Little Black Dog Photo Blog

Now that's what I'm talking about!

2009-03-10T20:16:00.001-05:00

For the photo geeks that just wandered by, this is one of my favorite subjects, shot with a Nikon N80, el cheapo plastic bodied kit lens, on Fuji Sensia 100 slide film, developed by Cord Camera, and scanned by Costco.

UV filter only, by the way. I'm going to try the shot with a nice Circular Polarizing filter this year, but it's going to be a bit before the background is ready.

Pretty sad that my old film camera and cheapo lens are beating the snot out of anything you can get out of digital, but there it is. Nikon D40? Good for people pictures, lousy for landscapes. Canon 20D? Ditto. Any compact I've ever tried? Don't make me laugh.

Real landscape photographers use film, period.

Can you hear squealing?

2009-02-01T18:16:00.001-05:00

The colors, they are like 130 million little fingers, massaging my brain through my optic nerves, soothing my savage psyche.

Medium format blows 35mm and digital away, even printed as small as 11x14.

Really, what more need be said?

Well, plenty, probably. If you've been following Ken Rockwell lately (as you should be) you'll know that he's focusing primarily on film for scenic work, as he should be. Film still beats digital, pwns it mightily, as the youngsters might say, if they were a bit more literate. 35mm actually provides a better image than 24MP digital, provided that it's properly exposed, developed, and scanned low ISO slide film. That's a fairly low res scan, by the by. At 6400dpi, 35mm scans at aproximately 50MP. The 6x45 medium format slide film that provides the images shown here on my page provides an image 2.7 times better than that, and who has a 130MP digital medium format on the market yet?

Nobody, that's who.

Oh, sure, you could spring for the latest Hasselblad, (and don't I wish I could, but I haven't the scratch, Jack) and that would get you closer than you might think, but then you would be out $50,000 or so, while I spent a whopping $425 to get my Fuji GA645 delivered. Toss in another $600 to get Epson's latest Perfection class scanner, and I hate to tell you this, but $48,000 buys a LOT of film, processing and scanning.

Heck, it even buys a REAL medium format system, like the Mamiya 645AF SLR ($500 delivered, with one regular film back, one polaroid film back and an 80mm 2.8 prime), which is going to blow my Fuji out of the water and up on the beach this year. Can you imagine those leaf shots with a polarizing filter? I can, and it's giving me the mother of all warm fuzzies.

The Mamiyah has so many neato keen features I dunno where to start, but this ought to warm the cockles of the hearts of all you tripod hugging types: Mirror up, viewfinder blocker built into the viewfinder and a fully mechanical time mode. And here I thought the top notch glass and TTL capabilities were enough to get excited about...

If you're wondering about the title, by the way, well, my Mamiyah thinks yore DSLR shore has a purty mouth... :)

Watch this space, it's going to be a good year in pictures.

Holy Snikies!

2008-10-04T10:47:00.000-05:00

Adorama is having a sale on Epson V700's! At $399 a pop for the next week, this is best deal imaginable. If you have a ton of old film lying about you need to digitize (and the time to do it) this is the best deal going. If you want to shoot film and get image files that blow digital out of the water and up on the beach, get one. Seriously, go get one of these things. Just remember to buy the www.betterscanning.com film holder for medium format film if you have any. It makes all the difference in the world in your scan quality.

The top shot is Fuji Sensia 400 slide film shot through an N80 with the 28-80 3.5-5.6 G kit lens.

The middle shot is Kodak 200 negative film shot through an N80 with the same lens, this time in the hands of my father.

The lower shot is Fuji Velvia 50 slide film, shot through a Fuji GA645, the king of all medium format point and shoots.

Philosopher Dog

2008-10-03T15:41:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure, but I think my little black dog was trying to work out the errors in the old saying "I think, therefore I am". She's a bit of a Randian, but she's trying to go a bit deeper than merely saying that the correct expression is "I am, therefore I will choose to think".

Nikon N80, 28-80 3.5-5.6 G, Fuji Sensia 400.

Slide film, baybee!

2008-10-03T13:44:00.001-05:00

The above (click the picture to embiggen) is Fuji Sensia 100, shot with a Nikon N80 35mm through the basic 28-80 3.5-5.6 G "kit lens". As Ken Rockwell likes to point out, that lens is vastly better than it has any right to be. The image was scanned at 6400 dpi on an Epson V700, yielding dimensions of 8864 x 5788 or about 51.3 Megapixels. The temptation here is taunt all the poor suckers that think they have an adequate camera with the Canon 1Ds Mk2 and it's measly 21 Megapixels, but the reality is that they're probably getting somewhat better detail, even if they're not exactly getting the same level of color. All Megapixels are NOT created equal. The Epson had autocorrect, unsharp mask, and digital ICE turned on. Autocorrect did not shift color, but did slightly brighten, which is good, as it indicates that the N80 is very slightly underexposing. As I will touch on further down, this is critical with slide film.

