Journals14
Newest
Camera -V- Human Eye and Our Perception
5 min read
If you have taken any photos with your smart-phone or even with a decent DSLR camera you must have noticed how it more often does not seems to turn out quite like you remember what it was you were trying to capture, which can be very frustrating. This phenomenon is due to several aspects of how your mind does a lot of instant corrections, alterations, eliminations, and stitching many images together before recording this to your minds-eye. It takes some time and effort with advanced photo editing software to work a photo over in order to come close to what you had perceived that image should have looked like, which is an art-form that has to do more with being a professional photographer than how they had captured those images.
The similarities with the mechanics of both the human eye and a digital camera is very similar. The image produced from reflected light to the back wall of your eye or the camera sensor is upside down and left to right is also reversed, yet our brain corrects this image in the mind's eye, so we do not perceive this issue at all. Same as the software within the camera as it records the image to the memory card. Although, we are able to take a pair of images coming from the left and right eye blending them into one perceived image with a sense of depth known as our 3D perception of our environment. We may not have the ability to zoom in objects like many cameras can. Our peripheral vision is not in focus enough to read words off to the side, so our forward focus is very limited, much like a camera, yet as we move out eyes and also the angle of our head to see a much wider area our perception of this much vision has been stitched all together seamlessly, which seems in focus as well is done without thinking about it. For example; our perception of a wide landscape is far wider than the range seen withing a single image of a photo. So, that single photo never seems to properly convey what we felt we had seen when we were there. On the other hand, even though we do not have the capability to zoom in far away objects with our eyes; as we look at the rising Moon it seems so much larger than what we had captured in that photo of it, even when zoomed in at 300mm. How strange is that?
The sensitivity to light and the color cast of that light source is also something we take for granted. Yet one of the biggest struggle for photography. Our eyes quickly dilate to adjust for changes in light intensity, and also seem to do a lot of color correcting. More than we tend to realize. Good cameras have white balance software to try and correct for off color lighting, but this is more limited than our brain. We also do not perceive the limits of focal depth, as seen in most photos and videos, because we are able to refocus on objects at a glance. Then within a split second stitch dozen of those small images together into one wide angle memory that seems all in focus. Color vibrancy is also a struggle in photography; compared to how we seem to see the world around us in all sorts of different lighting conditions. It is tricky to figure out ways to capture an image just right, and then alter it to better represent what we saw.
Often times our brain even edits out unpleasant object. Such as a cluttered room we were in when we took that selfie. Yet we then see the mess when reviewing that photo. When we take a picture outdoors we may not have noticed those unsightly power lines or debris on the ground when we took that photo, but see it all on our monitor later on. Then there is the sense of motion that is not captured in a still image. Sound also helps create a mood within our memory, but not captured within a still image. Shooting a video is swell, but you cannot print a video and hang it on the wall or publish it in a magazine. A good photographer who can edit their images well can make the mundane seem interesting, but it takes a keen understanding of the difference between our perception of what we see and the limitations of photography, as well as a good imagination and image editing skills. Going beyond the standard snapshot that anyone could capture with hardly a thought is the goal. Much is the same for the challenges of a good painter or sculpture artwork.
Hopefully this insight helps you figure out how to bring your photos to life, and better appreciate those who share thousands of hours of work you scan through in just minutes.
The similarities with the mechanics of both the human eye and a digital camera is very similar. The image produced from reflected light to the back wall of your eye or the camera sensor is upside down and left to right is also reversed, yet our brain corrects this image in the mind's eye, so we do not perceive this issue at all. Same as the software within the camera as it records the image to the memory card. Although, we are able to take a pair of images coming from the left and right eye blending them into one perceived image with a sense of depth known as our 3D perception of our environment. We may not have the ability to zoom in objects like many cameras can. Our peripheral vision is not in focus enough to read words off to the side, so our forward focus is very limited, much like a camera, yet as we move out eyes and also the angle of our head to see a much wider area our perception of this much vision has been stitched all together seamlessly, which seems in focus as well is done without thinking about it. For example; our perception of a wide landscape is far wider than the range seen withing a single image of a photo. So, that single photo never seems to properly convey what we felt we had seen when we were there. On the other hand, even though we do not have the capability to zoom in far away objects with our eyes; as we look at the rising Moon it seems so much larger than what we had captured in that photo of it, even when zoomed in at 300mm. How strange is that?
