The latest photograph to be dubbed "iconic" is here.
It will go down in history as the image that represents the death of Usama Bin Laden. While it is certainly historical, should it be titled "iconic?"
My trouble with the image is that it needs a good caption. Iconic images shouldn't need words or any historical context. If you didn't know the players in the room, what would the image tell you? Certainly there is tension in the air, and Sec. Clinton's hand over her mouth (later she claimed it was a cough due to allergies) adds to the dramatic impact of the image, but can any viewer see beyond that to make it iconic. If we replaced these people with sports fans watching a close championship game, would it be viewed any differently?
To me iconic is often, but not always, anonymous. The horror of the Vietnam war was captured in an image by Eddie Adams. Most people see the image and you don't need to know who the two main subjects are. It strikes a huge impact because of the human condition that was recorded.
How about this photo of Ali standing over Liston by Neil Leifer. Granted Ali is one of the best known fighters of all time, but this image is much more than just a portrait. It was a portrait of one boxer triumphing over another.
Finally, we have an image of the Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry. Most people don't know the circumstances of the photograph or the name of the model. Still, somehow the image speaks to us in the way that words do not. This is an iconic photograph.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Research Paradigms
I was a junior in high school in 1992. I was in a class entitled "Humanities" which had two quasi-indenedent sections. One part was a history class which dealt with the facts and themes of the era. A study of zeitgeist and chronology; while the English class was a study of the literature from that time in history.
As part of this class I was to given the assignment to write a nice little term paper comparing and contrasting the works of Dante and Chaucer. It was to be in the neighborhood of twenty-pages with at least 10 sources and done according to the writing style that we had been introduced to in the previous two years.
Of course twenty-pages, even generously double spaced, is quite a few words, and meeting the number of sources would prove to be challenging.
One night my brother and I went racing to the local library. Now the population of our little town in Connecticut at the time was only starting to exceed the total number of cows by this time, and the library was good enough to find a nice selection of mystery novels, but finding literary criticism of medieval literature proved to be futile. I am guessing that the women on the library book procurement committee were not concerned with expanding the town's ken in that particular area.
Not to be so easily deterred, my brother and I raced off to the library in the next town over. This library was a stately building of stone, built by the mill barons of yesteryear. Sadly while I had been able to find Caesar's Gallic Wars in this library some years earlier, I was unable to find any literary criticism about Dante and Chaucer.
After this epic failure, we returned home. We would have to venture on another evening to the University library to find our information.
After a good thirty-minute drive through the back woods of the state, we arrived in Storrs, CT. The University of Connecticut indeed had a plethora of information on the subject. Being lowly high school students, we had to find the books on the shelves, and then do our research in the library by a combination of notation by hand (laptop!? what was that?) and photocopies of relevant pages.
Once the information was gathered, a paper was written, and all was well in the world.
That was nearly twenty years ago. Today, as I type this on my laptop, I do a Google search of "Dante and Chaucer comparison," and I get 439,000 results in 0.3 seconds, sitting here on my couch. No running to various libraries, no fast reading to glean quotations and facts from musty, esoteric tomes, no scribbling by hand on note cards. It is all here, in HTML, easily cut and pasted into word processors to be carefully read at my leisure and digested so as to write a nice paper.
So what twenty-years has given us is instant access to more information than we could possibly use and in mind-boggling fast speeds. Sadly while this should make life quite easy for the researcher, it has given rise to a number of other issues.
First off is the tendency to be a bit lazy. I understand that there are now services dedicated to doing their own search to see if our intrepid, if ethically deficient, student has cut and pasted whole papers, or "Franken-papered" a report from various snippets of other writers. In my day we had to quote or paraphrase with a citation and then add our own thinking to the mix. Evidently this is being lost somehow.
Another issue is the reliability of the sources. In my day, if you got your quotation or source from some published book, it was held to be correct or at least to a standard that a teacher would accept. Obviously literary or other research was not published at great expense if it hadn't gone through at least some sort of peer review. Today with the advent of Wiki's and blogs and the like, the researcher had better be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Just because I found 439,000 hits doesn't mean any of them are actually useful or even remotely accurate academic research that has been reviewed and accepted.