Some notes on slide film, from my own experience.

It's expensive! 36 exposures costs almost as much as a roll of 220, (purchase plus developing cost is almost $20 a roll for both) which yields 30 exposures from my Fuji GA645. This means that I'm getting vastly more bang for my buck from 220, which has at least 2.5 times the area of 35mm, as exposed by the Fuji GA645.

To say that slide film is picky about exposure is to understate the problem by several orders of magnitude. If you're unsure about your lighting, don't use slide film! Indoors without good lighting is a recipe for mediocrity at best. I've tried it, and even on the N80 I'm plagued with a properly lit subject surrounded by wild underexposure, when using the popup flash. I will be purchasing an SB28 at some point and trying a roll of Provia 400 with bounce flash (no fill, darn it), but I'm not really holding my breath that this will be the solution. I may even try my Bowers grip and auxilary optically triggered flash in conjunction with the popup flash to see what I get.

It's worth the money, if I'm doing a certain type of photography. Grain is finer and colors are worlds away better than negatives. What you see above is the type of photography where slide film shines. Outdoors, massive amounts of light, and colorful subjects. The other area I've seen it look good is studio photography. With a tripod and some proper lighting, slide film in the studio still puts a hurting on digital.

There's very little dynamic range. If you notice, the highlights aren't blown, but the shadows are blocked out pretty hard. No, I don't use ND filters, although I probably should, to get the highlights down closer to the shadows. Given that limited dynamic range, it is critical that your camera not overexpose. Like digital, slide film simply clips off when overexposed. Negative film still has quite a bit more shoulder, but then, if you were happy with negative film color you wouldn't be shooting slide fim. The N80 has the best meter I've ever seen, and pretty much nailed it. I have to turn the exposure compensation up on my GA645, as it routinely underexposes. This is fine for slide film, but it blahs out my negative exposures.

Finally, the whole megapixel bit. It's nonsense. 35 mm negative film, properly exposed and scanned, gives a perfectly acceptable 20x30 for consumer use. Would I try to sell such a print professionally? Probably not. Would I hang my own work in my own house at that size? You bet. And slide film is better. It has a tighter grain, thus better detail, and far better color rendering.

To mention Ken Rockwell again, he says he's printed 3 megapixel images at 12 x 18 with good results. This is certainly plausible, but I don't think he understands why. Let me explain.

When you take your digital images to a 1 Hour Photo lab for printing, the images are re-sized somewhere in the process. Usually this occurs at the kiosk order point. This is done there for two reasons: 1) images with more resolution than required are downsized to lower bandwidth and storage demands in the lab, and 2) images with less resolution than optimal are upsized to increase customer satisfaction. Upsizing won't work miracles, but it will make that 3 megapixel image that really shouldn't be printed bigger than 5x7 or 8x10 look acceptable at larger sizes.

To sum up, buy an N80, some slide film and an Epson V700. You won't be disappointed.

My Fuji GA645 just pwned your DSLR.

2008-08-16T15:27:00.002-05:00

Do that with your DSLR. No, seriously. I know what you're thinking: "Well, I can take EV down -2/3, crank up the saturation to max, and blah blah blah, I'm there."

Not quite.

First of all, your DSLR, unless you have a Sigma, is interpolating 2/3 of the color data for every pixel. Secondly, even if you have a Sigma, you're a long long long way away from the resolution I captured with that frame of Velvia 50. How far?

What you're looking at is a Picasa2/Blogger downsize from a 2400dpi scan of 6x4.5 film. Total megapixels is about 20, and every single pixel has full color information. Starting to feel a bit green about the gills about the money you spent on the latest greatest trendiest DSLR? Better grab the upchuck bucket then, cupcake, because I'm about to spread some icing.

If I were going to make a decent sized print (and had the computer to handle the file size) I would scan at 4800dpi, which most people agree is the most one can get out of an Epson V700. Even with the magnificent betterscanning film holder, I don't think I can get much more. (As a quick aside, I'd like to state for the record that Epson's OEM film holders for the V700 are some of the worst garbage ever shipped by anyone, anywhere. The only reason they're not worse is that they didn't actually kill someone when I tried to use them.)

That's an 80 megapixel image.

Not bad for a camera I bought for $400.00 used, eh?

Thanks again to Ken Rockwell, for all the swell articles on things like free full frame digital, medium format film photography, film vs. digital, and why film isn't going away.

Film still rocks!

