#this does not apply to the sensitive artists who can’t take objective criticism
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
weaselweaselweasel · 2 months ago
Text
I think people need to get more confident giving critiques because vague positive feedback is the most unhelpful thing I have ever been given
Every time I show my sister my art it’s like she wants to show that she’s paying attention, so she just dives into whatever I did right right ☹️
Like bitch!!! I know I’m doing it right!!! That’s why I did it!!! And I can’t as easily differentiate between what I’m actually doing right vs doing wrong!!! Because everything I do looks right to me already!!!
1 note · View note
andrcmedawrites · 6 years ago
Text
Birth Chart This birth chart report shows the positions of the planets for Sybill . The Sun represents vitality, a sense of individuality and outward-shining creative energy. Sun in Pisces As the twelfth and last sign of the zodiac, Pisces contains within itself a little experience of all the signs. This gives Pisces Suns the ability to identify with people from all walks of life–from all backgrounds–in some way. These individuals are not only changeable and adaptable, they have open minds and tremendous understanding. But Pisces itself is often misunderstood. Pisces Suns may spend a good portion of their lives yearning for understanding, and the other part in a state of divine discontent. Suffering is sometimes glamorized in the Piscean world. Sun in Pisces people are frequently pegged as wishy-washy, but this is all a matter of opinion. What you will find behind a vaguely directionless, spacey manner is a deep person with real dreams. Their dreams are more than getting that picket fence or making it up the corporate ladder. Pisces are tuned in to a higher purpose and their dreams transcend the individual. A deep love for humanity, and compassion that knows no bounds is found with this placement of the Sun. Pisceans are not known to be cutthroat business types, nor are they given to throwing themselves out into the world in an aggressive manner. But make no mistake about it, Pisces can be extraordinarily successful when given the chance to express themselves. The arts, marketing, music, teaching, drama, healing arts…these are all fields in which Pisces can find expression. Their imagination, attunement to humanity, and remarkable intuition endow them with enviable gifts of insight and creativity. Pisces is a sensitive sign–both sensitive to criticism and sensitive to others’ feelings. Easily touched by human suffering, at least in theory, Pisces wouldn’t hurt a fly. They believe in people, are deeply hurt by compassionless human behavior, and have a hard time saying no. Harsh realities are avoided either through escapist behavior or self-delusion; but every now and again reality does raise its ugly head, and hits Pisces over the head. This is a sad time indeed. Pisces retreats into their own world, self-pitying and giving pep talks to themselves (“I will never trust again!”). Rest assured, though, that these periods are rather short-lived and even useful. Pisces seems to derive energy from their (generally short) bouts of self-pity. They come back stronger, with a spring in their step, ready to face the world again, and just as, if not more, compassionate and trusting as they were before. Some might even wonder if Pisces finds pleasure in suffering. Sometimes this is the case, but most of the time, Pisces pulls a lot of creative energy from sadness. Pisces is the poet or artist with angst, although this trait is often more apparent with Moon in Pisces. Some find Pisces’ tendency to be late for appointments, spaced out behavior, and absent-mindedness amount to irresponsibility. Pisces would be shocked to know this, however. Who me? Pisces wonders. Irresponsible? Pisces Suns absolutely care–their love knows no bounds–but their retreats from ordinary life (whether they are as simple as daydreams or actual departures) that they so seem to need every now and again are not always understandable to no-nonsense signs, such as Virgo or Aries. Many Pisces seem almost allergic to things like shopping lists, maps, directions, and instructions, and for some brave souls, even watches – they prefer to feel their way through life than to follow some plan. We find plenty of artists, poets, and musicians with Sun (and other personal planets) in Pisces. Piscean themes are woven throughout the songs of Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins and Kurt Cobain of Nirvana, for example. Short description: She is compassionate and sentimental. She likes isolated occupations: administration, archives, history. Spirit of self-sacrifice. Weaknesses: tendency to be led astray, lack of experience or inability to apply experience practically. Lethargy, over-sensitivity and emotionalism. Pisces ascendant Libra Sun in V You want to be noticed for your unique and special qualities and your creativity. You are happiest when you are expressing yourself in a special way and attention comes your way as a result. You have a flair for drama and/or sports. You are proud of your fun-loving attitude towards life. As you demonstrate your ability to shine, avoid grabbing center stage all of the time. Your happy disposition is enough to get noticed, but do find creative ways to express yourself, as this is the path to true happiness for you. -143 Opposition Sun - Moon You have an internal struggle between your needs and your wants. You can lack focus and be indecisive as a result. Your ability to be objective is both an asset and a liability, simply because when you decide on one route, you are pulled in another direction at the same time. Something tugs at you, and you begin to question your stance. “But what if…” and “on the other hand…” are statements you can’t help but make, and that might plague you. You are always aware of the opposing point of view and the other side of the coin. 95 Conjunction Sun - Mercury Because your ego and your mind are aligned, you possess much mental energy. You are always in a position to think about what you want, and in many ways, this is an interruption of the will. You are highly intelligent with a great drive to communicate with other. You invest a lot of pride in your intellectual capacities. You may not always listen as well as you speak, however! You might be too busy thinking about what to say next. But you are very curious and although you enjoy expressing yourself, you usually don’t dominate conversations completely. As far as studying or learning goes, you are better off reading the material than listening to a teacher. These traits come from a strong need to take an active role in communications. It is very hard for you to passively listen and absorb information. Your opinions are usually strong and you are an independent thinker. You tend to be proud of your opinions and thoughts, and might easily get a bruised ego if you are not “heard”, if your opinions are pushed aside or ignored, or if your opinions are criticized. You are expressive and possibly a very animated speaker. You are also very witty and others enjoy your playful and sometimes mischievous sense of humor. -129 Square Sun - Mars You possess an unmistakable competitiveness and a “me-first” attitude. The fighter persona is most apparent in youth, when the child is described as a “bundle of energy”, or it is remarked that he or she “can’t sit still”. The abundant energy generated by this aspect is hard to direct in childhood. Later in life, ideally, those with these aspects have learned to channel some of their excess energy into productive avenues–perhaps through career, sports, or any area where competitiveness is considered an asset. Nevertheless, you can meet up with more than your share of conflict, and you can sometimes rub people the wrong way. You are very motivated to get things done, to take action rather than simply talk about something, and to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Those who know you quite well might describe you as hot-headed and temperamental at times. You are easily frustrated, and you’re given to impulsive actions. If the aspect is found in cardinal signs, it gives impulsiveness and a short temper. If the aspect is found in fixed signs, the natives can be very hard-headed and willful. If it’s in mutable signs, it gives a restless and frustrated impatience.Essentially, you have faced conflict and are not particularly afraid of it. You have faced having your need to assert yourself blocked. Your parents may have done as much as they could to “tame” what they felt to be excess energy or aggression. In other words, you know all about conflict and blockages, so that when you are faced with a challenge or a roadblock, you don’t run away from it or hide under the covers feeling sorry for yourself. You meet challenges head-on. -132 Square Sun - Jupiter Although your intentions are generally good, you are given to overdoing things. You can easily gloss over realistic details and get yourself into debt, overindulge in pleasures such as food and drink, and promise more than you can deliver. For the most part, you find help for your excesses. Somebody’s there to bail you out, as plenty of people believe that your heart is in the right place. Generally, this is the case, but if excessive behavior becomes a pattern, and you continually face light consequences, there is the danger that you will not learn from your mistakes and abuse the “system”, relying on your friends and family to help you out a little too often. Your reputation for being “good people”, thus, can eventually be used to further your purposes–something that should, of course, be avoided. However, many people with this aspect don’t fall into the trap of losing their sincerity. You are generous, helpful, and charitable. Still, the tendency to live beyond your means is a real threat that you might struggle with much of your life. Another thing to watch for is depression. You tend to go through periods of intense highs when you are excessively optimistic. These periods are so marked that they seem to be unnatural and a fall seems to be inevitable. You can make promises you intend to keep, but have a problem with follow-through. Self-control can be a real problem. Try to avoid gambling altogether. Usually quite knowledgeable and generous with your time, you have many talents that you might take for granted. 387 Sextile Sun - Saturn It is easy and natural for you to accept responsibilities, to lead a rather ordered life, and to apply caution in your financial and business dealings. You rarely jump to conclusions or take uneducated risks. You have a certain amount of patience and enough self-discipline to slowly but surely achieve what you set out to do. Although somewhat undemonstrative, you are generally loyal and responsible people to those you care about. You take your time in most endeavors and generally use a step-by-step approach to most projects–but you steadily reach your goals. You are naturally trustworthy, and you don’t have much patience for those who don’t show respect for others, who take foolish risks, and who lead disorganized lives. 