The sensitivity to light and the color cast of that light source is also something we take for granted. Yet one of the biggest struggle for photography. Our eyes quickly dilate to adjust for changes in light intensity, and also seem to do a lot of color correcting. More than we tend to realize. Good cameras have white balance software to try and correct for off color lighting, but this is more limited than our brain. We also do not perceive the limits of focal depth, as seen in most photos and videos, because we are able to refocus on objects at a glance. Then within a split second stitch dozen of those small images together into one wide angle memory that seems all in focus. Color vibrancy is also a struggle in photography; compared to how we seem to see the world around us in all sorts of different lighting conditions. It is tricky to figure out ways to capture an image just right, and then alter it to better represent what we saw.
Often times our brain even edits out unpleasant object. Such as a cluttered room we were in when we took that selfie. Yet we then see the mess when reviewing that photo. When we take a picture outdoors we may not have noticed those unsightly power lines or debris on the ground when we took that photo, but see it all on our monitor later on. Then there is the sense of motion that is not captured in a still image. Sound also helps create a mood within our memory, but not captured within a still image. Shooting a video is swell, but you cannot print a video and hang it on the wall or publish it in a magazine. A good photographer who can edit their images well can make the mundane seem interesting, but it takes a keen understanding of the difference between our perception of what we see and the limitations of photography, as well as a good imagination and image editing skills. Going beyond the standard snapshot that anyone could capture with hardly a thought is the goal. Much is the same for the challenges of a good painter or sculpture artwork.
Hopefully this insight helps you figure out how to bring your photos to life, and better appreciate those who share thousands of hours of work you scan through in just minutes.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Stop The Hate Spew
3 min read
I hate to get into religion or politics here, and this should not even be seen that way, but it is getting impossible to avoid these days with so many kids dying at the hands of 'White male American terrorists'. Seventeen minutes is not nearly enough. Maybe 17 days would start to get the message out there of how important this is. Maybe it will take 17 months? I applaud those who take a stand and make the effort to try to make a difference. Which is why I took the time to write this.
There certainly is way too much hate being spewed out publicly and within social media these days. Especially since #45 had taken office. It's like the haters suddenly felt they have a new license to barf out all their narrow minded xenophobic BS. The sad thing is how they do not even realize what they are doing and how this effects other people. Or they just don't care, since the pain they are causing is not their pain.
In theory societies will either get along or they won't without intervention. So, this means the only purpose for a government or organized religion is to help those peoples to get along with each other better. If we were to use this as a measuring stick to see if they are actually doing what it is they are here for it seems very few are measuring up. They may have started off with the best of intentions, but over time they all seem to have their original mission statement twisted and so perverted they are actually doing the opposite, by creating separatism and reasons for division. To get along we all need to find acceptance of others differences if they are not directly harming us. Not force them to fit to our comfort level, because we refuse to understand their alternative culture. They need to preach inclusion and acceptance. Not division, which seems to be the case for most organizations. Very few if any can seem to maintain their true purpose.
Use your own measuring stick to see who is really trying to do the right thing. It is easier than you think. It does not take a religious philosophy. Just simple basic logic. If other people's differences have no victim there is no crime. If it were to make us feel uncomfortable that is our issue. Not their's. Less judgement. More acceptance and inclusion. It may be a struggle to wrap your mind around this new paradigm, but we all need to put in the effort to stop this terrible trend, or we will be circling the drain of oblivion.