2008-05-04T19:53:00.000-05:00

See that? I did that with an el cheapo Nikon N80 behind an even more el cheapo 28-80 f3.3-5.6 G lens. You could get the whole kit from www.keh.com for far less than you would pay for a Nikon D3. KEH has so many good old used film cameras they're practically giving them away, at least compared to the prices of digitals. For that matter, they have great prices on used digital cameras, lenses, flashes, you name it, if it has to do with photography, they probably have it cheap. And the local pros I talk to say that KEH's rating system is better and more accurate than other big names like Adorama.

The film was even cheap, Fuji Superia 400, $7.99 for 6 rolls at Costco. That's a buck thirty something a roll of 24, and the camera manages to give me at least 25 on every roll! $3.98 for developing and printing, plus $2.99 for a 300 year archival grade gold CD, and we're home and dropping the 2400 x 3600 images on the hard drive.

YMMV on that last, I understand some other, lesser Costco locations use Noritsu printers, which only scan film at 2000 x 3000. I'm lucky to be near a Costco with a really excellent Fuji printer. The folks there don't do a lot of film, and from what they say, the rest of the processor automatically runs behind the the film scan interface, so they just scan all film to CD orders at "Premium" to give their members better value.

On the other hand, some of the Costco locations have the latest Noritsu's that can print 12 x 36 panorama's, so win some, lose some.

You can't have everything, where would you put it?

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. If you want full frame quality with all it's wonderful advantages, such as better subject isolation at wide apertures and better depth of field due to being able to use tighter apertures before running into diffraction limiting, shoot film and have it scanned by a good lab. Or go to www.costco.com and buy your own film scanner.

Here's Ken Rockwell's original post that encouraged me to continue looking for a decent film camera back when I thought that even a compact digital stomped film, silly me.

John Sevigny agrees.

Bruce Percy weighs in.

If you're going this route, you might consider some filters. I use Hoya's myself, but then, if I find some Tiffens at a decent price, I might have to buy them from now on.

If you're going to get really crazy (and I can feel it coming, like a bad cold), you might consider shooting slide film. Of course, then you might need someone to develop it, as most labs no longer keep the chemistry around. Chrome Digital still does, but you might also find a local pro lab (as opposed to a 1 Hour Lab, they charge more but offer broader and usually better trained services) that will do it for you.

Keep those shutters firing!

Here's something a little less crazy.

2007-12-02T13:58:00.001-05:00

I used a lot fewer layers in this one, and played with shadow/highlight/midtone contrast to get where I wanted. This is the sort of thing I'd do for a client, rather than an art show.

I can't seem to stay away from film

2007-12-02T13:20:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, I don't own a really good film camera. As you can see, the one I used for this shot used center weighted metering, rendering shadow detail just fine, but blowing out everything else. Yuck. The lens is also not exceptionally sharp. Double yuck.
So after I had my local Costco 1 Hour Photo develop, print, and scan me a Premium CD (8x12 inches, or 2400x3600 pixels. You youngsters just think 8.6 megapixels and move on), I put the image in Photoshop for some much needed loving. Here's the result, which I appear to have taken a bit far, but then, how far is too far when you're making art?

If you're wondering how to do this yourself, you can pick up a Scott Kelby book for the full scoop under "Fixing Overexposed Images", or just follow these simple steps in Photoshop Elements.

Open the image.
Drag background layer onto Create a New Layer Icon.
Change layer blend mode from Normal to Multiply.
Control-J adds new layers if you need more than one. This one has four extra.
If you need half a layer, highlight the top layer and reduce the opacity.

After doing the above, I switched to Quick Fix, bumped the shadows up 25%, knocked the highlights down 25%, increased mid tone contrast 25%, and sharpened it 25%.

I then saved it as a .jpg, which is very important. If you save it as a .psd, it will be about 109MB, vs 6.9MB.

Is it photography?

No, it's art.

Wuv, Twue Wuv.

2007-10-30T21:33:00.001-05:00

Really. What more need be said?

Todays not photoshopped.

2007-09-29T22:48:00.000-05:00

Direct from the camera, D40, 18-200VR at 200mm, 1/1000, f5.6, ISO 360. I was in Aperture (A) mode, ISO Auto, and Auto Contrast. As you can see, the camera likes to expose for shadows, which is unfortunate, as it lost some of the highlight detail in the middle of the picture. Other than whatever it was in the right corner, (lens flare probably, I don't use the hood) I'm still pretty happy with this image.

Sweet Fancy Moses!

2007-09-29T22:40:00.000-05:00

Looks like I'll be purchasing some new fingernail clippers soon. See that big nail over the broken off bit? That came from my right big toe, and is the reason that yet another pair of clippers just went to Grooming Supplies Heaven. I'm just afraid some officer of the law will see this post and insist that I register my toenail as a deadly weapon.

Three more images and gone.

