Thursday, July 31, 2008
I Get Distracted
There I am, ready to start sorting through the hundreds and hundreds of photos I took in Vermont, and I come across one, and for some reason, it catches my eye, and then I spend upwards of an hour making it look like it would have looked if I knew anything about photography in the first place. Whee!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Today's Vermont Photo
Here's another shot I liked from Vermont.
This was taken near the Trapp Family Lodge. I believe this is where the von Trapp family moved after they fled from the Central Casting Nazis in "Sound of Music." No, really. I had no idea the Trapps ended up in Vermont!
Oh, and for some reason, there were longhorns. More fun to come!
This was taken near the Trapp Family Lodge. I believe this is where the von Trapp family moved after they fled from the Central Casting Nazis in "Sound of Music." No, really. I had no idea the Trapps ended up in Vermont!
Oh, and for some reason, there were longhorns. More fun to come!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
How, Now?
Just got back from a whirlwind visit to Vermont! I'm looking forward to posting lots of brilliant insights (translation: puns about cowpies) and photos (once I sort through the nearly 1,400 I took). Vermont is absolutely amazing.
Thanks to Chris for his insights about how to best tweak this in Photoshop.
Thanks to Chris for his insights about how to best tweak this in Photoshop.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Too Much?
Chris, a good friend and loyal reader of this blog reminded me today, via his Flickr account, about this photo I took of him.
I always liked that shot. But, of course, he and I could not resist screwing with it in Photoshop. This is my version.
Too much?
Update. Chris responded: "I really appreciate that you captured the 'hair helmet' look of my youth. Here is my photoshop version. Notice that Scott touched up skin tone, evened the lighting and softened the photo. Notice that I got rid of my double chin, bags under my eyes and filled in my hairline. But I'm vain.
Another update. Scott responded: Chris did a much better job, without drawing attention to the fact that there was retouching involved. I think that's the ultimate goal. Subtle tweaks, rather than my unskilled, heavy-handed approach. Thanks for letting me share these, Chris!
I always liked that shot. But, of course, he and I could not resist screwing with it in Photoshop. This is my version.
Too much?
Update. Chris responded: "I really appreciate that you captured the 'hair helmet' look of my youth. Here is my photoshop version. Notice that Scott touched up skin tone, evened the lighting and softened the photo. Notice that I got rid of my double chin, bags under my eyes and filled in my hairline. But I'm vain.
Another update. Scott responded: Chris did a much better job, without drawing attention to the fact that there was retouching involved. I think that's the ultimate goal. Subtle tweaks, rather than my unskilled, heavy-handed approach. Thanks for letting me share these, Chris!
Monday, July 21, 2008
Today's Cool Site
I generally pass by those sites that let you upload a photo so it can be manipulated in some way. I'm passing this one along because they do what they do very well!
Have fun!
Have fun!
Today's Movie Review
"The Dark Knight." Maybe one of the most overhyped movies, well, ever. Broke lots of box office records, so I guess the marketing worked. I'm not quite sure this movie has gotten all the raves it has, honestly. It has all the things you expect in a Batman movie. And Heath Ledger is pretty good, as you've heard. Not brilliant, as you've also heard, but good.
The movie itself, on the other hand, is pretty sloppy. It ends about an hour before it actually ends. During that long, long homestretch, there's a lot of motion, but much of it is in service of a plot that goes kind of haywire.
I think the feeling I left the theater with was that the movie wasn't FUN. It was sadistic, and dark. Which I guess they were going for. But the internal logic didn't hold up. And even a movie inspired by a comic book has to have its own internal logic.
So, it was OK, but I have no interest in watching it again. So, lower the expectations. A lot. And you'll be fine.
The movie itself, on the other hand, is pretty sloppy. It ends about an hour before it actually ends. During that long, long homestretch, there's a lot of motion, but much of it is in service of a plot that goes kind of haywire.
I think the feeling I left the theater with was that the movie wasn't FUN. It was sadistic, and dark. Which I guess they were going for. But the internal logic didn't hold up. And even a movie inspired by a comic book has to have its own internal logic.