Live LOVE
Darrian Ashoka (David Rich)
There certainly is way too much hate being spewed out publicly and within social media these days. Especially since #45 had taken office. It's like the haters suddenly felt they have a new license to barf out all their narrow minded xenophobic BS. The sad thing is how they do not even realize what they are doing and how this effects other people. Or they just don't care, since the pain they are causing is not their pain.
In theory societies will either get along or they won't without intervention. So, this means the only purpose for a government or organized religion is to help those peoples to get along with each other better. If we were to use this as a measuring stick to see if they are actually doing what it is they are here for it seems very few are measuring up. They may have started off with the best of intentions, but over time they all seem to have their original mission statement twisted and so perverted they are actually doing the opposite, by creating separatism and reasons for division. To get along we all need to find acceptance of others differences if they are not directly harming us. Not force them to fit to our comfort level, because we refuse to understand their alternative culture. They need to preach inclusion and acceptance. Not division, which seems to be the case for most organizations. Very few if any can seem to maintain their true purpose.
Use your own measuring stick to see who is really trying to do the right thing. It is easier than you think. It does not take a religious philosophy. Just simple basic logic. If other people's differences have no victim there is no crime. If it were to make us feel uncomfortable that is our issue. Not their's. Less judgement. More acceptance and inclusion. It may be a struggle to wrap your mind around this new paradigm, but we all need to put in the effort to stop this terrible trend, or we will be circling the drain of oblivion.
Live LOVE
Darrian Ashoka (David Rich)
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
The Importance of Image Quality
6 min read
First off; this is not about the artistic merits of composition, subject matter, or creativity. Aesthetic detail is hard to debate since it is different for each observer. If you like what you see that has genuine value. This is just about the technical details of capturing that still image to record that one brief moment in time.
In these modern days, most of us have a smartphone with a pretty decent camera built-in, which has a fairly high-resolution sensor, so many of us have the idea that we could become a professional photographer without investing in the more expensive equipment or the understanding of the technical details how it all works since our smartphone seems to do all that for us within whatever light was available. Yet, a trained eye can quickly spot the difference and even understand what caused those problems in image clarity and color saturation. Many people say it's OK because most people cannot tell the difference. I suppose it is true how most may not be able to articulate this, but they do notice the difference subconsciously, if not overtly offended by that image. If it were true that most people cannot tell the difference then why have most any fashion magazines for over half a century pushed for some of the highest quality images if their patrons don't care, or can not tell the difference between snapshots or pro studio photos? Then any Joe-shmoe with a camera and a decent sense of style could be a great fashion photographer. The same could be said for skin mags like Playboy, Penthouse, or even Husler, yet you would not even get an interview with them unless you were able to show a great portfolio and prove that you know the difference in your submissions.
Take a look at how any of my studio shots appear looking at them in full resolution. A high-quality image will look just as clear at full resolution as it does when reduced down to screen size, which is critical for any substantial size printing. It was not until 2006 when they came out with a 12-megapixel sensor that digital photography could begin to compete with film. Looking at the stats of their images I have found that most 'professional photographers' do not even know how to use their expensive equipment and are wasting that potential by shooting in available low light. A typical studio strobe can envelop the subject in 10X more light in a fraction of a second duration, compared to most any indoor room lighting. They will claim that is their artistic style; to excuse their crap-ass pale, blurry, and terribly grainy looking images. If that really was their style they could easily alter an image in post-production any way they choose to blur part of the image or add other destructive elements in the name of artistic style, but they cannot fix a badly captured image. It requires a lot of candle power to capture a good image. Even with the best equipment on the market. I have explained this in more detail in my other journal posts here, so no need to repeat myself here.
