This is my long awaited review of the Light L16. Announced 2 years ago it is finally out. The Light L16 combines 16 lenses in a mobile style body. Light say this is aimed to replace a traditional DSLR and a bag of lenses.
The Light L16 uses computational imaging to get to the final image. When you make a photograph, it uses multiple lenses to compose the photo. Up to 10 images are combined and then stitched together in post production. On the widest angle setting this produces an 81 Megapixel image.
So how does it work and what do the images look like?
If you are a channel sponsor - check the Community tab to get links to the image gallery and download raw image files. To become a channel sponsor, the button is below this video.
Music from Epidemic Sound: https://goo.gl/v5wWKr
Subscribe for more videos!
Watch More Videos:
$63,000 CAMERA :: WHAT DO THE IMAGES LOOK LIKE?
MY FAVORITE FUJI LENSES
FUJIFILM X-T2 :: DESIGN WHICH BLOWS EVERY CAMERA AWAY
Thanks for watching - if you like this video, remember to share it with your friends!
The Art of Photography
2830 S. Hulen, Studio 133
Fort Worth, TX 76109
My name is Ted Forbes and I make videos about photography. I’ve been making photographs most of my life and I have a tremendously deep passion for photography that I want to share with you on YouTube.
The Art of Photography is my channel and I produce photography videos to provide a 360 degree look into the world of making images. We all want to get better so lets do this together!
I make videos covering famous photographers, photography techniques, composition, the history of photography, philosophy and much more.
I also have a strong community of photographers who watch the show and we frequently do social media challenges for photographers to submit their own work. I feature the best and most interesting on the show when we do these so come check it out and get involved!
I was willing to try this out for maybe $1000, but $2000us is too much, especially when I work in social media and I want those images right away. And those file sizes 170Mb is way too big for what I need. I'd try it out, but it seems out of time and out of price, like how satellite radio was launched after the ipod existed.
They may be intelligent but they doesn't know how business works, how market works. Instead of gathering customers, they are making their products way too pricey. They are probably like, if customers gonna pay 5-6k for dslr, our new product deserves to be sold at 2k. And that's ridiculous way to start a business.
Haven't read the other comments, but curious to know how stacking or overlapping 13MP images can produce more than a 13MP image. Also, given the size of the lenses to gather more light and image, image detail would seem to suffer compared to both dslr's and newer smart phones.
@TedForbes I test drove the Lytro and one thing that stuck out to me was that it performed slowly unless it was very bright out and had a REALLY hard time focusing in low light unless held perfectly still. Did you get any sense of how well L16 does in motion and in low light?
I think in 5-10 years, this concept is going to be amazing, and may even take over. That said, there will be growing pains, not only for this company, but for others dabbling in the same concept. The journey will be rough, but the destination will be mind blowing.
Never understood the appeal of this thing. It's new, but not better, especially at that ungodly price point. I'll keep my bag of lenses. You say it's supposed to replace high end photography equipment? If a pro photographer pulled this out of their bag for any pro job like a wedding, they would laughed out of the room. It's ugly, its awkward to hold, poor image quality, fake DOF, laggy imports, complicated workflow. I admire their ambition but this will never have a comfortable spot in the market, especially with the dawn of mirrorless. Hard pass
Thanks for your honest review. I've had my L16 since Nov 2017 and I feel just like you. Great company and concept. Decent pictures and easy to use camera settings. YES Lumen is not a very good program and adds an extra step before you can import into Lightroom. I hope they improve Lumen. At this time I'm thinking about selling my camera. As you say the camera is well built but the extra time you must spend processing each individual image in Lumen before being able to crop and/or adjust color/exposure just is not worth it to me. Lumen is only good a helping you decide which images are worth saving.
I wouldn’t want to trade a Boeing 777 for the Wright Flier but that doesn’t mean the Write Flier wasn’t important. Anyone who doubts that computational photography isn’t the vision for the future can hit me with a buggy whip.
i think it can be a nice hdri camera but not yet it can be a one hit wonder at lees the company have plas for make a big jump and make a portable photogrammetry portable camera for textures that can be a nice for video games and animation studios but is really expensive
Nokia 808 preview operated with 41 mp. Otherwise used its oversampling tech with 2mp, 5 mp and 8 mp resolution. Is it the tech we are waiting for? I don't think so. A. I. In smartphones with photography is developing really fast. Smartphones will succeed. Maybe combining tech with smartphones will do. Huawei is using 3 lenses. So smartphones do so. So another device Making photos, I don't think it will be. The prossionals won't use them either. You are limiting your own creativity because the manual mode suck. When you can do all manual with your own dslr. It will flop.
