KenElevenShadows

There we go. The truly important stuff.

Got it. I suppose you could attempt to dip the accompanying chords around 1k or try a different chord that still works with the melody and see if that works? Or turn down that one part without being obvious about it via compression, automation, or whatever? Or dip 1k only on that one bit? Or doing some very subtle combination of several of these approaches?

What distorts on the iPhone? Does it appear to be something triggered by the whole mix in general? Or does it seem to be an element or two (guitar, keyboards, snare, whatever)?

He was one of the three astronauts.

Let's not forget his amazing thespian offering in "Capricorn One". My wife and I made the mistake of watching that several years ago. I had seen it in the theater with my Dad a long time ago when I was a kid and remembered it being bad back then, so I warned her. But we persevered. And it was still bad upon second watching. One part that was fun, however, is that I recognized a lot of the places that they filmed.

Okay, since this is a wish list (but I really have no plans to purchase this, so wishing is all it will be)... In addition to a larger room in a larger house, I wouldn't mind having a Moog Voyager.

Yes, that's my sincere hope!!

I am married, and my wife is very supportive of my night photography and weird music stuff and playing in bands and all that. I used to record my projects as well as other bands in the living room before, and she was cool with that. If I were in your situation, I would definitely make my living room into a "creative living room". Absolutely!! hope you keep enjoying life.

You are right, there are a lot of expenses. That's why it will remain a wish.

A much larger studio in a much larger house. That's pretty much all I want at this point. There. Such a simple list.

I just mix, and don't bother considering iPhone speakers. As Mighty Motif Max and Craig have said, if it's clear enough to hear things, we're good. And I feel like if I do a good mix, it typically works out quite well. The other thing is this. If I have a really great mix, I'm not going to change it all that much to accommodate iPhone speakers.

I suppose it's a combination of people who don't care, people who want to save money, people who can't tell the difference, and people who have bigger worries on their plate, like how they are going to hang on to their second job so they can make their rent. What helps artists like Billie Eilish for now is that they are quite original, and at this point, it's difficult for anyone - human or circuits - to really touch them. That could change, though. And yes, I agree with your other point. I've been saying this for several years about AI/machine learning: It's not AI that concerns me as much as who is creating and using it.

It will be. If it becomes really good, it will devalue what we do (except for hopefully live music). For right now, I would say that if it is really biting into our music endeavors, then we might want to look into stepping up our game. In several years, though? It just might make music that is as good as good songwriters/musicians. And look out if when that time comes. (since I do more immersive, odd atmospheric music, I'm probably in little danger of any of that because I feel like I step outside this to a certain degree, but of course, my interest and concern is not just for what I do)

Well, I was more saying "I probably shouldn't even get into this" because I quite frankly do not have the time or inclination to get into protracted arguments where it's this never-ending spiral of "prove it" and then I take my time providing links, only to have the person ignore me or pivot from those points. But then again, this forum is probably different from the idiocy of other social media, so maybe I will be spared that. If I sound jaded, it's only that I'm seriously ground down from the constant "All AI is bad. It's SkyNet. All of it is evil. We are all going to lose our jobs." And I'm not saying that some of that might not come to pass, but it's just seriously wearisome when arguments are couched in "all AI is _____." This is exacerbated by the fact that most people don't know what AI is, understand that most of it is based on machine learning rather than any sort of actual "thinking", that people use AI every single day and don't realize it, or that AI consistently helps with medicine, science, and technology, looking for patterns and sifting through immense amounts of data so we can all benefit. In short, i would love to see more nuanced conversations about AI that are better informed and aren't the histrionic "the sky is falling" sort of crap.

It would be challenging to be off-topic, as this is basically like showing up in Craig's virtual party place and hanging out and talking. When I was a kid, we used to pretend to be The Juice when we were playing football. For him to turn into such a monster seemed unfathomable and surreal at the time, beginning with the slow-motion Bronco car chase. When things came to light about Bill Cosby, I used to joke and say that our childhood heroes were falling, and end with, “Please….I hope Mr. Rogers isn’t next.” Thankfully, Mr. Rogers has proven to be utterly badass, even if that badass sometimes comes wrapped in a cardigan sweater.

I probably shouldn't even get into this, but there are some AI programs that attempt to be ethical. I get what you are saying, but some do try to be ethical or moral. To say "no one" is incorrect. Adobe Firefly does not train their algorithms on anything other than images where people have consented. Numerous other AI-generated art algorithms refuse to produce likenesses of existing people and have strict routines that don't produce violent, exploitative, demeaning, racist, etc. images, and so forth. My intention of pointing this out is not to get into the overall merits of AI or not, but simply to set the record straight. I am not an AI apologist and recognize all the very nasty and dangerous aspects that AI has the potential to do.

Light Painting 101: Sometimes less really is more You don’t have to light paint everything in a scene. Sometimes, keeping parts in the shadow is emotionally more powerful. https://photofocus.com/photography/light-painting-101-sometimes-less-really-is-more/

I attended an Eclipse Party at the local community college here in California. These are iPhone photos of the event.

Oh, one more thing.....your sunglasses are NOT dark enough to protect your eyes. That's right, even your super dark ones.

Just to be clear, you don't require a total eclipse to damage your eyes. There's a reason why all eclipse parties and events in California - which had somewhere around a 40-45% occlusion of the sun - issued solar glasses. It's for the same reason. There's less light, so your iris expands. The damage occurs because you are then letting in far more UV light, which in turn has far more capacity to damage your retina. And I know that for people who experienced this, they might think, "Well, it didn't really get any dimmer, so yeah, I'm good." It actually did get dimmer, but because it was a slow, gradual dimming and only 40-45%, our eyes simply adjusted, and we never noticed the dimming light. So can you still get your retinas fried by looking into a 40-45% solar eclipse? Yeah, absolutely. You might just need to stare at it a little longer. Whatever you do, you do NOT want to look at the eclipse through the optical viewfinder of your camera. That results in a near-instant fry.

Agreed. I wasn't even going to say anything, but it's really hard to refrain after someone says "haters always going to hate" as if anyone hates a particular company capriciously.

The sun is far more damaging when there is an eclipse than when there is not. There's less light, so your iris expands. The damage occurs because you are then letting in far more UV light, which in turn has far more capacity to damage your retina. That's not a hysterical "fear of God" statement. It's a statement of fact, and it's up to you to heed warnings from optometrists and eye specialists or not.

It almost seems like something that Ricoh/Pentax might do.

Some of us don't prefer to purchase products from companies that are found guilty of patent infringement in a court of law or refuse to give you a straight answer when you ask them if they use slave labor for their products. If that's known as "haters always gonna hate", then sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The issue is with Photofocus, I think. I have to create 1600px photos for Photofocus because they're run by Wordpress, and that's the optimal size. 1600px looks great when it's on my computer, and it even looks pretty good when I upload it. However, when I use the comparison, it falls apart and looks really horrible. I just don't think I am going to do too many of the comparisons because it nullifies all that work I'm trying to do, which is to give readers as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as I can do. My photos already take a hit when they are displayed on Photofocus, but they seem to take another hit when rendered in the comparison.