So, it was OK, but I have no interest in watching it again. So, lower the expectations. A lot. And you'll be fine.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
This Went Swimmingly
Thought the occasional houseguest, Little the cat, would love to have some fish to watch. Got an aquarium. Got fish.
The cat looked at them once. Now I have pets. That I have to feed occasionally. Oy.
The cat looked at them once. Now I have pets. That I have to feed occasionally. Oy.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Pretty, Ugly
I used to think these glass flowers in the lobby of the Bellagio were ugly.
Now I've reconsidered. They're pretty, ugly. Let's not get into the details.
Now I've reconsidered. They're pretty, ugly. Let's not get into the details.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
It's Caesars, Not Caesar's
Here's today's attempt at HDR. (High dynamic range.) For HDR, you use multiple exposures of the same scene, in this case three shots. One's underexposed, one's exposed normally and one's overexposed. The result is interesting, although I haven't mastered the fine tuning. Oh, well.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Photography Talk Time
Well, it had to happen. The photo talk has trickled over from the comments on this blog entry. Chris and Jon have been talking about lenses. So, if you're not into photography or nerdography, just skip this entry. (Poor you!)
Here are some highlights.
>>Chris Robinson said: I have that Sigma 18-135 lens. I am now thinking that its time to upgrade. You got those new canon lenses and I have noticed the difference in detail.
Thanks! I've noticed an improvement in my images, too. That's happened for a number of reasons, I think. One was getting a new camera. One was getting a new lens. One was gaining skills in Photoshop.
>>Chris Robinson said: My sigma has no image stabilzation and it's not as fast as the better lenses. I was wondering what you think of your photos with the new lenses vs your old lenses and do you think it is worth the money. They not exactly cheap. But we are going to Paris in November and I would hate to come home with OK photos when i could come home with amazing photos.
I think lenses are very important when it comes to image quality, and yes, I do think a good lens is worth the money. I guess everyone has to decide how serious they are about their hobby. For people dabbling with doing photography for money, I think the decision is easier. Mostly because the income can pay for the better equipment. I heard someone say the other day, "If a lens isn't going to pay for itself, you don't need it." Interesting point. For my part, I'm always looking for ways to capture better images. I like toys, gadgets, and while I don't get every lens that comes out (or even all of the lenses I want), I justify getting better lenses because this is something I really enjoy.
I have done photography for some time, but I have to say that my new camera body was really key to my renewed interest in photography (not a new lens).
>>Jonderson said: Chris, all things being equal most quality DSLRs take comparable pics.
I'm not sure I agree with that one, Jon. Each camera I've had seems to have its own quirks, and from my experience, a different camera can be quite a leap in image quality.
>>Jonderson said: There are variations of course, but they are not large. The place you notice the really big difference in image quality is lenses. The best camera body in the world won't take a good picture through a crap lens.
I'm with you on that. It's all about the glass.
>>Jonderson said: I have never liked Sigmas for that reason. It isn't the lack of stabilization or speed, it is simply that they are optically inferior to both the Canon (and in my case, Nikon) lenses.
I've always been a Canon guy. I've never had a lens with a stabilizer, though. If that function is the main reason a lens costs more, than I'd say go for one without it. One of the best things about DSLRs these days is the high ISO (that's "film speed" in old-school lingo). Even at the higher settings, very little noise. So, that, in combination with tons of sensors (that's the megapixel thing), and fast lenses, well, just a few basic rules related to focal length and shutter speed should result in sharp images with the expense of a lens with a stabilizing function.
>>Chris Robinson: I did some checking after I posted the comment above. The big issue with canon is the price. I am not a pro. I do not make a living taking photographs.
I hear ya. Top-of-the-line lenses are expensive. Primes (non-zoom) are supposed to be better quality than zoom lenses. But I like zooms. So, find one that'll do just about everything, and you're set. My 24-70mm, 2.8f lens does just about everything. Wide enough to replace my wide angle. Flexible enough to do framing on the fly. Serious hobbyists just seem to accumulate lenses. I am one of those. But one lens can do the job of many, and for that one, splurge!
