Dolly

This post is a short summary of my thoughts on computational photography and the use of artificial intelligence in photography. Smartphones are now the photographic tool of choice for the vast, vast majority of people— they easily meet, if not surpass, their image creation and sharing needs. There is an entire generation coming up using only smartphone cameras— with no need to even consider traditional cameras. A rather important thing to remember is that the smartphone has not only redefined how we take pictures— it has redefined how we view them as well. Most people do not print images any longer. Most images are viewed on smartphone screens. That changes the requirements for what people want and value in a camera in a huge way. A smartphone camera is best suited for both producing and sharing images with other people. The smartphone changed the entire rules of the game. A camera in your phone is fun, and it is very freeing to walk around taking pics with this instead of lugging a big camera sometimes. Relatively speaking (if you are not making large prints, or do not make destructive edits later), they have good image quality and are getting better with each new model. There is no getting around physics, though— smartphone cameras, and therefore sensors, are tiny. In the beginning, smartphones had a serious disadvantage to deal with: they don't capture enough light. But that's where computational photography comes in. By combining machine learning and algorithms with traditional optical processes, computational photography enhances what is achievable with traditional methods The simple fact is that with this in the smartphone arsenal, they can greatly exceed the physical parameters of the sensor used in that phone. All of the computational photographic "tricks", of course, could be done on a large sensor camera— but all of the traditional camera companies are so far either unable or unwilling to implement these things. Unable is probably a more accurate description, as they don't have the necessary astronomical R&D budget (Billion$) that the phone manufacturers are employing. So the camera companies employ larger sensors, brighter lenses, faster AF (since that has been their modus operandi for twenty years and more)—rather than developing cutting edge software programs for the cameras. The future of photography is most certainly a combination of software and hardware. The innovation from just the past few years of smartphones is a perfect argument for this. For as long as traditional camera companies are unwilling or unable to realize this, smartphone cameras will continue to make major leaps forward in results while cameras make small ones. Camera makers are like a fish out of water when they try to compete with Apple and Google on AI and computational photography. They can't even get the menus right...

Natalie

I'm not a photographer, but I play one on this blog...

Sylvia

Using a tool, called a camera— to express feelings, emotions. This is what I do... or try to do.

Ajaye

To my camera, a body is a series of shapes on a flat plane. So, honestly, that is my mode of adjusted thinking when I'm shooting. As your eyes perceive (on the street, wherever...) you might see slender or curvy, muscular or weedy — but the camera just sees a series of inter-joined basic shapes that make up your body. Real life is three dimensional, but a photograph is only two dimensional. I know that is a "no shit, Sherlock!" kind of statement, but taking an interesting photograph is all about using that fact to an advantage. I'm not always interested in flattering — ultimately I'm interested in creating something visually compelling, but most might notice that I'm prone to flatter those that I photograph. I tend to think of a body as a combination of shapes, and the way that I arrange these shapes determines how someone looks in my images. For instance, the apparent size and shape of a body (or facial features, for that matter) will always depend on the angle presented to the camera. I call them universally flattering angles! Patent pending, patent pending...

Diane

I don't like it when a photographer, or someone who might appreciate photography, blathers on about "capturing the soul", or how you must really get to know your subject thoroughly in order to make a truly great portrait of them. Whatever. Getting to know your subject never hurts, but I know from experience that it's possible to create or even capture a superb portrait without ever exchanging a word. Indeed, I actually appreciate when there's the welcomed occurrence of working with someone without saying much— mutual intuition or instinct at work! I would never pretend that one of my images could sum up a person— whether their life, or personality, or essence. People are not that two-dimensional. I tend not to be interested in such impossibilities, but instead I try to focus on the very real possibility of creating a fascinating persona. In fact, I find the opportunity to create a perhaps false, yet compelling identity a more interesting endeavor, anyway...

Ivy

Mirror Games.

Ramonita

Don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing...

Abstracts Anonymous

I tend to cringe at the idea that my photographic abstractions might look like mistakes, or amateurish, or seem like I'm just trying to play with a lame image to make it more "interesting". I try to always keep those three things in mind as a cautionary checklist, so as to make sure that my images don't look like that. Which means that I toss out a lot. Which is fine, because it is actually quite hard to make a successful abstract photograph. There is one final thing that I typically try to do with abstracts, and that is making sure that there is at least some little part of the image that is in some way recognizable. I like to throw the viewer a bone— because I know that if there is at least something of relatable interest to zero in on, the rest will follow...

