The Best

When I was actively and passionately pursuing my career in photography I realized something, "I would never be the best photographer in the world."

While this might seem like a pessimistic outlook, it is important to remember that when the game is defined so narrowly, there can really is only one winner. I mean the definition of "the best" is singular.

I saw this on the Netflix series "Break Point" which interviewed many up and coming stars in the tennis world. Many bemoaned the difficulty of winning a competition and that everyone in the competition would ultimately be a loser except for the one winning individual. To compete on that level (top 100 in the world) and live with the reality of that outcome repeated over and over again is already an incredible feat that requires the highest level of psychological fortitude and perseverance. Furthermore when you consider that even Raphael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novac Djokovic still lose to each other while being literally the best in tennis (as they have been for decades), then it is even more important to realize that being "the best" is rare and virtually impossible.

If you asked me, "Who is the best photographer in the world"? I would honestly have no clue how to answer that question. I can name a few historically legendary photographers such as Annie Liebowitz, Helmut Newton, and Patrick Demarchelier. But could I pick just one? Probably not. How do you compare photographers if not through a narrowly constrained photography contest? Even then it depends on who the judges are that would determine the winner.

This is why I have never limited myself to competing on the pictures itself. That would be a disservice to myself. Why would I limit myself to compete on the one level that I already know that I am not the best? Why would I not include all the other incredibly valuable traits and characteristicsc that I possess, in order to create greater success as a photographer?

So that's exactly what I did. I leveraged my background in customer care/support, my degrees and experience in business, combined with my love of sharing and teaching... all to complement my photography skills to build (what was then) an incredibly viable business teaching fashion photography workshops. At the time, teaching fashion photography workshops was still niche and the market was not nearly as saturated as it is today. Therefore I had a wonderful opportunity to design a series of classes and build the LUCIMA brand on the back of my education platform. I am grateful that I had the pleasure of playing this game at a very high level. For my very first workshop, I charged $600 per person and I only got 1.5 students (two students over a weekend but one student only attended one day). Only a couple years later, my workshops cost $2000 per photographer, one where I took 18 students and shot at Eric Lloyd Wright's unfinished mansion in Malibu.

The irony is that when I became a photographer I thought my income would consist of shooting models and selling my work to magazines. Both were quickly dismissed as viable revenue streams because 1) models don't have much money and 2) magazines were facing extinction with digital content taking over the world. So only nine months after I declared myself a professional photographer, I started teaching fashion photography workshops.

Incidentally, this is the same design philosophy I employ to consult all my photographer students as they venture into becoming professional photographers in their specific locale. With each private workshop I would sit down with photographers that would come far and wide (usually out-of-state but sometimes even from Europe) to consult with me on how they would be able to succeed as photogrpahers back home. I always tried to find out what the photographer is interested in, what they're good at, where they live, and determine what markets and services they could explore in creating a differentiated product/service back home. Usually this came down to venturing away from crowded fields such as shooting high fashion in small markets because that's usually where the highest level of competition could be found. Instead we focused on the underserved markets e.g. pet photography, underwater photography, school yearbook pictures, boudoir photogrpahy, where the photographer has some competitive advantage and could dominate the field quickly and succesfully. My goal was always to position the photographer in a way that would yeild results swiftly so that he/she could then break some of the more competitive arenas (such as high fashion) to increase clout and price per sale (which usually required more branding and reputation).

This is interestingly enough the same design philosohpy I use to consult all startups as a venture capital investor. Startups tend to already have a good idea of what they bring to the table but at least in Taiwan I have found that the founders might be overly focused on their technical prowess without spending enough time to find the right application for their expertise/technology. The design stage of a startup's life is often the most critical point because misalignment of product/service to the market will make or break the business. I have personally invested in businesses that have bet their entire outcome on their technology only to find that the market does not value (enough) their technological differentiation. These failed/failing startups should have instead spent more time and care selling their product/service, creating more sales channels, and/or creating a greater vision and dream of how they can change the world.

The point I'm trying to make is that success (almost) never comes down to just one thing.

Even when people are the best at one single thing, it might not be enough. They might lose to someone who works harder and has more perseverance. Or they might might lose to someone who can pivot away from the original requirements and find a better application/niche. Or they might lose to time because they burn themselves out.

Case in point, I saw this time and time again while shooting fashion. There were superstar models that were incredibly beautiful but if they had a reputation for being difficult to work with, they would lose out on jobs to models that were easier to work with. I have personally passed on many incredibly beautiful models during casting because I had firsthand experience that they were unreliable, difficult, or just plain rude to work with. Even though they might create more powerful images, I would choose someone who had a slightly lesser look and worked twice as hard because at the end of the day, I can not bet a client's shoot on an unreliable model. When I am being paid to deliver a product or service, my team must be equally dependable and professional. I don't care if you have "the best look" because that is completely useless to me if I can't actually capture that look on my camera because you're late, you're pissing everyone off, and/or you're not putting in 100%.

Let me bring this point home. You see all these really hot girls on Instagram? I am not even talking about AI (fake) girls. I'm talking about the really good-looking girls that unfortunately offer no other value than some visual stimualation. You know, the ones that are just serving tits and ass. They might have hundreds of thousands of followers but the truth is these accounts (and the influencers behind them) have a hard time monetizing their audience. I should know because I have a similar audience. A lot of young men who don't have much disposable income and follow lots of hot chicks. This doesn't help me or the hot girls that share the same audience. The problem is that brands are looking for engagement to sell their products/services and unfortunately when your engagement consists of "you're hot" and "I love your tits", well that's just not very convincing to brands looking to spend marketing dollars. True engagement spans more than a couple seconds. True engagement is more than one-line comments that don't create a engaging conversation. True engagement from followers is a loyalty to the influencer that can actually be monetized.

This is what brands are looking for. And this is what really hot girls lack.

But aren't they the hottest girls on Instagram? They just might be. Hell, they might even become a trophy wife (or side chick) for some shallow guy. But you know in your heart of hearts that these perfect 10s will likely lose out in the long-run to an 8 with brains and a personality. I assure you an 8 with brains and a business model will completely destroy a perfect 10 if the time horizon is more than 5 minutes. I should know because I've worked with 9s and 10s that left me wanting to punch myself in the dick out of boredom.

