Highlights of the Last Ten Years...

It's quickly coming up on ten years that I've been keeping this blog going. I'm proud of that, but unfortunately, many people would have to (and probably wouldn't) scroll through quite a lot to see it all. So I'm posting a (relatively) short best of for everything that I've posted. I'm leaving out the most recent work, though, since that's just a short scroll more...

Suspensions (Shibari)

These in-studio suspensions are a collaboration with Ian, who goes by the moniker Satyr. He is very experienced with rope bondage and suspension. In the BDSM sub-culture, "full suspension" refers to suspending a person's entire body off the floor with the aid of ropes, chains, or cables. A typical full suspension is an advanced and somewhat risky form of rope bondage. It involves the use of elaborate knots, and many practitioners use modular rope segments that can be quickly released in case the subject experiences a loss of circulation, unwanted pain, or loses consciousness, etc. This is one of the reasons that Ian does the suspensions. Besides that I'm not really experienced enough to do suspensions, it wouldn't be wise for me to be oblivious to someone's safety while I'm photographing them. Most of the rope work that is photographed on the floor, however, are things that I have done myself. The main reason that I began an interest in doing a series on suspensions is that both in books and surfing the net is that it was very hard to find many well-made photographs of suspensions. It's not difficult to find well-done rope work, but the combination of great ropework and images struck me as to be greatly lacking. So it seemed to be something really worth taking on. As this portfolio builds and expands (I'd like to move the setting outside in trees, for example), I'd like to perhaps get a book published on it.

 

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...