March, 2004:

For a little “more than a month now”:http://revjim.net/item/9933/ I’ve been using “CRM114″:http://crm114.sourceforge.net/. I figured it was about time for a status report.

I don’t track how many incomming mails I receive. It’s too difficult since they come from so many places and I often mail myself which inflates the numbers considerably. Most spam catching statistics are supplied as the inverse of the number of spams that made it through versus the number of mails received in total. Mine, however, are calculated based on the number of spams received and the number of spams caught. So, please keep that in mind as you review these statistics.

Additionally, remember that the spam catching ability of any learning mail scanner gets better as you use it. I only train on errors and I train on every error, if that helps you understand my numbers any better.

From Febuary 24th until now, I’ve received 6,231 spams. 5,972 of them were caught by CRM114. That’s a 95.84% catch rate. Additionally, 100 messages were marked as spam that weren’t (false positive).

In the last 7 days, however, I’ve received 1,456 spams. 1,427 of them were caught by CRM114. That’s a 98.01% catch rate. Additionally, 4 messages were marked as spam that weren’t (false positives).

I should also note that, in the last 7 days, all 4 of the false positives were computer generated messages with heavy use of HTML (which looks a lot like SPAM). As I get more non-spam messages that look like these, it’ll get smarter about it.

All in all I’m very happy with the results. A lot better than when I was using SpamAssassin.

(note: I’m leaving a lot out of this lesson for the sake of simplicity. So if you’re thinking, “Reverend Jim, sir, doesn’t focal length also affect Depth of Field?” or “But, isn’t the outcome of a focal length selection also dependent on the size of the film or sensor?”, yes, you’re correct. But those things will be addressed in a later lesson.)

Many beginning (and advanced) photographers use focal length for one thing, to get closer to the subject. But that isn’t really what it’s for. Let me back up a bit.

Focal length, essentially (for those of you with zoom lenses) is your zoom setting. It’s telephoto vs. wide. It’s a “close up” from far away, or getting in lots of stuff from close up. Most people will decide what they are taking a picture of, stand where they are, and zoom in or our until the picture fills the frame the way they want it to, and then snap the picture.

That isn’t really what it is for. Sure that’s a useful way to use it, if you’re in a bind. But it has a much higher purpose. Let me demonstrate.

Get 10 objects roughly the same size. Place them on the floor of your living room approxamately 1 foot apart from one another. Now lay on the ground with your face right next to the first object looking down the line of other objects. Sometimes, to really see this, it helps to close one eye. Now, forget the fact that you know these objects are 1 foot apart. Look at the first 2 or 3 objects on the floor and look at how far apart they seem to be from one another. Now, look at the last 2 or 3 objects and notice how far apart they seem to be from one another. If it helps you can even hold your fingers in front of your eye to “measure” the distance between them. If you’ve done this right, you’ll notice that the closer objects appear to be farther apart and the far away objects appear to be closer together. Now imagine if you were taking a picture of something standing next to those objects. If you were using a wide angle lens (or if you were zoomed all the way out with your zoom lens) you’d place the subject next to the first few objects (closest to you) and you’d have a picture of something standing next to some objects that were relatively far apart. If you moved the subject to the end of the line of objects, and remained in the same position, you’d have to use a telephoto lens (or zoom in) to get as “close” to your subject. However, in that case, you’d have a picture of something standing next to a bunch of objects that were relatively close together. But, you shouldn’t think of it that way. Instead you should say, “I want to take a picture of this subject next to these objects. Do I want these objects to appear closer together or father apart” and choose your focal length (zoom setting) accordingly and then, and this is key, move your body to achieve the proper “close up”.

Sometimes (i.e. nature photography, building photography, private detective work, concert photography) it just isn’t possible to get as close to your subject as you’d like. In this case, the telephoto lens will help you get “closer” to the thing you are shooting. In other cases, you can’t get far enough away (i.e. taking pictures of the inside of a room). In this case, the wide angle lens will help you get “away” from your subject. In a pinch, they can be used this way. But, you should make every effort to choose your focal length based on how you want the picture to appear, then move to accomodate that focal length only altering your choice if it isn’t possible to get as close (or as far away) as you need to to use that lens.

Now for your *homework*: (yeah, yeah, I’ll do it to) _Pick two subjects that can’t/don’t move (i.e. trees, building, telephone poles, fire hydrants, etc). They should be relatively distant from one another. Put your camera’s zoom to its widest setting (or use a focal length around 35mm) and arrange the objects so that the bottom of the “left” object is in the bottom left corner of the picture and the top of the “right” object is in the top left corner. Now, put your camera’s zoom to its most zoomed in settings (or use a docal length around 150mm) and move your body to arrange the objects in an identical fashion._ Now look at both photographs (feel free to post them on your website/journal and comment here with a link) and notice the distinct difference in how the images look and feel even though both of the subjects are basically in the same spot in each photograph. Notice the “other” objects in the photographs and where they’ve moved to and how far from one another they appear to be.