Thanks for your honest review. I had been thinking of the Light 16 as a travel camera, sort of a high megapixel smart phone. Your video has convinced me to upgrade from my Sony A7 to the A7 II or III with it's 42 megapixels instead. As far as the future potential for me, if I am going to spend that kind of money I think I prefer an interchangeable lens camera which lets you use a variety of native or vintage lenses. I am attracted by the size but it sounds like it is considerable heavier than the iPhone 8 plus which I use in a pinch or when I don't feel like carrying heavy gear. Also sounds like the post processing in photoshop or light room is a pain in the ass. I look forward to your future reviews.
Rather than making infocommercials, how about getting one in the hands of independent reviewers, magazines, or test labs? It won't happen, because it doesn't work. Obviously, they're getting desparate and resulting to YouTube propoganda.
I probably know more about it than you, being following it for years. You have no test results on photo quality, speed, image blur due to stitching, low light capability. You know, the stuff that real photographers care about. You didn't ever answer the question--has one independent reviewer tested and evaluated one with like, scientific results? All you're doing regurgitating the operating manual and making some general comments.
I have owned this camera. It takes almost artificially crisp photos in good lighting condition. Low light performance is HORRIBLE. And since all photos are taken at f/15 there is NO bokeh. Any background blur must be added in post editing. And try taking a photo directly towards a strong light source. Looks awful. And the image generation is soooo slooow. I sold mine and bought a Sony a7rii instead. So much better and more versatile.
Be careful. I never thought that DSLRs would produce higher quality images than film based cameras but here we are. Once they (whoever they may be) are able to implement better AI software (machine learning algorithms) one-click one-offs could very well surpass DSLRs and without all the time consuming workflows.
I had ordered an L16 and returned it and got my money back.
My son who is a professional photographer tested the camera for me and told me all the bits and pieces that you highlight in your review.
Facit: If someone wants something fancy looking and something to impress his/her non-professional photographer friends...OK.
Thank you for your honest and qualified review!
Thank you light.co for taking it back and refunding me!
The thing with a lot of these cameras is they don't give a true representation of what our eyes are seeing. Stitching over ten images together doesn't sit right with me. When cameras learn to show us things the eyes don't see at all I'll be interested. Right now they all seem too focused on taking away half of what we do see.
would have been nice to show l16 vs smartphone as it does seem to be ready yet to compete against a large sensor camera, too bad these engineers never learn the lesson : a working prototype is only 10% of the total work to deliver the full product/service to customers.
To all those people bashing this technology. Remember this. When digital cameras were at their infancy Kodak was laughing at them despite having digital camera technology and the capital to work on it further. I still remember the ad on a newspaper for a 2 megapixel Casio point and shoot digital camera two decades back. I have personally used this camera. It paled in comparison to a 35mm film camera but gave you instant results. Today we know where digital camera technology stands. People said the same thing about mirror less cameras. We all now know what happened to Kodak because of their lack of foresight. This could be a groundbreaking technology or it may be not. I cannot predict at the moment. But do not be so quick to judge. Let the technology evolve and time answer.
Great review, thanks a lot. I looks like It is very hard to compute those from different lenses images into one. The tiny details go all over the place making blurry spots. How to better stretch different focus length distortions into one would be the solution. Apple cannot figure it out with two lenses in 'photo mode' and they have to do it with seven or ten. Great idea, but not consumer ready yet.
Part of me feels like this is a huge campaign just to sell the tech to google or apple for future smartphone use. Data and conceptual proof that the technology works with any lens combinations they'd want to use. It clearly doesn't work easily or well when all combined, and utilizing the software approach negates a big selling point(upload online immediately) and contradicts the dslr killer claim by perpetuating the method dslrs use(that is, upload and edit and then post, but even dslrs can send jpegs remotely to phones on the spot now) so in that regard it's a step back.