2007-09-22T13:54:00.001-05:00

The top two are unedited, the bottom image was hit with Picasa 2's "I'm feeling lucky" button. I really can't say enough good things about Picasa 2. For the casual user, it's a most excellent sorting and minor editing program. I don't get too terribly serious about editing, Photoshop Elements 5 is the most serious program I've got, although DXO Optics Pro is on my Christmas list, if only for the distortion/vignetting removal tool.

I prefer to get my shots as right as I can before hitting the shutter release button. Post processing is work, and I'm far too refined and civilized for that.

On the other hand...

2007-09-22T13:35:00.001-05:00

As exciting as those grapes are, (and small, but then, wild grapes are smaller) seeing the whole bush is kind of interesting if you get right in the middle. I had grapevine hanging down on either side of me to get that last shot.

Modern lenses focus close. Never be afraid to get right in the middle of it all.

Why you need an 18-200 VR Nikon zoom lens.

2007-09-22T13:12:00.001-05:00

As Ken Rockwell likes to point out, over and over, wide angle lenses are not for "getting everything in". As you can see from the top image, 18mm (27mm equiv.) is boring. Everything is too small, the detail is overwhelming. That wide angle might be useful for a family portrait or certain landscape work, but for everything else, not so much. 200mm (300mm equiv.), on the other hand, puts you right in amongst the most interesting stuff.

Just ask yourself: Which one of those two images would I like to put on my wall?

Photos from the Panasonic TZ3K

2007-09-19T09:29:00.001-05:00

Some time ago, I purchased a Pentax Optio S60 for my father in law. Of course, the S60 was a dog, and I eventually ended up returning it to Costco for a refund. My poor father in law hated that camera, although even he admitted that when it worked, it took mighty good people pictures.

Fast forward almost two years, and Panasonic releases the TZ-3K, a camera with a 10x optical zoom in a package not a whole lot bigger than the S60. It's about twice as thick, but just about the same in height/width. It's also loaded with a ton of really nice features. The Leica lens is tack sharp corner to corner and at all focal lengths except the most telephoto (and not too bad there), it's got optical image stabilization (which is superior to sensor shift stabilization), and best of all, it's dead simple to operate. The fact that it's got superior ergonomics and the controls are a lot harder to accidently shift during operation doesn't hurt a bit, either.

So I gave the father in law this new camera for his birthday, and lo, all was well with the world.

Except.

I had to try the camera out before I gave it to him, just to make sure I got a good sample, right? Good thing I did, too, because the first sample I bought had dust inside the lens assembly. This caused all sorts of focusing and metering errors, so I returned it and got another one.

The problem is, I fell in love with the darned thing, and had to buy another one for myself.

Which the wife promptly appropiated for her own use. Which is infrequent at best. Arrrrgh!

I may have to buy another one soon. As much as I absolutely love my Fuji F30, the 28-280 zoom range and optical image stabilization make the Panasonic vastly more useful.

The top photo was part of an impromptu test I ran on the pro's who use my lab. I printed that photo and two from my Canon 20D, and then asked them to pick the consumer camera photo from the lineup. Not one of them could do this.

Heh. It should have been easy enough, for anyone that understands the major differences between consumer grade cameras and DSLR's. You see, the smaller sensor in the consumer grade camera means that at any given aperture, the consumer camera will have greater depth of field. The top photo was shot at f3.3. Shoot the same aperture on almost any SLR lens you care to name, and the depth of field will be fraction of that. The front part of the step will be further out of focus, as will the wall behind. Both of the other two shots showed the shallower depth of field indicative of a good SLR lens made for pros who like to isolate their subject with shallow depth of field.

But what do I know? The pros are making a living taking pictures, and I'm still working for someone else. Therefore, they must know more than me, right?

And the second photo? Nothing special, I was just monkeying around on the backyard swing when Gunner climbed in my lap after playing in his wading pool. I used the opportunity to test the camera's macro capabilities.

Why you need a hot shoe flash, outdoor edition.

2007-09-12T09:11:00.001-05:00

Ah, ducks. I love ducks. Not only are they cute as all get out, melodious as can be, and very fine looking fowl, they're just darned delicious. In the top picture, they're also fairly well illuminated with a burst of flash from the SB-400 atop a D40 in Shutter priority mode. Considering how bright the day was, I needed something to illuminate them where they were resting in the shade. This is where the D40 really shines, as that 1/500 flash sync speed allows me to use flash with a wider range of outdoor conditions.

The second picture is the star of the show, of course. You'll note the lightness of the shadow compared to the bright bright bright sunlit grass. That's caused by flash, and outdoors in mixed lighting, it's a real blessing.

Why you need a hot shoe flash, indoor edition.

