Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
New Logo
Also my watermark............ something I've been working on. I'd love it to make it a business card or something.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sue's pre-Birthday Bash
Here are a couple of images from last night, my Aunt Sheron and Grandmother Mary Jones.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Fall
I think it's busy. But I was experimenting with the artistic filters. This uses the watercolor filter, which I think looks nice despite the image being busy. Shot on my cell phone camera, no less. Awesome.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Our Fathers
These are statues on the tomb of Pope Pius VIII, in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, Pius VIII in the lower center beneath an enthroned Christ, and flanked by Saints' Peter and Paul. The original image was taken by a friend of mine, Andrew Fuehrer, who recently returned from a trip to Italy. He was kind enough to allow me to manipulate the image into it's final version, shown here. Manipulation done in photoshop CS3 using texture and layer adjustments to tone and levels along with selective leveling to individual areas of intense highlight clipping in an attempt to preserve detail. I had just enough resolution to pull it off, and I'm happy with the result. I hope you like it. The lower res version is posted here, I have the full res, 5 meg file available for prints.Peace,
Joe
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Hulk
Darren, in his Hulk costume at the Borders Halloween storytelling "whateveryoucallit". He was SUPER bored - and so were we. Maybe we'll have better luck with other Halloween themed activities around town.The costume is kick ass!
My future as a photographer, and other random blatherings...
If anyone is interested in contributing to my future as a budding photographer, feel free to help a dude out and buy me this camera: Sony DSLR-a900, full frame 24.1 mp w/ the Sony-Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar T* zoom lens. The camera and lens retail for just under $5,000. So you understand why I shall count on the kindness of just about anyone at this point.
Sweet, ain't it? I must have one!
All jokes aside, it's an awesome camera - truly. The fact that I think this camera is so awesome and the fact that I will likely never have one has had me thinking quite deeply lately. It has me thinking about our economy, mostly. And about how much money the various industries make us pay for, or to do the simplest things. If you wanted to drive down the street to the local Starbucks, to work, or to the grocery store, just jump into your 30 thousand dollar car after spending 50 to fill up the tank. Is it me, or are we just spending WAY more money than we've actually got? And you know what, that's what got us into this mess, isn't it? Things cost so much that people have to borrow at high interest just to buy most of them. Why the hell does a nice camera have to cost 3 grand (and that's by itself - NO LENS)? Sure, one can take a picture with virtually any camera, but c'mon. This IS a photography blog - and I AM a photographer.
The real tradgedy is that in two years (or less) that $3000 camera will be made virtually obsolete by its replacement, according to Moore's Law - Technology will advance itself exponentially, at a rate of double every 18-24 months. Gordon E. Moore, co-founder of Intel, made this observation in 1965, at the dawn of the integrated circuit. He was talking about transistors, specifically. But since he made his observation, it has literally applied to every aspect of digital technology since. And after about 1974, the term "Moore's Law" was coined, which is usually applied to anything that changes exponentially.
This has a very basic, if not general application to photography these days. Ever since the digital camera became cheap enough for nearly everyone to have the ability to own one, the technology involved has just skyrocketed, and continues to evolve at an exponential rate (there's that word again, you may end up seeing it here again a few more times), yet the price hasn't yet seemed to equalize as was the case with most other electronics technologies, like the VCR or the DVD player. Nope, digital camera technology seems to be getting MORE expensive as time goes by. This year, it has been all about the pixels. Every single camera manufacturer has sought to discover just how many pixels they can jam onto an image sensor. Next year, it may very well be what has been dubbed "black silicon", as is being developed by a Harvard University subsitiery, SIOnyx - which is basically sulfer dopped silicon that is literally black in color that is supposed to absorb more light - which means if a sensor can absorb more light, it can produce higher quality images with less noise. It's a tryly amazing breakthrough, if they can make it work. So far, the major drawback with modern digital cameras is signal to noise being proportionate to the physical size of each photosite, or pixel on an image sensor - this is sometimes known as "pixel pitch".
Compact digital cameras usually suck in anything but generous, bright sunlight because the sensors are literally 1-1/8 centimeter square in size, meaning the more pixels on a sensor of that size, the smaller each pixel is. The smaller the pixels, the less sensitive they are to light. So to compensate, the image processor drives up the signal gain, which increases the number of dead pixels, which increases noise - producing almost zero dynamic range with a very linear response to the light it captures. This is bad for the pictures you take, but good for the manufacturers who tricked all of you into thinking 14 mp on such a camera was the latest and greatest in digital camera technology. Sure the image is huge, but the problem is it'll likely look like crap if you find yourself in a place where there exists a contrast between shadows and highlights, or areas of light AND dark. This will drive the metering system of the camera NUTS. The result is not what you paid $300 for. For anyone reading this, the best compact cameras aren't even being made anymore because megapixels sell cameras, and not good technology. On a camera with a sensor that size, 5 mp is sufficient. I wish they would advance image processing and improve noise at high ISO using larger pixels - perhaps the cameras would produce better pictures. No average soccer mom prints 20x30". 5-6 mp is sufficient for a good 8x10" print. That SUPER for consumer level cameras.
