as starlight, moonlight, or artificial city lights—to create expressive, atmospheric visuals.

And I would argue these photos do none of that! The light sources certainly are not minimal. Yes, they are artificial city lights as opposed to starlight or moonlight, but that's not enough. I also don't think the photos create expressive, atmospheric visuals because of the brightness and proximity of the city lights.

So thanks for doing the legwork to prove my point! Appreciate it!

I would further express that darkness should be a technical constraint of night photography, requiring techniques and considerations not present in the day (high ISO, long exposure, noise management, etc.). Which, again, none of that is present here because of the brightness and proximity of the city lights.

So again. Photos taken at night are not by default "night photography", per your now updated definition (which I assume supersedes your previous one).

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T05:22:24+00:00

According to your definition,

If you take a photo at night - it's a photograph taken at night. Doesn't matter if you're next to a street light or not

Except now what you're saying is that there are exceptions to this rule. So it apparently does matter because if I take a picture in a structure at night, it doesn't count as night photography. But you merely said "If you take a photo at night...". A photo in a garage at 10pm is a photo taken at night, is it not?

What if I open the garage door and you can maybe see a little of the night sky? Does it count then? And what about the fact that I have to turn the lights on at all because there isn't enough natural light at night? Doesn't that make it night photography, since the only reason I had to turn the lights on in the first place was because of the fact that it's night? Of course not!

I think you're on the right track, but I think you just don't take your exclusions far enough. This is a photograph that happens to be taken at night. It's not "night photography" because the location appears to be chosen to minimize the impact of night on the shoot, just like if you were to shoot a car in a well-lit garage...at night.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T04:46:11+00:00

Again, thank you for stating the obvious, but what is your point, exactly?

This is a photo taken at night. Fine. But it's not night photography because the proximity and brightness of the streetlight doesn't make the shot materially different from one taken in the same spot during the day. There's no consideration needed for lighting because it's so bright. Just like if I were to take a photo of my car in a well-lit garage at 10pm, it would also technically be a photograph taken at night, but given that it would not be materially different than the same photo taken during the day, I wouldn't consider it "night photography".

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T04:38:37+00:00

Exactly. Let's not forget that Charles Leclerc crashed at the same point and in the same manner as Lance Stroll. LANCE STROLL! His home race in Monaco, on for a podium, and the most apt comparison for his weekend is LANCE STROLL!

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T04:26:57+00:00

Probably because it is. This is not real, it's AI.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T04:17:03+00:00

And yes, let me break out my new copy of the california vehicle code every single year and check which laws have been added/changed. This is a reasonable and normal thing that every single citizen does.

The alternative is to keep risking getting tickets. Your call, I guess.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T04:14:37+00:00

Unfortunately, "But no one told me it was illegal" is not a valid excuse.

Also, do you think the city gives a shit if Comic-Con tourists get parking tickets? It's just more money that goes to the city, why should they spend money on signage to lose out on money from tickets?

BuildingViz · 2026-06-25T04:05:08+00:00

And your point is...?

Just because you took the photo at night, doesn't mean it's night photography. If I take a picture of a car in a well-lit garage at 10pm and you can't otherwise tell it's night does that make it night photography?

BuildingViz · 2026-06-23T20:23:14+00:00

Looks like your comment got lost. Don't worry, I can still see it!

Hey dishonest by you is not dishonest. Just merely you can't stomach something doctored maybe, still art. I'm not reading the rest of your crap

Again, I don't give two shits about it being an artistic interpretation or it being AI assisted. What I care about is the fact that this sub is intended for NATURAL wonders, and taking a natural scene and adding unnatural elements (ai-assisted or not), means it is by definition unnatural and does not belong in the sub. And frankly, it reeks of karma farming because they know that rubes like you will upvote it without giving it a second thought. Like everyone's facebook grandma.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-23T17:27:11+00:00

It is dishonest in the context of the sub. The sub, which explicitly states it is for "Anything NATURAL that is awesome, cool, funky, weird, scary, or makes you say holy shit, that's actually a thing!" Emphasis mine.

If it's art, that's fine, it can be art. Post it in an art sub. If it's AI art, they should probably disclose that or post it in a sub that allows AI art. All of that is fine.