The resolution of the sensor will also make a considerable difference in the potential image quality. My 2012 Nikon D7000 camera only has a 16M sensor, where my 2014 D810 model has a 36M sensor, so that is over 2X more pixels to work with. Then in 2018 I got a better D850 DSLR camera with a 45M sensor and it is noticeably better than my D810 camera. Besides the resolution, the quality of the lens you have to use will also make a difference. Some feel you should be willing to spend more on your lens than you had on the camera body. The lens and camera quality will make a noticeable difference but the lighting is by far more critical for a high-quality image than anything else. Faster shutter speed for a good sharp image requires more light. A tighter aperture for better focal depth also requires more light on your subject. Also, the lowest ISO setting is how much light your sensor really needs to see and record an image, which requires a lot of light. Jacking up the ISO on a camera will allow you to take a photo in low light, but you seriously compromise the image quality and color saturation with each click. I have found that anything above 400 ISO is not even worth pointing my camera at a subject, since that image would be unusable.
The key point is no matter what sort of photographic equipment you use the most common problem of capturing a decent image is not having enough light on your subject. If you do not want to use a flashbulb you will need enough candle power that it's blindingly bright to your subject. This is so the camera sensor can properly see what is it trying to capture with the limited photons hitting the sensor from a fast enough shutter speed that this image does not appear to have motion blur. This is around 1/100 of a second with just a relatively still subject, or much faster if your subject is on the move. If you happen to have a good steady tripod and the subject that is holding absolutely still you can use a long exposure to capture this with just the available light, but the colors will most likely not look right and need some dynamic alterations in post-production, which require some image editing skills within a pricey software program and can be a lot more time consuming than capturing an image.
Such as this image taken in a restaurant while we were waiting for our order. I had the camera propped up on the table, so it is from a low angle taken with a full-frame Nikon D810, Shutter Speed 1.6 second, Aperture f/9, Focal Length 70 mm, ISO Speed 64:
In these modern days, most of us have a smartphone with a pretty decent camera built-in, which has a fairly high-resolution sensor, so many of us have the idea that we could become a professional photographer without investing in the more expensive equipment or the understanding of the technical details how it all works since our smartphone seems to do all that for us within whatever light was available. Yet, a trained eye can quickly spot the difference and even understand what caused those problems in image clarity and color saturation. Many people say it's OK because most people cannot tell the difference. I suppose it is true how most may not be able to articulate this, but they do notice the difference subconsciously, if not overtly offended by that image. If it were true that most people cannot tell the difference then why have most any fashion magazines for over half a century pushed for some of the highest quality images if their patrons don't care, or can not tell the difference between snapshots or pro studio photos? Then any Joe-shmoe with a camera and a decent sense of style could be a great fashion photographer. The same could be said for skin mags like Playboy, Penthouse, or even Husler, yet you would not even get an interview with them unless you were able to show a great portfolio and prove that you know the difference in your submissions.
Take a look at how any of my studio shots appear looking at them in full resolution. A high-quality image will look just as clear at full resolution as it does when reduced down to screen size, which is critical for any substantial size printing. It was not until 2006 when they came out with a 12-megapixel sensor that digital photography could begin to compete with film. Looking at the stats of their images I have found that most 'professional photographers' do not even know how to use their expensive equipment and are wasting that potential by shooting in available low light. A typical studio strobe can envelop the subject in 10X more light in a fraction of a second duration, compared to most any indoor room lighting. They will claim that is their artistic style; to excuse their crap-ass pale, blurry, and terribly grainy looking images. If that really was their style they could easily alter an image in post-production any way they choose to blur part of the image or add other destructive elements in the name of artistic style, but they cannot fix a badly captured image. It requires a lot of candle power to capture a good image. Even with the best equipment on the market. I have explained this in more detail in my other journal posts here, so no need to repeat myself here.
