Some Notes on Making Images with Computers

For some time now, our practice, MILLIØNS, has been analyzing and experimenting with something that we’ve known as, relatively vaguely and informally, “computer pics.” For us, this phrase has mentioned a range of visual outcomes that can be more and more permeating architecture these days and already dominate many other visible cultures and artwork practices. These are phenomena which might be by using now pretty great—namely, now not only the set of workouts via which the technical capabilities and contents of any computational image are manipulated or processed but also the greater complicated questions around how exactly the one’s exercises would possibly turn out to be strategies of architectural manufacturing. Thus, “laptop images” have slowly come to mean an expanding set of distinctly risky, however basically unavoidable, technical realities and the questions they improve for the exercise of architecture.


But “pc pix” is a completely messy term. It is used in another way in special fields and needs to be studied via specific lenses. As a subfield, it is typically described as “pictures” or “films” created using computer systems. However, this description hardly starts to present an account of its many histories and technical applications. It’s impossible to look at it in all its dimensions. Instead, and as a way of addressing the blurry nature of PC graphics in our work, we will focus on the shape and technical capabilities of nevertheless and transferring photographs. This requires returning to the origins of laptop portraits, earlier than computational pix had been standardized in the ubiquitous software program programs modern-day architects and artists are all too familiar with.


Before retracing some episodes in the one’s origins, some history mind. First, the analyses of photograph manipulation exercises (both ancient and present-day) have to be no longer seen as aiming towards any well-known principle of computer portraits in architecture. Such experiments surely involve investigating wherein, how, while, and in keeping with what methods photograph-making exercises have advanced—and how these strategies or routines might be addressed in architectural practice.

Second, the tradition of computational pictures is one in which “outcomes” proliferate. These effects are indeterminate, and the structure is now beginning to understand what it means to enter this completely risky area of “media indeterminacy.” What might be its consequences or its significance for architecture? Maybe we’re simplest now able to ask those questions. Or perhaps every digital generation has felt that identical manner. Maybe this feeling of newness, this experience of having reached some latest techno-historic plateau on which we’re the first explorers, wherein handiest we can finally see the mountain just ascended—perhaps this complete sensibility is simply endemic to the invention of tools.

Finally, the era of photograph consequences includes studying and intervening in hardware and software programs. In a popular sense, this manner necessitates a complicated set of relationships around three levels of imaging: pre-production, production, and post-manufacturing. These three degrees, alongside their respective technical routines, outline the overall conditions from which all images emerge—from which they’re conceived, edited, transmitted, and disseminated.

Any experienced visualizer knows what is viable or not possible in picture production. They understand what wishes to be achieved in pre-manufacturing and at some stage in manufacturing and how one’s choices impact the sizeable and expanding suite of publish-manufacturing gear that provides themselves to any “imager.” The circularity among those three ranges existed in pre-digital visual cultures—photography, movies, and even painting —however, computer pix are outstanding by using the weight allocated to post-manufacturing and by the velocity at which all three stages circulate.

In all preceding image cultures, pre-manufacturing and manufacturing maintained importance because the techniques to be had for post-production were exhausting, sluggish, and inexact. But that priority has been upended today. In this sense, one could say that nowadays, a photo effect is virtually an after-impact, but only so long as after-outcomes are not reduced to mere post-manufacturing. No matter the terminology, the modern circumstance is complicated, and any extensively circulated photos these days are not most effective pre-deliberate and staged but additionally doctored, manipulated, and post-produced to such a volume that each phrase starts to lose its means. What, then,  is going into the making of pictures? What composes them? How are they one of a kind from drawings? What is honestly going on with architecture under the affected laptop pics?

Johnny J. Hernandez
I write about new gadgets and technology. I love trying out new tech products. And if it's good enough, I'll review it here. I'm a techie. I've been writing since 2004. I started back in 2012.