So today with information at our fingertips, we have to be ever mindful of what we are pulling out of cyberspace and use our own mind to see if that information, while easy to obtain, is worth the electrons that move it.
As part of this class I was to given the assignment to write a nice little term paper comparing and contrasting the works of Dante and Chaucer. It was to be in the neighborhood of twenty-pages with at least 10 sources and done according to the writing style that we had been introduced to in the previous two years.
Of course twenty-pages, even generously double spaced, is quite a few words, and meeting the number of sources would prove to be challenging.
One night my brother and I went racing to the local library. Now the population of our little town in Connecticut at the time was only starting to exceed the total number of cows by this time, and the library was good enough to find a nice selection of mystery novels, but finding literary criticism of medieval literature proved to be futile. I am guessing that the women on the library book procurement committee were not concerned with expanding the town's ken in that particular area.
Not to be so easily deterred, my brother and I raced off to the library in the next town over. This library was a stately building of stone, built by the mill barons of yesteryear. Sadly while I had been able to find Caesar's Gallic Wars in this library some years earlier, I was unable to find any literary criticism about Dante and Chaucer.
After this epic failure, we returned home. We would have to venture on another evening to the University library to find our information.
After a good thirty-minute drive through the back woods of the state, we arrived in Storrs, CT. The University of Connecticut indeed had a plethora of information on the subject. Being lowly high school students, we had to find the books on the shelves, and then do our research in the library by a combination of notation by hand (laptop!? what was that?) and photocopies of relevant pages.
Once the information was gathered, a paper was written, and all was well in the world.
That was nearly twenty years ago. Today, as I type this on my laptop, I do a Google search of "Dante and Chaucer comparison," and I get 439,000 results in 0.3 seconds, sitting here on my couch. No running to various libraries, no fast reading to glean quotations and facts from musty, esoteric tomes, no scribbling by hand on note cards. It is all here, in HTML, easily cut and pasted into word processors to be carefully read at my leisure and digested so as to write a nice paper.
So what twenty-years has given us is instant access to more information than we could possibly use and in mind-boggling fast speeds. Sadly while this should make life quite easy for the researcher, it has given rise to a number of other issues.
First off is the tendency to be a bit lazy. I understand that there are now services dedicated to doing their own search to see if our intrepid, if ethically deficient, student has cut and pasted whole papers, or "Franken-papered" a report from various snippets of other writers. In my day we had to quote or paraphrase with a citation and then add our own thinking to the mix. Evidently this is being lost somehow.
Another issue is the reliability of the sources. In my day, if you got your quotation or source from some published book, it was held to be correct or at least to a standard that a teacher would accept. Obviously literary or other research was not published at great expense if it hadn't gone through at least some sort of peer review. Today with the advent of Wiki's and blogs and the like, the researcher had better be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Just because I found 439,000 hits doesn't mean any of them are actually useful or even remotely accurate academic research that has been reviewed and accepted.
So today with information at our fingertips, we have to be ever mindful of what we are pulling out of cyberspace and use our own mind to see if that information, while easy to obtain, is worth the electrons that move it.
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Leica APO Telyt-R Module system.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37977699@N00/sets/72157622803526703/
There are four different ways to change focal lengths for a camera. You can switch lenses, use a zoom lens, use a modular system, or attach teleconverters. The first has a fixed number of elements in a fixed grouping, moving only to change focus. This is called a prime lens and offers one field of view. A zoom lens has a fixed number of elements, but can shift one or more of them to offer different magnifications between a set range that can be varied infinitely within that range at either a set or varied maximum aperture. The third is a modular system where different numbers of elements are pieced together to give a number of specific focal lengths and apertures. Teleconverters are very different than a modular system. The teleconverter is an magnifier that essentially crops the image circle of the lens which increases magnification but also increases the lens’ flaws at the same time. Teleconverters always degrade the image quality of the photograph, while a modular system will not. The advantage is that a teleconverter is much smaller and less expensive so is an easy way to increase reach in a pinch.
