revjim.net

April, 2004:

pile of possibility

pile of possibility
pile of possibility
(click to enlarge)

This was taken in the “studio” in an attempt to learn more about light. In order to keep the background wood at right angles, I had to shoot straight on. I had nothing higher to put them on, and my tripod wouldn’t go low enough, so I ended up shooting this handheld. There is one light at 45 degrees to the right of the camera, and one light straight on to the left of the camera at “half power”. I could have used a little more fill light but, I only had the option of half or full power (read: one bulb or two).

I’d like to be able to do portraits and figure work but this “studio” isn’t large enough. I was as far back as I could be with a 50mm lens, and I still ended up being pretty close (as you can see).

I’m fairly pleased with the results considering what I had to work with. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated, as always.

MSN messenger: ooooooooh

I just realized that you don’t *have* to use a Hotmail account as your MSN messenger email address. I had no clue.

So I’ve made a new passport with my email address (jim [at] revjim [dot] net). I’m going to switch over to using it so I don’t keep getting all of these people adding me that think I am someone else that used to own therev@hotmail.com. So, to save me the trouble of adding all of you all over again, if you’ll all just kindly add my new name to your lists, it’ll make life a lot easier. Thanks.

gasping for air, v.2

gasping for air, v.2
gasping for air, v.2
(click to enlarge)

hold me up I’m falling

hold me up I’m falling
hold me up I'm falling
(click to enlarge)

uptown

uptown
uptown
(click to enlarge)

My Python brings all the coders to the yard…

PHP is capable. A lot of people don’t understand that. A lot of people refuse to accept that. PHP isn’t just some web-centric programming language to make it easy to whip up little scripts to accomplish simple tasks. It’s very capable of doing anything you can do with Perl or Python. And, with a C programmer handy, it can be extended just like Perl and Python making it capable of doing just about anything you can do in Java or even C++.

The problem is that “real programmers” overlook PHP. It’s too simple, too elementary, and doesn’t suit their needs before they even look at it. So, because of this, there aren’t nearly as many *good* libraries, frameworks, and utilities available for PHP. Sure, this is getting better and better every day. However, what’s available for PHP pales in comparison to the high-quality, easy to use, well-written, well-documented libraries and applications available in the Perl and Python worlds.

So I’ve been playing with Python a little. I like it. I really do. It’s not as simple as PHP, and it seems to have a little “magic” behind it (which is one of the things I hate about Perl). But, really, it’s enjoyable to program in — It’s fairly simple, it makes sense (once you learn the “magic”), and there are a lot of people writing really good libraries for it.

Having a large base of libraries is important. Without it, a programmer developing a complicated project is either forced to kludge his way through complicated portions of code, or left to invent the wheel each and every time a library is needed. Additionally, since the programmer is probably focused on his own project, and not so much with the code of these addditional libraries, they aren’t written so well. This makes them buggy, and less likely to be adopted by other programmers which means that the next programmer who needs similar functionality is left to invent the wheel himself, again.

There are quite a few interesting and well written projects on the way for PHP5. With PHP5′s advanced OO capabilities, I think more programmers are willing to consider it, instead of laughing at it. But, even if it is finally accepted as a “real” language capable of performing “real” tasks and programmers begin writing libraries for it, it’ll take a while before it even comes close to matching what’s out there for Python.

Sure, PHP5 has “Propel”:http://propel.phpdb.org/ for handling persistent objects. I haven’t used it, because it’s PHP5 only. But Python has “SQLObject”:http://www.sqlobject.org/ which works now and has had some time to let the bugs settle out of it. And just look at “Twisted”:http://www.twistedmatrix.com/products/twisted. I mean, “damn!”. It’ll take quite some time to get even close to that in the PHP world.

So, my allegiance is swaying. I’ve yet to use Python for any large, production, project. But I’m seriously considering it now.

it’s empty without you

hot peppers
hot peppers
(click to enlarge)

I’d never tried before, so I decided to be a “street photographer” yesterday. I forbid myself from using my camera’s meter or autofocus, and made every exposure based on what I know about light. I set the camera as ISO 400, stuck on my 50mm (which is more like a 75mm for me) so I wouldn’t have to get TOO close, for now, and did the best that I could.