None of this mentions how it's simply out of touch with the photo world. If you're attempting to appeal to the photography community, you don't launch a camera for $2000 that has no hot shoe, no tether capabilities, no wifi, a poor holding design, a poor USB cable placement design, and no memory or video capability. By emphasizing megapixels(something every real photographer knows isn't everything) and removing all studio capability, it limits itself to landscape photography and seems to be trying to appeal to the cell phone photographer crowd by offering something much larger and less convenient than a cell phone and that can't upload to IG or FB. At best it's a concept for a smaller and more specific alternative to a travel DSLR, but something like that should be only a couple of hundred dollars. Not thousand. I won't be surprised if they're using this to refine the photo processing app and general tech behind it so they can sell the tech off in the next year or two and walk away from this.
I purchased a "Refurbished" Light L16 today 4/19/18, because it was $600.00 less than a "Brand New" L16 ... It's still expensive, but worth the gamble I suppose. (Maybe I should've purchased another L Series Lens instead?) I shoot Canon. I have a Canon 6D, 70D and M3. I love my Canon cameras and would not think of replacing them with the L16. However, lugging the larger DSLR's (And lenses) around everywhere you go is simply not practical, so I purchased this as an alternative to both the DSLR's and the Smart Phones. Although the smart phone tech has excelled in the past few years or so, I can't imagine the image quality or file size of a smart phone being better than that of the L16, but I may be mistaken. (I am very impressed by the iPhone X and the Google Pixel Smart Phone image / detail quality) The L16 and its tech is interesting and like the reviewer says, I'm going to stick with this company Light, its tech and the L16 just to see what happens and if all improves as I hope it does. If not, well ... I've blown more money on worse things I suppose.
There's no purpose of the camera as a replacement unless it equals and improves on the existing DSLR cameras. From your reivew it seems to fail on all points of comparing to a DSLR form factor. At whatever focal length you chose on any camera today you get equal quality on the shot so getting a lesser photo is a downgrade. Not being able to use the RAW directly from the card is a downgrade since you have to double import to get to lightroom, a downgrade from all cameras today. Paying full price for a half featured phone isn't fair. They should charge what you get and pay as they release real features. Not pay full price and wait for the gaps to fill in and hope the gaps are filled perfectly. New technology shouldn't have any downgrades or what's the point of new cameras that restrict everything. A digital camera should allow for huge ranges of adjustments to allow for creativity. Not force the user to have a slim choice then force in lightroom two steps down the workflow. This is in no way a smart phone or a replacement to a pro camera at all. Every factor you said makes it a downgrade to all tech and only hopes for something that comes close. Even the design isn't the greatest as all the lens placement wasnt thought of when holding the camera with both hands and front screen are sub-par of any $1000 cell phone screen. I had high hopes for this but thoroughly disappointed on all factors possible.
On top of that no sd card slot. So you take 256gb of files and wait forever to transfer. on location while charging battery so you can continue shooting in the forest, while 2hrs goes by and the light has changed. AKA not professional or even anything close to even film speed with 35mm or medium format changing cartridges. And it's only usb type-c so can't plug into any desktop or laptop without buying a card or adapter, which they don't sell on their site.
cost to replace shitty screen?
cost to replace broken lenes?
cost to replace internal battery?
No info on shutter count per charge, video specs for future release of OS. Come on
sad, me and my coworker were following them years ago, and like what you said, years later so much have change in the photo industry, and I think now a days, people just want light weight gear with dslr quality pictures, 4k, amazing images stabilization and social media ready. For $2000, you have so many other option out there.
I have a light 16 also and recently bought a Huawei Mate SE phone and the images are already much better on my phone disappointingly, I think the l16 might be better for certain applications like landscape photos or ?? but... I already prefer the phone images. I really hope they are able to figure out the software, not impressed so far though. Thanks for your video, it's spot on.
I'm pretty sure computational imaging is the future along with augmented reality and the ability to probably do photoshopping in camera while composing. And that it's going to do away with the "DSLR and a bag of lenses". But I don't think this camera is it. In fact I expect this company to go bust, a valiant but ultimately ill-fated pioneer.
Still confused as to how this system works, so a fixed aperture, multiple lenses with different focal distances, I dont understand how it can stitch 2 or more images together with different focal distances?
Fixing focus in post, perhaps more perfect/ active HDR, selecting DOF in post and maybe even auto stacking and many other possibilities with this idea are tantalizing... It's too bad it didn't have SOME feature or image so exciting that they could start building real support. I think the idea is great. I hope they can keep going till it's everything it can be!