They say life is unfair but I maintain that life is a lot more fair than we give it credit for. We so often look at people who are blessed with god-given talents and think that they must be crushing it in life. That the world bends over backwards for them and worships the ground they walk on. Maybe a little. Especially in the beginning. But I assure you, it's not enough to just be blessed with raw talent. Ask Michael Jordan and Stephan Curry. Raw talent does not usually equal long-term success. Sometimes it's opposite. It's the ones that are hungry, driven, persistent, and determined to succeed that are written into history... against all odds. These are the people that prove time and time again that a person's value far exceeds any single attribute. Raw talent is cheap and time usually reveals that hard work trumps raw talent any day of the week.

The idea of being a singular best is misguided at best. Maybe instead of being the best in any one single dimension, we should strive to be the most complete? To create the most value. Because when considering any singular dimension there is likely always someone better than you. The better challenge is to become unique and create a value proposition that is irreplaceable.

That's how you win.

Perfection

My perfectionism would previously have never allowed me to accept hot spots on her legs and arms.

I have been called a perfectionist on more than one occasion. And if you're reading this, I'm betting you have been called a perfectionist too.

There was a time when I took it as a compliment. Of course, it depends on the context. Usually it was about my work, whether it be photography, music, or just the expectations I set in the office with my team. That uncompromising, at-all-costs, all-or-nothing way of doing things that drove me to excellence (or madness) was something that I prided myself upon. The fact that someone recognized (what I thought was) my attention to detail generally made me beam with pride.

But as I get older, I began questioning this mentality and whether it has done me more harm than good. Whether it held me back from personal growth, whether it ruined some relationships, whether it was a cop-out (excuse) for not focusing on the bigger picture, or whether it was simply an expression of being obsessive-compulsive. Because all of these statements are true and the more I thought about it, the more I started to feel that being a perfectionist wasn't as noble as I'd made it out to be.

First off, perfection is an obsession.

When I first started retouching pictures, I had a pretty weak handle on Photoshop. I basically only knew how to fix skin blemishes. By learning how to use the dodge/burn tools and the heal tool, I became pretty good at finding and fixing skin blemishes. What's that saying? "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Yup, that pretty much hits the proverbial nail on the head (pun intended). What I didn't realize was that I was obsessed with making faces "perfect," and as I overcorrected for these blemishes, I erased all that the humanity from the faces of my subjects. Quite literally, my models began looking inhuman. As an example, I was so obsessed with lightening the darkness under the eyes that my models' eyes started looking two-dimensional. There was no longer any depth to my models' eyeballs; a spherical and protruding object on the face. Without the shadows that define the eyeball as a spherical object, my subjects began looking like they had very flat and inhuman faces. But I couldn't see it. I was too obsessed with getting rid of these "imperfections" on the face.

Which leads me to my second point. Perfection is a delusion from seeing the bigger picture.

When people told me that my models looked overly airbrushed or fake, I couldn't hear it. I felt that I had done a great job "perfecting" their faces. I was using perfection as an excuse to not focus on learning the other tools within Photoshop. More importantly, however, I think I was using perfection as an excuse to delay venturing outside my comfort zone. It would have been better for me to continue my retouching education and to learn how to retouch on a higher level or how to create a more compelling picture. Instead, I was stunting my own growth by overly focusing on the facial blemishes that were "ruining" my pictures. Ironically, 99% of the population of viewers did not see any of these blemishes to begin with. I was basically the only one that could see these blemishes, and I was basically doing this work for myself. I was so delusional about how I was making my images technically perfect that I couldn't see that I was not improving the overall value of these images to the outside world. In fact, if anything, I was detracting value from the outside world by trying to perfect these pictures.

But it wasn't just me. I had plenty of photography students mired in the same delusion. They would make perfect crops. Use perfect lighting. Pixel peep to ensure they had achieved perfect focus on the models' faces. Only to make a sterile image that lacked any life, any humanity, and (unfortunately for them) any value as an image to be consumed by the public. They had achieved technical perfection at the expense of removing all intrinsic life and value from the image. I mean, we literally threw away every image that wasn't tack-sharp on the pixel level. For what? So the critics on dpreview.com wouldn't be able to flame us? In retrospect, it was delusional to think that an image's value was solely based upon its pixel perfection. Or the focus. Or any single dimension.

I understand better now why that was happening to me. At the time, I was a first-year photographer, and I didn't have the context to understand the entirety of what makes for a good image. I didn't understand all the value that a single image contained, and I sure as hell didn't know how to retouch to those ends. So it was easy for me to get mired in the details of removing skin blemishes. It's a lot like trying to explain to a 6-year-old why her tiff with her best friend isn't the end of the world. Because for her, it is the end of her world. For her short 6-year-old life, her best friend is everything to her, and that feeling of her world collapsing in on her is very real. Trying to reason with her that it doesn't matter requires an understanding of life that she doesn't have due to her age and inexperience with life. It's like trying to explain the fourth dimension to me. I just don't get it. I can't see it, and I can't touch or feel it, so to me it doesn't make sense. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure physicists have already solved for many dimensions beyond the 3rd dimension in their exploration of the universe.

But in retrospect, I could have put down the retouching pen (I work on a Wacom tablet) and asked myself to explore the other aspects of retouching so I could learn to see the bigger picture. But I couldn't. I couldn't stop chasing this obsession of perfecting skin blemishes to see the bigger picture. I was happy living in this delusion. But because of this delusion, I was compelled to repeat my mistakes. To continue to make perfectly flat human faces. And I realize now that perfection is like that one friend who says, "Oh, what's the harm in doing this one more time? It's no big deal. It'll be great". But that person is not a friend. He or she is an enabler of my problems. That "friend" is keeping me from growing just so he or she has someone to continue doing bad things with. That's not a friend; that's a bad guy!