62 Trine Sun - Neptune There is an unmistakably dreamy, inspired, and sensitive side to you. A marked appreciation for music and the arts is present. The connection of Neptune with the Sun, which represents the ego and the will, certainly softens some of the hard edges that might be found elsewhere in the chart, adding a sensitive and spiritual dimension to your personality. You are naturally compassionate. It is so completely natural for you to accept that there is more to the world than what is before your eyes, that you tend to presume everyone must be spiritually-inclined. Of course, you come to realize that this is not the case at some early point in your life. Your attraction to spirituality and metaphysical subjects is usually marked. These aspects favor writers, artists, and musicians. You are sensitive to those who are suffering, although you are not usually taken advantage of. You are humanitarian and may have a special connection with animals. If other aspects and positions in the chart support it, you are not one to dominate others or assert yourself to the point of brashness. You have a fertile imagination, are full of inspiration, and very emotional - all qualities that you may use on the professional level. -185 Opposition Sun - Pluto You may be prone to inner tension and negative, self-destructive behavior. When things are going well, you suffer from fears that something will come along to change that. Constantly worrying that the rug will be pulled from under your feet can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. You possess tremendous power and strength–when you learn to accept and use that strength, instead of fear it, you can be one of the most effective, insightful, helpful, and healing person around! At times, you can be intensely dissatisfied with your personal accomplishments and expressions of self. You put a lot of pressure on yourself regarding your own endeavors. You can be quite dissatisfied with your creative self-expressions, and want to hide your expressions from others until you feel the output is “right”. This is largely due to a perceived inability to express or reveal your true personality to others. You struggle with a deep need to control yourself and life itself. You are especially sensitive to criticism, and feel the need to “redo” yourself often. There is a marked fear of losing control, and this might stem from some traumatic event in childhood, or the childhood might have been crisis-ridden or emotionally-charged in general. As such, you can be intensely fearful of, or threatened by, change. This can express itself through attempts to control your life in such a way that you can manage your fears of being taken off guard. Of course, this generally backfires! You have an intense need for privacy at times. The Moon represents the emotional responses, unconscious pre-destination, and the self-image. Moon in Virgo Lunar Virgos find security in the little things in life. They feel most content when they’ve straightened out all the details of everyday life. Many of them enjoy running errands, paying bills, and balancing the books. They take care of these things happily, although some won’t let on. In fact, many Lunar Virgos are quite practiced at nagging and complaining. As long as they are appreciated, however, these people will help you take care of your life, too. They are at their best when they feel useful and needed. If somebody needs help, they are generally the first to jump up and take on the task. Some people with Virgo Moons are accused of being underachievers. While it may be true that Lunar Virgos can lack self-confidence, many are–quite simply–content with living “regular”, unassuming lives. They appreciate simplicity, and are often most comfortable when they’re not getting too much attention from the world at large. Lunar Virgos are easily overwhelmed by pressure and stress. They worry incessantly when there is too much to think about; and they know their limits. Arguably the worst position for a Lunar Virgo is without a steady routine or a simply satisfying job. They need to feel useful, and they best express this by helping others in little ways. They need something to call their own, and the space to do what they want to do. The unhappy Lunar Virgos are fussy and complaining sorts. They are victims of routine and freak out when their plans are not followed. They are restless and nervous, and can’t seem to see the big picture. Probably the best remedy for these people is a job or hobby in which they can express their deep need to analyze, attend to details, and micromanage. These people express their affection for the people they care about in little, but practical, ways. They can be a little stiff when it comes to open, gushy displays of affection. Lunar Virgos are often shy with new people. However, when they are comfortable, they are anything but shy. More often than not, others can count on Moon in Virgo people. They are reliable and trustworthy. Above all else, Lunar Virgos are practical. Others turn to them for help and advice. In relationships, Lunar Virgos can be self-effacing and kind. Some are quite shy in love, and easily intimidated on a sexual level. Many are not very comfortable with their sexuality, but they aim to please nonetheless. The sign of Virgo is very body-aware, in general. If this awareness combines with a lack of self-confidence, Lunar Virgos can be too aware of the parts that make up the whole. This can lead to a tendency to be intensely self-critical. Once Lunar Virgos learn to come out of their shell, however, they can be earthy partners with a lot to give. Some of the most skeptical people are Lunar Virgos. They can’t help but poke holes when faced with others’ blind faith. Their criticism can be maddening, and their insistence on seeing the practical in anything emotional can be challenging, especially if you are the dreamy type. Virgo curiosity shows up big time with this position of the Moon. To some, it can be confusing. Lunar Virgos seem very interested in others’ problems, for example, but can be quite cool and even unsympathetic in the long run. Their advice can seem hard to more sensitive folk; yet Lunar Virgos can be surprisingly delicate when faced with others’ criticism. Virgo Moon people are generally busy and quietly happy when they have their lives under control. They aim for a simple existence, and are often quite content with very little. Many are early risers, ready to take on the day with enthusiasm. They scurry around, keeping busy and managing their life quietly and expertly. As long as their little world is manageable, Lunar Virgos can be a delight to be around. Short description: She has a very good memory. Scientific or medical studies preferred above all others. She is humble and moderate, calm and reserved. Emotional discipline. She is willing to help, devoted and gentle. Weaknesses: servile nature, frequent changes of occupation, gets annoyed, upset, worries. She is too shy. Moon in XII Curious and inquisitive nature, although more of an observer than a person who asks many questions. She likes peace and quiet, being alone. This position of the Moon indicates an emotional attachment and sensitivity to all that is ethereal, groundless, and eternal. As sensitive as you are, you often have delayed reactions to your own emotional experiences. You need frequent moments of solitude in order to recharge yourself emotionally, and this need, while strong, can also lead to feelings of isolation and of being misunderstood. While you are a perceptive person, you are often either flooded with emotions that are hard to define, or completely out of touch with what you are feeling. Either extreme keeps you from truly discovering your emotional needs. Negative expressions of this position are avoidance of responsibility, using hypersensitivity as an excuse to oneself (and perhaps to others) for not participating, or emotional immaturity. You are sympathetic to others’ suffering, but not always emotionally available to help. -193 Opposition Moon - Mercury There is a conflict here between the head and the heart. Your emotions tell you one thing and your mind tells you something else. The result is a see-saw effect: you can be emotional to the point of irrationality at one moment, and logical the next. How to blend the head and the heart is a constant struggle for you, usually because you have a tendency to resist blending them! You love to chat, enjoy story-telling and writing/poetry, sometimes enjoy bending the truth, and you possess a sparkling wit! You are animated when you speak, and have a sense of humor that others appreciate simply because it’s very imaginative. You may be especially adept at satire. People can usually read your mood by how much you’re talking. When nervous or excitable, you talk up a storm. Moodiness is a characteristic, definitely, and an especially subjective nature makes you prone to hypersensitivity. It usually has to do with the fact that you take in so very much from your environment. This is also one of the reasons why you tend to be indecisive. You may swing between irrational and rational thoughts and feelings. It’s pretty much something that takes place “upstairs” in the mind, although others are sure to see the struggle from time to time. You are always interesting, and usually funny. You have a tendency to misrepresent yourself with what you say from time to time, but you’re a charming, if a little kooky, friend. -62 Square Moon - Mars You can be precocious, animated, and passionate. You seek emotional excitement in your life. Although you often project a brave and tough image, your skin isn’t as thick as you’d have others believe. You tend to put up defenses due to your emotionally vulnerable and excitable disposition. Unrest is characteristic, as you are bored by routine and become easily frustrated when life is “too easy”. There’s a buzz of energy surrounding you, and you tend to meet with many conflicts in your life. With the opposition, the conflict tends to be lived through relationships. The passions are quite raw, especially in youth. If you can channel your excitable energy into sports or some other competitive field, all the better. Although you can be a decidedly amiable and interesting person, others always seem to sense your boundaries. Something is bound to get you worked up, and it’s not always clear what that something will be. Your bluntness can be both appreciated and considered offensive, depending on your audience! You are eager to make a personal impact on those around you. It is possible that you are too eager in this sense, and you come across as self-absorbed and difficult to stomach. Patience is definitely not your strong point! Your responses are quick, and your are a passionate person who is usually quite courageous although your energy is sporadic and sometimes wasted. You are sexually responsive. Short description: She is very emotional and is driven to do things by her emotions. She does not think things over or through in a given situation. She is irascible and easily angered or fired up. Marital disputes are very likely, and a heated domestic atmosphere. 80 Sextile Moon - Neptune Positive aspect: She is kind and sympathetic, with a strongly compassionate nature. When in love, she is usually very devoted. In fact, she is devoted by nature, not only in matters of the heart. There is an unmistakably compassionate and understanding side to her nature. She has a natural affinity to music. While everyone enjoys music, people with Moon in harmonious aspect to Neptune respond to music as a vehicle to heal, relax, and to uplift the soul. Naturally perceptive, without even trying she tunes into the feelings of others, and the mood of her surroundings. There is a distinct emotional need to escape into the world of imagination, and to withdraw from others at times when she needs to re-center herself, largely because she tends to “take in” a lot of mixed energies from her surroundings. Strong and sudden “feelings” and hunches can overcome her. More often than not, her intuition is correct, although her imagination is also powerful and she can read too much into a situation as a result. Some laziness is associated with this position. This stems from a natural timidity and sensitivity that is apparent from youth. She may have been labeled “shy” in youth, and family members or friends may have jumped in to “save” her from situations that required boldness or aggressiveness. Thus, passivity was accepted and, as adults, she may be less experienced than most when it comes to reaching out or going after what she wants. 88 Conjunction Moon - Pluto She wavers between a rich and successful domestic life and social success. She has difficulty in succeeding in both. Very perceptive and given to psychoanalyzing people. A strategist. Powerful emotions and intense feelings. 