Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Colour Enhancement
Before - Image shot with D40 set to "Normal"
After - RGB colour adjustment to above pic with Curves in Photoshop
Final setting of Curve in Photoshop
Early morning puppy watching
Harsh sidelight, ISO 1600, window burned-in with Photoshop, Warming filter (85) added.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Spring! +2C!!
First day with the Nikon D40 and a "found" pic on the way home from work. Too early to tell if this was the right decision, but a lot of fun so far.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Hey, ladies, what's shakin'???
Dreaming of being on the beach, while it's still 10 below zero on the 3rd day of spring.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Happy first day of Spring!
And the winner is ... the Nikon D40 with its kit 18-55 lens, on sale this week at Blacks (web only), and for lots of reasons (see below). If it's as light as they claim, it'll go a lot of places with me. I ordered it yesterday and picked up an SB-400 flash and 2GB high speed card at at the Blacks in the Rideau Centre. So I'm all set.
Today I had the day off and spent it researching software on-line. Software is the darkroom of yesteryear for the digital age. There are some exciting possibilities out there.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Decison time, but which one?
OK. I've spent about 20 hours reading and rereading articles on the net and I've only changed my mind twice a day, about which camera to buy. It really is a toss up. Unlike 25 years ago when glass ruled and you bought a lens system and the camera was only needed as a light-tight box to hold the film, today's cameras actually make a difference. Each processes data coming through the lens differently and yield, sometimes, drastically different results. All cameras do an adequate job of giving you adecent picture, but some cameras fit one's personal vision much better than others. And herein lies the problem, for me.
I've decided to go with Nikon over Canon. Canon is a great company and they have super products, but from a user-friendly pov, Nikon can't be beat. Their current crop of cameras are very intuitive for the photographer and some of the stuff they have as standard features make so much sense, I can't see why Canon hasn't incorporated them. I'm talking about things like one-button deleting and easy card formatting (which ought to be done after every upload) and data embedding into the EXIF file. Most photogs use this for copyright notice, but you're free to add two hidden lines of text as you see fit into every image.
So it's Nikon this time around. But what model?
I've determined that the D40, even though labeled as an entry level model, does quite a lot considering its price tag. In fact, the D40x, D60 and even the D80 don't offer much more, even though the D80 is twice the price. You're not really getting 2x your money's worth. So the D40 is a got bet.
Beyond that is the D200 the D300 and D3. The D200 has been replaced by the D300. In fact the D300 is SO good relative to the D200, it makes no sense to go the the D200 even at discounted, clearance prices. The D3 is $5350, and that's just ridiculous. And some say the D300 is pretty close to it, spec wise. The D300 is available locally for $1870, body only. (To put things into perspective, though, the Canon EOS-1DS MKIII lists for $8250 and is, arguably, the world's best, right now!)
But the D40 is only $540, and THIS week, it can be had at Blacks (web only) for $470 including the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd need this lens, anyway, with the D300.
So it looks like a no-brainer. Relative to the others it's practically free! Over the D300 it's a savings of about $1200 which can be put towards more esoteric glass, like a 12-24mm ultra-wide.
The only thing stopping me from putting in the order this minute is the thought that I'd eventually end up with the D300 anyway, so why not just get it over with and forget about the D40? The D40, though, is the light-as-a-feather-go-everywhere camera and that's important to me.
Maybe I need them both! :)
I've decided to go with Nikon over Canon. Canon is a great company and they have super products, but from a user-friendly pov, Nikon can't be beat. Their current crop of cameras are very intuitive for the photographer and some of the stuff they have as standard features make so much sense, I can't see why Canon hasn't incorporated them. I'm talking about things like one-button deleting and easy card formatting (which ought to be done after every upload) and data embedding into the EXIF file. Most photogs use this for copyright notice, but you're free to add two hidden lines of text as you see fit into every image.
So it's Nikon this time around. But what model?
I've determined that the D40, even though labeled as an entry level model, does quite a lot considering its price tag. In fact, the D40x, D60 and even the D80 don't offer much more, even though the D80 is twice the price. You're not really getting 2x your money's worth. So the D40 is a got bet.
Beyond that is the D200 the D300 and D3. The D200 has been replaced by the D300. In fact the D300 is SO good relative to the D200, it makes no sense to go the the D200 even at discounted, clearance prices. The D3 is $5350, and that's just ridiculous. And some say the D300 is pretty close to it, spec wise. The D300 is available locally for $1870, body only. (To put things into perspective, though, the Canon EOS-1DS MKIII lists for $8250 and is, arguably, the world's best, right now!)
But the D40 is only $540, and THIS week, it can be had at Blacks (web only) for $470 including the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd need this lens, anyway, with the D300.