2007-09-12T08:45:00.000-05:00

Both of these pictures were taken with the flash bouncing off the ceiling. See how even and diffuse the light is? I could invest in some tupperware (a plastic diffuser) and go direct flash, but why? The lighting wouldn't be any better. Diffusers are really only useful in those rare situations when I need direct flash on the subject, and then I probably wouldn't bother anyway, since Nikon's lighting is so gosh darned perfect every time.

Maybe if I was shooting a wedding, but for the moment, my wedding gear is all Canon, and I have diffusers for my 580 EX flash.

Save your money and get a flash that can be bounced off the ceiling. For Nikon, that's the SB-400, SB-600, and SB-800. For Canon, that's the 430 EX and 580 EX II. For everybody else, consult your manufacturer's website. I'm not going to post about something for which I have no experience.

Here's why you need a DSLR.

2007-09-08T12:09:00.001-05:00

See how very little digital noise there is in this picture? It was taken at ISO (ASA for the old timers) 800, which is fairly high for a flash shot inside a domestic residence. My only excuse is that I just got the camera last night and was noodling around figuring out the settings.

You'd have more noise in your image (and less fine low contrast detail) at ISO 200 with most pocket cameras. The only exception is the Fuji line up to the F40fd. The F50fd is going to be worse, if the sample images I've seen are any indication.

Even with a Fuji, you would have worse illumination, as the only Fuji consumer camera with a hot shoe is the S9000/S9100fd, and those cameras suffer from the "Too Damned Many Pixels Syndrome". It's a real pity so many manufacturers are falling prey to this syndrome. Fuji used to be a real ray of hope in this hour of overcrowded photosite darkness, but it looks like their marketing department has managed to win over their design and engineering division.

Pity.

I guess my next consumer grade camera will be this Casio. 6 megapixels on a 1/1.8 sensor at 60(!) full resolution frames per second? Oh baby. I love it when Casio talks dirty.

Image quality and performance are far far far more important than total pixels.

Use your flash in daylight!

2007-09-08T11:21:00.001-05:00

As you can see, even daylit subjects can benefit from flash. The top shot was flash off, and is rather dull and uninspiring.

The bottom shot is direct flash, and is better than basic daylight, but still rather, well, wrong. Nikon's flash exposure, as always, is excellent, but that's not the problem. The problem is that it's direct flash exposure. Yech.

The second shot, on the other hand, is bounce flash at 90 degrees, reflected off the roof over my porch. I much prefer the effect. Whenever possible, I bounce my flash, which is another reason I chose Nikon over Canon for the small carry everywhere DSLR. Nikon's SB-400 has up to 90 degrees swivel, where Canon's baby (basic) flash has no swivel. Canon has been a bit slow to respond to the two things that make Nikon such a winner in the small DSLR area: small swivel flash and the 18-200VR lens.

Had Canon yanked their head out (and come up with a decent auto ISO function) I probably would have purchased a Rebel XTI instead.

Yay! The D40 arrived.

2007-09-08T11:06:00.000-05:00

For various reasons, the main being that lugging a Canon 20D around is something I just won't do, I decided to go to something smaller and simpler. Behold one of the first pictures from my Nikon D40, kit lens, illuminated by 90 degree bounce flash from the incredibly tiny and capable SB-400 hot shoe flash.

Purdy, ain't it?

This is the first time I'd ever even considered taking this particular shot, and it's due to the fact that the D40, lens, and flash together weigh about the same as the 20D and 17-85 IS lens.

More to come.

More Film

2007-08-28T08:50:00.000-05:00

Here's some more shots with the Minolta. You can see some vignetting, the lens is part of the two lens kit, and even back then kit lenses were rather cheesy.

However, I did find a solution to the resolution problem. My local Costco minilab operator built up a custom scan size for me. These were scanned at 8x14 at 300 dpi, or about 7.5 megapixels.

It's a pity APS doesn't come in higher quality than the stuff Fuji puts out. You can see the film imperfections as white spots here and there.

Another film shot.

2007-08-22T15:12:00.000-05:00

And the star of the show, no less.

APS is a smaller format than 35mm, and a different aspect ratio, to boot. 7:4 vs 3:2. That is, for every 7mm on the long side, it is 4mm on the short side, where 35mm is 3mm on the long side for every 2mm on the short side. Too bad the chuckleheads designing the stuff didn't go the other way, toward a more square format, like 4:3, or even 1:1. Those look better for portraits, and that's what most APS film was used for. Landscapes look better in a longer format, but APS is too small to capture the amount of detail you need for a good landscape shot.

That problem might be a alleviated a bit by the availability of a higher resolution scan, but most minilabs (1 Hour Photos) offer only the 4x7 or 1200x2100 pixel scan.

Pity, that.

If anyone has a solution to that which does not involve me buying thousands of dollars worth of equipment, let me know in the comments.

Try some film.