84 Trine Moon - Lilith This aspect favors romantic and sexual relationships, giving charm, intrigue, and intelligence. Emotions are big, dark, and mysterious, but you embrace these things, instinctively understanding and accepting the many sides and complications to your feelings. Mercury represents communication, Cartesian and logical spirit. Mercury in Pisces She sponges up the feelings and moods of people and the environment around her. Moody communication–sometimes very talkative, other times withdrawn. Tactful, doesn’t want to offend anyone. Fertile imagination. Flexible mind, sometimes gullible, but usually simply open to possibilities. Indirect. It can be very hard to pin her down to any one belief or decision. Mercury in VI Medical profession. Serviceable and generous nature. Meets their soul brother at work, or (if not) through family contacts. You are a person who thinks of all the details that others forget. Your mind is almost always turned “on” which can make you a little nervous. You are excellent at sorting things out, organizing, and making lists and associations. With your attention to the details and the mechanics, however, you might miss the bigger point! You are exceptionally helpful and others can count on you for making arrangements, researching, and offering advice. You truly love to feel useful. You might have some traits of a hypochondriac, as you notice all of the little aches and pains that others might overlook. Nervous tension could be at the root of many of your health complaints. Many of you are good at crafts, mechanics, or anything that requires good manual dexterity. -18 Square Mercury - Mars While her spirit is lively, it is also cunning. She often acts without thinking, she throws herself into things and exaggerates - and this can bring certain problems. She is nervous and irascible. She can develop others’ ideas, while they hesitate - she never does: she presses on. -4 Opposition Mercury - Pluto She may be impatient. She likes contradiction. Her arguments are noisy and animated. You are very incisive and aggressive with your opinions. You have a tendency towards fanaticism and often want to impose your ideas on others, sometimes in a subtle manner and sometimes more imperatively. You will find yourself attracted by the occult and other mysteries but it is recommended that you avoid those subjects because they can generate certain fixations or obsessiveness. You must learn to control your impatience and impulsiveness, to think things over before speaking, and to respect the weaknesses of others. 83 Sextile Mercury - Lilith Venus represents an interest for emotions and values, exchange and sharing with others. Venus in Pisces Venus in Pisces people project themselves as dreamy, soft-hearted partners. Everything about the way they flirt promises a lovely time. Theirs is an elusive charm – they are sweetly playful, a little moody, and perhaps a little irregular. They appreciate romance and poetry, and they prefer to “feel out” both you and the relationship you share, so don’t expect too much planning ahead. Their sensitivity can be a little misleading at times. Yes, they are sensitive folk, but lovers may find it maddening that this sensitivity is not only directed at them, but towards all of mankind. Venus in Pisces men and women want you to know that their love is unconditional. They are unimpressed by your status, and love and accept you for all that you are inside. They love the underdog and are attracted to wayward folks, or those in need of a little help. With their romantic view of the world, they can be unreasonably attracted to states of suffering and martyrdom, so they easily get into the role of saving someone, or being saved. Unlike Venus in Libra, which thrives on equality, Venus in Pisces is actually turned on by inequality! They can be rather confusing and hard to pin down as they feel their way through their relationships. As much as they may want to, they find it hard to commit. Many do end up committing, however, at least on the surface. Pleasing Venus in Pisces involves enjoying tender moments and romantic times with them. You won’t always be able to count on them. In fact, you can be sure they will stretch the truth every once in a while. But remember they do this because they fear they might hurt you, and they can’t bear to cause you any heartache. Try to understand them, although that’s never an easy task considering the fact that they don’t always know themselves. And, truth is, some Venus in Pisces privately have a love affair going with the idea of being misunderstood. Try to put up with their apparent lack of direction in the relationship – they are so receptive and open to all possibilities that it is hard for them to commit to any one thing, idea, or even person. These intriguing partners will reward you with a love that is accepting and comes as close to unconditional as humans can get. Venus in VI She may be devoted to sick or poor people. Might work in a medical or social setting, where she meets their partner, who is a great help professionally. Your expressions of love and affection are practical and helpful. Being of service to a partner is especially important to you. In fact, you might go to great lengths to be available at all costs to a loved one. While you may not be flowery or showy when it comes to expressing love, you show your love by your availability, rendering services, doing practical things for a loved one, and other thoughtful “little” things. Many of you are talented at design work, as you appreciate and pay much attention to all of the little parts that make up a whole, with the goal of finding order and harmony in these systems. If you are not careful, you might pass up on true love opportunities in favor of relationships that serve a practical purpose in your life, or out of fear that you might not find better. Selling yourself short may be something that keeps you from going after what and who you want. 144 Trine Venus - Jupiter She is good-hearted, generous and has a good character. She likes well-being, comfort, a life without problems. She has good relations with her circle. She is easy to approach. All the same, she falls in love easily. She has a successful married and professional life. -62 Square Venus - Saturn This aspect sometimes means unhealthy sensuality. She is hard, and does not know how to express her emotions. She is frightened of showing her love, and this leads to disappointments, break-ups, lack of satisfaction. It is likely that she had problems with her mother, who did not know how to love her or give her self-confidence. She doubts, is suspicious and jealous. She will learn how to be happy in love, to be at ease with herself and to control her jealousy in the second half of her life, thanks to an older person, who gives her self-confidence back to her, so she can then trust others. -129 Opposition Venus - Ascendant She goes to excess in her pleasures, frequents doubtful company. She lacks good taste. She is very spendthrift, but spreads her money around her circle. Her friends are more self-interested than sincere. Mars represents the desire for action and physical energy. Mars in Gemini Mars is the planet that rules our drive and passions. In the mutable air sign of Gemini, Mars is a little scattered and unfocused. Easily bored, Mars in Gemini natives need a fresh change of pace frequently just to keep energy levels up. It’s a somewhat odd thing, really. When there’s nothing much to do, these natives are exhausted. But if there’s plenty of interesting things on their agenda, Mars in Gemini natives can be powerhouses! More than most people, these individuals have a physical reaction to boredom. Besides possessing a passion for words, when Mars in Gemini natives get angry or fired up, they use words as their “weapon”. Angry words–some of the most incisive and sarcastic ones–can fly around with the more energetic natives. Others simply talk things through–energetically! Whatever the case may be, Mars in Gemini natives need to get everything off their chests when they’re fired up. In fact, debates are a Mars in Gemini specialty. These natives draw on their sharp wit to win arguments. In general, they can be talkative sorts, sometimes bordering on verbal diarrhea. Those whose charts show more reserve only become chatty when they’re worked up about something or the other. Some people with this position of Mars are quite fidgety. They have much nervous energy. In general, their nervousness and restlessness are at the root of plenty of physical ups and downs. When they’re on edge, they can be nitpicky. Many Mars in Gemini natives channel their energy through their hands. Gemini, after all, rules the hands; and these people often express energy through musical instruments and the like–even video games. Many are attracted to puzzles and games as diversions. These natives are very adaptable, often thriving on change. They often take up many projects at once, spreading themselves thin at times. Sustained interest is not especially common with this position of Mars. Most will benefit from attempting to focus their energies rather than scattering them. However, their versatility and disdain for routine generally means Mars in Gemini natives are busy people. Mars in IX Deeply rooted opinions, which she knows how to defend energetically. At a certain moment of life, she can fight for a particular ideal but might abandon it along the way, being less convinced than at the beginning of its virtue or because she realizes that it is a losing battle. Conflict abroad or with foreigners. -169 Opposition Mars - Jupiter She refuses to accept any guidance. She lacks forethought, acts impulsively and sometimes imprudently, which can cause problems. She wants everything yesterday and uses whatever means necessary to achieve her objectives, even if they are dishonest or not very commendable. Her emotional life is fraught with quarrels and sometimes violent conflicts. -43 Square Mars - Pluto You have a tendency to impose your will upon others, which can cause severe problems for yourself when they react in self-defense. You have a hair-trigger temper and may even resort to verbal or physical abuse when upset. Learning to react to unpleasant circumstances with your intellect rather than your emotions comes with maturity. It is all too easy for you to find something negative about a situation. Avoid issuing ultimatums when you meet an obstacle. Instead, find a way to convince others to work with you of their own free will. Ordinary life often seems drab and uninteresting to you and you must have something that stirs your imagination, some vision or ideal or dream to motivate you. You have a strong urge to act out your fantasies or to live your dream, and you will DO things that others only talk about or dream about. Artistic creation, drama, or other areas in which you can express yourself imaginatively are excellent for you. You do not easily tolerate a dominating attitude in others. You have a healthy respect for power and authority, but only if it is handled fairly. This aspect gives you a somewhat Scorpionic attitude toward your lovers, and it can modify the traits associated with the sign of your Mars considerably. In other words, there is a distinct possessive and demanding streak in your sexual nature. Your approach to love and sex can be quite intense at times. Your sexual desire nature is a very strong one, and you may even use sex as a bargaining chip in your relationships in order to achieve your goals. More likely, however, is a very focused and intense sexual nature. This also adds a very magnetic quality to your appeal. When a woman finds you attractive, it can transform into a near obsession! Your aura is strong and somewhat mysterious. You tend to come across as stronger than you intend. In fact, some people are intimidated by you, and you may not understand why this is so. When you want something (or someone!) you are very determined. For you, it can be “all or nothing”. When you are finished with something, you leave it behind you and there is no going back. You want a deep, soulful attachment on a sexual level. In your love life you do not take rejection well. You fear betrayal and abandonment, and this can skew your perception of your lover. You have a highly developed sex drive, but you must learn to rein in your aggressiveness in this area. Power struggles and control issues may surface often in your relationships. You perceive the cruel edge in people, and understand its source. Self-confidence develops out of self-control in your interaction with others. 