So what do you do when you have no interest in Soccer and the apparent rest of the planet is caught up in the World Cup frenzy?
I can't even go to my local bar and enjoy a quiet pint without being assailed by soccer madness. Throngs of fans, all shouting and yelling with joy, frustration or sadness and when not vocalizing, all with mouths agape. I truly believe that if there was a World catastrophe during one of these events, the news would be delayed until the game was over.
Then there is the endless analysis of plays and strategies, always conducted by people wearing huge headphones which look right out of the 1970's. Honestly. who gives a shit if someone screws up, isn't that what competitive sport is all about? I don't need to see or hear some "experts" opinions on how they think the play should have been.
Don't forget when someone scores a goal, there are the replays from every different angle and "oh by the way", who's that idiot who keeps using a yellow marker on the screen.
I just don't get it, I guess that makes me an oddity, but at least my life isn't ruled by schedules from the other side of the World.
The above comments also express my opinions on the following:
Hockey
American/Canadian football
Baseball
Basketball
Golf
Nascar
and any other sport currently played on the planet.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Subtle manipulation
Ok, so I'm a Canadian citizen and live in Canada and am proud of these facts. However, where internet connections are concerned, my personal choice of home page is Yahoo.com NOT Yahoo.ca
I have set my default page to Yahoo.com and when I click on its icon, it opens up the American home page. Here's the annoying part and the ever so subtle manipulation, when I navigate away from the home page to check email for example and return to the home page, it has switched to Yahoo.ca. No big deal you may think, what's the problem with that?
Well the problem is this, I like the American home page and if I want to see the Canadian home page, there is a little maple leaf icon I can click on, MY CHOICE. At first it was mildly frustrating, now it is becoming an annoyance. Why can't I choose what I want and use options if I want something different. Incidentally, I have been using Yahoo.com even before the inception of Yahoo.ca
There used to be an American flag icon on Yahoo.ca home page, to switch to the U.S.A site. Now I have to search for it but often just resort to changing the address in the web browser window.
This is just a small example of how we are often manipulated by these corporate giants. If I were a paranoid person I may think there is a conspiracy in play, but in reality it is just manipulation, rather like the sanitized versions of the news we see and hear every day.
Just my ten cents worth for the day, which ironically is worth eleven cents American as I write this.
Less is more!
I have set my default page to Yahoo.com and when I click on its icon, it opens up the American home page. Here's the annoying part and the ever so subtle manipulation, when I navigate away from the home page to check email for example and return to the home page, it has switched to Yahoo.ca. No big deal you may think, what's the problem with that?
Well the problem is this, I like the American home page and if I want to see the Canadian home page, there is a little maple leaf icon I can click on, MY CHOICE. At first it was mildly frustrating, now it is becoming an annoyance. Why can't I choose what I want and use options if I want something different. Incidentally, I have been using Yahoo.com even before the inception of Yahoo.ca
There used to be an American flag icon on Yahoo.ca home page, to switch to the U.S.A site. Now I have to search for it but often just resort to changing the address in the web browser window.
This is just a small example of how we are often manipulated by these corporate giants. If I were a paranoid person I may think there is a conspiracy in play, but in reality it is just manipulation, rather like the sanitized versions of the news we see and hear every day.
Just my ten cents worth for the day, which ironically is worth eleven cents American as I write this.
Less is more!
Monday, March 29, 2010
Make your f*cking minds up
On a recent trip to the UK, I flew from Detroit to Amsterdam then on to Manchester, England.
At Detroit, I checked one piece of luggage and had my two carry-on pieces approved, so three pieces of luggage total. A suitcase, a laptop and a backpack containing my cameras, digital and film plus two rolls of film.
Everything went according to schedule and I arrived in Britain for a four week stay.
The film camera is a modified Ansco SpeedEx, altered to pinhole. I usually carry this or another medium format pinhole camera with me on such trips. During the trip, I shot two rolls of black and white film through the pinhole camera and repacked it in my carry-on luggage for the return trip.
Imagine my surprise during check in in at Manchester airport, when I was informed that I could only take one piece of carry-on luggage.
"what happened to the two pieces I was allowed on the inbound trip, with the same airline and the reverse of the same route", I asked politely.
"it's due to the American security requirements after the failed bombing attempt over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009", I was told by the ticket agent.
I asked how could I be allowed two pieces of carry on, out of the USA, yet only be allowed one piece coming back. This was a totally ridiculous situation, and I found it extremely difficult to keep from venting my annoyance on the ticket agent. Luckily, I bit my tongue severely and asked what my options were.