2007-08-21T10:20:00.000-05:00

These are all from an old Minolta APS film SLR I picked up recently for chump change. Good stuff, if you like film, which I don't, particularly. But shooting with a film SLR forces a change in the photographer's perspective. For me, that manifests as more thoughtful shots, with more attention paid to composition. After all, I've only got 25 shots to the roll to get it right.

Is photography art?

2007-07-31T20:02:00.000-05:00

I suppose it could be defined as the art of revealing the magic contained in the mundane. Or perhaps of capturing the essence of a thing in a manner that can be easily displayed in a domicile.

Evening light.

2007-07-31T19:57:00.000-05:00

Even though it wasn't anywhere near to sunset yet, the light was still darned near perfect.

Zoom with your feet.

2007-07-31T19:54:00.000-05:00

But never discount the effect of a good zoom lens. I know, I know, composition on the last two kinda sucks. But I like em, and it's my blog, so you're going to take what you get and like it!

This tower fascinates me.

2007-07-31T19:52:00.000-05:00

I have a deep appreciation for the accomplishments of humanity, even if they are a visible reminder of industrialization in the middle of a park. Perhaps especially so.

Fawn through a fence.

2007-07-31T19:47:00.000-05:00

All together now: Awwww!

Technically, it could be better. But it's cute.

More Fuji S6000fd output.

2007-07-31T19:43:00.000-05:00

Color color color. I loves me some color. 1/240, f4.9, ISO 100, Chrome color mode. I don't normally shoot in Chrome, but late day shots benefit from it. Aperture priority mode, with the lens as wide open as I could get. It might have been sharper at f5.6, but it's certainly livable as is.

Fujiriffic Color, S6000fd.

2007-07-31T13:36:00.000-05:00

Look at those colors. Just look at them. That's straight out of the camera, no editing. The only thing I did was knock Exposure Compensation down about 2/3 of a step. -2/3 EV, that's it. Yoicks!

The greatest secret of photography is learning to stage. Stage one is researching cameras to find the one that fits your shooting style. Stage two is learning the foibles of the camera, thus I know to go -2/3 EV in bright sunlight. Stage three is actually taking pictures. That stage should take several hundred times as much of your time as both the prior stages combined.

Of course, if all the equipment fetishists in the world were to stop buying new cameras every spring and fall, sales would drop such that the Fuji S6000fd would cost about $5,000 US. That's real money, by the way, not that silly play money they use in Canada and New Zealand.

Breaking the equipment fetish habit is the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. Camera companies continuing with the ridiculous megapixel race, which results in lower image quality overall, makes it easier. 5-6 megapixels is all you really need for gorgeous prints up to 20x30. Anything more restricts the amount of light available at each pixel site on the sensor, thus limiting the amount of signal in the images' ultimate signal to noise ratio.

This picture was taken with a 6MP camera, and I would absolutely feel comfortable making a 20x30 print, even after cropping out that beer can.

A picture from the S6000fd.

2007-07-31T12:34:00.000-05:00

Aren't they cute?

2006-06-18T17:16:00.000-05:00

Old lens

2006-06-14T15:41:00.000-05:00

While it's possible to get a nice shallow depth of field with a telephoto lens, unless one is wealthy enough to afford Canon's L glass, (or lucky enough to be paid to do this stuff, hint hint) it's still damned difficult to get the same effect from telephoto because of f5.6 aperture versus f1.8. I'd probably pay Canon $1500-2000 for a 17-170 f2.8 Image Stabilized EF-S lens. The same thing in L? $5,000, easy. Get busy, Canon.

And I'm telling you all this for free! Sheesh.

More from the new lens.

2006-06-14T15:32:00.000-05:00

Because you, my reading public demand it, here's a picture of Gunner with the new lens. In the near future, I will post a picture of him taken with a 70-300 f4-5.6 lens, just so you can see the difference.

New Lens

2006-06-14T15:22:00.000-05:00

I recently picked up the buy of the century, a 50mm Canon prime lens with a maximum aperture of 1.8 for a whopping $80. No, really. Then I stuck a ProMaster Digital MultiCoated UV filter on it for another $40. Minus 2/3 EV on a cloudy day, a little effort getting my fat ass up on the dog house, and some patience whilst my two pups ran around the yard looking cute, and the picture you see is the result. I love that dark moody look. It reminds me of some of the old film work I've seen from the 30's - 50's.

If you shoot with a DSLR, pick up a comparable lens/filter. You owe it to yourself.

F30 sunset

2006-06-14T15:17:00.000-05:00

Different time of year, different technique, different camera. But sunsets are still beautiful.

Sunset

2006-06-14T15:11:00.000-05:00

This is a picture I took with my old Fuji, the F10. Something to follow from the F30 as soon as I can get Blogger's picture upload to move somewhat faster than a spavined jackass.