13 Trine Mars - Ascendant Jupiter represents expansion and grace. Jupiter in Sagittarius She attracts the most good fortune when she is open-handed and generous, tolerant, and practices what she preaches. Can be inspirational, and find success in travel, education, teaching, sports, publishing, and foreign cultures. Very philosophical, forward-looking, and enthusiastic. Has strong morals. Strongly values freedom of movement and expression. Jupiter in III She has good judgement, a sense of values, an open and optimistic mind, a good education and high moral standards. She likes studying. She is successful in communications work. Her professional work is a vocation and plays a great part in her life. -70 Square Jupiter - Pluto She might be tempted to exploit others. She is rarely satisfied with her achievements unless they are big. She is an opportunist. 126 Sextile Jupiter - Ascendant She likes meeting friends, around a good meal and in a cordial atmosphere. She is pleasant, jovial and engaging. Saturn represents contraction and effort. Saturn in Capricorn She is scrupulous, honest, correct, worthy and respectable. Weaknesses: melancholy, sullenness, disappointment and bitterness. Saturn in IV She needs to be dominated. She has a sense of organization and accepts her responsibilities. She achieves her objectives in spite of slow progress, with many hurdles to overcome. She is persevering and patient. 122 Sextile Saturn - Neptune Her plans are realized in a methodical fashion, she works hard to achieve success. 44 Trine Saturn - Pluto She perseveres, achieves her projects through hard work. -39 Square Saturn - Ascendant Her life is difficult and cramped. She is a worker, but success takes time in coming. She has problems in being open. She accepts solitude, rather than looks for it. Family problems. Uranus represents individual liberty, egoistic liberty. Uranus in Leo She is self-contained, resolute, tenacious. Likes freedom of action and independence. Uranus in XI Her freedom is important to her, even with regard to friends. These are extravagant, original, intellectual. They are not from the same background and have a different up-bringing. -6 Square Uranus - Neptune She lacks will-power and strength. Of a nervous disposition. -15 Square Uranus - Lilith She cannot live a peaceful love life. She will have lots of adventures, lots of love-at-first-sights which will lead her into dangerous territory, will complicate and even perhaps poison her life. Neptune represents transcendental liberty, non-egoistic liberty. Neptune in Scorpio Willing to look beyond the superficial. Neptune in II She may prefer not to attach too much value to money, but if this is overdone, there can be quite a few problems in life concerning money and ownership. She might make money through artistic pursuits, but must avoid the potential pitfalls of putting too much faith in ideas that don’t have enough grounding in reality. Financial advice is important to obtain. 20 Sextile Neptune - Pluto -23 Opposition Neptune - Lilith Love dominates her life. She could lose her head over someone to whom there’s an intense attraction, which can become troublesome, because she loses all idea of reality. If she is not loved in return, so what - she will love for the two of them. With time, if the loved one loses patience, she will have difficulty disentangling herself and she can suffer enormously. It’s best to look to a trusted outside source for guidance in vulnerable times. Pluto represents transformations, mutations and elimination. Pluto in Virgo Research and investigation come naturally. House I is the area of self identity. The ascendant is a symbol of how one acts in life. It is the image of the personality as seen by others, and the attitude that one has towards life. Pisces ascendant Libra Ascendant in Libra Everybody seems to like Libra Ascendant natives. They just come across as nice, pleasant, and fair. Look a little closer at their lives, and these nice people may have had quite a few problems in their relationships. Some of them have had a string of relationships, and it can be hard to imagine why! These natives attract others to them effortlessly. Besides, they simply don’t know what to do with themselves without a significant other. Libra rising generally appear to be smoothing everything over. They have charming smiles, a gentle approach with others, and an easygoing image. Even if they were not endowed with good looks, they are attractive. Most pay a lot of attention to their personal appearance – the colors they wear, their hair, the way they walk. Libra rising people can be enormously persuasive, although they will almost always use a “soft sell” approach when they want to win others over, which is all of the time! A tendency to pass the buck and keep up that “nice guy/gal” image are their worst qualities. However, they can make excellent mediators and will generally be the first to accommodate you. Libra rising natives are usually attracted to competent, active partners. Their relationships are often characterized by bickering or competitiveness until they learn to drop their sweet image once in a while and to stop blaming their partners for everything that goes wrong. House II is the area of material security and values. It rules money and personal finances, sense of self-worth and basic values, personal possessions. House II in Libra Income may come either as a result of an advantageous marriage or union, through artistic expression, or by a very useful association. Partnerships can help further financial goals. Venus by sign and house can show other areas for making money. House III is the area of social and intellectual learning. House III in Scorpio Makes a good investigator because she is very curious, likes researching and does this with a lot of patience, likes to solve mysteries. Knows how to take risks, while being aware of the dangers. House IV is the area of home, family, roots, and deep emotions/sense of self-worth. House IV in Capricorn After working all her life to obtain her objectives and finally having reached that goal, she wants to retire in peace and quiet and to have a retirement full of contemplation, with few tasks, close to nature. As she was very careful with money all her life, she will administer the properties she has acquired. House V is the area of creative self-expression, romance, entertainment, children, and gambling. House V in Aquarius Doesn’t like routine and the banal. She is romantic, full of fantasy and imagination. She is also a friend one can count on. House VI is the area of learning by material transaction. House VI in Pisces Job in commerce. Weak point: the kidneys. House VII is the area of one-to-one relationships such as marriage and partnership, and of social and intellectual action. House VII in Aries Love-at-first-sight, marries without thinking. Doesn’t want to change her habits, so domestic quarrels to be foreseen. House VIII is the area of emotional security and of security of the soul. House VIII in Aries The spouse will tend to spend more money than she earns. Be careful of any haste that could prove dangerous. Drives a car too fast. House IX is the area of learning that shapes the identity. House IX in Taurus Travels but little, no great attraction for abroad. Doesn’t change principles, practically never changes mind. House X is the area of material action. The Mid-heaven represents the work one will do in his life, the place one will take in the world of society. It becomes more important as one grows older House X in Cancer Likes contact with the public, the crowd. Profession that involves meeting a lot of people. Professional success thanks to sense of duty and application to her work. House XI is the area of search for social and intellectual security. House XI in Leo Friends are not always chosen by chance. Even if the feelings of friendship are sincere, these friends must automatically bring something - professional help for example. House XII is the area of education and of emotion. House XII in Virgo
1 note · View note
midlandofficial · 7 years ago
Text
Wide Open Country: The Truth About Midland
By Jeremy Burchard | September 29, 2017
Editor’s note: Jeremy Burchard is a Senior Music Writer for Wide Open Country and Associate Editor of Texas Music. The following op-ed is a response to articles by the blog Saving Country Music that question the legitimacy and authenticity of rising country trio Midland.
Kyle Coroneos, the author and founder of Saving Country Music, is wrong about Midland. Also known as “Trigger,” he is a talented writer with strong convictions and a passionate readership.
But he’s wrong about that band. He’s wrong when he calls them “bullshitters.” He’s wrong when he calls two-thirds of them “Hollywood elite,” and he’s very wrong when he claims they didn’t write their music, but are instead the product of Shane McAnally and Music Row machinations.
And it matters that he’s wrong. Because over the past week, Coroneos’ articles have been making their way across important spheres of influence. People within the music industry, whom I know and respect, are reading these articles and sharing them, taking them at face value. People who work in radio, other artists, venue owners, publicists and writers see this narrative. And because those articles seem compelling (if not dramatic), a lot of them believe it, which is both unfair and potentially damaging to a band that, despite their recent success, is still new to a lot of people.
The “Authenticity” Argument
I authored a spotlight article on Midland for the new issue of Texas Music magazine, spending hours researching the band and listening to both their new and old music. I interviewed them, songwriter/producer Shane McAnally and producer Dan Huff. And I watched them perform at the Springwater Supper Club & Lounge in Nashville. They served mini hamburgers and mini hot dogs. I was tempted, but refrained.
“Authenticity” is a slippery slope and a pointless argument. About 95% of George Strait’s music came from other writers. Brad Paisley doesn’t drink alcohol but one of his most popular songs ever is called “Alcohol.” Robert Johnson never sold his soul to the devil, and the Beatles intentionally fed false stories to New Musical Express. It goes on and on.
But Coroneos seems to create his own benchmarks of authenticity and then peddles accusations to meet them. He never spoke to the band or anybody associated with them. He intentionally does this, he tells me, because he believes interviews can “erode objectivity.”
“I’m not against others interviewing artists,” Coroneos explained to me over email. “But since I specialize in criticism and commentary, it generally behooves me to stay once removed from interacting with artists beyond cordial, brief exchanges that may happen in the course of business.” I get the sentiment there.
But interviews are the cornerstone of journalism. Combined with independent fact-checking and cross-referencing, they form the very basis of what we do. As uncomfortable as it may be, our job is to do what we can to get facts first-hand, even if they point towards a warranted lambasting of people we know personally.
As a writer who specializes in criticism — and Coroneos is a very gifted writer — he relies heavily on other journalists to lay the groundwork for him. In his case, he hasn’t seen Midland perform live (though he wants to when the opportunity presents itself). Which, to his point, he doesn’t need to see them live to critique their record. But it’s the least you could do if you’re going to call a band bullshitting elitists who don’t even write their own music.
“Hollywood Elite”
So let’s correct a few talking points used to de-legitimize the band. Like Mark Wystrach’s modeling and acting roles and Cameron Duddy directing music videos. Coroneos says this makes the pair “part of the power elite of the entertainment world.” Who knew underwear models held so much power?
In reality, Wystrach lived in a trailer by the beach. He tended bar way more than he modeled or acted. Those gigs are low paying, hard to come by and hardly “elite.” Directing music videos is just as volatile. And a great way to go gray in the hair before you’re thirty.
All of Duddy’s videography gigs supported his music habit, including his early band with Jess Carson Major Gray. Anybody who really believes that being the son of the second camera operator on 1999’s Mystery Men lands you a job with Bruno Mars is either a great comedian or woefully uninformed.