The resolution of the sensor will also make a considerable difference in the potential image quality. My 2012 Nikon D7000 camera only has a 16M sensor, where my 2014 D810 model has a 36M sensor, so that is over 2X more pixels to work with. Then in 2018 I got a better D850 DSLR camera with a 45M sensor and it is noticeably better than my D810 camera. Besides the resolution, the quality of the lens you have to use will also make a difference. Some feel you should be willing to spend more on your lens than you had on the camera body. The lens and camera quality will make a noticeable difference but the lighting is by far more critical for a high-quality image than anything else. Faster shutter speed for a good sharp image requires more light. A tighter aperture for better focal depth also requires more light on your subject. Also, the lowest ISO setting is how much light your sensor really needs to see and record an image, which requires a lot of light. Jacking up the ISO on a camera will allow you to take a photo in low light, but you seriously compromise the image quality and color saturation with each click. I have found that anything above 400 ISO is not even worth pointing my camera at a subject, since that image would be unusable.
The key point is no matter what sort of photographic equipment you use the most common problem of capturing a decent image is not having enough light on your subject. If you do not want to use a flashbulb you will need enough candle power that it's blindingly bright to your subject. This is so the camera sensor can properly see what is it trying to capture with the limited photons hitting the sensor from a fast enough shutter speed that this image does not appear to have motion blur. This is around 1/100 of a second with just a relatively still subject, or much faster if your subject is on the move. If you happen to have a good steady tripod and the subject that is holding absolutely still you can use a long exposure to capture this with just the available light, but the colors will most likely not look right and need some dynamic alterations in post-production, which require some image editing skills within a pricey software program and can be a lot more time consuming than capturing an image.
Such as this image taken in a restaurant while we were waiting for our order. I had the camera propped up on the table, so it is from a low angle taken with a full-frame Nikon D810, Shutter Speed 1.6 second, Aperture f/9, Focal Length 70 mm, ISO Speed 64:
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Back To The Upside-down
4 min read
Sure, these are some of the strangest times here in the USA. It seems up is down and Left is Right. Although, if you look at our history it has been back-assword for quite some time. Literally centuries. We claim to be the best country that set a positive example for the rest of the world? Yet, we spend more on our military than a dozen of the largest countries put together. The USA is also guilty of the largest genocide in recorded history, and still continue to break those treaties, and poison their lands. We have some of the worst stats for healthcare outcome, while paying more, and with 50% of those funds that are wasted on running insurance companies who are making our health care decision based crunching number dictating policy on how they decide to dole out the other half of those funds as they see fit. We glorify acts of violence in video games, politics, and the media, yet we shun images of love. Death and destruction great! Procreation bad! How crazy is this? We should be outraged! But we would rather just not think about it. Bury our heads in the sand and pretend it will all work out, while it crumbles down around us.
It takes decades and great resources to create and raise a child to be a productive citizen. Yet, just seconds to snuff that life out of existence in needless war invading other countries just to make the wealthiest 1% even more money. Then there is gang violence spurred by unnecessary racism and modern slavery. We should be embracing eroticism, yet we freak out when a woman's nipple slips out for a fraction of time. Keep in mind how life is not created without arousal, so why is this so disdained in our prudish narrow-minded society, instead of embraced and celebrated?
I am a metal artist to pay the bills, but my passion is capturing moments in time of objects and unique people around me in the form of digital images. I do not consider myself an artist with photography. More of a journalist with images. My subjects are the art form. I am just there to capture the glow of light reflecting off them. You may think me obsessed with erotic images, but realize how that snap judgement is only a reflection of your hang-up on sex. I also post many thousands of images that are not of a sexual nature. They range in a wide subject matter. I will not apologize for my erotic imagery. Man was programmed to have a substantial sex-drive, or else this species would not survive. If there is any Divine Design to life this was an intentional part of creation. All species would have to be designed on the genetic level to be unique, survive it's environment, have the ability to procreate, with the instinctual desire to procreate, the ability and instinct to care for their fragile young. As I said above; human life is not created without arousal, so we should celebrate the seeds of love and creation. Not sew the seeds of hate and destruction.
