fotographic memory

book

2008-11-27T14:44:00.000-08:00

I put together a photo book on blurb. That's what that badge up there is. You could buy one, if you wanted, by clicking on that badge and doing all the things you do to buy stuff there. Or not, and that would be OK, too. I could make some sort of promise like that if I got enough money I could buy Photoshop and start doing cooler stuff and all that, which is not entirely untrue, but really I just felt like doing it, and there it is. You could go preview it if you were real interested. Or you could just go check out blurb (I thought it was fun), maybe make your own book.

distant memory

2008-10-13T11:59:00.000-07:00

I didn't think that the name of this blog would ever be prophetic...but I do remember, back in the past, having an interest in photography...

Yeah, I haven't been taking pictures. I don't know why, except that the time involved in processing and the inconvenience of hauling a DSLR everywhere just got old. Hopefully I'll be able to pick it up again soon. Sometimes I just need to let stuff like this cool off for a while.

I did find myself in interesting photographic conditions a couple of weeks ago at the Aquarium in Newport, OR. I did not expect to find much of photographic interest there, but I ended up taking some fish portraits that I like a lot. Maybe I'll try to branch off into taking more animal portraits.

sigh

2008-07-25T11:44:00.000-07:00

I almost managed not to screw up my Photo Friday submission today. The theme was "Awful," so I sent a link to this image of a nasty parasitic fungus that is in its turn infected by mold:

Not the strongest entry, I'm sure, and double plus not good becaue I first submitted it to the wrong week's theme.

*sigh*

Maybe next time...

some photos:

2008-07-24T10:56:00.000-07:00

Photo Friday

2008-07-18T14:19:00.000-07:00

I posted a picture to Photo Friday, but, I totally ballsed it up. I figured, hey, why not post it to your own blog, then if you balls that up, too, you can at least go back and fix it. Then next week you can post something here first, then there, and you won't feel so stupid, and it would actually work.

Anyway, this is what I posted, at the suggestion of my most excellent friend cornpone:

PCT

2008-06-03T09:43:00.000-07:00

I have, of course, taken many, many photos since the last time I made an entry here. Last weekend, I took a hike that presented me with some particularly challenging conditions, as I was in fairly thick forest late in the evening. Most of my shots came out at least a little blurry. I still really need a lightweight compact tripod. Here are a few of the shots of the short stretch of the Pacific Crest Trail I hiked:

eclipse photos

2008-02-21T11:24:00.000-08:00

I can't very well say you saw it here first, as I've posted these elsewhere as well, but I managed a few shots of the eclipse last night.

I spent a couple of hours going out to the driveway and back taking photos with my zoom lens and a tripod. The weather here was quite nice, so I was able to go out and take pictures with just a sweater, no jacket. The eclipse had already peaked by the time I figured out how to tighten down the head on the tripod that I've owned for 17 years now, and was well on its way out when it occurred to me that I could eliminate the rest of the jiggle from pushing the button by using the 2 second timer.

Before:

During:

After (with airplane(plus you can see at the start of the airplane trail where the camera jiggled from my finger pushing the button)):

And so on:

Saturated:

moss

2008-02-20T14:32:00.000-08:00

Taken with my Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom lens at Smith & Bybee Wetlands in Portland, OR.

Zoomin'

2008-02-19T14:55:00.000-08:00

Over the last few weekends, I've had a chance to go out and put my new zoom lens to the test. Unfortuantely, I haven't had a chance to update this blog, so it languishes here, a sad piece of cyberrefuse...until now. Rather than bore you with verbal descriptions on what's supposed to be a photography blog, I'll just go ahead and proceed to posting pictures. Perhaps I'll turn this into a picture of the day sort of thing for awhile, as I've added more than 100 shots since my last post, and I don't have much time for the textual part of things. Here are my top 3 from last weekend:

filters

2008-01-09T13:12:00.001-08:00

I got two 52mm filters for my lens for christmas, and I have to admit being a bit stumped what I'm supposed to do with them. I got one that's a UV haze filter, and that actually seems pretty obvious. I haven't had a chance to see if it works, but reducing haze? Hey, I'm all for it. It would make shots like this turn out a lot better:

I also got a circular polarizing filter. I've taken a couple of test shots (they're still in the camera), and, aside from eating light, I'm not sure what this thing is doing for me. In theory, I understand that it reduces reflected light and can add contrast, but what that will actually mean in terms of results is another question. I need to get it outside in plentiful light to see what it's all about. Unfortunately, I'm locked in the horrific wet gray hell of a pacific NW winter right now, so photographic opportunities have been limited.

influences

2008-01-03T11:36:00.000-08:00

I started taking pictures seriously in High School, inspired by my friend Mark. I didn't really know anything about photography at that point, but I had my Pentax, so I used to go out at night with Mark trying to take low-light photos around the suburban environment. By the time I graduated, I had taken perhaps one decent roll of b&w pictures that I then almost immediately lost without ever printing them.