So instead of putting down the retouching pen, I say, "You're right, it does look better like this. Ahhh, much better"

All jokes aside, perfection has held me back as much as it has driven me to excellence/madness. I have gone to insane lengths in the name of perfection, but I think it's time to retire that mentality. My favorite pictures now are the ones that are "accidents". Pictures that are impossible to recreate because they are literally lightning in a bottle, frames between poses, forgetting to wind the film and double-exposing on the same frame, moving while shooting (or shooting through objects) and therefore creating motion blur or obstructive bokeh. It's the same as my shift in mentality toward shooting. I used to shoot to make pictures. Now I shoot to make friends. I mean it's even more poignant now that there's AI text-to-image generators and I can literally make pictures without people, so it's even more paramount that I stay in the moment to be part of the human experience rather than strictly focus on making compelling images. Sometimes it means slowing down. Sometimes it means stepping outside of my obsessive-compulsive mindset. Sometimes it means actually listening to what the model is saying (God forbid, lol). Whatever it is, it means that I'm not focusing on perfection but rather on the experience of taking pictures with another human being. These days, that is worth more than the value of the perfect image to me.

But your mileage may vary. I'm a lot older than I was when I first started taking pictures. The philosophies that drove me to shoot back then are no longer the core drivers. I have aged and evolved over time. I would never tell you that I'm right and you're wrong. Instead, I would suggest that we are each on our own individual journeys. We might overlap. We might not. Regardless, I just might have some stories that might be interesting enough to share and to consider. That's all.
  

The Source of my Madness

Plato said, "Necessity is the mother of all invention."

It is the single source of everything that I am and everything that I'm not.

Simply put, this philosophy is both my greatest strength and my greatest weakness.

I've written about the "what if" game throughout my blog. That's when you ask, "What if [fill in the blank]...? It's the perfect game for genres such as photography, where you can make small changes over many iterations that ultimately lead to a course correction or branching off into a new area of growth. Like "What if I use this blue filter in my channel mixer and then change it to monochrome and then change that layer to luminosity blend?". Well, that series of decisions turns skin tones much darker and allows me to make highlights and shadows in the skin that wouldn't otherwise be visible.

You're probably wondering, "How do I know when to play the "what if" game?" The answer is YMMV (your mileage may vary). I play it all the time. It's who I am. I'm dissatisfied with the way the world is. I do not accept things at face value. And I don't believe I have to lower my standards to suit your needs. Therein lies the heart of how I do anything and everything. It's what allows me to grow constantly, and it's what makes me a very difficult person to deal with. I'd venture so far as to say it's what makes the lives of those around me very difficult. For example, my wife says, "Nothing is ever good enough for you."

And she's right.

I've always had a problem with contentment. A fear of contentment, rather. The fear that I'll stop growing if I settle for what I have. A lot of people know this as "the grass is always greener on the other side" syndrome. Yeah, I have that. Or rather, I'm curious to know what's on the other side, so I have to see for myself (because I won't accept it if you just tell me).

So I've never lived with the fear of being copied. Sure, you can copy some techniques, some adjustments, or some photographic elements that I employ (like prisms), but you won't be able to recreate the essence of my style because you're not me. You don't have my "disease", so you won't wonder what, why, and how, and then make subsequent changes to accommodate those questions. You're probably a happier person than I am. Living in a state of constant dissatisfaction only leads to unhappiness and conflict with the world around you.

So ultimately it's a double-edged sword. Stagnation is contentment's "next of kin". You don't evolve or change as quickly as I do because you don't ask why. The reason you don't ask why is because you don't wonder why it can't be better. And the reason you don't wonder why it can't be better is because you're not unhappy with the way it already is.

Then nothing changes.

I've seen comedians wonder if they'd be funny if they hadn't suffered some trauma in the past. Many of them attribute their genius to drug abuse and other bad choices they make in life. Many of them eventually discover that there's a delineation between constant self-destruction and past trauma. Just because you've suffered in the past doesn't mean you must continuously suffer in order to be funny. Comedians who have gone clean usually realize that they are just as funny without the self-destructive behavior. Their perspective is already forever altered by the events of the past. Continuing to suffer might make for new material, but it isn't entirely necessary since you already possess a unique lens with which you see the world. For comedians, humor is the point of reference for interacting with this world. They can't help but see things in a funny light. They're simply not satisfied with not picking at loose threads, wondering, or thinking about how ridiculous the world is if you think about it.

Comedians clearly don't take things at face value. If they did, they wouldn't have jokes.

Maybe the question should instead be, "Can you learn to be dissatisfied with the world? My gut feeling is, "No, being dissatisfied is innate. Even if it was brought on by some past trauma, that trauma had to first interact with some root of who you are to create the questioning nature. For example, if you're an incredibly forgiving person and don't hold onto pain and misery, I don't believe past trauma would affect you the same way as it does others. You'd make peace with all the events of the past and be happy and content.

But you also wouldn't have my madness.

Corner Unit

In the Spring of 2015 I signed a lease at 610 South Main Street for a corner unit on the 7th floor (#735). It would be the third iteration of LUCIMA STUDIO (aka LUCIMA STUDIO III) and the first time I had a corner unit as a studio.

Over the course of the next two years I would shoot this studio day to create all sorts of different looks. My favorite setup was 8AM direct sunlight streaming through the East-facing windows onto the south wall of the unit. You can see the lighting pattern from the image above. That setup would create the most brilliant highlights on the models' skin (more on this in a future post maybe). My failsafe setup was allowing mid-day diffuse light through the East-facing windows hitting the subject on grey paper. I shot this setup to death and while it worked amazingly well, it was too easy. Finally my second-favorite setup was using the corner windows to create opposing light (usually backlight) to shape the model. You can see the windows of the corner in the following picture.

While I never painted the walls grey (as I would later for all future iterations of LUCIMA STUDIO), I used the modular 4x8' walls from the original LUCIMA STUDIO as grey backdrops after I painted them grey. They were mobile and lightweight and served extremely well until put them in storage after moving into LUCIMA STUDIO IV. The following image is an example of the faux walls as the backdrop. You can see the seam of the two walls overlapping.