I don't think it's relevant at all and way overpriced for what it delivers. For $500 you can buy a Nikon D3400 with two lenses, and as long as you learn basic Lightroom skills, composition, and lighting you end up with way better quality pictures and versatility. If someone is looking for something that is more pocket-sized, this is definitely not it. You are better off if you have a small budget buying a used Fuji x70 for example or if you have a little bit more, one of the higher-end models, or if anything's stick with your cell phone and learn to shoot manual with it. If someone does not want to buy a DSLR camera or mirrorless but is willing to spend 1K+ they should just get an iPhone and it will give them a pocket-sized tool that delivers decent enough quality pictures. But I'm still a firm believer that DSLR and mirrorless cameras will always rule the world of photography, mobile photography is more a sign of the times but in terms of quality print pictures you cannot beat the technology, history and price point for what you get from cameras. Making things more accessible should imply the same or better quality but smaller and cheaper. This is not it. They say that they want to compete against pro cameras but they're nowhere near even the quality of a cell phone. With a cell phone I can take a picture bring it into Lightroom or VSCO or Snapseed edit real quick the raw file, post it on social media within minutes
You went ahead and purchased, knowingly from a Startup company. So please, don't put the blame on that startup - your expectations, or to be more precise your patience, since you are a pro photographer - is understandably too high and too short, respectively. By buying, you are paying for the improvement of this product. Your comments are taken from the old analog world. Light's problem has more to do with software and programming no doubt, than on the hardware itself. That said, the capability of those extra long distance lenses on analog cameras likely can't be replicated by any one of Light's 16 lenses. You should have weighed your decision to purchase a bit more. Kudos to you for purchasing one - it will pay a month's salary for one Light engineer to get them closer to perfecting their product for the rest of us. Light is undertaking a massive challenge and is succeeding tremendously. I am sure Light values your expert opinions very much. In my opinion, Light's software will eventually be far, far more valuable than the hardware it is built for.
There’s nothing wrong with computational photography, that concept is already huge. Their problem is with this product. It produces images that aren’t any better than a flagship smartphone for twice the price, and no smartphone features. In fact it produces worse photos than smartphones in low light. The only advantage you get with this is the increased resolution in daylight. Which you can also do with a smartphone app if you really felt the need for that.
Quite soon, using computational photography along with a bunch of smaller sensors and deep learning will be able to produce images almost at good (maybe 80~90%) so that a majority of people will be able to shoot what can only be shot today by a high end DSLR+a few lenses. (Just look at how quickly Google was able to go from bad cameras to the best camera on a smartphone with their algorithms.) However, most likely there will always be edge-cases where you simply need a large sensor mirrorless/dslr+lenses; just off the top of my head: v. high-speed photography, ultra-tele photography, astral photography, low-light, billboards, etc.
Whether on not Light will be the company to truly crack the problem is another question entirely--it's a very difficult problem that will require experts in physics, mathematics and CS, not to mention all the other things that a company has to do well in (supply chain, logistics, design, hardware, UI/UX, IP, legals, HR, strategy, financials...) I wouldn't be surprised if they get acquired, for a two-year 1st-gen product it seems like it has potential. You've got to look at this like you would a 1st-gen iPhone, not looking so much at how it performs now but beyond that, and what it might look like after a few more years of development+software updates. (much of the work of starting a company and bringing a product to market that doesn't actually affect IQ/performance has probably taken up a lot of their time and resources up until this point, now they can begin to focus on the product--if they've still got the VC backing...)
Awesome video as always!
it's a reminder that people do not know what they want, that technology is not just having the largest numbers, nor having more processing power, or take crazy ideas to reality.
Many times we demand more from manufacturers, or complain of them, because it is easy, and many times we are ignorant or we are not interested in knowing how things work.
I'm sure that in the head of the creator of this camera, it was a revolution, they made a lot of noise on the net, especially on YouTube, but sooner or later they realized the sad reality and knew that they screwed up.
Generally, I like the idea. Their concept is similar to what large arrays of radio telescopes do to create an image of space. You hit on the main technical problem; how can you stitch multiple complex images together and keep the depth of field information? If they can solve that problem, they will have a chance. If not, they will go the way of Lytro, which surprisingly has a similar problem. (BTW, I believe that they can solve the low-light issues you mentioned.)
