Oh ye thronging mass of readers, pressed one against another, hoping to catch a faux pearl of knowledge. Hear me now. Hear me now.
So this blog post isn't about the next thing in dieting. It's tagged photography, fool! Maybe it should be tagged, photography fool. Anyway, here's the history.
As soon as I learned what "green mode" on my camera was, I was horrified and disgusted. "You mean to tell me," I screamed in the direction of the rising sun, that birthplace of all quality optics; Japan, "this camera has aesthetic autopilot - and you actually insult me by suggesting I might need it? I curse you to the seventh generation!" The fist-pumping and spitting was just an instinctive impulse. You should have seen the look on the faces of the middle school graduates I was photographing at the time.
Your camera has green too of course, it's currently the spot your mode dial is set to. It's where your mode dial has always been set. Did you even know it could be turned?
Maybe I should explain what "Green" is.
Some camera manufactures use different colors, but Green generally means "full auto." Which sounds cool if you're a rapper, or member of a militia, but a photog who shoots Green? It's a shame no one can recover from. You've opted out of being in control, instead you've let your camera pick the shutter speed, the aperture, and in some cases even the ISO. You want to, nay, you must get off the Green stuff!
Now, Green has been a neglected spot on my dial for a long time. Long before I had a clue what I was doing. Well, ok, I'm still working on cluing myself in actually. And I admit, there have been times green mode would have resulted in an acceptable capture instead of a over/underexposed mess, but uh, yeah I guess it's just my prophet's pride that keeps me from twisting that little dial over to the Green square.
So what's a photo-dork to do? Easy answer: shoot raw. First, no one will accuse you of not being hard-core when you shoot raw. I mean, raw is more labor intensive to process, eats up more disk space (requiring you to carry more CF/SD cards), offers less guidance in post-processing, is a secret proprietary format, requires expensive or uber-geeky software to use... what's not to love! All those barriers mean you're on photographer who's in-the-know.
For those of you who are in-the-don't-know, I'll explain. RAW format files are basically unaltered data-dumps straight from the camera's sensor. There's a little processing, but generally what you have in a RAW file, is the record of what photons, at what frequency, hit where on the sensor. This is (seriously) cool because no data is lost to compression or in-camera processing.
Raw also makes no adjustments for white-balance, no sharpening, no adjusting color, no exposure compensation, no wonderful artistic filters. With some cameras the white-balance value and other time-of-shot information is stored with the file. But only stored with the file, not applied to it in-camera. In post processing you can choose to accept the camera's assessment or apply your own, the benefit again is that no information is lost - till you save your RAW file in a printable/viewable format like JPG, PNG, GIF or whatever.
And as an added bonus to all those intimidating barriers listed above, you can fix your bloopers and mess-ups from not shooting green, or P for that matter, more easily when working with a RAW file.
All those uncompressed bits and bytes, just might hold enough information to allow you to bring up some detail in those underexposed shadows. Maybe that blown-out sky, has some subtle remnant of the clouds that looked "just like a pony!"
This extra, subtle, information can be a shot-saver, as you are able to "pull up" that faint information which likely would have been lost in in-camera compression and processing. When working with under/over exposed images in RAW format, generally, one is able to regain a couple stops on both ends. Yes, you gain a couple stops on both ends and you get extra cool cache.
Try it out now, no one is listening, just say it quietly to yourself "Tsk, I've forgotten my DSLR even has a blue, err.. green or whatever... setting. It's just one of those features I never use. Like, oh I don't know, like art filters or saving as JPEG." Feels nice don't it?
So there you go! You get to amp-up cool photographer blah blah by saying things like "Oh, I always shoot raw!" and, "Huh, I didn't realize a camera of this quality even had a green mode!" I'm sure you can come up with some of your own. Feel free to submit portraits (in RAW please) displaying your curled lip, your furrowed brow, or your eyes in mid-roll - whilst glaring at your mode dial, set on Green.
3/16/2010
3/14/2010
My current favorite air pistol - but why?
My Sheridan .20, 5mm caliber H-series pellet gun.
It's a multi-pump.
It's not particularly powerful.
It's not particularly accurate.
It's got plastic grips.
But it looks nice.
I think it looks very nice.