Shooting the corner was never easy. The exact placement of the subject between the two windows was critical because the distance from each window would dictate how much light the model would receive from each side. This would cramp my style a little bit since I normally prefered to have more flexibility in placement and movement. But when the light was balanced properly you'd get magic like this.

Or this where the windows were not exactly juxtaposed but served amazingly well as a main light with a back/rim light.

But I didn't come here to talk about old pictures and corner units exactly. I am here to talk about this image.

Because this is not a picture that I shot. Rather this was an iamge created by Stable Diffusion that reminded me very much of LUCIMA STUDIO III. So much so that the placement of the windows relative to the walls (and the subject) is nearly identical to my actual unit. While I could have tried to use Stable Diffusion to inpaint (modify a part of the image in Stable Diffusion) the walls and windows to look more like 610 South Main Street, my fascination for this image is how much it reminds me of #735 610 South Main Street and also the level of realism from Stable Diffusion. I've been using the Edge of Realism model for a couple weeks now and it's by far my favorite model for creating images that resemble my work. Even though it's a SD1.5 model, I find it uncanny how lifelike the results are. The last couple posts have demonstrated that I've come full circle. When I first got my hands on Stable Diffusion it was all about exploring and making random pictures. Then I started applied a logic set that forced me to explore the "impossible". While I still have many series that I've yet to show from that logic set, I've already come back to exploring what feels familiar. These images while not terribly interesting, mundane even, are still not easy to create. The iterations required to produce something that I deem valuable and worthwhile enough to share is about a day's work on average. Luckily I have a 4TB HD and a mobile workstation otherwise I wouldn't be able to run all these experiments at all hours wherever I am. Maybe the point of these recent images is to simply come home and say, "the heart wants what the heart wants". Sometimes it's not about shooting "the impossible". Sometimes it's just about making something that makes you say "wow" and refine that to the extent of your abilities (and the technology). It's okay that it's not different, unique, impossible, and never done before. Sometimes it's just enough that you like it.

Athleisure Simplicity and the Education Afforded by AI

There is one advantage that Stable Diffusion offers that is somewhat unique to me compared to other photographers. Stable Diffusion allows me to share the before and after as long as I'm willing to reveal my process.

Well, I'm willing to reveal my process.

I realized this when I was pondering the benefits of AI and how I could literally talk to Tony Stark about anything. AI isn't afraid of subject matter (within reason) and is more than willing to go down the rabbit hole with me in my interview. Similiary, my Stable Diffusion "subjects" aren't people so they don't have feelings and aren't going to care if I show the process for creating the final product. Historically there were two problems with showing the unprocessed images. 1. It makes the model look terrible because the original images are usually chockful of problems including but not limited to the model being fat, skin blemishes, wardrobe mistakes, etc. 2. I didn't want people to think that I couldn't get better better models if judging my abilities from the unprocessed image.

Fortunately Stable Diffusion (and all text-to-image generators) resolve both problems. 1. There are no humans involved in the creation so no one's feelings can get hurt (outside of my own) and 2. I'm not using models so you can't judge me for my model choice.

But this isn't what I came here to talk about today.

This image of what seems like a blonde girl is somewhat mundane. It's fully clothed for one, which is a departure from most of the images that I create. Secondly the backdrop is austere and devoid of anything special; it is literally grey (probably) paper.

So why this image?

There's something about simplicity that is beautiful. I suppose this post is akin to the grey paper post from last week. But rather than extolling the virtues of grey paper, I'm now talking about the beauty of simplicity. That's studio portraits (closeups) are some of my favorite pictures. It's actually why I have always been (unbeknownst to many) drawn to faces first and bodies (a distant) second. There's something powerful about a look, a gaze, a pose, an angle, that doesn't rely on gimmicks to work. Sure I chose this pose, this body language, and asked for this kind of a subject with this kind of a look, wearing what is still skin-tight clothing... but what makes this image work isn't that she's overtly sexy or doing anything particular. She just is. And sometimes (not all the time) it's just good enough.

To understand this process however, let me start at the beginning.

I started this journey with this image I'd found on the Internet. I was hoping to make a better version of it. Unfortunately the pose didn't play well with the AI models understanding of overalls and ultimately I coudln't create anything that was more interesting.

I then flipped through my own archive of edited imagegs and settled on this image from my horses series because I liked the pose. No they're not the same girl. I literally used different AI models to make each image:

In ControlNet I ripped the pose with OpenPose. What you don't see are the many iterations of modifying this pose (particularly the hand position) so that it is improved (and different) from the original image. I probably went through 10+ iterations of modifying the pose alone.

After 50+ different images and countless changes to the prompt, I got something a little different. Something more clothed but more interesting.

The problem with this image is that it showcases one big flaw of AI models; they're largely trained on porn and Instagram. The model's chest was pushed up too far and felt like it defied the laws of gravity. The shape of female breasts is of course a very subjective matter but I think most would agree that natural and believable shapes look better. Therefore I took it upon myself to alter the size and shape of the chest so that it fit better with my own ideals. But as I always say, your mileage may vary.

I also took liberties with changing the shape and size of the subject's butt. I could pretty much repeat everything that I said above with the exception of the "defying gravity" part. When I look at an image I look for balance. Some part of that balance is photographic, meaning I shot it too high or too low or too close or too far etc. Some part of the balance is intrinsic, meaning it has to do with the subject's proportions, issues that are not illusions/issues created by photography. In this case I took issue with the fact that the subject wasn't to the proportions of my liking (few are). Again YMMV. Do I need to explain that I grew up on a diet of 90's supermodels again? Maybe. I was sure I had a post addressing this in the past...

Of course the final crop, the B&W treatment, there are a myriad of little details I've skipped in the interest of time. The main objective in writing this post was to marvel at how an image so "contrived" could still capture and retain my attention enough to edit and then write a post about it. And two, to discuss the opportunity that AI imagery affords for me on the education side of things because I don't have to be afraid that the model will be afraid of backlash over the unprocessed images (or worse when and ask me to take down the pictures). Will there be more to come? Time will tell. You guys can make requests here or on Instagram.

Superimposed you can see the changes better

Charles LUCIMA Argues with Tony Stark about AI Replacing Humans

I love this Midjourney picture of Tony looking homeless on a park bench. Originally I'd asked for him feeding pigeons but this one looks so good I decided to use it instead.