For "Wish you were here"

2006-06-14T14:24:00.000-05:00

Yep, I still use this blog, though not in a while. That's about to change. Meanwhile, here's a picture for you to, heh, reflect upon.

Let's test the functionality of this new photo posting.

2005-06-24T18:32:00.000-05:00

This is one of the first pictures I took with the Fuji F10. What do you think?

2005-05-19T12:29:00.000-05:00

Here's my current desktop. Enjoy, peasants!

2005-05-17T13:55:00.000-05:00

My old Konica Minolta Dimage A2 still produces some razor sharp results, with a bit of post production sharpening. I wish more camera manufacturers would put wide angle lenses on their products. It's my firm belief that all non-slr cameras should have a wide angle no narrower than 28mm equiv. Wider apertures throughout the lens range is another thing I'd really like to see.

2005-05-17T13:44:00.000-05:00

Here's a picture from my new camera, a Fuji F10. It's the first pocket digital released with ISO settings from 80 to 1600 (that I know of, and yes, I'm aware Ricoh, Casio, and Olympus released their own takes on that feature, but I'm pretty sure they came afterwards) at full resolution. Barrel distortion is almost non-existent with this new lens (.6 at full wide angle, compared to 1.2 for most pocket point and shooters) and I've been very pleased with the results in 3:2 aspect ratio mode so far. This picture was taken at ISO 80, 1/240s, f/5.0, fully zoomed at 113mm equiv. The only post production editing is some sharpening in Picasa2.

2005-04-14T20:31:00.001-05:00

Say what?!

2005-04-14T20:31:00.000-05:00

Patience wearing thin...must...not...bite...Master's...ankle...

2005-04-14T20:30:00.000-05:00

It's tough being this cute.

2005-04-14T20:29:00.000-05:00

And of course, the star of the show. Bask in the cuteness, minions!

2005-04-14T20:28:00.000-05:00

Hemingway's House, a tourist attraction for some unknown reason.

2005-04-14T20:27:00.000-05:00

Our faithful steed, docked at Key West.

2005-04-14T20:26:00.001-05:00

Yet More Key West!

2005-04-14T20:26:00.000-05:00

More Key West!

2005-04-14T20:25:00.000-05:00

Key West!

2005-04-14T20:23:00.000-05:00

Hey, Macarena! No, I wasn't doing it, either, although my wife was, and no, you can't see pictures of her. Unless you pay me enough to cover the divorce that would inevitably ensue, and then set me up for life with a nice stipend.

2005-04-14T20:19:00.000-05:00

The tour guide claimed many times, with great conviction, that the crime rate in Belize is low. Horsepuckey. If you have to bar the windows of a funeral parlor in the nice section of town, then your crime rate can only be said to be "low" if you're speaking very subjectively. Most of the buildings in Belize have the windows and doors barred, unless they're owned by someone who's rich. Then they have the windows and doors barred AND they're located in a compound topped with razor wire.

2005-04-14T20:15:00.001-05:00

Lizard. Belize is overrun with these things, although I saw only the one.

2005-04-14T20:15:00.000-05:00

Temple from the front.

2005-04-14T20:14:00.000-05:00

Temple at Altun Ha. Supposedly, there were no human sacrifices at this location.

2005-04-14T20:12:00.000-05:00

The roast beef was magnificent.

2005-04-14T20:11:00.000-05:00

I love this statue, but unfortunately only got a couple of pictures of it.

2005-04-14T20:10:00.000-05:00

I like cheese!

2005-04-14T20:09:00.001-05:00

Have you ever seen so many chocolate dipped strawberries in your life?

2005-04-14T20:09:00.000-05:00

Chocolate Statue, Besieged by Fruit Pastries at the Midnight Buffet.

2005-04-14T20:07:00.000-05:00

Overview of the Midnight Buffet, a visually stunning treat for any photographer, before the unwashed hordes got in and ate it all.

2005-04-14T20:06:00.000-05:00

Another ice sculpture, this time taken without flash.

2005-04-14T20:05:00.000-05:00

Ice sculpture at the Midnight Buffet.

2005-04-14T20:04:00.000-05:00

Chocolate dragon, part of the Midnight Buffet.

2005-04-14T20:03:00.000-05:00

Another sunset shot.

2005-04-14T20:02:00.000-05:00

Two folks with one of the nicest seats on the boat.

2005-04-14T20:00:00.000-05:00

Sunset on the cruise.

2005-04-14T19:59:00.000-05:00

Here's a picture from the tail end of the cruise my wife and I just took. The ice sculptures were amazing, although the announcer did have to remind some of the brats on board not to get too close to the nice man swinging big damned blades around a chunk of ice. Sheesh. Some people's children.