Sure, arousal can be misused, as with most anything in life, but that does not make it all bad. To be avoided just because of a few bad apples. Of course women should not be mistreated. I think it is great how women are speaking out to reclaim their stolen power. I find a strong willed woman very sexy. I have never pawed women I was not in a relationship with. I do not touch my nude models, whom have trusted me with their most intimate exposures. Gifting us with such a intimate view of her most private secrets. I only seek to share those images to bring a bit of beauty and happiness in this otherwise bleak world we live in. I am not trying to make money off this. I have spent over 100X on this beyond what little compensation or appreciation I may have received for the images I have shared. I am more giving back to the World Wide Web from which I had receive so much. I figure if I were not to share these images I am not a photographer. Just a horny dude with a camera.
Live Love
Darrian Ashoka
It takes decades and great resources to create and raise a child to be a productive citizen. Yet, just seconds to snuff that life out of existence in needless war invading other countries just to make the wealthiest 1% even more money. Then there is gang violence spurred by unnecessary racism and modern slavery. We should be embracing eroticism, yet we freak out when a woman's nipple slips out for a fraction of time. Keep in mind how life is not created without arousal, so why is this so disdained in our prudish narrow-minded society, instead of embraced and celebrated?
I am a metal artist to pay the bills, but my passion is capturing moments in time of objects and unique people around me in the form of digital images. I do not consider myself an artist with photography. More of a journalist with images. My subjects are the art form. I am just there to capture the glow of light reflecting off them. You may think me obsessed with erotic images, but realize how that snap judgement is only a reflection of your hang-up on sex. I also post many thousands of images that are not of a sexual nature. They range in a wide subject matter. I will not apologize for my erotic imagery. Man was programmed to have a substantial sex-drive, or else this species would not survive. If there is any Divine Design to life this was an intentional part of creation. All species would have to be designed on the genetic level to be unique, survive it's environment, have the ability to procreate, with the instinctual desire to procreate, the ability and instinct to care for their fragile young. As I said above; human life is not created without arousal, so we should celebrate the seeds of love and creation. Not sew the seeds of hate and destruction.
Sure, arousal can be misused, as with most anything in life, but that does not make it all bad. To be avoided just because of a few bad apples. Of course women should not be mistreated. I think it is great how women are speaking out to reclaim their stolen power. I find a strong willed woman very sexy. I have never pawed women I was not in a relationship with. I do not touch my nude models, whom have trusted me with their most intimate exposures. Gifting us with such a intimate view of her most private secrets. I only seek to share those images to bring a bit of beauty and happiness in this otherwise bleak world we live in. I am not trying to make money off this. I have spent over 100X on this beyond what little compensation or appreciation I may have received for the images I have shared. I am more giving back to the World Wide Web from which I had receive so much. I figure if I were not to share these images I am not a photographer. Just a horny dude with a camera.
Live Love
Darrian Ashoka
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Why I Do What I Do (photography wise)
12 min read
by Darrian-Ashoka, first written 9/16. Then revised 12/17
A recent a new pal on Deviant Art web community took the time to reach out to me with some kind comments of praise, which is the only payments I can realistically expect to receive for all I put out there to the public. He had asked how long I've been at photography, and if I need to edit those images. He inspired me to add this entry to my blog:
I began capturing images on film back in the early 80's in an effort to capture more than just family snapshots to document those elusive moments that time erases every second, hours, days, and years. I first used my Canon AE-1 SLR camera with a standard 50mm lens, so it has been a while since I had got serious about making art on film. I had experimented with different types of lighting, long exposures on a tripod, and other tricks like dual exposure. Night photography was a particular favorite, but my interest varied widely. At the turn of the century I had switched over to digital photography for it's speed and versatility to see and manipulate those images without the need for an independent photo lab or darkroom. Although, being digital photography at that time was still in it's infancy, so those digital images were small and not terribly clear. They were good enough for generating screen size images for my web site, but creative artistic shots were quite limited by not at all usable for printing. Because of this my artistic side had been put in the closet for a long while. My main focus providing for my family as I built up my sheet metal business took priority, as artistic photography was not going to pay the bills.