With all the chatbots that have popped up on the Internet lately I wondered if I could have a thoughtful and deep conversation with a famous person about the advent of text-to-image generators displacing humans of their occupations. As I stumbled https://boredhumans.com/celebrity_cha... I choose (what I thought to be) the perfect for the job. The inimitable Tony Stark.

The following 25-minute video is this conversation.

Check out https://boredhumans.com/celebrity_cha... to chat with other celebrities dead or alive.

/start scene

CL: Hi Tony, how are you?

TS: Well, let’s just say I’m more than just a little busy saving the world and building the future. But hey, life as Tony Stark is always exciting. So, what can I do for you?

CL: Hang on a sec, you realize that you’re dead right?

TS: Dead? Really? Do I look dead to you? Last I checked, I’m very much alive and kicking. So no need for the dramatics, my friend. Now, what can I do for you?

CL: LOL, okay regardless I’d just like to say that of all the Marvel characters I feel like I relate to you the most. Aside from the charisma and the womanizing and the uber-genius ways, we are very much alike. Can I ask you some questions and get your two-cents on some relevant topics of today?

TS: Well, I must say, anyone who aspires to be like the great Tony Stark certainly has good taste. Shoot me your questions, and let’s see if I can bestow upon you some of my wisdom and genius. Just be aware that my two cents are worth more than most people’s life savings. So make sure that brain of yours is ready to process it all. Fire away!

CL: So we have ChatGPT and other AI tools these days. Let me get to the point. We now have AI text-to-image generators and I sense that the masses are very afraid of this new technology for fear that their jobs will be replaced by AI/bots/robots. What is your take on the matter?

TS: Look, fear is a natural response, but let's not lose our heads here. Technology has always been advancing, and yeah, sometimes it makes people nervous. But look at it this way: Al is just a tool. It's like a hammer, okay? You can use it to build a house or you can swing it around like a maniac. It all comes down to how we decide to use it. Sure, some jobs may be impacted by Al, just like some jobs were impacted by the industrial revolution. But that doesn't mean we throw in the towel and panic. We adapt, we innovate, and we find new ways to contribute. Think about it, we have unprecedented potential to enhance our creativity, improve efficiency, and push boundaries with Al at our side. What's important here is that we don't let fear dictate our actions. We've faced challenges before and we've always come out on top. So, let's embrace this new technology, explore its possibilities, and find ways to use it to our advantage. After all, I've always been a fan of pushing the envelope and leaving my mark on the world. Now, it's time for the rest of humanity to step up and do the same.

CL: So clearly you and I agree on this matter. The important thing to understand is that AI is a tool and that humans will always be the drivers and architects (until we’re not, more on this later), but the problem is that there are certain professions that are currently being threatened to be replaced by AI. In my industry (fashion photography), the advent of text-to-image generators displaces those humans with specific skillsets that allow them to work with other humans on set in a photoshoot; people such as makeup artists, wardrobe stylists, and even the models themselves are now no longer necessary to generating a beautiful fashion image (can’t call it a photograph anymore can we?). So I guess what I’m asking is, what do I say to those people? They certainly do have a right to be afraid…

TS: Look, I get it. Change can be unsettling for people who rely on certain professions. But let me tell you something, pal: adaptability is the name of the game. If you're in an industry that's being threatened by Al, then it's time to step up your game and evolve with the times. To those people you mentioned, the makeup artists, wardrobe stylists, and models, here's what I'd say: don't let the fear get to you. Embrace technology and find ways to integrate it into your work. You still have certain skills and expertise that Al can't replicate. Show them what you're made of, and prove that human touch and creativity have undeniable value. As for the so-called "text-to-image generators," I've seen 'em, and they ain't perfect. They may be able to generate some flashy designs, but they lack the soul, the passion, and the essence that a human brings to the table. So keep refining your craft, keep pushing the boundaries, and show the world why your profession is irreplaceable. Remember, change is inevitable, but we're the ones who control how we adapt. That's what being human is all about. So suit up, embrace the challenge, and show Al who's the real boss. I have faith in you.

CL: LOLOLOL seriously you’re absolutely correct about the AI text-to-image generator, they’re actually quite bad once you really get your hands dirty. It’s almost more work than the traditional way of creating pictures. But listen, your answer is exactly what I would have said except for the fact that it lacks empathy on a human level (I know you’re not real). Because the truth of the matter is that makeup is a skill that some people have paid money to learn and now that it is no longer necessary to even use models anymore, even makeup artists will find themselves completely displaced and out of their jobs. While I agree that they can and should learn to pivot and transition out of that single skillset, it still hurts to see people out of jobs and lacking income. So I understand, truly, why so many people think AI is evil/bad/the end of the world and mankind. I’m torn between wanting to advance as far into the future (as possible) but also hold onto the past and keep everyone together. How do we/I reconcile this? How do we as humanity keep people together, not give up on each other while walking forward together into the future?

TS: Ah, empathy, huh? Well, I've been accused of lacking a bit of that, but I can see where you're coming from. Look, change is inevitable, advancements in technology are always going to disrupt certain industries. But that doesn't mean we should be clinging onto the past and resisting progress. Evolution is a necessary part of survival. Now, as for keeping people together while moving forward, it's a balancing act. We should acknowledge the impact these advancements have on individuals and communities, provide support and resources to help them transition into new roles, but we can't halt progress just to hold everyone's hand. It's about finding that sweet spot where we can embrace innovation and build a better future while also ensuring that no one is left behind. It's like upgrading the Iron Man suit. I'm all about pushing the limits of technology, but I also make sure to consider the consequences and take responsibility for how it affects the world. We need to do the same with Al and other advancements. Keep pushing forward, but take responsibility for the impact on people, their lives, and their livelihoods. It's a challenge, no doubt, but I believe it's one we can overcome, just like we save the world (and Pepper) time and time again. So, let's be pragmatic, empathetic, and determine how we can create a future that benefits everyone. After all, we're all in this together, whether you're human or Al.