So it looks like a no-brainer. Relative to the others it's practically free! Over the D300 it's a savings of about $1200 which can be put towards more esoteric glass, like a 12-24mm ultra-wide.
The only thing stopping me from putting in the order this minute is the thought that I'd eventually end up with the D300 anyway, so why not just get it over with and forget about the D40? The D40, though, is the light-as-a-feather-go-everywhere camera and that's important to me.
Maybe I need them both! :)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
I'm starving ...
Getting on the scale a week ago I was shocked and appalled to see it tipping past the point of no return! I'd only been this heavy once before but a cycling trip to the Maritimes took care of that. I lost 20 lbs before I left while training and then another 25 on the actual 2300 km ride. It helped that I was carrying all my equipment, even maple syrup in a glass bottle, for morning pancakes in the campground. The bike and kit weighed in at 100 pounds - 35 for the bike and 65 for the panniers and kit - and that turned it into an exercise machine for 6 hours each day as I plodded eastward from Nepean.
That was in 2002 and it's taken about five and a half years to get back up to this totally unacceptable weight. So I decided to do something about it. The first major change was to limit my visits to the pub to only once a week and to only have a drink with one other meal each week. I've done this in the past, sometimes for months on end, and I've noticed how easily I shed the pounds even when I'm not really dieting. The second, and only other, major change is to stop eating after 7:00 pm. It's too easy to snack on something after dinner and this one is as much mental as physical. Food after dinner, for me, is a panacea for all that happens (or doesn't) between 9 and 5.
The problem is that, even with breakfast, I'm starving by 10:00 and am very tempted to have half my lunch. That makes me short of calories at lunch and then I'm dying to get home to have something. Anything!
It doesn't help I walk by Zaks every morning ...
That was in 2002 and it's taken about five and a half years to get back up to this totally unacceptable weight. So I decided to do something about it. The first major change was to limit my visits to the pub to only once a week and to only have a drink with one other meal each week. I've done this in the past, sometimes for months on end, and I've noticed how easily I shed the pounds even when I'm not really dieting. The second, and only other, major change is to stop eating after 7:00 pm. It's too easy to snack on something after dinner and this one is as much mental as physical. Food after dinner, for me, is a panacea for all that happens (or doesn't) between 9 and 5.
The problem is that, even with breakfast, I'm starving by 10:00 and am very tempted to have half my lunch. That makes me short of calories at lunch and then I'm dying to get home to have something. Anything!
It doesn't help I walk by Zaks every morning ...
Monday, March 17, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Decisions, decisions, decisions
Since starting to post on this blog again, thanks to a week of R&R and looking for something to do, I've rekindled my on-again, off-again love affair with photography. I seem to rev up into a white heat of passion to make good photographs (evidenced by calling them that instead of pics or snapshots) and the feeling predominates my every conscious thought for days or weeks on end, nearly driving me out of my mind, until the pressure valve blows and I get back to normal.
And every time I rekindle that love affair, I tell myself, "Pete, this time you're going to take it easy, aren't you? You're going to just have fun. You're going to relax and enjoy what you're doing and NOT tell yourself you HAVE to accomplish something with this? Right?" Yes, I tell myself, I'll be good. But that old work ethic thing (my father's fault, I'm sure) creeps in and ruins everything.
Well not this time!
I'm getting to that age where I'm no longer concerned with such issues as being the best at everything I put a hand to. Maybe I'd like to just enjoy the thing for the thing itself. It's part of being past that mid-life crisis I mentioned earlier. There's no rule that says every thing you do has to have a purpose. In Zen they teach you to sit and do nothing for the nothing is something in itself. So my thoughts have turned back to photography and this time I'm just going to shoot for myself and just have fun with it.
But of course, I need a new camera!
And it's the deciding which one to chose that's causing me some grief. I have two point & shoot digicams but I think it's time to move up to a DSLR. I've been shooting Nikon for 27 years and during that time managed to also own Canon, Olympus and Minolta equipment. I've always liked Nikon and now I'm used to it. I think I read somewhere that Nikon equipment is retro-compatible to 1959, although DX (digital) lenses won't work on film cameras (the bayonet may work but the film coverage will cause vignetting at all f-stops) and I'm sure there are other proprietary quirks. But it doesn't matter.
It's really between Canon and Nikon and I think both are about equal. What one doesn't do, the other one will, and the former will do it next year anyway. But because I know it and like it, I'll go with the Nikon system.