Mark was, at the time, receiving some instruction and a lot of support from Deb DeWitt-Marchant, a very successful Portland artist. Typically, I was there to catch any scraps of wisdom that hit the floor and cobbled together some sort of aesthetic based on that, my other drawing and painting, and various artists I admired (if only briefly).

In college, Mark worked for a long time at the darkroom, and I was lucky enough to have him show me around the place. I took enough pictures to put together a handful of photos that I thought were a lot better than they really were. I worked in the library for several years, and was a regular visitor to the photography section, where I gravitated to black and white or botanical material.

My final year in college, I got some sort of a wild hair, and all of a sudden I was seeing all sorts of photos I could be taking everywhere. That turned into an interest in unnoticed inanimate urban subjects, and I turned that interest into a b&w photography project.

My interest in photography really lay dormant for quite a long time after that. Aside from a lot of decent travel pictures and 1000 or so images taken as a travel/music writer, I didn't do much. I would pull out the old K_1000 from time to time, but until I got my first digital camera, a 1.3 MP Sony, I didn't really take anything worthwhile. I really didn't take many decent pictures until a couple years ago, when I got my Sony DSC P10.

Digital photography was a major revelation to me. Suddenly, I could render color images almost exactly as I saw them. Being able to review photos made it so I could learn on the fly. I didn't have to take the picture, hope it was right, then learn that I was mistaken days or weeks later. I could take a picture and learn from it instantly. Within perhaps 3 hours of getting the camera, I had improved my phtographic abilities dramatically. I think that most of the world was undergoing the same sort of revelation at about the same time (if not sooner).

Of course, when I got my DSLR, something similar occurred again. The ability to think about the image and then see it materialize or transform is incredibly valuable. I don't think I really feel fluent using the DSLR yet, but hopefully I will be able to capture what I see most of the time sometime soon. It's just a matter of practice, I think.

to RAW or not to RAW

2008-01-02T09:36:00.000-08:00

...that is the question. I have had the ability to shoot in RAW format since I got my camera, of course, but I never have, mostly because of space considerations on my card. I'm starting to reconsider it, though, after LinusMines asked me about it. It's been forever since I took enough pictures in one session to fill up the SD card, so why not up the format and see what happens?

I thought I'd try to talk myself into it here first. RAW is, of course the best format available, at least according to what I've read. The question is why, and whether using the format has any benefits to me, a slacker/amateur photographer with delusions of grandeur.

My first concern about the RAW format is the size of the files created. I can easily pick up another SD card or two, but I use an aging computer to process and store finished images, and one of the unfortunate side effects of taking more good pictures has been an insupportable increase in stored data. Using RAW would exacerbate the problem, since I would then have to store both the RAW file and the finished image. The only way around that would be to get an external storage device (probably a good idea anyway) or a new computer (probably a good idea anyway, but I'm putting it off until strictly necessary). I count this as a con.

Next, I wonder if the difference would be noticable, in terms of image quality. I really don't want to take the extra time to get the same results, and digital manipulation has been kept to a minimum since I started using a DSLR. However, I can definitely see that, in adverse lighting conditions, a RAW format picture could be salvaged where a pre-processed JPG could not (or at least not as easily).

Lastly, I think that shooting in RAW might be wasted on me, because I still do not use a decent photo editor to process my pictures. Yes, it's true, everything I process gets processed by Picasa, and nothing else. What can I say, it works for me and I'm lazy, so that's what I do. I've thought about spending the big bucks on Photoshop, but why would I do that instead of, say, buying a new lens and a really nice tripod? If I can get good results using the low-budget editor, it's hard for me to see why I should spend the big bucks. Same with RAW. It might make a difference, but I like what I'm doing now, so it's hard to get motivated to change. maybe once I get used to my hardware upgrades I can start thinking about upgrading software, including shooting in RAW. Or who knows, the new hardware might make it necessary.

then and now

2007-12-31T09:29:00.000-08:00

I came by my Pentax as an extravagant birthday gift from my wife last year. What led me to pick it, though was a lot of nostalgia for my old Pentax K-1000, which I received as a travel gift from my mom in 1989. As digital cameras became prevalent, I always said that Pentax should come out with a digital K-1000, and that if they did, I would buy one.

What I meant was that I wanted a relatively inexpensive camera with few features, one that would be both easy to use, and that had the potential to teach the user of the camera a few things about photography and optics. The K-1000 was very basic to use. Knowing nothing of photographic principles, it was possible to pick it up, have the light meter explained (the needle should be in the middle part), and, through sheer fiddling, come up with settings that would result in viable images. With just two or three other concepts included (don't go under a certain shutter speed without a tripod, try to use the fastest shutter speed possible, and use condition-appropriate ISO film), you could be up and running taking printable, decent photos and concentrating on developing your composition skills rather than on working the dials and rings. My K-1000 was so easy to use that I never even thought about it being a "real" SLR, or about whether the ideas I gained using it would come in handy later.