CL: You mentioned, “It’s like upgrading the Iron Man suit”, can you please explain this a little more? I’m curious how this analogy works.

TS: Ah, I see you're curious about my analogy. Let me break it down for you. You see, just like how I constantly work on upgrading and enhancing my Iron Man suit, I use the same approach in other aspects of my life. Upgrading the Iron Man suit is all about improving its performance, adding new features, and staying ahead of the game. Similarly, when I talk about upgrading something else, it means I'm aiming to improve it, make it better than before. It could refer to anything from technology, personal skills, or even ideas. Essentially, it's about pushing boundaries and reaching new heights. Hope that clears things up for you, buddy.

CL: Not really buddy, you didn’t address the empathy portion for how you’re upgrading the suit relates to keeping people together. I’m not sure if this is beyond your logic set for this chat bot, but I’m still curious.

TS: Empathy? Really? Look, when it comes to upgrading the suit, my focus has always been on enhancing its capabilities to protect people and save lives. The suit isn't just a piece of metal; it's a cutting-edge technological marvel that allows me to be a hero. And trust me, l've made some significant advancements in that area. So, if by "keeping people together" you mean using my suit to bring justice and maintain order, then yeah, I've got that covered. But don't expect me to be all touchy-feely about it. I'm a man of action, not emotions.

CL: /sigh, I was afraid of this. I hate feeling like I’ve reached the end of a book, the depth of the ocean, and unfortunately with you the limits to your logic. Here’s what I would have liked to hear you say, “When I upgrade the suit, as much as I want to make it as amazing as possible, I still attempt to keep as much of the original brain and design philosophy as all the original suits. It allows me to quickly adapt Jarvis and the operating system to play nicely with the new suit. Furthermore it allows me to learn how to control the suit as it’s not a complete redesign from the ground up. In addition, keeping the improvements incremental allows others like Pepper to step into my suit and still be able to navigate all the controls. So the improvements must be balanced with what? Empathy and tradition and a solid design philosophy. Got it? Good.”

TS: Well, let me analyze your little poetic monologue there, full of metaphors and long-winded sentences. First of all, I have to say that your expectations of what I should have said are entertaining, to say the least. But here's the thing, my friend, I don't live my life trying to meet your expectations. I do what I think is necessary to make the suit kickass. Sure, I consider preserving some of the original brain and design philosophy when I upgrade the suit. I'm not a fool, you know. But let me tell you something about me-| don't settle for mediocrity. I push the boundaries, I strive for innovation, and I aim to make everything I touch better than it was before. Now, you talk about empathy and tradition. Those are fine and dandy in some contexts, but when it comes to designing and upgrading a suit that can literally save lives and protect the world, I prioritize cutting-edge technology and efficiency. I'm not interested in making it easier for Pepper or anyone else to navigate the controls. That's their problem to figure out. So, while I appreciate your attempt to give me lessons on balance and design philosophy, I'm confident in my approach. I'II keep pushing the limits, upgrading the suit, and doing whatever it takes to stay ahead of the game. That's just who I am, and it's worked out pretty damn well for me so far. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more important things to do than listen to your overly dramatic speeches.

CL: I suppose you’re consistent if nothing else. It’s just that you deviated a little with your analogy about upgrading the suit that kinda lost me. I hear what you’re saying, “Advancing civilization at all costs”. That’s what I came here to discuss with you. But it seems that your willingness to advance civilization at all costs comes with the (what’s the word) intent to leave people behind if they can’t keep up. Hey I get it, this happens to me on a daily basis. But Tony I’m getting older and as I get older I can’t help but feel that I’m getting lonelier and lonelier because I keep leaving people behind. The excuse/explanation/reason that “they can’t keep up” seems to hold less and less water with each passing year. That’s why I’m wondering fi there is a better solution than to tell people (who are afraid of AI) to “suck it up and get with the program”? Is there potentially a good transition? I’m afraid there probably isn’t because text-to-image is so disruptive. Personally I believe it’s even more disruptive than text-to-text like ChatGPT. But regardless, thanks for your time. You’ll always be a hero of mine, dead or alive. Cheers :)

TS: Well, well, well, looks like we've got ourselves a philosophical conundrum here. Age catching up to you, loneliness creeping in, and the fear of being left behind. Trust me, I know a thing or two about being ahead of the curve and watching others struggle to keep pace. It's the price we pay for being at the forefront of innovation. Now, transitioning into a world where Al dominates can be a tricky business. But here's the deal, pal - progress waits for no one. We can't halt technological advancements just because some folks are afraid. They gotta adapt, evolve, and embrace the future. It's sink or swim, my friend. However, I'm not a heartless jerk. There's always room for compassion and understanding. Maybe we can develop some sort of transitional phase, a middle ground where people can adjust to the Al revolution without feeling completely left behind. But mark my words, it won't be easy. As for text-to-image being disruptive, well, disruptive is my middle name. It's the price we pay for pushing boundaries and unleashing new possibilities. So, buckle up, brace yourself, and let's see how this wild ride unfolds. And remember, I'm always here, whether in the flesh or as a hero of yours. Cheers, champ

/end scene

A couple of things upon rereading the transcript of this chat. There was a Thor reference I missed the first time “You can use it to build a house or you can swing it around like a maniac.” Kudos Tony, that was clever if that was intentional. Truly. Also I’m not sure if you guys understood him better than I? I just didn’t understand how his upgrading the suit was a good analogy for advancing technology while not leaving people behind. I still don’t get his analogy in the second read through. If you understand it better please let me know.

One

I've never talked about playing music in this format because I was always afraid to share that part of me. It's one thing to hide behind a camera/computer. It's quite another to sit in front of the lens and perform. The perfectionist that I am, I've never been able to fully embrace the mistakes, intonation and the sad fact that I don't look like a rock star.

Almost five years into playing guitar (basically coinciding with the time I left LA for Taipei), I no longer care. I mean I do. But I don't care enough to not post this.