The Modular system is rather rare in photography. Nikon had a system in the 1960s and 70’s for their super-telephotos which consisted on a single focusing unit and then various heads that plugged into the focus unit to offer fixed focal lengths. This system suffered from among other things, excessive length and long minimum focusing distances. The APO Telyt system solves these problems to use five pieces to make four different focal lengths and three different maximum apertures. In addition, you can chose apertures for both the 400 and 560mm lengths based on weight and expected light conditions.
The APO Telyt system consists of three different focusing modules and two lens heads. They are connected via a locking bayonet fitting to ensure proper alignment. Using the smaller head, you can use the focus modules to make a 280 f2.8, 400 f4, and 560 f5.6. Using the larger head you can make a 400 f2.8, 560 f4, and 800 f5.6. Of course if you have the entire set, you can make up two lenses. I would think that the most popular configurations would be 280 f2.8 and 560 f4, while leaving the 2x f5.6 module in the bag.
Construction is up to Leica standards; meaning that it is made to last. The lens heads are metal, as is the focusing module’s barrel. There is some plastic in the bayonet ring, but it is of little consequence as it merely acts as the actuator for the metal interior fittings. The lens is ROM so that the R8/R9 cameras can use focus distance in the metering algorithms. There is also a slide in Series 6 filter holder that comes standard with a ND1 filter. A special holder can be bought to be used with a circular polarizer filter which has an externally activated wheel for spinning the filter. This is the same filter arrangement as the 180mm Summicron.
The top of each head is fitted with a handle and opposite of this is the tripod foot. This is both a blessing and curse compared to other vendor’s offerings. Most other vendors combine the tripod foot with the handle so that the camera is carried upside down. The trouble with this design is that it is tough to make a tripod support for super-tele’s so that they can double as a handle without also reducing their ability to dampen lens vibration. Leica circumvents this problem by having a very nice and sturdy tripod foot on the underside of the lens, and having a handle at the top for strictly carrying. Unfortunately there is now a large hook on the top of the camera assembly when it is mounted on a tripod of monopod. This is just begging to catch on something and cause a disaster. So while the lenses offer excellent tripod performance, be wary of the handle. Another issue with the handle in practice is that it will start to hurt your hands in no short amount of time. The handle has ridges that conform to your fingers, but there is no padding so it can cause your hand to cramp. A bit of foam rubber over the handle helps a bit with this problem.
The small head offers an integral telescoping hood. The front of the hood is rubberized to reduce wear on the lens hood when the camera assembly is placed hood down as is often the case with super-teles. The large head, on the other head, offers a more standard accessory hood that has a bayonet fitting so as to twist onto the front of the lens. To store this hood, merely reverse it, and it locks on. Both heads offer rubber front lens caps that fit over the hoods. The design of both the shades and hoods is a step up to the Nikon system for lenses of this caliber. In addition to the front caps, each head has a rear cap, and each focusing module has a front and rear cap as well. The sheer number of caps makes the lens pieces more difficult to deal with in the bag, but is the price you pay to have a modular system.
The controls are very simple. There is a focus ring with a adjustable lock that allows the user to set a minimum focus distance. This can also be used as a hindered pre-focus point. Unlike some systems that use a knob to set a dent in the focus range, this knob will prevent you to from focusing any closer than the set distance. The scale is only in meters, but there are two sets of numbers on each module. Most lenses show the focus distance in feet and meters, but this one shows the focus distance depending on the configuration. For example, the 1x module shows the focus distance with the280mm configuration and 400mm configuration, but only in meters. There is no DOF scales or IR marking (no need for an IR mark). Neither of these issues cause problems in practical use unless you really need a distance measurement for some reason.
The other control is the aperture ring, which is a step up from the Nikon focus unit because each module has a set number of apertures so there is no need to remember to convert based on the head it is paired with. The 1x module will always offer a range between f2.8 and f22 and so on.
