Magical Vision – Seeing What Isn’t There

Taking a stroll walking the dog a few evenings ago as the sun was going down I noticed that as it got darker I was experiencing a transition in my human vision processing system. Something that happens all of the time, but we seldom pay attention to it while it is happening. When the light is good, we pick out details and texture information. Edges define boundaries and the space between things. We interpret distance and notice sudden movements of things. But as it gets darker and darker there is a transition to shape based interpretation. There isn’t enough information to identify details and texture, so it would seem that the brain (my brain anyway) transitioned to processing shapes. The mood changed and sounds seemed to take on a different character that directed the direction of my gaze much more so than when it was lighter.  The experience of walking and looking around definitely made a transition as it got darker and darker to something quite different.

This experience got me thinking about all of the different ways that we look at things and experience the space that we occupy. We have vision comfort zones where we are casual observers and don’t pay much attention to what we are looking at. Indeed, we can almost shut off our conscious analysis of the visual data streaming in from our eyes while we engage our attention thinking about something or talking on the phone or listening to music. When it is too dark to make out the informational details, we engage our imagination and try to find shapes and patterns that are familiar in the darkness.

It would seem that there are many modes to seeing. A few of the modes could be described as experiential, referential, interpretive, imaginative, detail, abstract, conscious and subconscious. And each one of those modes are impacted by the type of illumination and amount of illumination. Indeed, it would seem to me that sound, smell and state of mind  equally impact these various modes. Quickly, it becomes obvious that what goes on in the human vision processing system is far more complex than we give it credit for.  What we perceive and what we see are two different things that are dependant upon an exponentially large number of random possibilities. Yet, out of what should be confusing xaos that causes us to lose our minds – we make no special effort to see things and process vision in our brains instantly in ways that we don’t even think about.  It is simple and automatic. We make all of the transitions effortlessly. When you step back for a second, however, and think about how limited our vision processing system is – only two eyes with limited luminance dynamic range, limited frequency bandwidth, distorted optics and field of view, persistence of vision or amount of individual time slices that can be interpreted independently. All of those limitations don’t occur to us because the brain fills in the blanks and we are ignorant of what we are missing.

Maybe this explains why we put such a high priority on esthetics and subjective interpretation. We are wired to simplify the complexity down to chunks that are easily absorbed and found useful. Yet, at the same time we are attracted to high levels of detail when we are interested in something. Stereovision helps to bridge the gap between providing a potential exponential increase in information, on demand when needed and a processing system that is simple enough to parse out only the bits of visual information that we need to have to not overwhelm our ability to make sense out of what we are looking at. It would seem that our vision system has evolved into a very carefully balanced high level system of links to different thought processes and interpretations and emotional experiences that instantly trigger response at the subconscious level.  What is interesting is that we have the ability to go far beyond our current capabilities. To see things in new ways with biomechanical appliances and add dramatically to the capabilities of our vision processing system.  Indeed, much will be revealed in the future that shows what we see now isn’t “real” at all. What we see in the year 2013 is magical vision that filters out things that our brains haven’t decided are useful… yet.

Tattoos — The Oriental Rug Effect

We are in the midst of an exploding art renaissance. It has all of the traditional things – apprenticeships, skills and tools of the trade, patrons, collectors, teachers, critics, genius and idiocy… Experimentation with pigments, inks and exploring canvas in a new way- a living canvas with its time-lapse degradation and fading – restoration and cover up. Welcome to the world of tattoos.

The similarities to the art renaissance of Da Vinci’s time are striking. But there is something troubling and that is what I call the oriental rug effect (ORE). When I look at the way tattoos are depicted on the internet and in magazines I am struck by all that is missing in those depictions. Like furniture on an oriental rug, so much is covered up and hidden from view. Indeed, in many cases the tattoo is treated like a design element, again like an oriental rug. To change the feel of the image, but not something that stands alone to be studied and enjoyed. Pleasing visual noise, like jewelry, a nice hair style and well applied makeup.

Is a tattoo just visual noise? Is it worthy of the moniker true art?

Well, I have seen mind blowing tattoo works of art. Stunning detail, color, use of human body topography in ways that are incredibly creative, inventive, thought provoking… Works that deserve detailed study and appreciation like an impressive music performance, work of poetry, painting or sculpture.

The standard for the way we look at tattoo imagery needs to change. A well crafted tattoo deserves a viewing audience, but just like the world famous violinist Joshua Bell who was relatively unnoticed when he played in a New York Subway station (http://www.hoax-slayer.com/joshua-bell-subway.shtml ) people must become educated to appreciate works by skilled artisans.  This can be fostered through the way the art is depicted.

This is one of the reasons why I’ve been working so hard to perfect AMPED 3D and AMPED 360 imagery.

Debut of AMPED360 At Sacred Tattoo/Gallery NYC

I’ve made it my mission to change the standard for the way tattoos are displayed on the web.