>>Chris Robinson: Honestly, my only complaint is having blurry photos when i shoot telephoto in low light. Even a tripod can not stop a light wind from screwing up a zoom shot at dusk. That is why I am interested in optical stablization.
It might actually help there. That f-stop issue is a key one. (That's what people mean when they talk about a "fast" lens. Small f-stop, more light.) My latest Wish List lens is a 1.4f. Very buttery in low light. Also more than a grand. Sigh.
>>Chris Robinson: If I went for the canon, my budget would only allow for the 17-85mm with I.S. There goes my zoom!
That'd be what I'd get. You'll love it.
>>Chris Robinson: It would be silly for me to buy one of the budget canon lenses because they are not really better than my Sigma.
I think they are. It's the glass, man!
>>Chris Robinson: I am pretty set on the Sigma 18-200OS lens. With all the reviews I read and the sample photos, I don't think there is a better catch-all lens for the traveling amateur photographer at that price. And if I get mugged...so what?
I hope you don't get mugged.
>>Jonderson said: As far as zooming at dusk goes, longer lenses require more light, and if there is simply not enough light you will get noisy images even with IS.
Yep, that sounds right.
Anyhoo, thanks for posting these thoughts on my blog. I'm a bit into photography lately.
I guess it goes without saying that great images are more a function of the photographer than the tools of the photographer. Good tools, though, can give you results that get you excited about doing more photography, and I say that's a good thing. The bottom line is to get the best glass you can afford. And slightly more than you can afford. Because photos are the gift that keep on giving. And your memories are important enough to warrant a splurge.
My two cents!
Here are some highlights.
>>Chris Robinson said: I have that Sigma 18-135 lens. I am now thinking that its time to upgrade. You got those new canon lenses and I have noticed the difference in detail.
Thanks! I've noticed an improvement in my images, too. That's happened for a number of reasons, I think. One was getting a new camera. One was getting a new lens. One was gaining skills in Photoshop.
>>Chris Robinson said: My sigma has no image stabilzation and it's not as fast as the better lenses. I was wondering what you think of your photos with the new lenses vs your old lenses and do you think it is worth the money. They not exactly cheap. But we are going to Paris in November and I would hate to come home with OK photos when i could come home with amazing photos.
I think lenses are very important when it comes to image quality, and yes, I do think a good lens is worth the money. I guess everyone has to decide how serious they are about their hobby. For people dabbling with doing photography for money, I think the decision is easier. Mostly because the income can pay for the better equipment. I heard someone say the other day, "If a lens isn't going to pay for itself, you don't need it." Interesting point. For my part, I'm always looking for ways to capture better images. I like toys, gadgets, and while I don't get every lens that comes out (or even all of the lenses I want), I justify getting better lenses because this is something I really enjoy.
I have done photography for some time, but I have to say that my new camera body was really key to my renewed interest in photography (not a new lens).
>>Jonderson said: Chris, all things being equal most quality DSLRs take comparable pics.
I'm not sure I agree with that one, Jon. Each camera I've had seems to have its own quirks, and from my experience, a different camera can be quite a leap in image quality.
>>Jonderson said: There are variations of course, but they are not large. The place you notice the really big difference in image quality is lenses. The best camera body in the world won't take a good picture through a crap lens.
I'm with you on that. It's all about the glass.
>>Jonderson said: I have never liked Sigmas for that reason. It isn't the lack of stabilization or speed, it is simply that they are optically inferior to both the Canon (and in my case, Nikon) lenses.
I've always been a Canon guy. I've never had a lens with a stabilizer, though. If that function is the main reason a lens costs more, than I'd say go for one without it. One of the best things about DSLRs these days is the high ISO (that's "film speed" in old-school lingo). Even at the higher settings, very little noise. So, that, in combination with tons of sensors (that's the megapixel thing), and fast lenses, well, just a few basic rules related to focal length and shutter speed should result in sharp images with the expense of a lens with a stabilizing function.
>>Chris Robinson: I did some checking after I posted the comment above. The big issue with canon is the price. I am not a pro. I do not make a living taking photographs.