It's also a very solid feeling gun. The grips are the only plastic on the gun. Working the pump lever is not difficult, though it's quite the potential palm-pincher. When I got it, the trigger guard was broken. I just bent a piece of brass plate, drilled and tapped a hole and viola, doesn't look SO bad. I might open up the bottom of the trigger guard though, just for some freaky-stylie.
I think it looks very nice.
It's also a very solid feeling gun. The grips are the only plastic on the gun. Working the pump lever is not difficult, though it's quite the potential palm-pincher. When I got it, the trigger guard was broken. I just bent a piece of brass plate, drilled and tapped a hole and viola, doesn't look SO bad. I might open up the bottom of the trigger guard though, just for some freaky-stylie.
3/11/2010
Stem Cell Treatment : BiotechConnection.com
Open Source Medicine?
I'm encouraged by recent developments in what's being called "personalized medicine." Cultivating adult stem cells and using them to replace or repair damaged tissues is an incredibly exciting idea. The cloning of T-cells to shore up the body's reserves and help turn the tide in fights against cancer, autoimmune diseases and AIDS, has the potential to turn deadly disease into chronic disease. And in many cases, incurable diseases seem on the verge of being completely treatable. All through the use of personalized medicine - treatments and cures tailored by a single doctor or treatment provider, for use by a single patient.
So, what's the bad news? These treatments are expensive, and nobody in the health care industry is willing to pay for a cure. Personalized medicine, generally entails the development of drugs, cells or tissues only compatible with the donor, who is most often the victim of the disease. In other words, these treatments are customized to the individual and therefor not marketable broadly.
The majority of medicinal treatments available today are subsidized by profit driven entities in the health care arena. Most often maligned - justly or not - are the pharmaceutical companies and the health care companies. Since a massive dose of my cultivated T-cells will do nothing to cure your disease, there's little in the way of money making potential. After all, I'm just one customer, and my cure is only good for me. How would say, pharmaceutical companies, benefit financially from such treatments.
More and more the future of human health is becoming about a process rather than a pill. Expenses related to treatments individual to the patient, cannot be amortized among those with similar illnesses. Worse yet for drug companies and health insurance corporations, a one-person one-cure scenario does nothing to lubricate the massive churning financial engine of highly lucrative drug and treatment markets. In the case of cloned T-cells, which in one case have been used to completely cure a man suffering from melanoma (skin cancer), there is no profit to be made by the drug companies at all, the hospitals gain nothing, doctors are not compensated by insurance companies who's interests are not in saving an individual life, but in maintaining the current market system.
The process of extracting, processing and culturing T-cells takes place between one doctor and one patient. Though the cost of treatment may be nearly as high as the total cost of medicating a person through death, the money would not be shuttled back and forth between huge corporate interests. If covered by private insurance, money would be drained directly from the reserves of company coffers, and into the waiting veins of the sick. Practically thrown away, resulting in nothing more than a saved life.
Obviously, this can't work fiscally, right? Some would point out that the high cost of medication and treatment is what pays for research and development. And this is currently the case. If drug companies and insurance companies lost the ability to make billions of dollars in profit, how would research be funded?
My response is so simple as to likely be completely impossible. This is where government should step in. Yes, government should involve itself in the medical welfare of the people. Isn't that the role of benevolent government? To further the good of the people. Taxes, WPA style programs and collaboration with researchers, who tend to be motivated more by "pure science" than cash payouts, would fill in the gaps left by profiteering pharmaceutical companies, doctors and pharmacists, dwindling bank accounts. I'm not talking about government deciding who should live or die, or even who should receive what treatment. I'm talking about the corporate body of citizens as represented by elected officials, choosing to divert money to pure, legally clear and patent-free, uninhibited, pure research, with a focus on curing disease.
I'm no dove, not quite a hawk, more like a turkey really, but when I think about the billions of dollars spent on warfare, weaponry, litigation, back-room deals and pandering to horribly inefficient and broken commercial colossi, I wonder, what could be accomplished if that funding were all diverted to simply finding ways to make us more healthy. Could the U.S. government commit to curing cancer, no matter it's effect on the economy of drug companies and insurance companies? Unlikely? Yeah. But for twenty years I've been told the same idea as applied to free software could never work. I mean, nobody can make a living just giving away a good thing. Right?