The lens is the most important part of the package and the beauty of an SLR is you can have multiple lenses. However, I've discovered a newish Nikon zoom lens that has an incredible range, 18-200mm! A whopping 11.5x zoom range which eliminates all the other lenses (except maybe an ultrawide and/or super-tele, both of which are for specialists). It means you don't have to take time to change lenses so the picture won't get away, and it also means you'll get less dust inside with lens switches, too.
So what's the problem? In a word - weight.
The camera/lens combo with this lens comes in at 1150gm or a bit over 2.5lbs. Compared to a 6oz P&S that fits into your pocket and goes anywhere, that's huge. The big problem with SLRs is lugging them around. It's OK if you're out on a shooting day but on a day to day basis, extra weight will keeps the camera at home. It would be a shame to spend all that money and then be too lazy to lug it around. If I just went with the kit lens, which weighs less than half, I'd also end up with a much smaller zoom range, 18-55mm, and that might mean a longer zoom in the future and I'd be back up to carrying those 2.5lbs, but this time need a bag to carry the second lens.
It sounds like the 18-200mm would be the way to go if I eventually buy a longer zoom anyway. There is a price, though, for getting it now - $800, which is about $650 more than getting the kit lens on the body of my choice.
As for the body, I've narrowed it to either the D40 or the D80. Some articles I've read on the net this past week say the D40 is just a P&S with interchangeable lenses. Others extol the fact that, compared to other Nikon bodies, you're getting more than your money's worth. The D80 is an advanced amateur-type camera, more features than needed by a novice but with enough sophistication to be a nice backup for a pro.
The question I'm asking myself is how much sophistication do I need? The D40 and the kit 18-55mm lens are a very lightweight pair. But I've already got a P&S. Walking around with the same relative focal length on an SLR makes little sense. It's that very sophistication that separates the SLR from a point and shoot.
So, it's either the D40 or the D80 with either an 18-55mm or 18-200mm lens. That puts the price range between $540 and $1850.
I guess it all depends on how I intend to use the thing. I've paid a lot for photography items in the past. But I started this post by saying that THIS time I just wanted to have some fun. I think I'd have a lot more fun by only spending $600. But then, think of all I could do with the more expensive version ... :)
And every time I rekindle that love affair, I tell myself, "Pete, this time you're going to take it easy, aren't you? You're going to just have fun. You're going to relax and enjoy what you're doing and NOT tell yourself you HAVE to accomplish something with this? Right?" Yes, I tell myself, I'll be good. But that old work ethic thing (my father's fault, I'm sure) creeps in and ruins everything.
Well not this time!
I'm getting to that age where I'm no longer concerned with such issues as being the best at everything I put a hand to. Maybe I'd like to just enjoy the thing for the thing itself. It's part of being past that mid-life crisis I mentioned earlier. There's no rule that says every thing you do has to have a purpose. In Zen they teach you to sit and do nothing for the nothing is something in itself. So my thoughts have turned back to photography and this time I'm just going to shoot for myself and just have fun with it.
But of course, I need a new camera!
And it's the deciding which one to chose that's causing me some grief. I have two point & shoot digicams but I think it's time to move up to a DSLR. I've been shooting Nikon for 27 years and during that time managed to also own Canon, Olympus and Minolta equipment. I've always liked Nikon and now I'm used to it. I think I read somewhere that Nikon equipment is retro-compatible to 1959, although DX (digital) lenses won't work on film cameras (the bayonet may work but the film coverage will cause vignetting at all f-stops) and I'm sure there are other proprietary quirks. But it doesn't matter.
It's really between Canon and Nikon and I think both are about equal. What one doesn't do, the other one will, and the former will do it next year anyway. But because I know it and like it, I'll go with the Nikon system.
The lens is the most important part of the package and the beauty of an SLR is you can have multiple lenses. However, I've discovered a newish Nikon zoom lens that has an incredible range, 18-200mm! A whopping 11.5x zoom range which eliminates all the other lenses (except maybe an ultrawide and/or super-tele, both of which are for specialists). It means you don't have to take time to change lenses so the picture won't get away, and it also means you'll get less dust inside with lens switches, too.
So what's the problem? In a word - weight.
The camera/lens combo with this lens comes in at 1150gm or a bit over 2.5lbs. Compared to a 6oz P&S that fits into your pocket and goes anywhere, that's huge. The big problem with SLRs is lugging them around. It's OK if you're out on a shooting day but on a day to day basis, extra weight will keeps the camera at home. It would be a shame to spend all that money and then be too lazy to lug it around. If I just went with the kit lens, which weighs less than half, I'd also end up with a much smaller zoom range, 18-55mm, and that might mean a longer zoom in the future and I'd be back up to carrying those 2.5lbs, but this time need a bag to carry the second lens.