Duddy explained in an earlier interview, “I couldn’t get any job through my parents. I had rock, folk, Americana bands. I just started doing videos for my friends.” And eventually it grew, Duddy made friends, one gig led to another. Just like every person hustling.
Coroneos’ “Hollywood elite” jab backs artists into a corner and makes them defensive, so they talk about living hand to mouth and borrowing money from their manager to stay afloat. Both of those applied to Duddy, and it’s *embarrassing* the band feels they have to defend themselves so much that they’re revealing personal financial details instead of talking about music. Because it shouldn’t matter.
Yes, Duddy used connections to get a foot in the door. His friend, who manages pop acts and has no experience in country, liked their 2014 Sonic Ranch demos (helmed by Austin mainstay David Garza) so much that he took it upon himself to manage them and find out how to get them in front of people. They met manager Jason Owen and told him, “We’re going to do this one way or another.” Owen liked them, their music and their hustle, so called up Shane McAnally and got them in a room together.
But once you get in front of people, it’s your job as an artist to blow them away. Which they did, because they have years of performing, including in those talked-about tiny bars, where they played the much-loathed three and four-hour sets, testing out original songs and covers.
“Four Shows At Poodies”
Coroneos also references the band’s performances in Texas frequently. He makes it seem as if they only played four shows at Poodie’s before signing a deal with Big Machine.
Even just a cursory search of Midland’s Facebook page reveals an incomplete list of past dates full of Texas mainstays. Mercer Street, The Broken Spoke (the dinner happy hour two or three times before they got the main stage), Scholz, Shiner’s Saloon, The Saxon Pub, Threadgills, The White Horse, Easy Tiger, The Continental Club.
Which makes sense, because Midland had a small booking arrangement with Lisa at boutique agency Moxie Booking, who got them a lot of those weekend warrior shows. They secured that by booking their own shows and promoting themselves. Hell, they’re still listed on the Moxie website alongside acts like Tessy Lou and The Warhorses.
Poodie’s is a part of their narrative because that was their first show together in Texas. A 5:30 p.m. slot on a Tuesday afternoon to a handful of barflies. They eventually worked their way up to an opening gig with Gary P. Nunn and, yes, that residency. Between decades before Texas and a few years after, “They put their time in just like the rest of us,” McAnally says.
“Midland Was Manifested”
Coroneos claims Midland didn’t write their own music, which is a huge accusation. Despite some or all of the band being writers on every track, he uses a quote from McAnally to justify this claim. In the quote, McAnally says it felt like he and co-writer Josh Osborne “manifested” the band as a vehicle for the 1970s-era country tunes they love to write. Coroneos calls McAnally a “puppet master” insinuating that he was responsible for creating Sam Hunt, Old Dominion and now Midland.
“He’s giving me far too much credit,” McAnally laughs. “But you can’t just call it his opinion. That’s not an opinion. That’s just lying.”
When McAnally says they “manifested” their relationship, he means that he and Osborne kept wishing a band would come along that shared their vision. And on the other side, Midland wished somebody wanted to take their sound to new commercial highs. “It’s like both sides dreamed each other up,” he says. “We were inviting our paths to cross.” And he uses the Weird Science reference because Midland seemed like their version of the “perfect girl” that walked into the room, songs, talent and style in hand.
To suggest that every writer on those songs willingly have up more than 50% of their writer’s share to perpetuate a narrative is beyond far-fetched.
Why Does It Matter?
When it comes to being called second in line for the “Country Music Antichrist” (as well as the biggest producer in the world), McAnally laughs. “It hasn’t hurt my feelings,” McAnally says. “And I’m not just saying that. I’m very sensitive and I want people to like what I do. But when I read [these articles] I literally laugh and I know the way I feel about it. I can gauge myself and ask, ‘Is this hurting me?’ It’s not. But this Midland thing could hurt them. Because it’s taken off.”
He’s right. Coroneos’ false narrative is more responsible for never-ending quotes about their origin than anybody. And if you read something he writes without knowing the truth, you should question Midland. And then it becomes all anybody talks about.
Because people are looking to poke holes, especially if they’re already jaded by the industry. They don’t want to believe those three guys write the music they write and dress the way they dress because they want to, and got successful doing it.
“Midland are the same people who walked into the studio two and a half years ago when I met them,” McAnally says. “They had an aspiration to take the songs they were playing in bars and take them to the next level without compromising their music.”
And judging by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to their record, they did just that. And Coroneos, to his credit, wants the band to succeed. “Of all the negative things I’ve said about Midland, I want them to succeed because I want traditional country music in the mainstream to succeed,” he says.
The good news is the negative things he says just aren’t based in reality. So don’t do yourself a disservice and let the misinformed musings of an otherwise passionate writer convince you Midland is anything less than what they are.
1 note · View note
theinvinciblenoob · 6 years ago
Link
What’s in a camera? A lens, a shutter, a light-sensitive surface and, increasingly, a set of highly sophisticated algorithms. While the physical components are still improving bit by bit, Google, Samsung and Apple are increasingly investing in (and showcasing) improvements wrought entirely from code. Computational photography is the only real battleground now.
The reason for this shift is pretty simple: Cameras can’t get too much better than they are right now, or at least not without some rather extreme shifts in how they work. Here’s how smartphone makers hit the wall on photography, and how they were forced to jump over it.
Not enough buckets
An image sensor one might find in a digital camera
The sensors in our smartphone cameras are truly amazing things. The work that’s been done by the likes of Sony, OmniVision, Samsung and others to design and fabricate tiny yet sensitive and versatile chips is really pretty mind-blowing. For a photographer who’s watched the evolution of digital photography from the early days, the level of quality these microscopic sensors deliver is nothing short of astonishing.
But there’s no Moore’s Law for those sensors. Or rather, just as Moore’s Law is now running into quantum limits at sub-10-nanometer levels, camera sensors hit physical limits much earlier. Think about light hitting the sensor as rain falling on a bunch of buckets; you can place bigger buckets, but there are fewer of them; you can put smaller ones, but they can’t catch as much each; you can make them square or stagger them or do all kinds of other tricks, but ultimately there are only so many raindrops and no amount of bucket-rearranging can change that.
Sensors are getting better, yes, but not only is this pace too slow to keep consumers buying new phones year after year (imagine trying to sell a camera that’s 3 percent better), but phone manufacturers often use the same or similar camera stacks, so the improvements (like the recent switch to backside illumination) are shared amongst them. So no one is getting ahead on sensors alone.
See the new iPhone’s ‘focus pixels’ up close
Perhaps they could improve the lens? Not really. Lenses have arrived at a level of sophistication and perfection that is hard to improve on, especially at small scale. To say space is limited inside a smartphone’s camera stack is a major understatement — there’s hardly a square micron to spare. You might be able to improve them slightly as far as how much light passes through and how little distortion there is, but these are old problems that have been mostly optimized.
The only way to gather more light would be to increase the size of the lens, either by having it A: project outwards from the body; B: displace critical components within the body; or C: increase the thickness of the phone. Which of those options does Apple seem likely to find acceptable?
In retrospect it was inevitable that Apple (and Samsung, and Huawei, and others) would have to choose D: none of the above. If you can’t get more light, you just have to do more with the light you’ve got.
Isn’t all photography computational?
The broadest definition of computational photography includes just about any digital imaging at all. Unlike film, even the most basic digital camera requires computation to turn the light hitting the sensor into a usable image. And camera makers differ widely in the way they do this, producing different JPEG processing methods, RAW formats and color science.
For a long time there wasn’t much of interest on top of this basic layer, partly from a lack of processing power. Sure, there have been filters, and quick in-camera tweaks to improve contrast and color. But ultimately these just amount to automated dial-twiddling.
The first real computational photography features were arguably object identification and tracking for the purposes of autofocus. Face and eye tracking made it easier to capture people in complex lighting or poses, and object tracking made sports and action photography easier as the system adjusted its AF point to a target moving across the frame.
These were early examples of deriving metadata from the image and using it proactively, to improve that image or feeding forward to the next.
In DSLRs, autofocus accuracy and flexibility are marquee features, so this early use case made sense; but outside a few gimmicks, these “serious” cameras generally deployed computation in a fairly vanilla way. Faster image sensors meant faster sensor offloading and burst speeds, some extra cycles dedicated to color and detail preservation and so on. DSLRs weren’t being used for live video or augmented reality. And until fairly recently, the same was true of smartphone cameras, which were more like point and shoots than the all-purpose media tools we know them as today.
The limits of traditional imaging
Despite experimentation here and there and the occasional outlier, smartphone cameras are pretty much the same. They have to fit within a few millimeters of depth, which limits their optics to a few configurations. The size of the sensor is likewise limited — a DSLR might use an APS-C sensor 23 by 15 millimeters across, making an area of 345 mm2; the sensor in the iPhone XS, probably the largest and most advanced on the market right now, is 7 by 5.8 mm or so, for a total of 40.6 mm2.
Roughly speaking, it’s collecting an order of magnitude less light than a “normal” camera, but is expected to reconstruct a scene with roughly the same fidelity, colors and such — around the same number of megapixels, too. On its face this is sort of an impossible problem.
Improvements in the traditional sense help out — optical and electronic stabilization, for instance, make it possible to expose for longer without blurring, collecting more light. But these devices are still being asked to spin straw into gold.
Luckily, as I mentioned, everyone is pretty much in the same boat. Because of the fundamental limitations in play, there’s no way Apple or Samsung can reinvent the camera or come up with some crazy lens structure that puts them leagues ahead of the competition. They’ve all been given the same basic foundation.
All competition therefore comprises what these companies build on top of that foundation.