I'm encouraged by recent developments in what's being called "personalized medicine." Cultivating adult stem cells and using them to replace or repair damaged tissues is an incredibly exciting idea. The cloning of T-cells to shore up the body's reserves and help turn the tide in fights against cancer, autoimmune diseases and AIDS, has the potential to turn deadly disease into chronic disease. And in many cases, incurable diseases seem on the verge of being completely treatable. All through the use of personalized medicine - treatments and cures tailored by a single doctor or treatment provider, for use by a single patient.
So, what's the bad news? These treatments are expensive, and nobody in the health care industry is willing to pay for a cure. Personalized medicine, generally entails the development of drugs, cells or tissues only compatible with the donor, who is most often the victim of the disease. In other words, these treatments are customized to the individual and therefor not marketable broadly.
The majority of medicinal treatments available today are subsidized by profit driven entities in the health care arena. Most often maligned - justly or not - are the pharmaceutical companies and the health care companies. Since a massive dose of my cultivated T-cells will do nothing to cure your disease, there's little in the way of money making potential. After all, I'm just one customer, and my cure is only good for me. How would say, pharmaceutical companies, benefit financially from such treatments.
More and more the future of human health is becoming about a process rather than a pill. Expenses related to treatments individual to the patient, cannot be amortized among those with similar illnesses. Worse yet for drug companies and health insurance corporations, a one-person one-cure scenario does nothing to lubricate the massive churning financial engine of highly lucrative drug and treatment markets. In the case of cloned T-cells, which in one case have been used to completely cure a man suffering from melanoma (skin cancer), there is no profit to be made by the drug companies at all, the hospitals gain nothing, doctors are not compensated by insurance companies who's interests are not in saving an individual life, but in maintaining the current market system.
The process of extracting, processing and culturing T-cells takes place between one doctor and one patient. Though the cost of treatment may be nearly as high as the total cost of medicating a person through death, the money would not be shuttled back and forth between huge corporate interests. If covered by private insurance, money would be drained directly from the reserves of company coffers, and into the waiting veins of the sick. Practically thrown away, resulting in nothing more than a saved life.
Obviously, this can't work fiscally, right? Some would point out that the high cost of medication and treatment is what pays for research and development. And this is currently the case. If drug companies and insurance companies lost the ability to make billions of dollars in profit, how would research be funded?
My response is so simple as to likely be completely impossible. This is where government should step in. Yes, government should involve itself in the medical welfare of the people. Isn't that the role of benevolent government? To further the good of the people. Taxes, WPA style programs and collaboration with researchers, who tend to be motivated more by "pure science" than cash payouts, would fill in the gaps left by profiteering pharmaceutical companies, doctors and pharmacists, dwindling bank accounts. I'm not talking about government deciding who should live or die, or even who should receive what treatment. I'm talking about the corporate body of citizens as represented by elected officials, choosing to divert money to pure, legally clear and patent-free, uninhibited, pure research, with a focus on curing disease.
I'm no dove, not quite a hawk, more like a turkey really, but when I think about the billions of dollars spent on warfare, weaponry, litigation, back-room deals and pandering to horribly inefficient and broken commercial colossi, I wonder, what could be accomplished if that funding were all diverted to simply finding ways to make us more healthy. Could the U.S. government commit to curing cancer, no matter it's effect on the economy of drug companies and insurance companies? Unlikely? Yeah. But for twenty years I've been told the same idea as applied to free software could never work. I mean, nobody can make a living just giving away a good thing. Right?
3/09/2010
Worker ID Card at Center of Immigration Plan - WSJ.com
Worker ID Card at Center of Immigration Plan - WSJ.com
This freaks me out. I don't want to submit to ANY biometric data mining. Not to mention it is starkly reminiscent of the "mark of the beast" prophecy in the bible.
This freaks me out. I don't want to submit to ANY biometric data mining. Not to mention it is starkly reminiscent of the "mark of the beast" prophecy in the bible.
3/04/2010
Canon 7D, conspicuous consumption & "What do I really need?"
So, we live in pretty amazing times. In many ways. Lately, I've been thinking about consumerism and personal satisfaction. I've got a Canon 7D which is just an absolutely amazing device. Without listing boring specifications, suffice it to say: it's got bells whistles and more mega-pixels than a 20"x30" print could ever need.
Yet, I'm not happy with it. I mean, I am totally happy with it... but not really. Ah, the double minded man is like a wave of the sea...