Note that if they work out these issues, this camera would be for serious photographers, not those who take snapshots and post on Facebook. The workflow is similar to what professional photographers already do. Adding support for things like replaceable memory cards and batteries are relatively simple to implement if that is what blocks users from adopting.
To all the folks in here who are whining and complaining about trivial details I say;
"Get a life."
I love this camera. Most of all, I love the portability of it. I worked at United Airlines for seventeen years and if "all" you complaining whiners truly are looking for some legitimate inconvenience to "whine" over just for the sake of whining, I have a god damn good term that you need to consider before critiquing these courageous U.S. -not Chinese, not French, not Canadian, but USA BAY AREA!- local pioneers.
I only wish I had this camera sooner to share with you the awesome sight of the colossal numbers of excess cases folks bring with them on their travels. Even more so, I would love to share with you the hundreds of images of their jaw dropping facial expressions every time they're hit with the pricey airlines baggage fees that continue to rise today.
You wanna have something to cry about? Cry about parting with hundreds of needed bills you could use on your adventure you are about to have for the simple grand privilege of enduring heavy, bulky, extra matter in parts of the world where humidity is at 100 -but not raining- while hot radiating beams of sun relentlessly and instantly fry your white skin at 115 degrees Fahrenheit at 9 am!
Personally, this camera has been the next best thing for me since Steve Jobs introduced the MacBook Pro.
I predict that these kids will indeed fix the current modest tweaks that stand out right now; I believe in their confidence as they continue to improve a dream they gambled everything they had for it to succeed. I have a strong feeling that this is not an "Edsel," -never heard of it? Google it- but the equivalent to what computing did for the manual typewriter.
To all you "cry babies" who have come to believe that you are born "MacBook Green Berets" I say this;
"Can you remember when our computers in the beginning consisted of a black screen with green letters and numbers? No Facebook, no Google, no U-Tube, No WiFi, Dial-up Internet only. Just green and black and a whole lot of patience.
You cannot? Well I can. And since I can while you cannot, then, in such a case, I'm fully convinced of only one thing thus far.
I'm wasting my time. Go play your violin for someone who gives a damn over your selfishness and amateur photography make up. In photography, no one care about your images anyway other than yourself.
In sum, "Patience is virtue." And for this same reason, this camera is destined to only grow better. I remain optimistic for them, I am happy they engineered the impossible; but most of all, I remain grateful for their risk taking and creativity because today as a middle aged USA born citizen, I understand the importance of buying and supporting local start ups of young daredevils who risk it all to reach their dreams in a country where such a thing has been getting slaughtered since Reagan pirated the oval office.
I assumed it would use android software, could use apps, and basically act as a phone. It was easy to edit photos with snapseed and other photo editing apps. I also thought there would be video... These are 2 of the main reasons why I will never buy this camera. If samsung or google bought this company and did a make over. I would be interested then.
Looks like a fake product, with a "fake it till you make it" company behind it that wants to be acquired so the investors make back their money. In no way does this look any different to multi-lens computational smartphone photography, only with more hardware thrown at the problem for worse results.
If this camera had decent quality, I would totally want to have it. I've been following the progress since the Kickstarter project and am still intrigued, but only if they keep their promise of DSLR-like quality. For me the use case is hikes. I like hiking, and I have a bad back. Which is a horrible mixture if you like photography as well. I don't take my DSLR with me on my hikes, because it's just too heavy. Yet, my Pixel 2 photos could look better at times, and I especially miss the manual controls (especially manual focus for depth of field). If the L16 would have incredible image quality (as it promises), that would totally become my hiking camera. After watching a few reviews, I assume I'll have to wait for at least the 2nd generation.
Thanks for the review! This helped a lot to not press the "buy" button now and wasting quite a lot of money! :)
Impressive! I'm thinking that the many lenses should be put on something like a rotary selectors in order to reduce the need and complexity of the stitching or focus stacking. Maybe one rotary for macro and close up lenses, one for telephoto lens and one for normal to wide angle. The files could then be similar to regular jpegs or even raw. Maybe these rotary selectors could themselves be set on a rotary selector too, this way a set of a few lenses could be brought in front of a composition of sensor inside the camera. To allow more of the stitching, but a little amount of a higher quality sensors, disposed in a more relevant array of shooting direction minimizing this way the stitching problems. Now I can easily envision the rotary selectors to be mechanically rotating as the camera is brought to a far zoom bringning the telephoto lens in front of the sensors with the appropriate telephoto lense rotating themselves to get say 4 lens in front of the 4 APS-C sensors and as the zoom keeps pushing the weakest loup would be put asside while the other 3 would keep climbing to the sensors with higher teleconversion range. Eventually the stronger lens would sit alone on the sensor with the strong teleconversion as the camera reach it's zoom capability. At that point the stitching and details in the picture would be limited, but still the photo would be possible and an electronic pixel enlargement could still work. Reversly the same principle could apply over the same 4 sensors for macro and for wide angle! Simple isn't it? Get at it!! Ah! Ah! I want one please!