In practice, this system is fairly easy to use and versatile. I typically know the kind of lighting I am expecting and where I am going. I also need to decide if I will need faster lenses and more distance, or if I can get away with shorter focal length and slightly slower speed. I will typically not bring both heads with me, but rather choose one head and then select the focus modules I may need. Typically for me, this means one head or another, and then carrying the f2.8 and f4 modules. I tend not to bring the f5.6 module unless I know I am going to need a long lens. I am less apt to use the small head with this module as 600 f5.6 is difficult to use with film, despite it’s relatively long range and light package.
The smaller head is much easier to handle so unless I need the extra length or speed, I will usually opt for the smaller head. There is a significant difference in both weight and handling between the heads. The differences in the modules deal mostly with length and aren’t too cumbersome to pack in a bag (typically 1 or 2 in a bag and the other mounted on the lens with camera attached)
I use this system on a heavy-duty carbon fiber tripod and gimbaled head. This allows for good stability, and a wide range of motions. The tripod mount is nearly ideally placed on both heads, so getting the balance doesn’t require an extremely long plate. Focus with the f28 and f4 modules is easy and the MF nature of the lens isn’t much of a hindrance for my wildlife photography. The f5.6 module with the standard screen starts to darken the rangefinder and micro prisms unless your eye is directly in line with the center of the screen. Leica and other users recommend a plain ground glass screen for this module. I don’t like switching screens, so I stick with the standard screen.
The greatest single advantage of this system is that it offers a great range of focal lengths and speed in a compact package. The only zoom that covers this range is a fixed f5.6 aperture, so is much smaller, but much slower, especially at the lower end of the focal range. A set of primes offers the same speed and focal length, but is much larger and more difficult to carry. The telyt system fits in a fairly large case, a set of 6 primes requires much more room to store, weighs more, and is much more cumbersome.
What about optical quality? The best images of the system are made by the 400mm f4 configuration, but is excellent with any configuration. The biggest weakness is probably distortion which is usually between 1-1.5% in most configurations which is larger than most other brand’s offerings. Vignette is minimal and sharpness is equal to most film and the DMR so that should not be an issue. Since these are APO lenses, color fringing is minimal and contrast is excellent, as with all modern Leica optics. MTF graphs are still available on the Leica website, but considering this is an orphaned system, they may be removed at any time.
The final issue is the slightly different focal lengths available in the Leica system compared to the major Japanese makers. For example, you will find many more options of 300mm lenses rather than 280mm. The same goes with 560mm instead of 600mm. People tend to obsess about these types of things, but what is that actual change in field of view between these two focal lengths? Fortunately, the longer the lens, the smaller the change of view angle per millimeter of focal length. Twenty or forty millimeters matters a great deal in shorter lengths, but not nearly as much in the super-telephoto range. For example, the difference between 280mm and 300mm is 0.6 degrees of view diagonally. At the longer focal length, the difference between 560 and 600mm is 0.2 degrees diagonally. Will this matter in the field? While there is a certain amount of framing changing, in practice, the slightly shorter focal length will not affect us too greatly and is certainly not enough to totally dismiss the system.
There are four different ways to change focal lengths for a camera. You can switch lenses, use a zoom lens, use a modular system, or attach teleconverters. The first has a fixed number of elements in a fixed grouping, moving only to change focus. This is called a prime lens and offers one field of view. A zoom lens has a fixed number of elements, but can shift one or more of them to offer different magnifications between a set range that can be varied infinitely within that range at either a set or varied maximum aperture. The third is a modular system where different numbers of elements are pieced together to give a number of specific focal lengths and apertures. Teleconverters are very different than a modular system. The teleconverter is an magnifier that essentially crops the image circle of the lens which increases magnification but also increases the lens’ flaws at the same time. Teleconverters always degrade the image quality of the photograph, while a modular system will not. The advantage is that a teleconverter is much smaller and less expensive so is an easy way to increase reach in a pinch.