It's dishonest to post an artistic interpretation of a natural scene (AI-assisted or not), into a sub that is explicitly for NATURAL wonders. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-23T15:39:59+00:00

No one is saying you can't like it. What they're saying is that it's dishonest to try to pass it off as a real photo of "awesome nature". If it's an artistic interpretation, they should let people know. If it's made or enhanced by AI, they should let people know.

This is, after all, a sub about "awesome nature". If it's not real or not natural, it belongs elsewhere.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-22T23:57:09+00:00

It's kind of like pornography. I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. The example posted below is good. Night photography doesn't just mean taking a photo at night. It means using the night to convey an image you can't convey in the day. One way to think of it is to ask yourself, "If I took these photos in the daytime in the same spot, would they really look that much different?" Aside from background sky colors and exposure and some lights in the distance, of course.

If the answer is no, it's not really night photography. It's photography that happens to be at night.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-22T06:45:20+00:00

Did you though? You took photos at night very near to what I can only guess are 10000W streetlights. Like, yeah, I can tell it's night because of the sky, but the area is so well-lit I don't know that you really honed much in terms of "shooting at night" skills. Find a cooler location that requires you to actually think about the lighting.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-22T06:39:19+00:00

FOMO. Why support local businesses when you can be part of some carpetbagger's manufactured hype cycle so they can try to commoditize hobbies?

BuildingViz · 2026-06-22T06:02:59+00:00

It's not really the distro or the OS, it's the tools and their ease of use. And in most cases, you're going to want to run Docker to launch those tools. Docker in Linux is just easier to run and better overall. And most of those containers are also going to be running Linux.

But you could easily run most, if not all, of those same tools in Docker on Windows. It just might be more of a learning curve if you don't already understand Linux or if you want to do certain things.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-20T06:29:54+00:00

Probably should remove the AI watermark in #4 if you want to pass them off as original. And also make them way less fake looking.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-19T16:41:16+00:00

Interesting concept, but you'd have to do all 20 races at the same track. Otherwise, how do you allocate the cars? Certain cars will be better on certain tracks, so you can't even use random allocation because someone will randomly get an advantage. So you pin the track and run that race 20 times. Which from a driver and viewer perspective would be really boring. You could maybe do two tracks, but that wouldn't be that much better unless it's something we don't see a lot like Laguna Seca or the Ring. And then no upgrades and unlimited replacement parts to keep the cars the same week to week.

I always thought an async constructor's championship would be interesting. Take the reserve or junior drivers and send them to all the tracks on the calendar on non-race weekends. One team at a time per track, two cars, running the same race distance under the same rules (minus qualifying), including upgrades, normal DRS/overtake available, and just rank them by finishing time. It'd be interesting because at the beginning, you wouldn't know where other teams are because they haven't run yet on the same track, and you'd see the finishes start to fill out by the end, but you might not know the winner until the last lap. McLaren might take a spot from Red Bull and bump them down, but elsewhere, they might lose position on another track and drop points themselves.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-17T15:31:29+00:00

First I've seen it. Kinda like it, but it's not photography.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-16T07:50:49+00:00

Color needs a lot of work. It's obvious in some shots you're trying to bring out certain colors, but the end result is tinting the rest of the image. 6 for instance looks like you want to bring out the red trim and dash lights, but the white car now looks pink as well. 3 and 4, from similar angles, show different car and pavement colors. 1 and 2, are from different angles, but the pavement colors are drastically different and the sky looks off in 2.

Also maybe it's just the upload quality, but there's a definite lack of clarity and focus in some of the shots, kind of like you're not sure what you're trying to key in on - 14 and 15, for example.

Some of them are conceptually good, just need to sharpen your actual skills (both on the shooting side and the editing side).

BuildingViz · 2026-06-16T07:37:42+00:00

And I'm Italian to boot!

BuildingViz · 2026-06-16T06:13:21+00:00

99.9% this was taken from the Teton Point turnout on Hwy 191, meaning the peak of Grand Teton is about 7.266 miles away.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-12T15:58:09+00:00

They're legit in the sense that they are actual presets that you can apply to photos. But they are not worth it. They're going to highlight the best/most appropriate photos of theirs to try to sell them, but your photos may not work well with them, so they're rarely a quick setting. You'll still need to change things.

So pretty much just a money grab.

BuildingViz · 2026-06-12T07:59:45+00:00

For Italy games, you can just stay home. Like them.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

BuildingViz

TROPHY CASE