Call me a blind optimist and maybe I'm overconfident that this will remain cutting edge and actually meet my needs, but I just ordered one (refurbished, recalibrated, recertified and completely covered under warranty) and paid $1,450. How well will I be satisfied? Who knows, but perhaps if it blows up in my photography face, I feel as though I was part of a crusade and not a scammed victim. Stay tuned.
This company CLEARLY does not understand the importance of sensor size... $2000 for a bunch of smartphone sized sensors? LMAO. Micro-sensors will *never* match APS variants or full frame sensors in terms of light capturing ability and noise levels. Nope. As far as digital sensors go, size absolutely DOES matter. THAT, is the reason why people are still willing to carry around a clunky dSLR and a bag of lenses.
Even if it got cheaper I would NEVER EVER buy a camera that could not be held with both hands. It is not intended for 'high-end' use - when sharpness of image can be a priority. My guess is that none of the people designing this had ever used a camera seriously, and nowhere for the right hand to sit is a flaw too far. If you are right-handed, the close link of the hand to the brain gives this hand many roles in control - especially in framing and stability. To leave all of this to one hand is just stupid. However, congrats for great review.
How small can you go with this?
I would like to see how it shoots macro photography, (insects specifically) where the depth of field is very small. In labs we get around this but using software that takes multiple images and then takes the image stacks and stitches them together using the various layers that are in focus. Which I assume is exactly what this camera does.
I think thay should make a camera out of the 960fps phone camera see how thay can refine it but you need to put a removable battery.
A sd/ micro sd
A flipout screen
A hot shoe on the top
A mic input
Then price it at way under what the Samsung s9 is as why would i buy your thing when i could buy a phone for less😊
Cult Film Collective and the Trylon team-up for a can’t miss for film fans Pedro Almodóvar 35mm Double Feature. [TIX] First Ave is insane this week, including the annual Rebel Rebel: Rock for Pussy David Bowie covers benefit for Feline… Continue Reading →
Quick Q+A: George McConnell + SUPERHERO.
As Captain America says in the under-appreciated Age of Ultron, “We have an enhanced in the field.” Not just the field, Cap. Everywhere you look these days Superheroes are flying or speeding or stretching by—in our films, in our art,… Continue Reading →
Whiz Bang Days Celebration.
Bird Town (as we know it) aka Robbinsdale (as you maybe know it) has a proud history of wrasslin’, so we shouldn’t be so surprised to see the high flyin’ brawlers and knuckle sandwich makers and #1 heel Darin Corbin… Continue Reading →
Sat // The Beer & Bacon Classic.
Previous beer fest experiences (and there have been many) indicate the snacklace is reaching an all-time high in sophistication—but you’ll want to leave it at home for this one. Consider it research for your next creation: the Bacon and Beer… Continue Reading →
Bell Museum Grand Opening.
The Bell Museum celebrates nearly 150 years of existence, 50 years of active learning programs, and 24 feet of woolly mammoth at its grand opening this weekend, which welcomes the public to experience its beautifully grandiose new digs in St…. Continue Reading →
Lumières Françaises + Bastile Day.
Did the MSP Film Society know France would be on the cusp of a World Cup win when they planned their week of independent French film? DID THEY? The smarties actually likely scheduled Lumières Françaises to coincide with Sat’s Bastille… Continue Reading →
Weds // TV Girl + Infinity Crush + Cheap Fantasy.
“Here in New York you don’t need excuses to dress like a girl.” The effortless hipster cool of TV Girl’s sound mixes a sunny produced pop, throwback to ’60s French yé-yé, with more relaxed late night beats and samples, making them… Continue Reading →
Thurs // The Summit Ratskeller’s Grand Reopening.