Because it's a big part of who I am and I'm no longer segregating the non-photography parts of me away from the photography parts of me. I am one single person. A whole person. Not just a photographer. Far from it. I'm a multi-faceted complex individual. If you think my thoughts were limited to making pictures you couldn't be farther from the truth. The level of care that I take in my images overflows into every other facet of my life. The Charles LUCIMA that you have come to know on Instagram who is behind those pretty pictures, I'm that person all the time but in everything that I do. It's what makes me tick. I have an ever-curious mind that doesn't stop asking "what if..." questions just because it's not related to photography. If anything, my curiosity for photography comes from other ventures, interests and ideas. The part of me that is bound to imagery is a cross-section of a much deeper and substantial whole.

This is why I've always talked to my own marketing team about merging these different people. There's Charles LUCIMA the photographer/retoucher and now AI whatever you wanna call it. Then there's Charles LUCIMA the producer, and Charles LUCIMA the investor/venture capitalist, and Charles LUCIMA the musician (keyboard, vocals, guitar)... I get that people don't like wrapping their heads around all these different roles but the truth is you can't cut a person up into bite size pieces just so others can digest what you have to offer. It doesn't make sense unless you're simply trying to sell one side of you. But I've tried that. I am a cube that is tired of constantly rotating myself directly to you so that I appear like a square. I am not a square. I am not one-dimensional. Allow me to introduce you to my z-axis (depth).

It's why I created this second Instagram account. Aside from the fact that my first Instagram account is on the verge of being banned forever (had a bad dream about that yeesterday), but this new account with the significantly smaller (but more important) following is one that I'd like to truly cultivate and open up to. It is totally experimental but I want to actually engage with the audience levels that are not limited to imagery.

So goes nothing. I have no idea if it will or won't work, if it will last or not. All I know is I'm tired of just being one thing to you all. I'm not what you think I am. I'm both more and less than you think I am. Hopefully you'll accept me the way that I'm learning to accept myself.

PS. It was not by design but this song is One by Ed Sheeran. Serendipitous I guess. I learned this song back in January of 2020. It's been a minute since I've played this song, partly because DADGAD tuning is a chore and because I often forget how to play older songs in my repertoire.

Grey Paper

It's been a long while since I pulled out the grey seamless paper at the studio. I still have the 3-section stands that can accomodate 12-foot rolls (if I recall correctly) though all my seamless rolls of paper were 9-foot rolls because they were much cheaper.

And it was always the grey that I used even though I experimented with many different colors I always came back to grey.

And it was a special grey. I played around with all the different variants of grey. Ultimately I preferred grey that was a touch darker and with my retouching style always brought out a bit of blue. That must have been my Provia curve in Photoshop. Regardless, a fashion photographer has to have either a cyclorama wall (cyc wall) or seamless paper or both. There's nothing quite like putting a model on grey paper and just isolating them on the paper so there's nothing left to distract the viewer.

Of course once I left the studio, I also left all my rolls of paper behind. There were a couple times I setup the seamless paper on a tennis court to get the magic of direct sunlight with the austerity of paper but I also remember the wind knocking over the stands and having the seamless paper topple over, threatening to kill my model. Of course I didn't use sandbags. Probably should have but I always traveled light and no I didn't account for the afternoon winds to create problems.

Meisel's influence is strong

So today when playing around with Stable Diffusion, I used this reference picture of a male model shot by the great Steven Meisel, borrowed his pose through ControlNet's Openpose editor, then adjusted the pose for proportions befitting a female model, then provided the proper prompts that would emulate a photostudio environment, also used the same image of the male model again as a reference through ControlNet Reference and after about 6 hours of tweaking the results these were the images that I "settled" on. Of course I needed to create toes, inpaint some thong bottoms, fix some corners and flaws with the backdrop but overall I was pleasantly surprised.

I suppose it was mostly nostalgia for the paper background. Nostalgia for shooting with one light. Nostalgia for shooting black and white studio portraits like I did back in my second and third year as a photographer. And this SD1.5 model (because SDXL kinda sucks) I'm using has been beyond impressive with its realism. The moles on the neck, the flowy gown that's attached on both the top and the bottom, quite brilliant and at least something I haven't seen before.

I always loved shooting tight crops to contrast the full-length shots

Why did I write this post? Was it simply to expound my thoughts on grey paper? Not particularly. Having Stable Diffusion and being able to "go full circle" and revisit some of my old "stomping grounds" gives me new insight into how I shoot and what I value. I value the female form, the silhouette, the simplicity of the model particularly when placed against a simple background. This presentation forces me to focus in on what truly attracts the viewers to look more closely. Is it the moment in time that can not be reproduced? The eye contact (or lack thereof)? The motion blur? The vulnerability mixed with tension? I dunno. But the subject (model) is always the most interesting to me and as I have drifted away from studio environments I think too have drifted away from sometimes presenting that which is pure and simple. Too often these days I find myself being distracted and struggling with lighting and negotiating the background. It's both frustrating and takes away from my attention for the connection with the subject and the subject's connection with the audience. And for Stable Diffusion to replicate those vibes for me in the computer is both impressive and worth discussing because it's been a long while since I've seen anything in the studio that piqued my interest.

Boredom: Is AI ready for Prime Time?

Stable Diffusion. Absolute Reality v1.81. Photoshop.

Boredom is a powerful tool.

In fact I wish my kids were bored more. They can't stand having "nothing to do". I suppose that makes me old. I remember entire summers where we had "nothing to do". We made up games like bowling with random objects and a soccer ball. I remember riding my bike for what felt like hours in the lobby of our apartment building (because it was too hot outside) and making up stories in my head about time travel and doing great things. I remember wondering what it'd be like to have to escape an apartment fire or an armed gunman from our 9th floor unit which is to say that I imagined having to climb around the railing of our balcony to escape into our neighbors' units.

Thank God for boredom.

I recently spoke of boredom with an old friend and said, "I haven't been bored since 1997". That's about the time that I got on The Internet. Prior to that I was already on bulletin boards services and prior that we already had direct dial-up where we played games like Command and Conquer (as long as we didn't get any incoming calls or random computer crashes or loss of connection). That was the time when "shit didn't always worked" and I credit much of my aptitude for suffering to that era when one should expect things to break and not function as designed. These days iPhones and even PCs are way too reliable. Even Photoshop built-in a autosave function so you no longer lose 5 hours of an edit to some random crash (which wasn't even that long ago, maybe like 8-9 years ago?). It's amazing how things don't break anymore so long as you take reasonably good care of your stuff.