The Modular system is rather rare in photography. Nikon had a system in the 1960s and 70’s for their super-telephotos which consisted on a single focusing unit and then various heads that plugged into the focus unit to offer fixed focal lengths. This system suffered from among other things, excessive length and long minimum focusing distances. The APO Telyt system solves these problems to use five pieces to make four different focal lengths and three different maximum apertures. In addition, you can chose apertures for both the 400 and 560mm lengths based on weight and expected light conditions.
The APO Telyt system consists of three different focusing modules and two lens heads. They are connected via a locking bayonet fitting to ensure proper alignment. Using the smaller head, you can use the focus modules to make a 280 f2.8, 400 f4, and 560 f5.6. Using the larger head you can make a 400 f2.8, 560 f4, and 800 f5.6. Of course if you have the entire set, you can make up two lenses. I would think that the most popular configurations would be 280 f2.8 and 560 f4, while leaving the 2x f5.6 module in the bag.
Construction is up to Leica standards; meaning that it is made to last. The lens heads are metal, as is the focusing module’s barrel. There is some plastic in the bayonet ring, but it is of little consequence as it merely acts as the actuator for the metal interior fittings. The lens is ROM so that the R8/R9 cameras can use focus distance in the metering algorithms. There is also a slide in Series 6 filter holder that comes standard with a ND1 filter. A special holder can be bought to be used with a circular polarizer filter which has an externally activated wheel for spinning the filter. This is the same filter arrangement as the 180mm Summicron.
The top of each head is fitted with a handle and opposite of this is the tripod foot. This is both a blessing and curse compared to other vendor’s offerings. Most other vendors combine the tripod foot with the handle so that the camera is carried upside down. The trouble with this design is that it is tough to make a tripod support for super-tele’s so that they can double as a handle without also reducing their ability to dampen lens vibration. Leica circumvents this problem by having a very nice and sturdy tripod foot on the underside of the lens, and having a handle at the top for strictly carrying. Unfortunately there is now a large hook on the top of the camera assembly when it is mounted on a tripod of monopod. This is just begging to catch on something and cause a disaster. So while the lenses offer excellent tripod performance, be wary of the handle. Another issue with the handle in practice is that it will start to hurt your hands in no short amount of time. The handle has ridges that conform to your fingers, but there is no padding so it can cause your hand to cramp. A bit of foam rubber over the handle helps a bit with this problem.
The small head offers an integral telescoping hood. The front of the hood is rubberized to reduce wear on the lens hood when the camera assembly is placed hood down as is often the case with super-teles. The large head, on the other head, offers a more standard accessory hood that has a bayonet fitting so as to twist onto the front of the lens. To store this hood, merely reverse it, and it locks on. Both heads offer rubber front lens caps that fit over the hoods. The design of both the shades and hoods is a step up to the Nikon system for lenses of this caliber. In addition to the front caps, each head has a rear cap, and each focusing module has a front and rear cap as well. The sheer number of caps makes the lens pieces more difficult to deal with in the bag, but is the price you pay to have a modular system.
The controls are very simple. There is a focus ring with a adjustable lock that allows the user to set a minimum focus distance. This can also be used as a hindered pre-focus point. Unlike some systems that use a knob to set a dent in the focus range, this knob will prevent you to from focusing any closer than the set distance. The scale is only in meters, but there are two sets of numbers on each module. Most lenses show the focus distance in feet and meters, but this one shows the focus distance depending on the configuration. For example, the 1x module shows the focus distance with the280mm configuration and 400mm configuration, but only in meters. There is no DOF scales or IR marking (no need for an IR mark). Neither of these issues cause problems in practical use unless you really need a distance measurement for some reason.
The other control is the aperture ring, which is a step up from the Nikon focus unit because each module has a set number of apertures so there is no need to remember to convert based on the head it is paired with. The 1x module will always offer a range between f2.8 and f22 and so on.