These small digital images looked fine on a computer monitor display, so I was able to use what I knew of photography to promote my sheet metal business on-line to potential Clients all across the Nation with better images than are normally shared on most business web sites. This has given my business an edge. Certainly not seen with most sheet metal shops. Those images were good enough to allow for each small thumbnail image to link to a full screen copy of that image, so they could get a closer look at my work. Since then I have added a catalog of over 10,000 images of my work on my web sites and social media to show what I have designed and built for my Clients over the last couple decades. Which has helped me to grow a strong reputation. This inspires new Clients to have faith in my ability and lay down thousands of dollars for their project, so the above average knowledge of photography has helped a great deal.
While getting good shots of my creative sheet metal work is rewarding it is still far more interesting to capture unique people and other subjects, so I will commonly be seen traveling around with a digital camera that was more expensive than most people's used car. I had only gotten much more serious with my passion for the art of photography these last few years. In 2005 digital photography had finally advanced enough with the development of a 12 meg sensor to actually begin to compete with film in order to produce good clear prints larger than a standard sheet of paper. Although, I resisted investing several thousands on camera equipment with this technology that was so rapidly changing in leaps and bounds each year. It has since even exceed film these days with as much as a 50 meg sensor in a standard size DSLR camera. As long as there is proper lighting on a subject, or the use of a long exposure using a sturdy tripod to take advantage of the lowest possible ISO setting with a tight aperture above f/9. Still to this day I find a lot of 'Professional Photographers' who clearly still do not seem to grasp this basic concept, and are wasting the potential of their expensive equipment. I would not bother to debate artistic merit of an image, but when it comes to image quality I will freely rip on them; calling BS on the notion that their poor image quality is simply their artistic style. Especially where it comes to such shallow focal depth.
I find it wild that the dynamics of digital photography is so close to that of film, where it still takes a lot of light to capture a good clear quality image using studio light to jack up the candle power over 10X that is normal found with indoor lighting. Without that kind of candle power you will not be able to capture a decent image with vibrant color that is suitable for sizable printing. It should look just as clear when viewing at full resolution as it does reduced down to monitor size. That is the undeniable test that separates the amateur from a professional; as seen with most any smart-phone image. Even in the best of lighting situations. These days most any modern DLSR camera can take amazing pictures if you have enough light on your subject. If not, you would do just as well to capture that precious moment with the limits of the tiny camera built into your smart-phone.
No matter what sort of good lighting I have to work with pretty much every image I take still needs some editing work, besides just putting my logo on it. I need to work them over in an image editing program that is commonly refereed to as 'photoshop', but I have not used Photoshop by Adobe since before the year 2000, because it is too expensive to keep upgraded and not very user-friendly. I have found another program called ACDSee that is a lot easier and faster to use, yet is also the most unstable program I have ever used. Over the last 2 decades they keep improving it's features, yet their software engineers are still clueless as how to make those features not crash their program, and their customer service has proven to be even more clueless. I've stuck with it, since any of the other programs I've tried are not even close to their user-friendly features. They more recently made a Mac version, but it is horrible compared to their PC software. They market other programs, but from what I can tell they are pretty much worthless.
Over the last 2 decades I have edited well over a million digital images of my own and many others. Each of the best images I select for processing seems to need some alteration. Such as some rotation, perspective correction, adjust the exposure, contrast, color balance, crop the image, erase moles and other blemishes. Once that processing is done then I can add my logo after it meets with my approval. Not necessarily all in that order, but you get the idea how this is not just a quick and simple process. In an hour I may only be able to work over a few images. It is clearly the most time consuming part of this process. Just making these decisions for each aspect can be exhaustively tedious, since there is so many different ways to go about this to achieve the best end result. Then more hours spent to upload thousands of images each year and add some text to tell it's story for each set of images.