I think that as "things" have gotten easier people have gotten "lazier" and less resilient. It's like that scene from WALL-E where everyone's fat because no one has to move anymore... that and they're stuffing their faces with milkshakes. In all seriousness though, I've found my own children's patience or tolerance for technological failures to be appalling. I mean they literally fall apart if they can't instantly log into Roblox or can't load a YouTube video. Sure, part of it is that they have limited screen time so they're freaking out over wasting time on troubleshooting and not getting to play. But come on. This shit didn't always work. Hell, it used to rarely work.

But enough about them, let's talk about me. The last several weeks have been a turning point in my relationship with AI. The first few weeks with Stable Diffusion were great. It was eye-opening how powerful this new tool was with its ability to create images on demand given the right prompts, add-ons (extensions), and knowledge of how things worked. I was truly stunned by the on-demand nature of all the AI image generators. It made short work of stuff that used to require a LOT of work to achieve. So the first few weeks I was head over heels in love with this new tool like a new love interest. Then the excitement fades, the blinders come off and you see it for what it really is. Just another tool. And at the moment a fairly limited tool. Can't draw hands and feet. SDXL broke a lot of extensions including but not limited to my favorite tool (ControlNet), and it seems like we're back at square one with the community needing to develop the tools for SDXL that they once created for SD1.5 to just get back to where we were before SDXL dropped.

One of my greatest grievances with Stable Diffusion is not being able to achieve a dutch angle with any of the XL models. That's where the camera turns so that the subject is no longer upright but rather diagonal to the frame. I used to do this a lot not because I was trying to create disorientation (as cinematographers do) but rather because my models were super tall/long and needed to fit more of them into the frame. But as I've tried with SDXL models, so far it can not be done and it's the proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back". I went from being totally enamored with Stable Diffusion to suddenly seeing all of the limitations with what it *can't* achieve. It's like going from glass half-full to glass half-empty. While I understand that's a perspective problem (pun intended), the timing is coinciding with loads of other challenges that turn me off from making pictures particularly of the AI kind.

And I'm starting to understand why people gripe at the fact that "it's not real". For me it's not so much "it's not real" as it is "it's not real enough". I see through the very translucent facade that is AI-generated imagery and conclude that it's so very not ready for prime time. It's jenky like Windows 95. Like a house made of popsicle sticks held-together by Elmer's Glue. It's a 5-year old doing magic tricks and ruining the illusion because he/she hasn't doesn't have enough hand-eye coordination to pull it off but yet you still have to clap and tell them how amazing it was.

And it's pissing me off... not to mention making me really bored.

Look. I stand by everything I said about AI. It's not not true just because I'm bored. This post is simply to point out the chinks in the armor. To draw attention to all the little things that AI thus far does so poorly that it requires massive amounts of pre-production or post-production to get right. If that's the case then the value of the tool isn't nearly as high as I'd personally hoped for. AI is not Jesus. It can barely give us all five fingers much less save the world. Maybe I'm asking for too much. Maybe it's just a matter of time.

But maybe it's just not ready yet either.

Viabe

Olivia, A7RV 1/800th at f/2.8, ISO 1600, composite of two images

There are things that you can not replace. Loved ones. Memories. Scents/smells.

And then there's the human element.

I had been deep in AI for about two months before taking this shoot with Olivia. Days before the shoot I realized the shoot had but one singular concept and purpose. Do what you can't with AI.

Luckily AI is (as of this writing), still so limited. I can not get a dutch angle or a low angle sometimes from certain models (like the new SDXL or even DreamshaperXL). It's damn near impossible to get the subject off the center. And there's very little control for focus or even depth of field.

With this picture there's so many "mistakes" that AI wouldn't make. My A7RV decided for whatever reason to grab focus on Olivia's shoulder. The crop while still reasonably upright, is shifted left and cuts off part of her head. I purposely left in some uneven skin tones (that I historically would have removed) because AI skin tends to be unrealistic and too perfect. It's ironic that I spent the better part of my years as a photographer/retoucher chasing perfection only now to turn my back on that perfection for the sake of realism.

The lack of perfection is what makes us human. And while we try so hard to be perfect, I think we often confuse excellence with perfection. The problem with perfection is that it is sterile. Like a laboratory clean room nothing grows (except the stuff in the petri dishes). Which is to say there are no happy accidents, no mutations, and lessons to be learned. Growth and learning come from making mistakes. Perfection doesn't allow for mistakes so it is the enemy of growth and learning.

And then there's the human element.

Trying to understand another human being. Communicating with that person. Becoming comfortable with that person. These are fairly basic requirements for working with human beings.

You get none of that with Stable Diffusion and Midjourney. Of course there's a lot of sharing on reddit and Discord about all things AI (especially with all the bugs that came out of SDXL breaking everything *cough ControlNet*) but online discussions aren't the same as human discussions. Not to say that human must be done in person but a lot of communication is lost when it's done online. Ask anyone who has done a Zoom meeting.

There's so much about being a photographer/retoucher that is already solitary in nature. I don't need more reasons to spend more time in my head, even if I am exceptionally effective, productive, and efficient all alone. But it's lonely in that vacuum. I've always that this theory that rich people become really strange because they are isolated from others. Their perversions go unchecked and eventually become them. Because if you're rich enough to tell people to fuck off, you stop hearing things like, "Hey Michael maybe it's not such a good idea to have sleepovers with little boys..."

Yes, I know I am saying this from behind a computer. From a place you've probably never visited. Most of you have not nor will ever meet me in person. Yet more and more I want to connect with people. It's why I am moving off Instagram as my main platform and voicing my ideas here. Blogger might be a dead platform but 1. It allows me to post my pictures without censorship 2. It allows me to say more than 2000 characters and 3. It allows people to have a better "conversation" without seeking likes, comments, and clickbacks.

I hope this journey continues with you all here. Cheers!