While it would be great to have a 3D free view computer display (still a few years off), a rotational image provides motion parallax and depth cues much more than a flat static image. That standard is relatively easy to implement given that javascript is a uniform standard across all computer/mobile browser platforms. So, that’s what I’m doing.

I’m going about it in a few steps.

First, I built a 50 camera array that makes it easy and inexpensive to acquire lots of rotational imagery. I’ve been experimenting with it here in my studio for a few months and I finally have it ready to try out on the road. Sacred Tattoo/Gallery in New York city has been very generous to allow me to bring the rig to their location in Soho (Broadway and Canal street) and I will debut the rig to an audience of tattooers and their clients taking free images for two days. As an added bonus, Almont Studios is having a model search for an AMPED 3D image based upon Facebook likes. Details can be found here: http://amped360.com/models.html If you have a great tattoo, I’d encourage you to come to the event – you might land a job!

Second, I’m offering image programming and hosting so that the images can be easily placed on social media and web pages. Unlimited rotational image hosting starts at less than $10 per month (two plans, $60 for 6 months or $100 for a year). Everyone gets to try it out for one month free.

Third, I’m going to launch a kickstarter project to produce a do it yourself video on how to take multi perspective photographs with one or more cameras. That way ALL tattoo artists can start taking rotational images. Additionally, plans include adding more rigs and taking them to tattoo conventions around the world and acquiring imagery for artists and for AMPED 3D image exhibitions as part of the events.

Come on down to Sacred on March 17 or 18 and see what all of this is about! I’ll be showing AMPED 3D images and a new rotational display that is very cool and perfect for presentation of rotational imagery.

Three Months Later… A New 50 Camera Array: AMPED 360 Is Here!

What I’ve been up to? Testing EVERY camera made to find the right building block for a highly sophisticated 50 perspective imaging system. Building power supplies and cable harnesses and circuits to connect and synchronize a 24 megapixel per camera array. Working with metal fabricators to design and build a perfect mounting system in a circle that facilitates quick and LOW COST acquisition of 360 degree images and AMPED 3D lenticular image data sets.

Writing SOFTWARE to automate and make cross platform compatible so a swipe of a finger on a smartphone turns an image around in the same way it does on a tablet, Mac or PC.

I’m now in the final testing phase and everything is working – which has been no small feat.

Photos to follow. For immediate info, PLEASE like me on Facebook at http://facebook.com/amped3d

Thanks!!!

Interesting Perspective On Left / Right Brain Stuff. ;^)

Photography Without Authenticity / With Authenticity

Since the beginning, photography has provided us with a referential image to look at and interpret. We derive meaning from that interpretation. Never mind that the image doesn’t depict true reality – in other words, nobody is confused about whether they are looking at a photograph or through a window to reality. This fundamental difference, referential vs. reality, starts us down a path that continues to chip away at authenticity.  With the growing proliferation of photoshop filters and image editing tools, we are moving farther and farther away from authenticity. Given the success of software that filters and modifies images, there is a case to be made that most people prefer images without authenticity. Abstraction is defined in terms of opening up pathways for interpretation. As we alter imagery we are opening up interpretations for that imagery. Taken to the extreme, we end up with Picasso painting style photography and a complete separation from authentic imagery.

Referential imagery could also be labeled left brain imagery because it is generally where abstraction is processed in the brain (language, logic, analytics). With images on smart phones, the images seamlessly integrate with text. Never mind that they are tiny representations (small screen). We can easly interpret the small sized representation of someone’s face. That’s because we are interpreting the photograph from the beginning. We derive the meaning and emotion from it through that interpretation. However, just like with a good book, once you’ve seen it or read it you are ready to move on. There is a genuine feeling that given even a fleeting look that you have seen all there is to see in a photograph. Eye tracking studies point this out. The eyes focus on a few places within the photo and then the brain is satisfied.

So, does this mean that image authenticity isn’t important?

I think the opposite is true. Abstraction only makes sense when there is a deep appreciation and understanding of what is real. Realness is the frame of reference from which abstraction can be derived. As we are flooded with more and more referential imagery we have less and less experience of realness from which to even process an abstraction. This is a partial explanation for the growing lack of interest and lack of importance placed on any particular image.

Then the question becomes: What exactly is an authentic photograph?

My opinion is that it must be a photograph that has a comparability to realness. We have two eyes and we perceive the world with space and dimension. Our “seeing” is a real experience and reality imagery could be labeled right brain imagery because that is generally where emotion, creativity, color, and recognition are processed. When we are emotionally engaged looking at real things we create a frame of reference and support our fundamental perceptions about our existence and reality. This is a foundation for our being able to process referential imagery.  So, to engage our right brain an authentic photograph should mimic reality as much as possible. It needs to depict space and energy. It needs to mimic what we perceive in reality when we look around at the real world as much as possible. But equally important, it must engage because it is something worth looking at. Something that holds fascination and wonder. It should offer an experience and be emotionally engaging where the story of the photograph can be experienced in a right brain way. Then we can use that experience as a foundation for looking at referential imagery.