Over the last 2 decades I have edited well over a million digital images of my own and many others. Each of the best images I select for processing seems to need some alteration. Such as some rotation, perspective correction, adjust the exposure, contrast, color balance, crop the image, erase moles and other blemishes. Once that processing is done then I can add my logo after it meets with my approval. Not necessarily all in that order, but you get the idea how this is not just a quick and simple process. In an hour I may only be able to work over a few images. It is clearly the most time consuming part of this process. Just making these decisions for each aspect can be exhaustively tedious, since there is so many different ways to go about this to achieve the best end result. Then more hours spent to upload thousands of images each year and add some text to tell it's story for each set of images.
For all these thousands of hours I spend on this I've not even made enough to cover the cost of the equipment I've invested in, so I must do this for the passion of it alone and wanting to share them with those who might appreciate their merit.
I imagine I could make a living with photography if I applied myself to that goal with all my intention, but I am far to busy running my sheet metal business; having been booked out 4 to 6 moths consistently over the last decade. Even all through the recession of the Bush era. That's what pays the bills, and I would be a fool to drop all that to work towards a career in photography. Especially when there are already too many people who claim to be a 'Professional Photographer', which seems to be easier these days than to be a musician.
Yet most of them are still quite clueless as to how a camera works, understand decent quality standards, or how image editing works. If they are shooting hand held without studio lights they are just a hack, and those images will not be any better than any common snapshot we can all manage to capture. No matter how much they may have spent on their camera gear it take more than that to capture a high quality image. Even the most expensive camera out there cannot capture high quality images in low light situations, like you have tried to capture in a concert from down in the crowd, and later realize how badly they turned out.
You will see plenty of images of a seemingly sexual nature, and I will not apologize for this. It is all part of the natural order of life and procreation, and should be celebrated. We are wired this way and should be ashamed of this, or shunned. We should instead be repulsed by all the glorified violence we see in the media, yet we eat that up and seek more destructive imagery and stories. If you look over my FB and DA profiles you will see I have also shared many other subject matter there, so my interests are not only that of sexy female forms, which I do see for more than the just the eroticism. Although, it is very important to realize how new life is not easily created without arousal. Ponder this for a while.
I do not touch the models I photograph. While I am capturing images of nude models I am not even being aroused. I am concentrating on lighting, focus points, and composition. I could not be thinking of them in that way during the photo shoot or those images would turn out like crap. They might as well be a sea shell or a flower. Even when I am editing those images with all the focus I need to put into that process I rarely if ever am aroused, but again why should we be demonizing arousal? Shouldn't we be embracing the seeds of creation, and not destruction within our society?
If I had not shared these images I cannot truly call myself a photographer. For what is capturing a moment like these if there is no one else to show them to. Like as with how strange it would be to paint hundreds of pictures, yet never let anyone else see them. I can see how 99% of my fans on social media will not even take the time to say thanks, let alone shell out the nominal 10 points to see the amazing detail of my full resolution images, which are clear and detailed enough for printing poster size wall art. Only a few will even bother to take the time to say 'Hi' with a comment of the images I share so freely. So be it. I must find the inspiration else where. I may think I may have captured some lovely images that I choose to share publicly. I love the look of numerous alternative shapes and curves. Although, I have seen some that are not so attractive as well in photographic documentation. Such as the diversity of life. Others will continue love to see some curves I may not care for, and some may hate the look I find most attractive. Takes all kinds. There certainly is not just one best look out there, since it is all subject to the individual observer. I too am grateful for others who have shared such lovely imagery in such a public form as this, and more importantly those who are willing to display their lovely curves for their cameras. For what is a photographer without a good subject to capture? I do what I can to give back to the Web, which has so generously given us such joy in kind.
Just the joy I may have brightened some strangers day with this food for the soul for what ever brief moment they will take to gaze upon what I have shared with them, even if they never say 'thanks'. I seem to remain driven regardless, and this passion just seems to be growing with each passing day.
I hope this was an interesting insight to this aspect of my life.
Live LOVE
Darrian Ashoka
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I'm offering subscriptions!
View Now