It sounds like the 18-200mm would be the way to go if I eventually buy a longer zoom anyway. There is a price, though, for getting it now - $800, which is about $650 more than getting the kit lens on the body of my choice.
As for the body, I've narrowed it to either the D40 or the D80. Some articles I've read on the net this past week say the D40 is just a P&S with interchangeable lenses. Others extol the fact that, compared to other Nikon bodies, you're getting more than your money's worth. The D80 is an advanced amateur-type camera, more features than needed by a novice but with enough sophistication to be a nice backup for a pro.
The question I'm asking myself is how much sophistication do I need? The D40 and the kit 18-55mm lens are a very lightweight pair. But I've already got a P&S. Walking around with the same relative focal length on an SLR makes little sense. It's that very sophistication that separates the SLR from a point and shoot.
So, it's either the D40 or the D80 with either an 18-55mm or 18-200mm lens. That puts the price range between $540 and $1850.
I guess it all depends on how I intend to use the thing. I've paid a lot for photography items in the past. But I started this post by saying that THIS time I just wanted to have some fun. I think I'd have a lot more fun by only spending $600. But then, think of all I could do with the more expensive version ... :)
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
How Aware are You?
Most of us think we have pretty good powers of concentration. Ask anyone how good a driver they are and they'll probably tell you they're excellent. Never even had a ticket!
Well, why not take the test and find out?
Pay attention now !
Well, why not take the test and find out?
Pay attention now !
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
This is NOT the Complaints Department!
Jule and I got into a bit of a tiff last night and after talking it out, we agreed the problem was that we both complain too much. We complain regularly about everyone and everything and when one of us is in a mood and bitching, then it brings the other one down and we both end up miserable. So we realized we were contributing to keeping each other in a negative mood.
We made an agreement that we would try to complain no longer. If someone or something irritated us, we'd just keep it to ourselves and soldier on, or if we had to seek relief in talking about it, we'd not complain in the normal sense, but instead diagnose the situation.
Well, that was last night and lying in bed afterwards I had an, "Ah-ha!". I realized that the act of complaining requires one to take a step backwards. Think about it. You have to actually change course, change direction, get off the path, to complain about something! You have to take time out from what you're doing to relive a little piece of the past. It's actually a waste-of-time consuming activity
I think it's unnatural to complain. The natural thing to do is just to go on with life and not let a 'snag' hold you up or distract you from what you're doing. You see it all the time with dogs. You're walking along with your trusty friend and meet another dog and walker and that dog totally ignores your dog. But your dog isn't phased by this snub (unlike you, had the dog walker done that to you!). She just carries on. No complaints. No hard feelings. Getting on with it, on to the next thing in her furry little life. But we learn to complain and the more we do it the worse it gets until it becomes chronic. We lose the path.
That was yesterday. This morning I was on my way to the Tim Horton's, walking through the Rideau Centre, and I suddenly noticed I was feeling good. Not just "not depressed". Not just OK. But genuinely good. Positive. Not euphoric, maybe, and it was definitely an internal thing. I realized it was because I was on the "path". By not complaining I had taken the focus off myself. I was out "there" and not thinking about me. It felt good.
All day I stayed the course. I had the chance to complain about things, but I managed not to. It was a good day.
We made an agreement that we would try to complain no longer. If someone or something irritated us, we'd just keep it to ourselves and soldier on, or if we had to seek relief in talking about it, we'd not complain in the normal sense, but instead diagnose the situation.
Well, that was last night and lying in bed afterwards I had an, "Ah-ha!". I realized that the act of complaining requires one to take a step backwards. Think about it. You have to actually change course, change direction, get off the path, to complain about something! You have to take time out from what you're doing to relive a little piece of the past. It's actually a waste-of-time consuming activity
I think it's unnatural to complain. The natural thing to do is just to go on with life and not let a 'snag' hold you up or distract you from what you're doing. You see it all the time with dogs. You're walking along with your trusty friend and meet another dog and walker and that dog totally ignores your dog. But your dog isn't phased by this snub (unlike you, had the dog walker done that to you!). She just carries on. No complaints. No hard feelings. Getting on with it, on to the next thing in her furry little life. But we learn to complain and the more we do it the worse it gets until it becomes chronic. We lose the path.
That was yesterday. This morning I was on my way to the Tim Horton's, walking through the Rideau Centre, and I suddenly noticed I was feeling good. Not just "not depressed". Not just OK. But genuinely good. Positive. Not euphoric, maybe, and it was definitely an internal thing. I realized it was because I was on the "path". By not complaining I had taken the focus off myself. I was out "there" and not thinking about me. It felt good.
All day I stayed the course. I had the chance to complain about things, but I managed not to. It was a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)