In practice, this system is fairly easy to use and versatile. I typically know the kind of lighting I am expecting and where I am going. I also need to decide if I will need faster lenses and more distance, or if I can get away with shorter focal length and slightly slower speed. I will typically not bring both heads with me, but rather choose one head and then select the focus modules I may need. Typically for me, this means one head or another, and then carrying the f2.8 and f4 modules. I tend not to bring the f5.6 module unless I know I am going to need a long lens. I am less apt to use the small head with this module as 600 f5.6 is difficult to use with film, despite it’s relatively long range and light package.
The smaller head is much easier to handle so unless I need the extra length or speed, I will usually opt for the smaller head. There is a significant difference in both weight and handling between the heads. The differences in the modules deal mostly with length and aren’t too cumbersome to pack in a bag (typically 1 or 2 in a bag and the other mounted on the lens with camera attached)
I use this system on a heavy-duty carbon fiber tripod and gimbaled head. This allows for good stability, and a wide range of motions. The tripod mount is nearly ideally placed on both heads, so getting the balance doesn’t require an extremely long plate. Focus with the f28 and f4 modules is easy and the MF nature of the lens isn’t much of a hindrance for my wildlife photography. The f5.6 module with the standard screen starts to darken the rangefinder and micro prisms unless your eye is directly in line with the center of the screen. Leica and other users recommend a plain ground glass screen for this module. I don’t like switching screens, so I stick with the standard screen.
The greatest single advantage of this system is that it offers a great range of focal lengths and speed in a compact package. The only zoom that covers this range is a fixed f5.6 aperture, so is much smaller, but much slower, especially at the lower end of the focal range. A set of primes offers the same speed and focal length, but is much larger and more difficult to carry. The telyt system fits in a fairly large case, a set of 6 primes requires much more room to store, weighs more, and is much more cumbersome.
What about optical quality? The best images of the system are made by the 400mm f4 configuration, but is excellent with any configuration. The biggest weakness is probably distortion which is usually between 1-1.5% in most configurations which is larger than most other brand’s offerings. Vignette is minimal and sharpness is equal to most film and the DMR so that should not be an issue. Since these are APO lenses, color fringing is minimal and contrast is excellent, as with all modern Leica optics. MTF graphs are still available on the Leica website, but considering this is an orphaned system, they may be removed at any time.
The final issue is the slightly different focal lengths available in the Leica system compared to the major Japanese makers. For example, you will find many more options of 300mm lenses rather than 280mm. The same goes with 560mm instead of 600mm. People tend to obsess about these types of things, but what is that actual change in field of view between these two focal lengths? Fortunately, the longer the lens, the smaller the change of view angle per millimeter of focal length. Twenty or forty millimeters matters a great deal in shorter lengths, but not nearly as much in the super-telephoto range. For example, the difference between 280mm and 300mm is 0.6 degrees of view diagonally. At the longer focal length, the difference between 560 and 600mm is 0.2 degrees diagonally. Will this matter in the field? While there is a certain amount of framing changing, in practice, the slightly shorter focal length will not affect us too greatly and is certainly not enough to totally dismiss the system.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Faith and Reason
Most religions run into trouble when they make the whole of their pyramid faith. An enlightened religion will make the base reason, the center wisdom, and the apex faith.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The second film
My second roll of film since returning from sea was a black and white. This was not the traditional silver-halide emulsion, but rather a color dye film that can be processed by your local one hour photo-lab. While toying with the idea of returning to developing my own film, I just didn't like it back in school, and I doubt that I will like it now, so for now, I just shoot this stuff, which comes in ISO 400 speed.
I typically shoot B&W film in my older manual cameras or my Leica Rangefinder. In this case, I chose the later, a Leica M7. I shot the roll in four different outings, and with only two different focal lengths, but with three lenses.
The first outing was to a country store located at a farm in the town of Dallas in NE Pennsylvania called Shadyrill. Brooke remembers fondly when the "store" was one part of a barn used mostly for equipment storage and had no refinements. Recently they have finished the interior somewhat, but still has that rough-hewn edge to it. Still it was clean, and they have a nice little cafe and various food and craft items from local suppliers and artisans.