Edith

"In short, Beauty is everywhere. It is not that she is lacking to our eye, but our eyes which fail to perceive her. Beauty is character and expression. Well, there is nothing in nature that has more character than the human body. In its strength and its grace, it evokes the most varied images. One moment it resembles a flower: the bending torso is the stalk; the breasts, the head, and the splendor of the hair answer to the blossoming of the corolla. The next moment it recalls the pliant creeper or the proud and upright sapling."  ~Auguste Rodin

"Recently I have taken to isolating limbs, the torso. Every part of the human figure is expressive."  ~Auguste Rodin

Mara

She comes from a land down under... where women glow and men plunder.

Sydney

A photoshoot, for me, is having a nice day with someone who intrigues me. Ultimately, it's nothing more than that. Creating something is the extra bonus, not the sole goal. Contrary to what it may look like here, I'm usually not looking for perfect bodies or faces. I'm looking for people that share my passion for genuinely artistic photography... people someone else might call "strange or different", people who are still discovering themselves. I don't really care about how much experience you have— some of the women in the photos have a lot of experience and some posed for the first time, and often somewhere in-between. Ironically, someone who is inexperienced offers me an awkwardness that can come across as a nice tension rather than representing an easy superficiality.

D & B

Scratches.

Caroline & Martin

I tend not to interfere during these couples shoots— I let them know in the beginning what I'm looking for. I like for there to be a push & pull, a realness without being posed, and I tell them to ignore (as much as possible) my presence. I also like consensual violence, which I think makes for more dynamic images. That request does not seem to ever pose much of an issue with the people I've been working with lately...

Di

Wax on, Wax off...

Ajaye

"One feels like getting down and crawling on all fours after reading your work."  ~Voltaire

Ether

Pro versus amateur has always been a comparison that made me cringe. By definition, I have always been and always will be both. But it has always felt like one description was empowering and the other degrading. That's nonsense, of course— there can be terrible professionals and sublime amateurs, with anything in-between. It's just that the words themselves seem so black & white at face value. It feels awkward to call yourself an amateur if you're doing accomplished work. I recently browsed an encyclopedia of photographic terms that broke photographic amateurs into three camps: Serious Amateurs, Art Amateurs, and Mass Amateurs. All three descriptors date back to the 1890s. The advent of the Brownie camera (the first snapshot camera) brought forth the Mass amateurs in that anyone could take a photograph, whether great or terrible. That tradition continues right up until now with the camera phone. If you are a 100% amateur, shooting might be as simple as your photos existing to make yourself happy. Or to preserve memories of your friends, family, and experiences. For a pro it might be as simple as earning a paycheck, whatever way that you can, and nothing more. While I've met a few that are one or the other, the real world tends to have more shades of gray. Most photographers fall somewhere in-between. I think that I've always been right in the middle— in fact, most people might have a hard time telling the difference among images that I've been paid for or not. The truth is that I've often been paid for work that looks very personal or even indulgent. I never really cared, because I (mostly) have not needed to— clients tend to come to me with trust to do what I do because that's what they want. I definitely have always appreciated that...

Lee Loo La & Heff

"I don't like white paper backgrounds. A woman does not live in front of white paper. She lives on the street, in a motor car, in a hotel room." ~Helmut Newton

Little One

Everyone should tend to be careful not to assume that the camera plays a primary role in the quality of the pictures. Do pro photographers prefer expensive cameras with lots of fancy features? Sure. But here’s the thing: any good photographer can create beautiful pictures with just about any camera. I started off thirty years ago with just OK cameras, yet some of my favorite images (and prints) were made back then. I've taught classes where I was at least a little jealous of images taken by kids just starting out and using whatever they could afford... their youthful outlook is what helped them, and they would most likely have been at a loss with what to do with a more complicated camera at that time. That's exactly what helps snapshooters take better pictures with an iPhone— it's easy-peasy for anyone to take a shot with it, and the added bonus of computational photography helps them even more. So, it's the best thing for the situation. Which reminds me of the old adage— the best camera is the one that you have with you...

PXE

Tell your kids to get into photography as a hobby— it will ensure that they will never have enough money to get into a drug habit...

Sylvia

"The process of photographing is a pleasure: eyes open, receptive, sensing, and at some point, connecting. It's thrilling to be outside your mind, your eyes ahead of your thoughts."  ~Henry Wessel