I hear ya. Top-of-the-line lenses are expensive. Primes (non-zoom) are supposed to be better quality than zoom lenses. But I like zooms. So, find one that'll do just about everything, and you're set. My 24-70mm, 2.8f lens does just about everything. Wide enough to replace my wide angle. Flexible enough to do framing on the fly. Serious hobbyists just seem to accumulate lenses. I am one of those. But one lens can do the job of many, and for that one, splurge!
>>Chris Robinson: Honestly, my only complaint is having blurry photos when i shoot telephoto in low light. Even a tripod can not stop a light wind from screwing up a zoom shot at dusk. That is why I am interested in optical stablization.
It might actually help there. That f-stop issue is a key one. (That's what people mean when they talk about a "fast" lens. Small f-stop, more light.) My latest Wish List lens is a 1.4f. Very buttery in low light. Also more than a grand. Sigh.
>>Chris Robinson: If I went for the canon, my budget would only allow for the 17-85mm with I.S. There goes my zoom!
That'd be what I'd get. You'll love it.
>>Chris Robinson: It would be silly for me to buy one of the budget canon lenses because they are not really better than my Sigma.
I think they are. It's the glass, man!
>>Chris Robinson: I am pretty set on the Sigma 18-200OS lens. With all the reviews I read and the sample photos, I don't think there is a better catch-all lens for the traveling amateur photographer at that price. And if I get mugged...so what?
I hope you don't get mugged.
>>Jonderson said: As far as zooming at dusk goes, longer lenses require more light, and if there is simply not enough light you will get noisy images even with IS.
Yep, that sounds right.
Anyhoo, thanks for posting these thoughts on my blog. I'm a bit into photography lately.
I guess it goes without saying that great images are more a function of the photographer than the tools of the photographer. Good tools, though, can give you results that get you excited about doing more photography, and I say that's a good thing. The bottom line is to get the best glass you can afford. And slightly more than you can afford. Because photos are the gift that keep on giving. And your memories are important enough to warrant a splurge.
My two cents!
Friday, July 11, 2008
More Way Close Things
All right, you don't have to guess. Just enjoy the beauty that is extension-tubey closeness.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Oh, Now You've Done It
Well, now you've done it. My friend Chris, in his comments to a previous post (the giant bug, below), asked, "What is this lens attachment thingy you got?"
Probably best to never ask me about my photography equipment!
Here's a shot of the extension tubes that, in conjunction with another macro lens (in this case a Canon 50mm macro lens), gets you up close and more personal than previously imagined.
They're found here on Amazon.
These are Kenko extension tubes, and can be used separately or together. Essentially, they're just moving the lens farther away from the "film plane" (or digital sensors).
Anyway, thanks for asking! In honor of having been asked, here are a couple of "WTF is That?" items. No prize this time. (Congrats to Jon to being the first to identify the last batch first.) Just bragging rights! Too easy last time, I think.
Remember, be specific!
Have fun!
Probably best to never ask me about my photography equipment!
Here's a shot of the extension tubes that, in conjunction with another macro lens (in this case a Canon 50mm macro lens), gets you up close and more personal than previously imagined.
They're found here on Amazon.
These are Kenko extension tubes, and can be used separately or together. Essentially, they're just moving the lens farther away from the "film plane" (or digital sensors).
Anyway, thanks for asking! In honor of having been asked, here are a couple of "WTF is That?" items. No prize this time. (Congrats to Jon to being the first to identify the last batch first.) Just bragging rights! Too easy last time, I think.
Remember, be specific!
Have fun!
Saturday, July 5, 2008
My First Impossible Macro Photo
Yep, this is it. My very first IMPOSSIBLE macro photo. Of some kind of bug. A moving bug. Getting this close means a hair's width depth of field, making it nearly impossible to focus, even if the thing you're photographing is a non-living, non-moving thing.
One of the fascinating things about macro photography is that you pick up on things that you can't see with the naked eye, and can't even really see in the viewfinder when you're taking the photo.