Image as stream
The key insight in computational photography is that an image coming from a digital camera’s sensor isn’t a snapshot, the way it is generally thought of. In traditional cameras the shutter opens and closes, exposing the light-sensitive medium for a fraction of a second. That’s not what digital cameras do, or at least not what they can do.
A camera’s sensor is constantly bombarded with light; rain is constantly falling on the field of buckets, to return to our metaphor, but when you’re not taking a picture, these buckets are bottomless and no one is checking their contents. But the rain is falling nevertheless.
To capture an image the camera system picks a point at which to start counting the raindrops, measuring the light that hits the sensor. Then it picks a point to stop. For the purposes of traditional photography, this enables nearly arbitrarily short shutter speeds, which isn’t much use to tiny sensors.
Why not just always be recording? Theoretically you could, but it would drain the battery and produce a lot of heat. Fortunately, in the last few years image processing chips have gotten efficient enough that they can, when the camera app is open, keep a certain duration of that stream — limited resolution captures of the last 60 frames, for instance. Sure, it costs a little battery, but it’s worth it.
Access to the stream allows the camera to do all kinds of things. It adds context.
Context can mean a lot of things. It can be photographic elements like the lighting and distance to subject. But it can also be motion, objects, intention.
A simple example of context is what is commonly referred to as HDR, or high dynamic range imagery. This technique uses multiple images taken in a row with different exposures to more accurately capture areas of the image that might have been underexposed or overexposed in a single exposure. The context in this case is understanding which areas those are and how to intelligently combine the images together.
This can be accomplished with exposure bracketing, a very old photographic technique, but it can be accomplished instantly and without warning if the image stream is being manipulated to produce multiple exposure ranges all the time. That’s exactly what Google and Apple now do.
Something more complex is of course the “portrait mode” and artificial background blur or bokeh that is becoming more and more common. Context here is not simply the distance of a face, but an understanding of what parts of the image constitute a particular physical object, and the exact contours of that object. This can be derived from motion in the stream, from stereo separation in multiple cameras, and from machine learning models that have been trained to identify and delineate human shapes.
These techniques are only possible, first, because the requisite imagery has been captured from the stream in the first place (an advance in image sensor and RAM speed), and second, because companies developed highly efficient algorithms to perform these calculations, trained on enormous data sets and immense amounts of computation time.
What’s important about these techniques, however, is not simply that they can be done, but that one company may do them better than the other. And this quality is entirely a function of the software engineering work and artistic oversight that goes into them.
A system to tell good fake bokeh from bad
DxOMark did a comparison of some early artificial bokeh systems; the results, however, were somewhat unsatisfying. It was less a question of which looked better, and more of whether they failed or succeeded in applying the effect. Computational photography is in such early days that it is enough for the feature to simply work to impress people. Like a dog walking on its hind legs, we are amazed that it occurs at all.
But Apple has pulled ahead with what some would say is an almost absurdly over-engineered solution to the bokeh problem. It didn’t just learn how to replicate the effect — it used the computing power it has at its disposal to create virtual physical models of the optical phenomenon that produces it. It’s like the difference between animating a bouncing ball and simulating realistic gravity and elastic material physics.
Why go to such lengths? Because Apple knows what is becoming clear to others: that it is absurd to worry about the limits of computational capability at all. There are limits to how well an optical phenomenon can be replicated if you are taking shortcuts like Gaussian blurring. There are no limits to how well it can be replicated if you simulate it at the level of the photon.
Similarly the idea of combining five, 10, or 100 images into a single HDR image seems absurd, but the truth is that in photography, more information is almost always better. If the cost of these computational acrobatics is negligible and the results measurable, why shouldn’t our devices be performing these calculations? In a few years they too will seem ordinary.
If the result is a better product, the computational power and engineering ability has been deployed with success; just as Leica or Canon might spend millions to eke fractional performance improvements out of a stable optical system like a $2,000 zoom lens, Apple and others are spending money where they can create value: not in glass, but in silicon.
Double vision
One trend that may appear to conflict with the computational photography narrative I’ve described is the advent of systems comprising multiple cameras.
This technique doesn’t add more light to the sensor — that would be prohibitively complex and expensive optically, and probably wouldn’t work anyway. But if you can free up a little space lengthwise (rather than depthwise, which we found impractical) you can put a whole separate camera right by the first that captures photos extremely similar to those taken by the first.
A mock-up of what a line of color iPhones could look like
Now, if all you want to do is re-enact Wayne’s World at an imperceptible scale (camera one, camera two… camera one, camera two…) that’s all you need. But no one actually wants to take two images simultaneously, a fraction of an inch apart.
These two cameras operate either independently (as wide-angle and zoom) or one is used to augment the other, forming a single system with multiple inputs.
The thing is that taking the data from one camera and using it to enhance the data from another is — you guessed it — extremely computationally intensive. It’s like the HDR problem of multiple exposures, except far more complex as the images aren’t taken with the same lens and sensor. It can be optimized, but that doesn’t make it easy.
So although adding a second camera is indeed a way to improve the imaging system by physical means, the possibility only exists because of the state of computational photography. And it is the quality of that computational imagery that results in a better photograph — or doesn’t. The Light camera with its 16 sensors and lenses is an example of an ambitious effort that simply didn’t produce better images, though it was using established computational photography techniques to harvest and winnow an even larger collection of images.
Light and code
The future of photography is computational, not optical. This is a massive shift in paradigm and one that every company that makes or uses cameras is currently grappling with. There will be repercussions in traditional cameras like SLRs (rapidly giving way to mirrorless systems), in phones, in embedded devices and everywhere that light is captured and turned into images.
Sometimes this means that the cameras we hear about will be much the same as last year’s, as far as megapixel counts, ISO ranges, f-numbers and so on. That’s okay. With some exceptions these have gotten as good as we can reasonably expect them to be: Glass isn’t getting any clearer, and our vision isn’t getting any more acute. The way light moves through our devices and eyeballs isn’t likely to change much.
What those devices do with that light, however, is changing at an incredible rate. This will produce features that sound ridiculous, or pseudoscience babble on stage, or drained batteries. That’s okay, too. Just as we have experimented with other parts of the camera for the last century and brought them to varying levels of perfection, we have moved onto a new, non-physical “part” which nonetheless has a very important effect on the quality and even possibility of the images we take.
via TechCrunch
0 notes
thegloober · 6 years ago
Text
The future of photography is code
What’s in a camera? A lens, a shutter, a light-sensitive surface, and, increasingly, a set of highly sophisticated algorithms. While the physical components are still improving bit by bit, Google, Samsung, and Apple are increasingly investing in (and showcasing) improvements wrought entirely from code. Computational photography is the only real battleground now.
The reason for this shift is pretty simple: cameras can’t get too much better than they are right now, or at least not without some rather extreme shifts in how they work. Here’s how smartphone makers hit the wall on photography, and how they were forced to jump over it.
Not enough buckets
An image sensor one might find in a digital camera.
The sensors in our smartphone cameras are truly amazing things. The work that’s been done by the likes of Sony, Omnivision, Samsung and others to design and fabricate tiny yet sensitive and versatile chips is really pretty mind-blowing. For a photographer who’s watched the evolution of digital photography from the early days, the level of quality these microscopic sensors deliver is nothing short of astonishing.
But there’s no Moore’s Law for those sensors. Or rather, just as Moore’s Law is now running into quantum limits at sub-10-nanometer levels, camera sensors hit physical limits much earlier. Think about light hitting the sensor as rain falling on a bunch of buckets; you can place bigger buckets, but there are fewer of them; you can put smaller ones, but they can’t catch as much each; you can make them square or stagger them or do all kinds of other tricks, but ultimately there are only so many raindrops and no amount of bucket-rearranging can change that.
Sensors are getting better, yes, but not only is this pace too slow to keep consumers buying new phones year after year (imagine trying to sell a camera that’s 3 percent better), but phone manufacturers often use the same or similar camera stacks, so the improvements (like the recent switch to backside illumination) are shared amongst them. So no one is getting ahead on sensors alone.
Perhaps they could improve the lens? Not really. Lenses have arrived at a level of sophistication and perfection that is hard to improve on, especially at small scale. To say space is limited inside a smartphone’s camera stack is a major understatement — there’s hardly a square micron to spare. You might be able to improve them slightly as far as how much light passes through and how little distortion there is, but these are old problems that have been mostly optimized.
The only way to gather more light would be to increase the size of the lens, either by having it A: project outwards from the body; B: displace critical components within the body; or C: increase the thickness of the phone. Which of those options does Apple seem likely to find acceptable?
In retrospect it was inevitable that Apple (and Samsung, and Huawei, and others) would have to choose D: none of the above. If you can’t get more light, you just have to do more with the light you’ve got.
Isn’t all photography computational?
The broadest definition of computational photography includes just about any digital imaging at all. Unlike film, even the most basic digital camera requires computation to turn the light hitting the sensor into a usable image. And camera makers differ widely in the way they do this, producing different JPEG processing methods, RAW formats, and color science.
For a long time there wasn’t much of interest on top of this basic layer, partly from a lack of processing power. Sure, there have been filters, and quick in-camera tweaks to improve contrast and color. But ultimately these just amount to automated dial-twiddling.
The first real computational photography features were arguably object identification and tracking for the purposes of autofocus. Face and eye tracking made it easier to capture people in complex lighting or poses, and object tracking made sports and action photography easier as the system adjusted its AF point to a target moving across the frame.
These were early examples of deriving metadata from the image and using it proactively, to improve that image or feeding forward to the next.