This has tremendous ramifications for education and simply expanding the horizon for our ability to referentially interpret information. In my own experience looking at AMPED 3D imagery of human skulls, a foundation steeped in experience was created. Now, as I look at regular pictures of skulls, I have a different and expanded appreciation for them because I can interpret the meaning in a broader sense. I acquired a frame of reference by experiencing an authentic photograph (AMPED 3D image).

This builds the case for creating AMPED 3D images of things that we don’t necessarily experience or see in our daily “real” lives. It also builds the case for capturing a moment in time that can be experienced in the future in a way that gives us a frame of reference to better understand our past.

Given the above, some might think that practically anything would be a good subject to photograph using AMPED 3D technology to create an authentic photograph. The problem is that the technology has its limitations. As with all art, it is difficult to achieve consistent results that deliver the promise of the medium. The image has to first engage because it is something inherently interesting. Only then, can the experience of looking and perceiving happen in a meaningful way. There is more to it than depicting space. It has to be accurate to a point where any inaccuracies are dismissed. It has to engage a feedback loop where the more you look, the more you see reinforcing a desire to look longer and see more. This doesn’t work for everything.

The process of thinking through subject matter for authentic photography isn’t trivial. It took me many months to understand the amazing potential of tattoos. I now see that for skulls (there is a very keen relationship to tattoos coincidentally). Other subjects are certainly possible, but I haven’t fully understood what they are… yet.

Asiago Artisan Archival Printing… aka Rant.

The other day a photographer friend of mine, who I enjoy teasing on a regular basis, asked me if a “professional” print shop was blowing smoke up his skirt (we can talk about the skirt later) with regards to print “A” or print ”C” being archival quality and such and such didn’t use “C” and therefore the prints would change color in a year or two.  He asked me what I thought about this. He was hearing about 110 years longevity and blah blah blah.  Well, he suggested I share the response I gave him here on the blog. WTF… here’s pretty much what I told him:

…Anybody that says 110 years is full of [expletive]. The longevity of a print is dependent upon exposure to UV, humidity, temperature and the frequency of sudden changes in the environment in which they are stored. It is really just a marketing pile of bull [expletive] if you ask me. “Archival inks” [typically] means the breakdown under UV light specification and that is only part of the story. The adhesion of the ink droplets to the substrate (paper) isn’t specified and that’s a factor as well regardless of the paper’s “archival” specification. You might as well talk about “artisan” ink or “artisean” ink or “asswipe” ink.  {asswipe being an anagram and not a reference to a towel used on a subgenus of Equus}

Now don’t get me wrong, getting the highest quality does make a difference as compared to [expletive] bum rip off inks.  [many, such as some of the pigment inks from Epson, are very good.]

As to artifacts, there are a zillion things that can cause those and I could probably give you a blow by blow if I looked at them under a loupe or microscope. The thing is, you changed the color profile, so in terms of color integrity – all bets are off and what you get is a crap shoot.  sRGB color profile 8 bit jpegs are junior league hobbyist specifications. [professionals use the camera profile with 16 bit RAW images]   Converting a jpeg to a tif (or anything else for that matter) is an aggressive exercise of your right arm [doing nothing - an inside joke].

Any time you have an RGB to CMYK+ conversion there will be issues which are compounded by different file types and color profiles. Heck, each paper has a different color profile and with an image such as yours, there is no frame of reference (I am assuming you didn’t provide a reference file – because that would only have meaning if you shot a reference card along with the original photograph under the same exact conditions and did no processing of the image afterwards (which is obvious that didn’t happen).

Bottom line?  I can make ANY print change color and get blotchy in about two weeks. All I have to do is get out a heat gun and black light and [screw around] with the humidity and temperature. I can turn any image to [expletive] ;^) I have very competitive pricing for that if you are interested.

What’s the solution?  Well, you can have very low standards and accept what you get. Or… you can do like me and spend your life savings on equipment to do it yourself learning all of the complicated as [heck] issues with regards to printing. Another option is getting a reasonably good printer, and learn what you get out of it and how to [adjust] your images to get what you can get out of the printer through trial and error (this is what most people do).

Want to blow your mind?

Take a photograph of an oil painting and then send that un-doctored file to a service bureau. Then look at what they give you as a print compared to the original oil painting. You will be shocked because there will be a huge difference. oops. Well guess what? That difference is always there, you just don’t know it because you don’t have a frame of reference to compare. I guess you can hold it up to your computer monitor… ha ha ha ha ha… that is really funny. Sorry.  Printing is not an exact science and the results aren’t necessarily consistent.

There, does that help? Probably not.
———————————————–
Hope somebody else got something out of this ty-raid ;^)