I'm hooked. Again.
One of the fascinating things about macro photography is that you pick up on things that you can't see with the naked eye, and can't even really see in the viewfinder when you're taking the photo.
I'm hooked. Again.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Whee
Happy Fourth of July! Here's a little fireworks goodness from the Red Rock Hotel and Casino.
Ya gotta love the Fourth here in Las Vegas (motto: "How did these thongs get on my head?"). Hooch. Gambling. Hookers. Just as our forefathers envisioned it! Whee! Everybody get your liberty on!
Ya gotta love the Fourth here in Las Vegas (motto: "How did these thongs get on my head?"). Hooch. Gambling. Hookers. Just as our forefathers envisioned it! Whee! Everybody get your liberty on!
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
I Heart Vegas
One of the great things about Las Vegas is that you can do whatever you want, just about any time you want. Today, for lunch, I breezed over to Green Valley Ranch, a local casino. It was the casino featured in the show "American Casino" not too long ago. I had a great lunch. Something called a Bambino, which was a wee mini meatball sub, plus chips and a drink for $4. Quite satisfying. I played a few hands of $5 blackjack with a bunch of drunk guys, and won $30.
When I got back to the office I realized, yet again, how much I love Las Vegas. I don't think an outsider would guess that. I dislike noise. Cigarette smoke. Crowds. And I'm pretty tight with a buck. But I don't mind much of anything when I'm having a good time, and here, a good time is pretty much always a five minute drive away. Sometimes closer.
As the kids say, "Whee!" (You know. Kids from the 1940s.)
When I got back to the office I realized, yet again, how much I love Las Vegas. I don't think an outsider would guess that. I dislike noise. Cigarette smoke. Crowds. And I'm pretty tight with a buck. But I don't mind much of anything when I'm having a good time, and here, a good time is pretty much always a five minute drive away. Sometimes closer.
As the kids say, "Whee!" (You know. Kids from the 1940s.)
WTF is That?
Today, we begin a new feature! And by "we," of course, we pretty much mean "me," and by feature, of course, we mean, "Yeah, we'll all pretty much lose interest over the next 38 hours, so enjoy it while it lasts."
So, I just got a new set of extension tubes for my camera. This gives me superhuman vision, and the resulting macro photos get so close to things, it's actually hard to tell what they are. Let's make it a guessing game, shall we? I post three images, and the first person to correctly identify the objects in the comments section gets, well, yeah, let's just say a prize to be determined! Wow, ya gotta love wiggle room.
Here we go!
So, I just got a new set of extension tubes for my camera. This gives me superhuman vision, and the resulting macro photos get so close to things, it's actually hard to tell what they are. Let's make it a guessing game, shall we? I post three images, and the first person to correctly identify the objects in the comments section gets, well, yeah, let's just say a prize to be determined! Wow, ya gotta love wiggle room.
Here we go!
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The Little Robot That Did
Gotta see "Wall-E." (I know. You sticklers would like to remind me that the official name of the movie includes an interpunct, like this, "WALL•E." Tough. You know what I mean, even when I use a dash.)
Every single frame of this movie is a wonder to behold. Whether you're a Pixar fan or not (there are people who aren't?), you'll watch in awe because this movie is one of the most entertaining of the year. There are so many layers happening at once. The visuals are overwhelming. Stunning!
It's like they wrote the movie, then re-wrote it 100 times, with each pass adding additional quirks and flourishes that make every second of the film more eye-popping and engaging.
It's fun and charming and clever and just plain great from beginning to end. So, get your interpunct arse to this movie so Pixar can make more.
Every single frame of this movie is a wonder to behold. Whether you're a Pixar fan or not (there are people who aren't?), you'll watch in awe because this movie is one of the most entertaining of the year. There are so many layers happening at once. The visuals are overwhelming. Stunning!
It's like they wrote the movie, then re-wrote it 100 times, with each pass adding additional quirks and flourishes that make every second of the film more eye-popping and engaging.
It's fun and charming and clever and just plain great from beginning to end. So, get your interpunct arse to this movie so Pixar can make more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