In DSLRs, autofocus accuracy and flexibility are marquee features, so this early use case made sense; but outside a few gimmicks, these “serious” cameras generally deployed computation in a fairly vanilla way. Faster image sensors meant faster sensor offloading and burst speeds, some extra cycles dedicated to color and detail preservation, and so on. DSLRs weren’t being used for live video or augmented reality. And until fairly recently, the same was true of smartphone cameras, which were more like point and shoots than the all-purpose media tools we know them as today.
The limits of traditional imaging
Despite experimentation here and there and the occasional outlier, smartphone cameras are pretty much the same. They have to fit within a few millimeters of depth, which limits their optics to a few configurations. The size of the sensor is likewise limited — a DSLR might use an APS-C sensor 23 by 15 millimeters across, making an area of 345 mm2; the sensor in the iPhone XS, probably the largest and most advanced on the market right now, is 7 by 5.8mm or so, for a total of 40.6 mm2.
Roughly speaking it’s collecting an order of magnitude less light than a “normal” camera, but is expected to reconstruct a scene with roughly the same fidelity, colors, and such — around the same number of megapixels, too. On its face this is sort of an impossible problem.
Improvements in the traditional sense help out — optical and electronic stabilization, for instance, make it possible to expose for longer without blurring, collecting more light. But these devices are still being asked to spin straw into gold.
Luckily, as I mentioned, everyone is pretty much in the same boat. Because of the fundamental limitations in play, there’s no way Apple or Samsung can reinvent the camera or come up with some crazy lens structure that puts them leagues ahead of the competition. They’ve all been given the same basic foundation.
All competition therefore comprises what these companies build on top of that foundation.
Image as stream
The key insight in computational photography is that an image coming from a digital camera’s sensor isn’t a snapshot, the way it is generally thought of. In traditional cameras the shutter opens and closes, exposing the light-sensitive medium for a fraction of a second. That’s not what digital cameras do, or at least not what they can do.
A camera’s sensor is constantly bombarded with light; rain is constantly falling on the field of buckets, to return to our metaphor, but when you’re not taking a picture, these buckets are bottomless and no one is checking their contents. But the rain is falling nevertheless.
To capture an image the camera system picks point at which to start counting the raindrops, measuring the light that hits the sensor. Then it picks a point to stop. For the purposes of traditional photography, this enables nearly arbitrarily short shutter speeds, which isn’t much use to tiny sensors.
Why not just always be recording? Theoretically you could, but it would drain the battery and produce a lot of heat. Fortunately, in the last few years image processing chips have gotten efficient enough that they can, when the camera app is open, keep a certain duration of that stream — limited resolution captures of the last 60 frames, for instance. Sure, it costs a little battery, but it’s worth it.
Access to the stream allows the camera to do all kinds of things. It adds context.
Context can mean a lot of things. It can be photographic elements like the lighting and distance to subject. But it can also be motion, objects, intention.
A simple example of context is what is commonly referred to as HDR, or high dynamic range imagery. This technique uses multiple images taken in a row with different exposures to more accurately capture areas of the image that might have been underexposed or overexposed in a single exposure. The context in this case is understanding which areas those are and how to intelligently combine the images together.
This can be accomplished with exposure bracketing, a very old photographic technique, but it can be accomplished instantly and without warning if the image stream is being manipulated to produce multiple exposure ranges all the time. That’s exactly what Google and Apple now do.
Something more complex is of course the “portrait mode” and artificial background blur or bokeh that is becoming more and more common. Context here is not simply the distance of a face, but an understanding of what parts of the image constitute a particular physical object, and the exact contours of that object. This can be derived from motion in the stream, from stereo separation in multiple cameras, and from machine learning models that have been trained to identify and delineate human shapes.
These techniques are only possible, first, because the requisite imagery has been captured from the stream in the first place (an advance in image sensor and RAM speed), and second, because companies developed highly efficient algorithms to perform these calculations, trained on enormous datasets and immense amounts of computation time.
What’s important about these techniques, however, is not simply that they can be done, but that one company may do them better than the other. And this quality is entirely a function of the software engineering work and artistic oversight that goes into them.
DxOMark did a comparison of some early artificial bokeh systems; the results, however, were somewhat unsatisfying. It was less a question of which looked better, and more of whether they failed or succeeded in applying the effect. Computational photography is in such early days that it is enough for the feature to simply work to impress people. Like a dog walking on its hind legs, we are amazed that it occurs at all.
But Apple has pulled ahead with what some would say is an almost absurdly over-engineered solution to the bokeh problem. It didn’t just learn how to replicate the effect — it used the computing power it has at its disposal to create virtual physical models of the optical phenomenon that produces it. It’s like the difference between animating a bouncing ball and simulating realistic gravity and elastic material physics.
Why go to such lengths? Because Apple knows what is becoming clear to others: that it is absurd to worry about the limits of computational capability at all. There are limits to how well an optical phenomenon can be replicated if you are taking shortcuts like Gaussian blurring. There are no limits to how well it can be replicated if you simulate it at the level of the photon.
Similarly the idea of combining five, ten, or a hundred images together into a single HDR image seems absurd but the truth is that in photography, more information is almost always better. If the cost of these computational acrobatics is negligible and the results measurable, why shouldn’t our devices be performing these calculations? In a few years they too will seem ordinary.
If the result is a better product, the computational power and engineering ability has been deployed with success; just as Leica or Canon might spend millions to eke fractional performance improvements out of a stable optical system like a $2,000 zoom lens, Apple and others are spending money where they can create value: not in glass, but in silicon.
Double vision
One trend that may appear to conflict with the computational photography narrative I’ve described is the advent of systems comprising multiple cameras.
This technique doesn’t add more light to the sensor — that would be prohibitively complex and expensive optically, and probably wouldn’t work anyway. But if you can free up a little space lengthwise (rather than depthwise, which we found impractical) you can put a whole separate camera right by the first that captures photos extremely similar to those taken by the first.
A mockup of what a line of color iPhones could look like.
Now, if all you want to do is re-enact Wayne’s World at an imperceptible scale (camera one, camera two… camera one, camera two…) that’s all you need. But no one actually wants to take two images simultaneously, a fraction of an inch apart.
These two cameras operate either independently (as wide-angle and zoom) or one is used to augment the other, forming a single system with multiple inputs.
The thing is that taking the data from one camera and using it to enhance the data from another is — you guessed it — extremely computationally intensive. It’s like the HDR problem of multiple exposures, except far more complex as the images aren’t taken with the same lens and sensor. It can be optimized, but that doesn’t make it easy.
So although adding a second camera is indeed a way to improve the imaging system by physical means, the possibility only exists because of the state of computational photography. And it is the quality of that computational imagery that results in a better photograph — or doesn’t. The Light camera with its 16 sensors and lenses is an example of an ambitious effort that simply didn’t produce better images, though it was using established computational photography techniques to harvest and winnow an even larger collection of images.
Light and code
The future of photography is computational, not optical. This is a massive shift in paradigm and one that every company that makes or uses cameras is currently grappling with. There will be repercussions in traditional cameras like SLRs (rapidly giving way to mirrorless systems), in phones, in embedded devices, and everywhere that light is captured and turned into images.
Sometimes this means that the cameras we hear about will be much the same as last year’s, as far as megapixel counts, ISO ranges, f-numbers, and so on. That’s okay. With some exceptions these have gotten as good as we can reasonably expect them to be: glass isn’t getting any clearer, and our vision isn’t getting any more acute. The way light moves through our devices and eyeballs isn’t likely to change much.
What those devices do with that light, however, is changing at an incredible rate. This will produce features that sound ridiculous, or pseudoscience babble on stage, or drained batteries. That’s okay, too. Just as we have experimented with other parts of the camera for the last century and brought them to varying levels of perfection, we have moved onto a new, non-physical “part” which nonetheless has a very important effect on the quality and even possibility of the images we take.
Source: https://bloghyped.com/the-future-of-photography-is-code-2/
0 notes
thegloober · 6 years ago
Text
The future of photography is code
What’s in a camera? A lens, a shutter, a light-sensitive surface, and, increasingly, a set of highly sophisticated algorithms. While the physical components are still improving bit by bit, Google, Samsung, and Apple are increasingly investing in (and showcasing) improvements wrought entirely from code. Computational photography is the only real battleground now.
The reason for this shift is pretty simple: cameras can’t get too much better than they are right now, or at least not without some rather extreme shifts in how they work. Here’s how smartphone makers hit the wall on photography, and how they were forced to jump over it.
Not enough buckets
An image sensor one might find in a digital camera.
The sensors in our smartphone cameras are truly amazing things. The work that’s been done by the likes of Sony, Omnivision, Samsung and others to design and fabricate tiny yet sensitive and versatile chips is really pretty mind-blowing. For a photographer who’s watched the evolution of digital photography from the early days, the level of quality these microscopic sensors deliver is nothing short of astonishing.
But there’s no Moore’s Law for those sensors. Or rather, just as Moore’s Law is now running into quantum limits at sub-10-nanometer levels, camera sensors hit physical limits much earlier. Think about light hitting the sensor as rain falling on a bunch of buckets; you can place bigger buckets, but there are fewer of them; you can put smaller ones, but they can’t catch as much each; you can make them square or stagger them or do all kinds of other tricks, but ultimately there are only so many raindrops and no amount of bucket-rearranging can change that.
Sensors are getting better, yes, but not only is this pace too slow to keep consumers buying new phones year after year (imagine trying to sell a camera that’s 3 percent better), but phone manufacturers often use the same or similar camera stacks, so the improvements (like the recent switch to backside illumination) are shared amongst them. So no one is getting ahead on sensors alone.