I've noticed auto-focus is slightly off. In fact, more than 60% of my exposures are out of focus. Canon offered we OCD tweakers the option to micro-adjust auto-focus, but for reasons outline below, this doesn't seem to provide full satisfaction. But, should I be seeking satisfaction at all?
I guess I should clarify. I take snapshots. Of my wife, my dog, pretty flowers, landscapes. I'm not a professional, I'm what they in marketing call, an "enthusiast." I take pictures, save them to my computer, sometimes post them on the web, sometimes print them and give them as gifts or hang them on my walls.
I do some minor post-processing, and this is where the "trouble" starts. When I zoom in to 100% on the computer screen, some of the pores and hair follicles on the faces of portraiture subjects are "soft." Perhaps the mandible of an ant is out of focus (using a non-macro lens) nearly 60% of the time. It drives me crazy! I mean, I know the camera is capable of sharp captures, but so many of them are "soft" this way.
Ok, so if anyone is reading this, hopefully you're getting my sarcasm and self-deprecating humor, and yet "the truth is said in jest." Even though you're in on the joke, you may still be thinking "So what? The issue is so minor, as to be completely negligible - unless you're zooming in to 100% magnification - and why does anyone need to do that?" There is a serious question here.
Many questions actually. Like:
What do I need?
Should I expect a level of performance commensurate with my expenditure of cash? Or need the device's performance only match my own?
What monetary expense is justified by gaining what level of quality, features, etc?
Because something "should" perform a certain way, does that justify spending time and aggravation in pursuit of that performance?
I have a 35mm Mamiya film SLR that's really fun to shoot. The results are pleasing, even though processed at the Walgreen's photo-center. I can tell dog's have hair, because I recognize them as dogs - I can make out four legs and floppy ears. There's not a chance I could identify an individual hair on my mutt Phoebe's head by examining an exposure from my Mamiya. Yet, the pictures it produces are aesthetically and personally pleasing. I spent $24 on that Mamiya.
I've invested a lot of time, money and "heart" in this whiz-bang do-hickey of a camera. Why?
I find that often, the justification for my conspicuous consumption is invented long after the purchase. "I need it for my new blog.", "I'm going to start selling prints.", "I want to get into micro-stock photography." etc. etc. etc. But, where does the cycling drive to, spend, justify, be disappointed, repeat ad infinitum, ever end in satisfaction, or dare I say happiness.
So this personal rant, doesn't have any answers, doesn't offer any guidance, and only raises questions. Somehow, other people seem to either lack that nagging internal voice to seek for perfection in the material world, or know how to ignore it. Or at least have the sense not to voice it. For me, I know "turning it off" isn't an option. I'm fairly sure turning the internal dialog into a debate doesn't help. Voicing it is a call to be judged and condemned.
Will sending my 7D into Canon for auto-focus recalibration help? Should I sell it and give the money to the poor?
If anyone has figured some of this out, please take a minute and let me know how you have done so. Perhaps there are many people fighting this same battle here in the U.S. of A.
Buildings are falling in Chile, children are starving in Haiti, and I just read a quote "there are more slaves in the world today, than any other time in history," but I'm suffering too. My camera has soft-focus.
Yet, I'm not happy with it. I mean, I am totally happy with it... but not really. Ah, the double minded man is like a wave of the sea...
I've noticed auto-focus is slightly off. In fact, more than 60% of my exposures are out of focus. Canon offered we OCD tweakers the option to micro-adjust auto-focus, but for reasons outline below, this doesn't seem to provide full satisfaction. But, should I be seeking satisfaction at all?
I guess I should clarify. I take snapshots. Of my wife, my dog, pretty flowers, landscapes. I'm not a professional, I'm what they in marketing call, an "enthusiast." I take pictures, save them to my computer, sometimes post them on the web, sometimes print them and give them as gifts or hang them on my walls.
 |
| From Pictures |
I do some minor post-processing, and this is where the "trouble" starts. When I zoom in to 100% on the computer screen, some of the pores and hair follicles on the faces of portraiture subjects are "soft." Perhaps the mandible of an ant is out of focus (using a non-macro lens) nearly 60% of the time. It drives me crazy! I mean, I know the camera is capable of sharp captures, but so many of them are "soft" this way.
Ok, so if anyone is reading this, hopefully you're getting my sarcasm and self-deprecating humor, and yet "the truth is said in jest." Even though you're in on the joke, you may still be thinking "So what? The issue is so minor, as to be completely negligible - unless you're zooming in to 100% magnification - and why does anyone need to do that?" There is a serious question here.