The next time your taking a picture of something, just try it. Choose your focal length first, then move your body to take the picture. Or, alternately, vow to not “zoom” in or out for a week. Pick a zoom setting and leave your camera in that setting for an entire week. Take pictures as you normally would, but move your body instead of your zoom lens to get those photographs.

*mythical* adj.: based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity; “mythical centaurs”; “the fabulous unicorn”

That pretty much describes the bag I’m looking for. I don’t even know what I want. I guess I figured I’d know it when I saw it. Well… I didn’t see it. Even after spending over an hour and a half opening every bag in the camera store and fighting of the roaches that had taken residence in them (apparently, no ones looked that far back before now and the roaches weren’t too happy about me being the first).

So I think the best plan of action will be to modify (hopefully in a modular, adjustable, removable fashion) an existing non-camera bag to suit my needs as they arise. A messenger bag with a third-leg (so it can be used as a back pack) with lots of pouches and pockets is probably the best course of action here. Then I can line certain pockets in foam for lenses, or attach velcro/snaps to the inside of the bag to hold separate padded containers securely in place. Then I can either buy or build little the padded containers. I still need to come up with a solution for the camera body(ies) themselves. Sure, I could just wrap it in a towel and toss it in the bag, but I’d like it to be a little more reachable and I’d really like to be able to leave a lens attached.

So, later today, I’ll probably go to one of those outdoorsy stores (skateboards, snowboards, bikes, and the like) and see what kind of “urban bag” (I guess that’s what the kids call them these days) I can get myself into. Then, I’ll work out the details of how to protect the gear inside the bag. I’ve always wanted a purse (no really!) but was just too manly to carry it. So this solves that problem. I’ve already got a Lowepro bag devoted to camera stuff (very heavy, not easy to walk with in the streets, etc) that I can use when I need to lug a lot of stuff (which I don’t currently have thanks to the bastards that stole my camera bag). I just need a daypack of sorts that I can carry around all the time (since leaving the camera in the car is no longer an option thanks to the assholes who stole my camera). If it’s too heavy to carry with me, and I can’t leave it in the car, I’ll leave it at home which means I won’t be shooting.

It appears that Gimp v2.0 provides the ammunition for the same “nasty tricks (NSFW)”:http://wizbangblog.com/archives/000491.php that allowed so many Tech TVers to drool over nude photos of the lovely “Cat Schwartz”:http://www.catschwartz.com/.

Here’s the gist of it. Most modern digital cameras and photo-editing software will store a thumbnail of the image in the EXIF headers of a JPEG image. EXIF headers are used to store all sorts of nifty image information like focal length, shutter speed, aperture, and camera type. Placing the thumbnail in this header allows it to be obtained and displayed faster and easier because the computer doesn’t have to build a thumbnail from the large version each time it is requested. Unfortunately, if you edit the image and don’t edit the thumbnail inside the EXIF header, a geek with a little know-how can still obtain the original version of the photograph before the editing took place.

“The Gimp”:http://www.gimp.org was never affected before now for one reason. It didn’t save EXIF information at all. So, after editing an image in the Gimp all of the EXIF information was lost, including the thumbnail. Now, however, by default, the JPEG File plugin in the Gimp supports retaining the EXIF information. This includes the unedited version of the thumbnail. It’s not really a bug, it’s just a feature that doesn’t exist. It’s just a matter of knowing what is happening and why. The Gimp doesn’t have any clue about what to do with EXIF information. It only knows how to retain it. Therefore, it is indeed retained, as it states it will do. It is your loss if you don’t realize that that may also mean retaining a version of the image that you wish others wouldn’t see.

Luckily for me, I realized this the easy way. Since none of the image editing software I use on a regular basis supports reading the EXIF thumbnail, I forgot it was even there. Additionally, I rarely edit an image so heavily that a thumbnailed version of it doesn’t appear almost identical to the version I edited. So, unless I’m really looking for it, I’d have no reason to notice that the thumbnail didn’t exactly match the image. However, the other day I had reason to edit an image heavily (it was part of an anniversary gift for Jess). I went to Wal-Mart to print the final image and, apparently, Wal-Marts digital print computer supports reading the EXIF thumbnail. As it displayed thumbnails of all the images on my card for me to choose which ones I wanted printed I got scared thinking that I put the unedited version of the image on the card. Then I remembered poor Cat Schwartz and asked the photo computer to let me see the full image. And there they were, my edits, as I had intended.

If you use Linux, you can use “jhead”;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/ to remove (or view!!) the thumbnails trapped in your images (or the images or others!!). If you’re running Windows or MacOS… I’m not sure.

Good luck, and happy thumbnail hunting.

I’m looking for a bag. You know, something to put stuff in. I have too much stuff, and I want it with me all the time. So, it only makes sense that I would spend more money on a bag to hold the stuff that I shouldn’t have spent money on in the first place.