Perhaps they could improve the lens? Not really. Lenses have arrived at a level of sophistication and perfection that is hard to improve on, especially at small scale. To say space is limited inside a smartphone’s camera stack is a major understatement — there’s hardly a square micron to spare. You might be able to improve them slightly as far as how much light passes through and how little distortion there is, but these are old problems that have been mostly optimized.
The only way to gather more light would be to increase the size of the lens, either by having it A: project outwards from the body; B: displace critical components within the body; or C: increase the thickness of the phone. Which of those options does Apple seem likely to find acceptable?
In retrospect it was inevitable that Apple (and Samsung, and Huawei, and others) would have to choose D: none of the above. If you can’t get more light, you just have to do more with the light you’ve got.
Isn’t all photography computational?
The broadest definition of computational photography includes just about any digital imaging at all. Unlike film, even the most basic digital camera requires computation to turn the light hitting the sensor into a usable image. And camera makers differ widely in the way they do this, producing different JPEG processing methods, RAW formats, and color science.
For a long time there wasn’t much of interest on top of this basic layer, partly from a lack of processing power. Sure, there have been filters, and quick in-camera tweaks to improve contrast and color. But ultimately these just amount to automated dial-twiddling.
The first real computational photography features were arguably object identification and tracking for the purposes of autofocus. Face and eye tracking made it easier to capture people in complex lighting or poses, and object tracking made sports and action photography easier as the system adjusted its AF point to a target moving across the frame.
These were early examples of deriving metadata from the image and using it proactively, to improve that image or feeding forward to the next.
In DSLRs, autofocus accuracy and flexibility are marquee features, so this early use case made sense; but outside a few gimmicks, these “serious” cameras generally deployed computation in a fairly vanilla way. Faster image sensors meant faster sensor offloading and burst speeds, some extra cycles dedicated to color and detail preservation, and so on. DSLRs weren’t being used for live video or augmented reality. And until fairly recently, the same was true of smartphone cameras, which were more like point and shoots than the all-purpose media tools we know them as today.
The limits of traditional imaging
Despite experimentation here and there and the occasional outlier, smartphone cameras are pretty much the same. They have to fit within a few millimeters of depth, which limits their optics to a few configurations. The size of the sensor is likewise limited — a DSLR might use an APS-C sensor 23 by 15 millimeters across, making an area of 345 mm2; the sensor in the iPhone XS, probably the largest and most advanced on the market right now, is 7 by 5.8mm or so, for a total of 40.6 mm2.
Roughly speaking it’s collecting an order of magnitude less light than a “normal” camera, but is expected to reconstruct a scene with roughly the same fidelity, colors, and such — around the same number of megapixels, too. On its face this is sort of an impossible problem.
Improvements in the traditional sense help out — optical and electronic stabilization, for instance, make it possible to expose for longer without blurring, collecting more light. But these devices are still being asked to spin straw into gold.
Luckily, as I mentioned, everyone is pretty much in the same boat. Because of the fundamental limitations in play, there’s no way Apple or Samsung can reinvent the camera or come up with some crazy lens structure that puts them leagues ahead of the competition. They’ve all been given the same basic foundation.
All competition therefore comprises what these companies build on top of that foundation.
Image as stream
The key insight in computational photography is that an image coming from a digital camera’s sensor isn’t a snapshot, the way it is generally thought of. In traditional cameras the shutter opens and closes, exposing the light-sensitive medium for a fraction of a second. That’s not what digital cameras do, or at least not what they can do.
A camera’s sensor is constantly bombarded with light; rain is constantly falling on the field of buckets, to return to our metaphor, but when you’re not taking a picture, these buckets are bottomless and no one is checking their contents. But the rain is falling nevertheless.
To capture an image the camera system picks point at which to start counting the raindrops, measuring the light that hits the sensor. Then it picks a point to stop. For the purposes of traditional photography, this enables nearly arbitrarily short shutter speeds, which isn’t much use to tiny sensors.
Why not just always be recording? Theoretically you could, but it would drain the battery and produce a lot of heat. Fortunately, in the last few years image processing chips have gotten efficient enough that they can, when the camera app is open, keep a certain duration of that stream — limited resolution captures of the last 60 frames, for instance. Sure, it costs a little battery, but it’s worth it.
Access to the stream allows the camera to do all kinds of things. It adds context.
Context can mean a lot of things. It can be photographic elements like the lighting and distance to subject. But it can also be motion, objects, intention.
A simple example of context is what is commonly referred to as HDR, or high dynamic range imagery. This technique uses multiple images taken in a row with different exposures to more accurately capture areas of the image that might have been underexposed or overexposed in a single exposure. The context in this case is understanding which areas those are and how to intelligently combine the images together.
This can be accomplished with exposure bracketing, a very old photographic technique, but it can be accomplished instantly and without warning if the image stream is being manipulated to produce multiple exposure ranges all the time. That’s exactly what Google and Apple now do.
Something more complex is of course the “portrait mode” and artificial background blur or bokeh that is becoming more and more common. Context here is not simply the distance of a face, but an understanding of what parts of the image constitute a particular physical object, and the exact contours of that object. This can be derived from motion in the stream, from stereo separation in multiple cameras, and from machine learning models that have been trained to identify and delineate human shapes.
These techniques are only possible, first, because the requisite imagery has been captured from the stream in the first place (an advance in image sensor and RAM speed), and second, because companies developed highly efficient algorithms to perform these calculations, trained on enormous datasets and immense amounts of computation time.
What’s important about these techniques, however, is not simply that they can be done, but that one company may do them better than the other. And this quality is entirely a function of the software engineering work and artistic oversight that goes into them.
DxOMark did a comparison of some early artificial bokeh systems; the results, however, were somewhat unsatisfying. It was less a question of which looked better, and more of whether they failed or succeeded in applying the effect. Computational photography is in such early days that it is enough for the feature to simply work to impress people. Like a dog walking on its hind legs, we are amazed that it occurs at all.
But Apple has pulled ahead with what some would say is an almost absurdly over-engineered solution to the bokeh problem. It didn’t just learn how to replicate the effect — it used the computing power it has at its disposal to create virtual physical models of the optical phenomenon that produces it. It’s like the difference between animating a bouncing ball and simulating realistic gravity and elastic material physics.
Why go to such lengths? Because Apple knows what is becoming clear to others: that it is absurd to worry about the limits of computational capability at all. There are limits to how well an optical phenomenon can be replicated if you are taking shortcuts like Gaussian blurring. There are no limits to how well it can be replicated if you simulate it at the level of the photon.
Similarly the idea of combining five, ten, or a hundred images together into a single HDR image seems absurd but the truth is that in photography, more information is almost always better. If the cost of these computational acrobatics is negligible and the results measurable, why shouldn’t our devices be performing these calculations? In a few years they too will seem ordinary.
If the result is a better product, the computational power and engineering ability has been deployed with success; just as Leica or Canon might spend millions to eke fractional performance improvements out of a stable optical system like a $2,000 zoom lens, Apple and others are spending money where they can create value: not in glass, but in silicon.
Double vision
One trend that may appear to conflict with the computational photography narrative I’ve described is the advent of systems comprising multiple cameras.
This technique doesn’t add more light to the sensor — that would be prohibitively complex and expensive optically, and probably wouldn’t work anyway. But if you can free up a little space lengthwise (rather than depthwise, which we found impractical) you can put a whole separate camera right by the first that captures photos extremely similar to those taken by the first.
A mockup of what a line of color iPhones could look like.
Now, if all you want to do is re-enact Wayne’s World at an imperceptible scale (camera one, camera two… camera one, camera two…) that’s all you need. But no one actually wants to take two images simultaneously, a fraction of an inch apart.
These two cameras operate either independently (as wide-angle and zoom) or one is used to augment the other, forming a single system with multiple inputs.
The thing is that taking the data from one camera and using it to enhance the data from another is — you guessed it — extremely computationally intensive. It’s like the HDR problem of multiple exposures, except far more complex as the images aren’t taken with the same lens and sensor. It can be optimized, but that doesn’t make it easy.
So although adding a second camera is indeed a way to improve the imaging system by physical means, the possibility only exists because of the state of computational photography. And it is the quality of that computational imagery that results in a better photograph — or doesn’t. The Light camera with its 16 sensors and lenses is an example of an ambitious effort that simply didn’t produce better images, though it was using established computational photography techniques to harvest and winnow an even larger collection of images.
Light and code
The future of photography is computational, not optical. This is a massive shift in paradigm and one that every company that makes or uses cameras is currently grappling with. There will be repercussions in traditional cameras like SLRs (rapidly giving way to mirrorless systems), in phones, in embedded devices, and everywhere that light is captured and turned into images.
Sometimes this means that the cameras we hear about will be much the same as last year’s, as far as megapixel counts, ISO ranges, f-numbers, and so on. That’s okay. With some exceptions these have gotten as good as we can reasonably expect them to be: glass isn’t getting any clearer, and our vision isn’t getting any more acute. The way light moves through our devices and eyeballs isn’t likely to change much.
What those devices do with that light, however, is changing at an incredible rate. This will produce features that sound ridiculous, or pseudoscience babble on stage, or drained batteries. That’s okay, too. Just as we have experimented with other parts of the camera for the last century and brought them to varying levels of perfection, we have moved onto a new, non-physical “part” which nonetheless has a very important effect on the quality and even possibility of the images we take.
Source: https://bloghyped.com/the-future-of-photography-is-code/
0 notes