I learned a lot.

First of all, it’s not as easy as I thought it would be. I lost MANY shots because I couldn’t focus fast enough. My eyeglasses were a real pain, making it difficult to see, quickly, how well the focus was. Next time, I’ll wear contacts. If I did manage to fire the trigger just to take a stab at the shot, generally, that meant I hadn’t left enough time to think about exposure and the shot was, usually, underexposed. I tried to adjust the camera as the light I was in changed and this worked, for the most part. It really helped to force me to memorize proper lighting for different scenarios instead of starting at something I knew and counting forwards or backwards. But when I was standing in something a few stops brighter than what I was shooting, if I took the time to change my exposure, the shot was gone. Sometimes, when I knew I missed it, I’d try to retake the shot. It’s funny to look at the images I ended up with. First you’ll see a well-framed shot that looks as though I got there at just the right time, but two stops under exposed. And then, right after, you’ll see a shot properly exposed, but not nearly as interesting to look at with the subject turned away, uninterested, or… just no longer there at all.

Secondly, I’m not risky enough. I don’t get close enough, I don’t have balls enough to jump in there and do it. Even though I was using my 50mm, I found that a lot of the images were more interesting if I cropped them (or got closer). And the fact that the really good street photographers often do it with a 35mm lens is impressive. I didn’t realize it would be so hard. As soon as I get the exposure and focusing times down a bit I’m going to try this a little bit differently. The next time I try this, I’ll do it without Jess around and I’m going to force myself to act beyond my comfort zone for at least 50 shots in a row.

I’m pleased that most of the exposures were correct and that most of the focusing was right on (when I had the time to get it there). The shot you see above is one of the better shots I got where people were involved and timing was important. Even then, I had to crop out a little from the top and a little from the right side to make it interesting. And, I had at least 10 seconds to take that, which is more than usual. And, even with all that, it isn’t that great. Below is a slightly better shot. Exposure and focus was all handled manually, but, in this case, I was able to take my time getting ready.

The best shot of the day was lost… twice. There was a man out behind the tents cooking two giant smokers full of chicken. As he started to open the cover, I adjusted the exposure and focus and started to frame him in the viewfinder. The smoke was billowing out all around him, and the lighting on the chickens was great. It was really a GOOD shot. But, by the time I was ready, he was closing the lid. I chalked it up as a loss until I saw him grabbing for the other lid. I put my camera to my eye and was ready to go. But this time, he didn’t even spend 2 seconds checking them. So, even though I snapped, the lid was half shut and I only got a whole lot of smoke. The guy turned around and noticed I was trying to take his picture and he said, “you want me to open it again?”. But, I’m too nice, and my balls are too small, so I said, “no thanks. That’s okay.” Yeah, I know. I’m stupid.

it’s empty without you
it's empty without you
(click to enlarge)

you’d never notice me anyway

you’d never notice me anyway
you'd never notice me anyway
(click to enlarge)

i see through you

i see through you
i see through you
(click to enlarge)

gasping for air

gasping for air
gasping for air
(click to enlarge)

Thanks to your comments on my request for help, I think I’m starting to understand what’s going wrong. This was my first attempt with these new ideas. Still not perfect, but much better.

I can see a few obvious flaws. First is that, by including the overcast sky’s reflection in the water, I required more dynamic range than was available. This is almost the same as including the sky itself, except that the water mutes the brightness a bit.

Additionally, for the aperture that I used, I can’t get the depth of field I desired. I imagined that the focal distance I choose would land the foreground of the image at least very close to in focus. In reality this didn’t happen. I’ve cropped this image to the 8×10 format buy chopping off a chunk on the bottom. This helped quite a bit because it was that portion of the image that wasn’t in focus. However, I wish I could have used this full frame. If I would have used a longer focal length and a slightly smaller aperture, I think I would havew nailed this one.

Your comments, once again, are appreciated.