But, it doesn't get much better for the more advanced crowd, such as myself. Really, the best way to make great digital images is with big FAT image sensors. So the step up from the 1-1/8 sensor is the APS-C, or DX sensor - which is roughly 17 x 24mm in size, or about twelve times the size of a compact camera's 1-1/8 sensor. Size it seems, really does matter. The camera I shoot with is the Nikon D80, a very capable camera. It produces a 10 mp image, which can produce a 20 x 30" print if I were so inclined to print that size, and I chose the right settings, used the right lens, and software. But, advances are being made, in the wrong direction. Still, pro-sumer and advanced amateur level cameras to even the pro cameras are still entrenched in the megapixel wars. The aforementioned Sony is no better. I mean honestly, what would I do with 24 mp? I remember when I couldn't even image 8 back in 1999. My wish for Sony, Nikon, Canon, and others is to please, PLEASE, for God sake make a camera that can make good images and not put is in dept for the next 16 years (the average time it takes to pay off a 16% interest bearing credit card charged to $1000, paying the minimum balance).
Let's face it, things cost so much money these days, and our paychecks aren't getting any bigger. I had to realize that it's not all about the camera after I had mulled through my thoughts the past couple of months. And I guess like most amateur photographers, this happens about twice a year or so, coinsiding with PMA in the spring, and Photokina in the fall. After drooling over the latest and greatest that I can't begin to afford, I realize that a new dishwasher is more important and that my nikon D80 has the ability to capture some amazing images, with of course my help. So unless someone miraculously donates a Sony a900 and lens to my future as a budding amateur photographer with dreams of going places, my D80 shall have to do. And it's doing just fine so far.
As for my future as a photographer. I am SO an amateur, with no delusions of grandeur. I have a nice camera, and I take nice pictures with it. As for style, I have none. Or so the makers of "What not to Wear" would say. But that's neither here nor there. My photographic style is as yet, undiscovered. If you look at the work I post in this blog, it is quite random. So my style is simply defined as whatever I see that I'd like to capture. My dream is to one day be able to quit my day job and travel the world, documenting everything I see that is beautiful with my camera. I'd also love to have my own studio one day. So, for now, my future is as an amateur. No shame in that. But I do dream.
More of my work to come......
Peace
Sweet, ain't it? I must have one!
All jokes aside, it's an awesome camera - truly. The fact that I think this camera is so awesome and the fact that I will likely never have one has had me thinking quite deeply lately. It has me thinking about our economy, mostly. And about how much money the various industries make us pay for, or to do the simplest things. If you wanted to drive down the street to the local Starbucks, to work, or to the grocery store, just jump into your 30 thousand dollar car after spending 50 to fill up the tank. Is it me, or are we just spending WAY more money than we've actually got? And you know what, that's what got us into this mess, isn't it? Things cost so much that people have to borrow at high interest just to buy most of them. Why the hell does a nice camera have to cost 3 grand (and that's by itself - NO LENS)? Sure, one can take a picture with virtually any camera, but c'mon. This IS a photography blog - and I AM a photographer.
The real tradgedy is that in two years (or less) that $3000 camera will be made virtually obsolete by its replacement, according to Moore's Law - Technology will advance itself exponentially, at a rate of double every 18-24 months. Gordon E. Moore, co-founder of Intel, made this observation in 1965, at the dawn of the integrated circuit. He was talking about transistors, specifically. But since he made his observation, it has literally applied to every aspect of digital technology since. And after about 1974, the term "Moore's Law" was coined, which is usually applied to anything that changes exponentially.
This has a very basic, if not general application to photography these days. Ever since the digital camera became cheap enough for nearly everyone to have the ability to own one, the technology involved has just skyrocketed, and continues to evolve at an exponential rate (there's that word again, you may end up seeing it here again a few more times), yet the price hasn't yet seemed to equalize as was the case with most other electronics technologies, like the VCR or the DVD player. Nope, digital camera technology seems to be getting MORE expensive as time goes by. This year, it has been all about the pixels. Every single camera manufacturer has sought to discover just how many pixels they can jam onto an image sensor. Next year, it may very well be what has been dubbed "black silicon", as is being developed by a Harvard University subsitiery, SIOnyx - which is basically sulfer dopped silicon that is literally black in color that is supposed to absorb more light - which means if a sensor can absorb more light, it can produce higher quality images with less noise. It's a tryly amazing breakthrough, if they can make it work. So far, the major drawback with modern digital cameras is signal to noise being proportionate to the physical size of each photosite, or pixel on an image sensor - this is sometimes known as "pixel pitch".