I was informed that the extra piece of carry-on could be checked in at no charge, but that left me with the choice of waving goodbye to my laptop, or to my cameras, medication etc. I opted to keep the laptop with me and take my chances on the rest. Unfortunately, during this incident, I left my two rolls of exposed film in the newly checked backpack. Now they would be subject to a full dose of high powered X-Ray and as any photographer will tell you, this is usually the kiss of death to film. Of course when I was sat in the plane, I see passengers with two, sometimes three carry-on bags, WTF!
Upon arrival back in Detroit, all my luggage made it unscathed and I returned home.
After checking the airline websites, airport websites, security websites, I find that the issue is Manchester airport and their somewhat anal approach to security. Guess what folks, if you forgot your little plastic Ziploc bag for your personal items, you can purchase a plastic bag, inside the secure section, for 1 Great British Pound, they think of everything!
I'm all for the increased security levels as a safeguard to keep our airlines terrorist free, but I think it's high time for an international code of conduct and rules for travelers. Airports can be stressful at the best of times, without adding all this extra BS on unsuspecting patrons.
As a footnote, I was able to salvage most of the images from the "zapped" film using the stand development technique.
So before you travel by air, check out the return trip as well as the outbound trip requirements.
I remember the time, not too long ago, when you could indeed "Fly the friendly skies"
At Detroit, I checked one piece of luggage and had my two carry-on pieces approved, so three pieces of luggage total. A suitcase, a laptop and a backpack containing my cameras, digital and film plus two rolls of film.
Everything went according to schedule and I arrived in Britain for a four week stay.
The film camera is a modified Ansco SpeedEx, altered to pinhole. I usually carry this or another medium format pinhole camera with me on such trips. During the trip, I shot two rolls of black and white film through the pinhole camera and repacked it in my carry-on luggage for the return trip.
Imagine my surprise during check in in at Manchester airport, when I was informed that I could only take one piece of carry-on luggage.
"what happened to the two pieces I was allowed on the inbound trip, with the same airline and the reverse of the same route", I asked politely.
"it's due to the American security requirements after the failed bombing attempt over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009", I was told by the ticket agent.
I asked how could I be allowed two pieces of carry on, out of the USA, yet only be allowed one piece coming back. This was a totally ridiculous situation, and I found it extremely difficult to keep from venting my annoyance on the ticket agent. Luckily, I bit my tongue severely and asked what my options were.
I was informed that the extra piece of carry-on could be checked in at no charge, but that left me with the choice of waving goodbye to my laptop, or to my cameras, medication etc. I opted to keep the laptop with me and take my chances on the rest. Unfortunately, during this incident, I left my two rolls of exposed film in the newly checked backpack. Now they would be subject to a full dose of high powered X-Ray and as any photographer will tell you, this is usually the kiss of death to film. Of course when I was sat in the plane, I see passengers with two, sometimes three carry-on bags, WTF!
Upon arrival back in Detroit, all my luggage made it unscathed and I returned home.
After checking the airline websites, airport websites, security websites, I find that the issue is Manchester airport and their somewhat anal approach to security. Guess what folks, if you forgot your little plastic Ziploc bag for your personal items, you can purchase a plastic bag, inside the secure section, for 1 Great British Pound, they think of everything!
I'm all for the increased security levels as a safeguard to keep our airlines terrorist free, but I think it's high time for an international code of conduct and rules for travelers. Airports can be stressful at the best of times, without adding all this extra BS on unsuspecting patrons.
As a footnote, I was able to salvage most of the images from the "zapped" film using the stand development technique.
So before you travel by air, check out the return trip as well as the outbound trip requirements.
I remember the time, not too long ago, when you could indeed "Fly the friendly skies"
Monday, March 22, 2010
Fishing for information
I get several phone calls and emails every year, purporting to come from potential clients for wedding photography.
The first question asked is usually "how much does it cost?", followed by "what do I get for my money?"
One golden rule I try to adhere to, is never to give a price over the phone. I always ask for a detailed description of the event and offer to supply a written estimate, after meeting with a potential client.
The reason for this is to fend off would be photographers fishing for information on pricing and using the information to undercut.
While I am all for healthy competition in the wedding photography business, these newcomers need to understand the business side of photography.