My favorite photo of this outing was of the bags of apples they had for sale on a rough-plank of a table. being that it was late Fall, the low sun angled through the front door windows and cast the apples in a chiaroscuro mixture of light and shadow that offered wonderful pattern and texture, which is ideal for black and white.
The second outing for this roll of film was for reportage at a more serious photoshoot at the Greek Orthodox cathedral in Springfield, Ma. I was meeting a Master Photographer named Xenophon Beake and my mentor Fred Bird. Xenophon was to photograph the interior of the church which was going to take a lot of light. The church was built in a Gothic style with moderately high arches and illuminated mostly by stained glass windows. We had to light the whole place with strobes, and considering we were using a fisheye lens, the lights had to be carefully placed to hide them from the all-seeing eye of the camera. The photography took about five minutes, but the setup took three hours and the breakdown took about an hour.
While I wasn't running around dealing with lights, I took a few shots of Xenophon and Fred working as well as a few artsy shots. Due to the very low light levels in the church, I was using my fastest lens, a Voightlander 35mm f1.2 lens wide open with about a 1/15th second shutter speed. No camera but the Leica could have done this with ISO 400 film. My favorite shot of the day was of the baptismal font in the front of the church. the light came through a side window and shone on the wooden font while leaving the rest of the scene in shadows.
The next outing was a walk around downtown Wilkes-Barre, PA. I sometimes go wandering from Brooke's apartment to take random pictures, mostly of cityscape's. During this outing, I found a faded sign in an alley behind the F.M. Kirby center pointing to what was once the McManus Cafe. The McManus Clan has a large presence at the campground that Brooke's family is active in, so of course i am wondering if they are somehow related. Given the "small town" nature of this area, it would not surprise me in the least.
I finally finished this roll of film as we decorated for Christmas. I recorded the decorating of the tree and finished off by changing lenses to my 90mm for a few close ups of the ornaments.
My favorite shot was certainly the font picture, but I enjoy shooting black and white film because it forces me to look at things a bit differently. I must admit however, that I do not shoot it enough, and need to put a few more rolls of it through my cameras to hone my skills a bit more.
I typically shoot B&W film in my older manual cameras or my Leica Rangefinder. In this case, I chose the later, a Leica M7. I shot the roll in four different outings, and with only two different focal lengths, but with three lenses.
The first outing was to a country store located at a farm in the town of Dallas in NE Pennsylvania called Shadyrill. Brooke remembers fondly when the "store" was one part of a barn used mostly for equipment storage and had no refinements. Recently they have finished the interior somewhat, but still has that rough-hewn edge to it. Still it was clean, and they have a nice little cafe and various food and craft items from local suppliers and artisans.
My favorite photo of this outing was of the bags of apples they had for sale on a rough-plank of a table. being that it was late Fall, the low sun angled through the front door windows and cast the apples in a chiaroscuro mixture of light and shadow that offered wonderful pattern and texture, which is ideal for black and white.
The second outing for this roll of film was for reportage at a more serious photoshoot at the Greek Orthodox cathedral in Springfield, Ma. I was meeting a Master Photographer named Xenophon Beake and my mentor Fred Bird. Xenophon was to photograph the interior of the church which was going to take a lot of light. The church was built in a Gothic style with moderately high arches and illuminated mostly by stained glass windows. We had to light the whole place with strobes, and considering we were using a fisheye lens, the lights had to be carefully placed to hide them from the all-seeing eye of the camera. The photography took about five minutes, but the setup took three hours and the breakdown took about an hour.
While I wasn't running around dealing with lights, I took a few shots of Xenophon and Fred working as well as a few artsy shots. Due to the very low light levels in the church, I was using my fastest lens, a Voightlander 35mm f1.2 lens wide open with about a 1/15th second shutter speed. No camera but the Leica could have done this with ISO 400 film. My favorite shot of the day was of the baptismal font in the front of the church. the light came through a side window and shone on the wooden font while leaving the rest of the scene in shadows.