I’m looking for something that can be worn over one shoulder or, for those longer treks, as a back pack. I’m hoping that’ll it’ll be casual and durable enough that I can take it anywhere, yet stylish enough that I can drag it to work without looking like a tool.

It must have enough space and padding to hold a digital SLR and a few lenses. Additionally, I’ll want room for maps, notebooks, reading books, cds, cables, etc, etc. Unfortunately, most of the bags I’ve seen fall into one of three categories.

a) It’s a camera bag. It holds camera stuff plus a few extra things. There isn’t really a place to put anything large that isn’t a camera.

b) It’s not a camera bag and therefore has no accomodations for a camera. In order to carry a camera, you just throw it in the bag like everything else and hope that you can find it and that it’s not being smashed to death by the copy of the OED and your hiking boots that you’re also carrying.

c) It’s both a camera bag and storage bag. Everything is well laid out. There’s plenty of room for all of my stuff. BUt, it’s only a backpack, has way too many straps and clamps to help you hold the weight that only get in the way when not in use, and it wears awkwardly over one shoulder.

So… do you have any suggestions. I’m hoping to stay under $150. I’d prefer that it be something I can buy locally so I can go touch it and play with it and make sure it’s going to work before buying. Thanks, in advance.

Either Jess caved, or I caved… or both. But, one way or another, I am now the proud owner of a Nikon D70.

The image you see in this post was taken with it. I’m using a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 fixed lens, as that is all I own. Taking into account the smaller size of the D70s sensor (as compared to 35mm film) that’s about a 75mm equivalent.

I’m very happy with the camera. Aside from the obvious difference in construction (metal vs. plastic on the D70) it feels very much like the D100. It’s a bit faster, and a bit more featureful. But I don’t really notice those things because I don’t really use those features.

I’m sure you’ll see more from me in the future as I learn all of the exciting new thises-and-thats about the camera. Until then, you can enjoy this one image. It’s not my best work, but I was in test mode, playing with the camera more than I was contentrating on getting a good image.

I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned this before, so I’ll do so now. When I edit photographs, I work in a gamma corrected environment to ensure that my photographs will print as I expect them to and that the results of that printing will be as close to what I see on my monitor as possible. If you’d like to see the images properly, you most likely need to gamma correct your system. If the images appear darker than they should be, your monitor is most likely not corrected. Most macintoshes are. Linux is easy to correct. Windows is a bit more difficult and it all depends on what type of graphics card you have. Good luck with that if you’re a windows user. Providing an “uncorrected” version wouldn’t do much good as without proper gamma correction, there’s no way to ensure that what you see will be what I see (since I have no way of guessing what type of monitor and graphics card you have). That being said, this image, in particular, looks very dark on Jess’ monitor.

I’d prefer to have the Nikon D70 over the Nikon D100 or the Canon 300D (EOS Digital Rebel). Although I’ll miss the ability to have a vertical grip with this particular camera, it’s price and features are well worth the difference.

Additionally, while I was, at first, uninterested in the Nikon AF-S DX 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G that is being bundled with it, in some cases. I’ve decided that the lens is most likely a worthy purchase. While I’d like a bit more than f3.5, getting down to 18mm (about 28mm after multiplier) is essential and I can’t seem to find another lens that goes that wide for that price (+$300). I can get a Sigma 2 lens package deal (the 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6) for a little more (+$450). But that’s not nearly as wide and the optics are Sigma (which isn’t bad… but, not as good). 28mm, however, would be sufficent, most likely, and would also work with my film camera (the DX lenses do not). This part is still a toss up… but at least I now realize that the new Nikon lens is worth considering.

I’ve seen some “sample images”:http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70samples.shtml and I must say that I am *very* impressed. Even the ISO 1000 images look sharp.

The only problems right now are, of course, coughing up $1,000 (body only) and, secondly, finding someone that will actually sell you one. Lots of people claim to have them… but finding someone who will hand you one right now is pretty hard to do.

A Ritz Camera near me claims that they have *NO* back orders for them and that customers ordering today should receive them as early as tomorrow. The warehouse has them, they claimed, and they are running an ad for them starting tomorrow. This is good news.

I thought that the “Soul Glow”:http://www.letyoursoulglow.com/ photoshoot went pretty well last Sunday. I shot mostly film (5 rolls @ 24exp.) and also took some digital images with the Canon A80 (mostly for web stuffs).

The film hasn’t been developed yet, so I’m not sure how it turned out. But I’m pretty disappointed in the “digital stuff”:http://photos.revjim.net/ps20040321. I feel that most of the images I took look cheap and amatuerish. We didn’t have a proper studio to work in, so we constructed one as best as we could. Without proper flashes and backdrops, it ended up looking a bit cheezy. But I thought it was good enough to get by. However, now that I’ve finished processing the digital images, I’m having second thoughts. You tell me what you think.