Many questions actually. Like:
What do I need?
Should I expect a level of performance commensurate with my expenditure of cash? Or need the device's performance only match my own?
What monetary expense is justified by gaining what level of quality, features, etc?
Because something "should" perform a certain way, does that justify spending time and aggravation in pursuit of that performance?
I have a 35mm Mamiya film SLR that's really fun to shoot. The results are pleasing, even though processed at the Walgreen's photo-center. I can tell dog's have hair, because I recognize them as dogs - I can make out four legs and floppy ears. There's not a chance I could identify an individual hair on my mutt Phoebe's head by examining an exposure from my Mamiya. Yet, the pictures it produces are aesthetically and personally pleasing. I spent $24 on that Mamiya.
I've invested a lot of time, money and "heart" in this whiz-bang do-hickey of a camera. Why?
I find that often, the justification for my conspicuous consumption is invented long after the purchase. "I need it for my new blog.", "I'm going to start selling prints.", "I want to get into micro-stock photography." etc. etc. etc. But, where does the cycling drive to, spend, justify, be disappointed, repeat ad infinitum, ever end in satisfaction, or dare I say happiness.
So this personal rant, doesn't have any answers, doesn't offer any guidance, and only raises questions. Somehow, other people seem to either lack that nagging internal voice to seek for perfection in the material world, or know how to ignore it. Or at least have the sense not to voice it. For me, I know "turning it off" isn't an option. I'm fairly sure turning the internal dialog into a debate doesn't help. Voicing it is a call to be judged and condemned.
Will sending my 7D into Canon for auto-focus recalibration help? Should I sell it and give the money to the poor?
If anyone has figured some of this out, please take a minute and let me know how you have done so. Perhaps there are many people fighting this same battle here in the U.S. of A.
Buildings are falling in Chile, children are starving in Haiti, and I just read a quote "there are more slaves in the world today, than any other time in history," but I'm suffering too. My camera has soft-focus.
2/28/2010
Phoebe makes friends!
Ah, the look of joy as the pups romp and play in the crisp winter air.
Pretty girl! 
What a lovely face. Ooh, give me a kiss! 
What fun we, and the other dogs had.
The Associated Press: Obama signs one-year extension of Patriot Act
The Associated Press: Obama signs one-year extension of Patriot Act
US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy
Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:
US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy
Change! Uhm.... for the worse.
It's bush 3.0, but with more, more MORE, surveillance; more, more, MORE intelligence gathering on US citizens, more, more, MORE government oversight of private and public speech; more, more, MORE defending the rights of our corporate citizens against the
teaming masses
mobs who bully and rob the savaged and destitute multi-billion dollar software and media giants; and finally less, less, LESS transparency from government and corporate partnerships, such as the one between the NSA and AT&T. What a joy it is to know that the secret surveillance programs of the Bush era continue, only this time under benevolent guidance.
teaming masses
mobs who bully and rob the savaged and destitute multi-billion dollar software and media giants; and finally less, less, LESS transparency from government and corporate partnerships, such as the one between the NSA and AT&T. What a joy it is to know that the secret surveillance programs of the Bush era continue, only this time under benevolent guidance.
At least we were told back in July that "Einstein 3" would be put in place at some undisclosed future time. Don't worry, we've been promised that there will be no surveillance of private citizens. Shouldn't that promise be enough? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He's PROMISED us not to peek! And so now, there's no reason for transparency, accountability, privacy. I'm sure Einstein would be thrilled to learn this great privacy vacuum will fly a flag bearing his name.
Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:
Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
It's about time the U.S. started throwing it's weight around
The U.S's old "hands-off approach" to the internet, which accepted the network as an forum for public communication, educational research, and an incubator for business and commerce, are no more: “the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the world.” But, he continued, “that was then and this is now. As we at NTIA approach a wide range of Internet policy issues, we take the view that we are now in the third generation of Internet policy making.” - Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling.
Truthfully, this is no worse than I expected. In fact, many times I've described politics in the U.S. as a scene from Edgar Allen Poe's The Pit And The Pendulum, whatever way the pendulum swings, to the right or to the left, the only certainty is that it moves one step closer to dividing us in half. I guess I feel a bitter sense of justification, and an even more bitter sense of regret for even allowing myself to secretly believe in... change.
Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)