In today's economy, everyone wants a good deal, but the old saying still stands "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"
So, to all you up and coming wedding photographers, don't use someone else for a price guide line for you. Get yourself known by asking an established photographer if you can tag along for a few weddings. Build a portfolio based on what you learn and price your services accordingly. Don't forget that a wedding shoot can sometimes mean working from 8:00AM until 1:00AM the next morning. After that, factor in post processing, printing, proof albums, final prints and enlargements and presentation.
All of this takes time, so price accordingly.
Finally, if all you want is to know how much I charge, then have the courtesy to agree to meet with me face to face, don't hide behind a facade of pretense.
The first question asked is usually "how much does it cost?", followed by "what do I get for my money?"
One golden rule I try to adhere to, is never to give a price over the phone. I always ask for a detailed description of the event and offer to supply a written estimate, after meeting with a potential client.
The reason for this is to fend off would be photographers fishing for information on pricing and using the information to undercut.
While I am all for healthy competition in the wedding photography business, these newcomers need to understand the business side of photography.
In today's economy, everyone wants a good deal, but the old saying still stands "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"
So, to all you up and coming wedding photographers, don't use someone else for a price guide line for you. Get yourself known by asking an established photographer if you can tag along for a few weddings. Build a portfolio based on what you learn and price your services accordingly. Don't forget that a wedding shoot can sometimes mean working from 8:00AM until 1:00AM the next morning. After that, factor in post processing, printing, proof albums, final prints and enlargements and presentation.
All of this takes time, so price accordingly.
Finally, if all you want is to know how much I charge, then have the courtesy to agree to meet with me face to face, don't hide behind a facade of pretense.
Friday, March 12, 2010
HDR, or Horribly Destroyed Renditions
As we all know, photography is about capturing light. The more realistically we can capture it, the closer it is to what we saw and what inspired us to take a photograph in the first place.
Perfectly exposed negatives were difficult to obtain, but not impossible. During an exposure of several seconds, it could be achieved by dodging highlights while the image was being created. Further dodging or burning could be done to the print during its creation in the darkroom.
If you don't know what dodging and burning are, read no further.
With the advent of digital photography and sophisticated software, similar results can be done using a computer.
The recent spate of computer generated HDR images seen on various photo websites, range from the sublime to the ridiculous (IMHO)
The sublime image reflects all the detail in shadows, mid range and highlights, in essence, a perfect photograph, these are few and far between.
The ridiculous image presents a garish attempt at blending different exposures, these are abundant.
Like a new digital opium, HDR has become one of the most visually disturbing drugs. It assaults the optic nerves and creates a palette of hallucinatory colors, only meaningful to the groupies of the photographer and to the photographer.
There are those who seem to be unable to find their way back to what the core of photography. Providing us with a detailed descriptions such as:
"this is a three exposure HDR image, tweaked, twaddled and tone mapped, to give this exciting result"
Excuse me while I remove my finger from my throat and elevate it in your direction.
Come on people, most of what you're trying to do can be done "in camera" without multiple exposures. Why not learn to use the tool you just purchased and don't spend hours at your computer.
While HDR can be a useful addition to the array of post shooting software, it seems to be grossly overdone wherever it is displayed.
Perfectly exposed negatives were difficult to obtain, but not impossible. During an exposure of several seconds, it could be achieved by dodging highlights while the image was being created. Further dodging or burning could be done to the print during its creation in the darkroom.
If you don't know what dodging and burning are, read no further.
With the advent of digital photography and sophisticated software, similar results can be done using a computer.
The recent spate of computer generated HDR images seen on various photo websites, range from the sublime to the ridiculous (IMHO)
The sublime image reflects all the detail in shadows, mid range and highlights, in essence, a perfect photograph, these are few and far between.
The ridiculous image presents a garish attempt at blending different exposures, these are abundant.
Like a new digital opium, HDR has become one of the most visually disturbing drugs. It assaults the optic nerves and creates a palette of hallucinatory colors, only meaningful to the groupies of the photographer and to the photographer.
There are those who seem to be unable to find their way back to what the core of photography. Providing us with a detailed descriptions such as:
"this is a three exposure HDR image, tweaked, twaddled and tone mapped, to give this exciting result"
Excuse me while I remove my finger from my throat and elevate it in your direction.
Come on people, most of what you're trying to do can be done "in camera" without multiple exposures. Why not learn to use the tool you just purchased and don't spend hours at your computer.
While HDR can be a useful addition to the array of post shooting software, it seems to be grossly overdone wherever it is displayed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