Compact digital cameras usually suck in anything but generous, bright sunlight because the sensors are literally 1-1/8 centimeter square in size, meaning the more pixels on a sensor of that size, the smaller each pixel is. The smaller the pixels, the less sensitive they are to light. So to compensate, the image processor drives up the signal gain, which increases the number of dead pixels, which increases noise - producing almost zero dynamic range with a very linear response to the light it captures. This is bad for the pictures you take, but good for the manufacturers who tricked all of you into thinking 14 mp on such a camera was the latest and greatest in digital camera technology. Sure the image is huge, but the problem is it'll likely look like crap if you find yourself in a place where there exists a contrast between shadows and highlights, or areas of light AND dark. This will drive the metering system of the camera NUTS. The result is not what you paid $300 for. For anyone reading this, the best compact cameras aren't even being made anymore because megapixels sell cameras, and not good technology. On a camera with a sensor that size, 5 mp is sufficient. I wish they would advance image processing and improve noise at high ISO using larger pixels - perhaps the cameras would produce better pictures. No average soccer mom prints 20x30". 5-6 mp is sufficient for a good 8x10" print. That SUPER for consumer level cameras.
But, it doesn't get much better for the more advanced crowd, such as myself. Really, the best way to make great digital images is with big FAT image sensors. So the step up from the 1-1/8 sensor is the APS-C, or DX sensor - which is roughly 17 x 24mm in size, or about twelve times the size of a compact camera's 1-1/8 sensor. Size it seems, really does matter. The camera I shoot with is the Nikon D80, a very capable camera. It produces a 10 mp image, which can produce a 20 x 30" print if I were so inclined to print that size, and I chose the right settings, used the right lens, and software. But, advances are being made, in the wrong direction. Still, pro-sumer and advanced amateur level cameras to even the pro cameras are still entrenched in the megapixel wars. The aforementioned Sony is no better. I mean honestly, what would I do with 24 mp? I remember when I couldn't even image 8 back in 1999. My wish for Sony, Nikon, Canon, and others is to please, PLEASE, for God sake make a camera that can make good images and not put is in dept for the next 16 years (the average time it takes to pay off a 16% interest bearing credit card charged to $1000, paying the minimum balance).
Let's face it, things cost so much money these days, and our paychecks aren't getting any bigger. I had to realize that it's not all about the camera after I had mulled through my thoughts the past couple of months. And I guess like most amateur photographers, this happens about twice a year or so, coinsiding with PMA in the spring, and Photokina in the fall. After drooling over the latest and greatest that I can't begin to afford, I realize that a new dishwasher is more important and that my nikon D80 has the ability to capture some amazing images, with of course my help. So unless someone miraculously donates a Sony a900 and lens to my future as a budding amateur photographer with dreams of going places, my D80 shall have to do. And it's doing just fine so far.
As for my future as a photographer. I am SO an amateur, with no delusions of grandeur. I have a nice camera, and I take nice pictures with it. As for style, I have none. Or so the makers of "What not to Wear" would say. But that's neither here nor there. My photographic style is as yet, undiscovered. If you look at the work I post in this blog, it is quite random. So my style is simply defined as whatever I see that I'd like to capture. My dream is to one day be able to quit my day job and travel the world, documenting everything I see that is beautiful with my camera. I'd also love to have my own studio one day. So, for now, my future is as an amateur. No shame in that. But I do dream.
More of my work to come......
Peace
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
A few shots from the airshow
I haven't been to an airshow since my Navy days - brings back memories. Darren was freaked out by the jets, I think they were to loud for him. He loved the propjobs though. Good times.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Artsy
So, this is my first large scale, fully layered and textured manipulation to date. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the final image, and the knowledge gained by simply learning about textures from an internet photoshop tutorial and figuring out how to implement what I learn to specific applications.
And, viola..... (real "art")
teehee....
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
New
This is the Bank of America building, downtown Atlanta. My favorite skyscraper here. I can't remember if I even uploaded this image to this blog. It's on dA and flickr. Revisited again. Blending change, soft and sharp with more contrast and some other good stuff.
Another of this revisiting I've been doing lately. I'm learning more about how to simultaneously sharpen and soften an image and give it more pop and contrast using the soft light blending mode.
I love the sky in this one.
I like this one better than the last of the same, Querida de la Vendimia. It's sharper, more contrasty, and a bit softer thanks to a gaussian blur and soft light blending mode. Still, out of all the images of Querida I have taken, this one is my favorite.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
xpro train
A very popular practice for the last 30 years or so was, and still is a photographic process known as crossing, or xpro. Crossing is the process by which a roll of slide film is shot with a slight pull, then developed using C41 chemistry. The positive film is processed as negative, producing images with pastel-like, sometimes unnatural, grainy, and contrasty results. The same effects can be achieved when reversing the aforementioned process shooting a roll of C41, altering the exposure with a push or pull, then developing in E6, or slide chemistry. The process is highly unpredictable, requires a measure of practice, and depends on the specific brand and speed of film to be used. It's pretty fun, actually. But this showcase is one of alternative. This image was taken by my DSLR, and crossed using photoshop with a green/yellow tendency. I prefer the green/yellow tendency over red, it lends to a more surreal mood. My mastery of photoshop is improving. I'll be adding some more of this type.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
New stuff
It's amazing what you find, buried in the hard drive, when you're looking for work.....Sanibel, Florida, July 2007. Shell beach Ibis.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