The next outing was a walk around downtown Wilkes-Barre, PA. I sometimes go wandering from Brooke's apartment to take random pictures, mostly of cityscape's. During this outing, I found a faded sign in an alley behind the F.M. Kirby center pointing to what was once the McManus Cafe. The McManus Clan has a large presence at the campground that Brooke's family is active in, so of course i am wondering if they are somehow related. Given the "small town" nature of this area, it would not surprise me in the least.
I finally finished this roll of film as we decorated for Christmas. I recorded the decorating of the tree and finished off by changing lenses to my 90mm for a few close ups of the ornaments.
My favorite shot was certainly the font picture, but I enjoy shooting black and white film because it forces me to look at things a bit differently. I must admit however, that I do not shoot it enough, and need to put a few more rolls of it through my cameras to hone my skills a bit more.
Samp Tomato Soup, part one
While samp for breakfast may have satisfied, or at least filled, my ansenstors, it did nothing for me. I will stick with the southern tradition and opt for grits for my breakfast side. Since I still have better than a pound of samp, I needed to go in a different direction. I opted for a more traditional soup, and figured that a tomato based concoction might be the way to go.
I was admittedly lazy in my first soup effort. I had some cans of V8 juice in the refrigerator so decided to throw three cans of V8 into the crock pot with a cup dried samp. The crock pot is definitely my friend when it comes to samp. I cooked it for about six hours in there until the samp had absorbed the liquid and softened up a bit. While it was edible, I wouldn’t say it was good. The samp didn’t work quite as well as I had hoped. I suspect that the viscosity of the V8 juice didn’t lend itself well to softening the samp. I ate most of it over the course of a couple days, but it is not something I will repeat. I will try again with the tomato combination with some tomato bisque soup but my pre-treatment of the samp will be a bit different.
I was admittedly lazy in my first soup effort. I had some cans of V8 juice in the refrigerator so decided to throw three cans of V8 into the crock pot with a cup dried samp. The crock pot is definitely my friend when it comes to samp. I cooked it for about six hours in there until the samp had absorbed the liquid and softened up a bit. While it was edible, I wouldn’t say it was good. The samp didn’t work quite as well as I had hoped. I suspect that the viscosity of the V8 juice didn’t lend itself well to softening the samp. I ate most of it over the course of a couple days, but it is not something I will repeat. I will try again with the tomato combination with some tomato bisque soup but my pre-treatment of the samp will be a bit different.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A day with Tiffany & Co.
It was cold outside yesterday, and since I felt like doing some photography, yet still not freeze, I decided to set up for some close up product shooting.
Shooting in an apartment limited the amount of space you have, both to shoot and to store equipment, so I tend to go minimal, which means shooting small objects. Jewelry tends to be my favorite subject, and I am well equipped here to photograph it.
The subjects for the day were a couple of Tiffany & Co pieces that my girlfriend Brooke has bought recently. The first is a ring that she bought. My favorite image of the day paired their holiday red bow on their signature box, along with the pouch and ring on a glass table.
For lighting I used natural lighting from a window,, which came in at a fairly low angle and used a small macro flash (SB-200) hand-held above the scene to fill in the shadows. I was using my D700, as normal these days, and for a lens I used the 85mm f2.8D PC Nikkor. For those not familiar with lenses, this is a lens that allows up half life size magnification and provides movements to control depth of field and "keystone" distortion. This lens is ideally suited for this sort of table-top photography and offers excellent flexibility and image quality.
The second piece was a cross necklace that Brooke gave me for my birthday. Since it was much smaller, I opted to use the pouch for the back ground and concentrate on just the crosses. I used a similar set up, but instead of using natural light, I used two macro-speedlights for the lighting. One was positioned to the right side to fill in shadows with the main light above and to the left a bit. I needed a bit more magnification than my 85mm could offer naturally, so I used my bellows set to get a bit more extension. DOF was controlled by stopping down the aperture as well as a bit of tilting. Exposure was first guessed, and then fine tuned, but the iTTL flash feature of this camera does an excellent job despite no information from the lens.
I was quite pleased with the results and posted them to Flickr as well as here.
JCA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