My experience with the K110D, which I consider the true digital progression from the K-1000, has been very similar. It taught me what SLR really means, that the image you see in the viewfinder and the image that hits the sensor are the same, coming as they do directly through the lens. This is in stark contrast to the image you see on a compact digital camera, where the image you see on the LCD is a product of interaction between the lens, the sensor, and the LCD, and you're taking the picture based on this interpretation. When you make changes to the settings, you're manipulating how the LCD image looks as much as you are how the camera will take the picture. On an SLR, when you change a setting, you're affecting how the camera behaves, and you don't necessarily get a visual cue, because no matter what you change, you still see the light that's coming through the lens, and nothing more. This requires a bit more understanding of what your settings do, as well as a bit less understanding of your camera's menu structure. For me, this is a good thing. more often now, I shoot the picture I want instead of shooting the general area and cropping out the bits I didn't really want.

Of course, using a fully automatic camera is a completely different experience than the old fully manual K-1000, but I can't say there's much I miss about manual focus, and switching over to manual mode generally alleviates any lingering nostalgia I have for the old ways. I'll need to brush up on basics again once I start trying to take some low-light pictures (I need a tripod upgrade first, since my first one has succumbed to age and cracked in at least one place), but until then, I'm very pleased with the pictures I'm taking, and I think they're at least as good as the ones I took in the old K-1000 days.

then:

now:

my setup

2007-12-28T09:22:00.000-08:00

Just as background, I thought I'd discuss my setup today. It's nothing fancy, I assure you, in fact quite the opposite and I like it that way.

Before I had this camera, I shot quite a bit of material with a Sony DSCP10. You can look at my flickr set for that camera to see some of them. I was pleased with the pictures that camera took, but I wanted some better low-light options, and to have a smoother set of controls so I wasn't spending 15 minutes arguing with the interface just to take a macro shot that might or might not actually be in focus once I got it onto the computer.

I got my Pentax K110D for my birthday last year. I wanted to K100D, and in fact that's what my wife thought she ordered, but she was mistaken. I thought about sending the thing back and getting the K100D, but then I started thinking how I've never needed stability control before, and damned if I need it now. There have been some times that I've wished I had it, but I'm going to have to get a tripod regardless, so most of the time I just don't let it bother me. I like to think that there's some sort of manly austerity to shooting with the most featureless equipment available, but then I look down and the dial on my camera and think about how long it's been set on full auto mode, and I find something else to think about.

The K110D came with a very middle-of-the-road P-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 lens. It's a great all-purpose lens, but this summer I found myself wishing for a better zoom, especially on my trip to Mt. Rainier when I took this one:

I really wanted a better picture of that cave in the glacier, but my ass was whipped from a brutal hike the day before, and there was no way I was going to get the family up enough trail to make a difference. What would have made a difference? The lens I got for Christmas, a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom. I have yet to really have an opportunity to find out what this lens is capable of, but I know I'm going to put it through its paces as soon as I can get out hiking this year. Even though it's heavy and large in size, it really will be a great hiking lens, since most of what I shoot is either macro or zoom on the trail. A macro shot that could have used a little more zoom:

I was also fortunate enough to get a camera bag to help me heft another large lens and other gear:

All of my gear in this bag is kind of heavy for hiking, but if I take out the K Mart lens, it should be just about right. I've gotten used to carrying a small camera bag with me on the trail, so having a backpack case should be no problem, even with the added weight.

welcome

2007-12-27T11:48:00.000-08:00

Welcome to post #1 for my new digital photgraphy blog. Enough people thought I had something of interest to say on the subject that they convinced me to start it up. Apologies to anyone coming here looking for something about photographic memory and not photography. Next link, thanks for the hit.

I'll be using this blog to showcase some of my favorite photos, as well as to post some ideas about digital cameras, many of which have been discussed elsewhere. I hope that readers (if any) will join in the discussion or make suggestions about cameras, photos, subjects, techniques, or other topics as appropriate.

Without further ado, the first photo, taken a couple of weeks ago using my Ebay KMart zoom lens mounted on my Pentax K110D DSLR:

This lens was kind of an afternoon boredom shopping impulse purchase. It may also have been the first ebay auction I've ever won. The seller obviously had detected some flaw in the lens, as they very carefully stated that it was sold as-is, and any tiny flaws detected after the purchase were not their responsibility. The last zoom lens I owned has had wicked haze, possibly from lens fungus, for years, so I wasn't too worried about tiny occult flaws for $25. The fungus lens turned out not to be backwards-compatible with my K110D, and I had gotten frustrated trying to take far-away pictures with the OEM lens on the camera kit, so I figured I'd piddle about with this K Mart Special and see what happened. I like it a lot, and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the light through ol' K Mart. I got a new zoom lens for Christmas, but I'll keep the manual focus around for when I want something I can take with me without feeling nervous.