2005-03-24T20:13:00.000-05:00

I have the smartest dog on the planet. I'm going to have to watch her carefully, or she's going to rule all humanity. She likes to play tug, so first she gets a stick from the yard.

2005-03-24T20:12:00.000-05:00

She shoves the stick through the fence.

2005-03-24T20:11:00.000-05:00

And then she plays tug with the dog next door.

2005-03-21T12:00:00.000-05:00

We're still celebrating International Eat An Animal For PETA Day in my household. If enough people celebrate the holiday, maybe the PETArds will stop comparing the American poultry industry unfavorably to the Holocaust.

2005-03-15T18:36:00.000-05:00

Happy ending to a happy day, part two. Even with my pathetic attempt at keeping them properly, Cusano Corojo cigars are damn tasty.

2005-03-11T13:53:00.000-05:00

I have discovered that International Eat An Animal For PETA Day is actually March 15. I hereby humbly apologize to all 3 of my readers for this misinformation. To make amends, I shall publish a picture a day until then of tasty animals ready for devouring. Hell, I might even publish two pictures on the 15th, one of my steak, one of my little black dog eating her steak. Suck it, PETArds.

2005-03-09T15:13:00.000-05:00

International Eat an Animal For PETA Day celebrations continue. Much as I love dogs, cats, birds, fish, and various other animals, my contempt for PETA knows no bounds.

2005-03-09T15:11:00.000-05:00

It's International Eat an Animal For PETA Day. The carnage begins.

2005-03-08T21:14:00.000-05:00

Behold the beauty of a Fuji E550 with the colors set to Chrome! On a cloudy day, no less.

2005-03-03T12:55:00.000-05:00

Here's a picture from my new camera, a Fuji E550. 12MP Fine, 123mm equiv. zoom, 1/450s, f/4.5, ISO 80. Cropped an ugly shadow out of the top, and sharpened it, since the 12MP Fine mode is interpolated, and therefore almost always a bit soft. Let's not forget, of course, how splendid a subject I have to work with.

2005-02-09T17:13:00.000-05:00

Speaking of incredible cuteness, how's this?

2005-02-09T17:11:00.000-05:00

Can you feel the incredible cuteness just radiating from your computer screen? Overwhelming, isn't it?

2005-02-09T17:07:00.000-05:00

Little black dog with a cold tushie. Taken Christmas Eve, 2004. A good flash certainly helps, preferably one with a swivel head, for bounce flash and reflected light. Here, the flash is of course trained directly at the subject.

2005-02-02T17:16:00.000-05:00

On the way to the dog park, proof that there are still sane people in Cincinnati.

2005-01-26T22:04:00.000-05:00

One proud graduate of obedience school. Have I mentioned the incredible intelligence of little black dogs?

2005-01-26T21:31:00.000-05:00

Heavily cropped picture of little black dog with one paw on the ground.

2005-01-26T21:22:00.000-05:00

The wife's Z2 continue's to suprise, capturing a couple of black dogs chasing some sort of terrier. 1/500s, f/5.0, ISO 100, if anyone's interested.

2005-01-26T21:12:00.000-05:00

Little black dogs sure love to run.

2005-01-25T22:35:00.000-05:00

Little black dog in full flight, on snow. Man, she's quick.

2005-01-25T11:47:00.000-05:00

Remember this picture? Isn't it amazing what color/contrast correction and sharpening can do for a picture?

2005-01-19T18:08:00.000-05:00

Great Dane, besieged by little black dog and assorted riff-raff.

2005-01-19T17:55:00.000-05:00

Look at the depth in that picture! On a bright day, setting the f-stop to 5 or higher and the shutter speed to 1/500 or faster can yield some amazing pictures. Of course, the sharpening effect in Picasa 2 doesn't hurt any either.

2005-01-19T17:54:00.000-05:00

You can bet someone got a bath when we got home.

2005-01-19T17:46:00.000-05:00

Can't a little black dog get some privacy?

2005-01-19T17:44:00.000-05:00

Behold the beauty of my little black dog!

2004-12-02T18:41:00.000-05:00

For a duck, there's very little on this earth as satisfying as a good solid stretch right before a long nap.

2004-12-02T18:36:00.000-05:00

Amazing insects of the world, unite!

2004-12-02T18:35:00.000-05:00

True visionaries are hard to come by. Little Black Dog for Secretary General of the U.N.! Heaven knows she can't do any worse than any of the other worthless figureheads installed in the post over the years.

2004-12-02T18:32:00.000-05:00

Someone insists on bringing their Great Dane/Clydesdale cross to the dog park. S'alright, cause little black dogs love to annoy, run from, and chase such large breeds.

2004-12-02T18:29:00.000-05:00

Typical view of a little black dog at the dog park.