September 8, 2011 by Gail
photo by Q
photo by Q
I can’t call myself a dog wrangler, but I have to say, I’ve really been getting into the dog photos lately. To wit:
Kinga + Dustin + Eddie
Nicola + Krys + Kismet
Natalia + Jan + Buddy
Virginia + Brent + Cody
My photos of the Boston Terrier, posted previously on August 25.
Category Critters + Creatures, Gail at Large, Other Photogs, Photography | Tags: | 1 Comment
January 22, 2011 by Gail
In case you’re not one of the 1,012,138 who have seen this video. It’s a reminder to get out the analogue cameras (Chinon CE-4, Pentax K1000) and shoot some film.
Category Other Photogs, Videoclips | Tags: | No Comments
January 17, 2011 by Gail
I stumbled upon some ancient low-res scans of places I lived in 1999, and thought I’d post a few for posterity. When I think about it, I’d had a rather complicated life back then, living in one place during the week on the Sunshine Coast and my beach apartment on the weekend in Vancouver. For nine months I kept up this nutty lifestyle of shuttling back and forth between various places until I bought my first computer and began telecommuting in 2000. Now it’s a fairly common practice for companies to let their employees work this way but back then I only knew of one other telecommuter.
For the first month I dog-sat two raucous Irish setters who barked incessantly and drove the neighbours mental while their owners were in England. During my lunch break I’d have to race down to the house to walk them and sometimes I’d have to chase them in the woods to get them to come back. They never listened to me! It was a tough gig, the dogsitting. I was also quite isolated and my mobile phone had spotty reception and mostly no reception at all. I missed seeing my friends in Vancouver whenever I wanted and it bugged me that I couldn’t call them except from the house landline. With all the free time I suddenly had, I spent it at the gym — that’s about the last time I was a dedicated gym rat.
On the upside, the house was new and spacious (I had the whole lower floor to myself) and there was a great beach below the house. I spent a lot of time down there with the dogs:
One day I happened to have my camera with me and encountered the biggest jellyfish washed up on shore that I’d ever seen. This thing was so enormous I preferred to believe it was an alien life form that hurtled to earth and went SPLAT. You can see a dog paw print for scale.
I also lived in another house after this one, but I’ll save that for another day when I’ve got more time… I’ll leave you with a picture of me taken by my friend Marc on a camping trip less than a year before these pics. That was one of the best camping trips ever… and now looking at these old film scans I’m really missing the scenery of BC!
Category Ancient History, Chez Gail (Vancouver), film photography, Gail at Large, Other Photogs | Tags: | 1 Comment
September 9, 2010 by Gail
One of my favourite photos from the weekend in Maine is this one, because of everything in the picture and what it represents: childhood, playtime, being carefree, the vibrant colours of green grass and a clear blue sky (hurricane? what hurricane?), combined with the simple act of flying a kite. Terrific!
And here’s a rare one of me, taken by Eric with his camera, which I pilfered because I really like it: with two of my cameras (one digital, one film), balancing on the rocks by a lighthouse. It’s very me!
Category Gail at Large, Other Photogs, USA | Tags: | 5 Comments
July 5, 2010 by Gail
Light Painting under the Stars by red-gecko-productions
Haven’t uploaded any of the cottage photos from my DSLR yet (everything thus far have been emailed from my mobile phone), but here’s a preview from Jan’s camera of what we were doing late at night: light painting!
Check out more of Jan’s light painting photos here.
Jan’s timelapse:
Category cameraphone, Other Photogs, Videoclips | Tags: | No Comments
May 26, 2010 by Gail
Last weekend we were chasing an enormous ant around so my friend Jan could take some reverse-lens macro shots. Also referred to as “the poor man’s macro”, this DIY method allows you to get very close to the subject by simply turning your existing lens(es) around. There are various tutorials written on the web for it, check one out here.
As you can see in this photo, Jan’s combined two telephoto lenses to get close. But as you can imagine, you need a LOT of light to get through these lens barrels, even outdoors in bright sunlight.
Jan’s got a set of these reverse-lens macro shots in Flickr, check them out here. He’s also written about it here.
Category Linkage, Other Photogs, Photography | Tags: | 2 Comments
May 18, 2010 by Gail
Photographers generally don’t like being photographed, unless we do it ourselves. Here’s me looking a little slack-jawed at my mother’s wedding on May 9 in Vancouver, mercifully out-of-focus. Thanks, Allan. Here’s me in action, at the far right.
Fast forward exactly one week. Yikes, this is me on HD camera and totally unprepared for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UQp1ujHKyc
I volunteered at The Brides’ Project last Sunday and Helen gave me the heads up about a media interview but it totally went in one ear and out the other. I also had a short-notice brunch that morning, so my cleanup routine did forgo shampoo and my hair revolted as a consequence. Straight from brunch to volunteering, then interview. Ahhhh! But the subject material is very personal to me, so I’m putting aside the vanity (oh dear) in favour of meaning.
Oh, and I’m going to start my sponsorship campaign for Relay For Life now, because it’s only a few weeks away! Friday, June 11. Here’s my sponsorship page. My goal is currently $300 but if I get close to it before the day I’m bumping it up. I’m going to send an email around to give people a nudge, too!
Category Gail at Large, Other Photogs, Volunteering/Charity | Tags: | 1 Comment
March 16, 2010 by Gail
Another one of the shots from the lakeshore photowalk on Feb 21 that included the Irish Famine Memorial. St. Patty’s day is actually tomorrow, but there was a parade last Sunday, which I missed — again! Argh!
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about St. Patrick’s Day in Canada:
The longest-running Saint Patrick’s Day parade in Canada occurs each year in Montreal, the flag of which has a shamrock in one of its corners. The parades have been held in continuity since 1824.
In the City of Toronto from 1919 to 1927, the Toronto Maple Leafs were known as the Toronto St. Patricks, wore green jerseys. In 1999 when the Leafs played on Hockey Night in Canada (national broadcast of the NHL) on Saint Patrick’s Day, the Leafs wore the green St. Pats retro jersey. There is a large parade in the city’s downtown core that attracts over 100,000 spectators.
Although the baseball season is still in the spring training phase when Saint Patrick’s Day rolls around, the Toronto Blue Jays wear green uniforms for the occasion.[citation needed] The Toronto Raptors professional basketball team also wears a green alternate uniform to celebrate the holiday.
Some groups, notably Guinness, have lobbied to make Saint Patrick’s Day a federal (national) holiday.
In March 2009, the Calgary Tower had changed its top exterior lights to new green-coloured CFL bulbs just in time for Saint Patrick’s Day. The lights were in fact part of the environmental non-profit organization, Project Porchlight, and were Green to represent environmental concerns. Approximately 210 lights were changed in time for Saint Patrick’s Day and almost resemble a Leprechaun’s hat during the evening light. After a week, regular white CFLs took their place, saving the Calgary Tower around $12,000 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 104 metric tonnes in the process.
Anyhow, you can check out everybody else‘s St. Patrick’s Day 2010 parade photos that made Flickr’s Explore page here as thumbnails, or a slideshow.
Category Linkage, Other Photogs | Tags: | No Comments
January 20, 2010 by Gail
When people talk to me about buying a digital camera, there’s one point I stress more than anything else:
Do not let the number of MPs (megapixels) convince you that the camera is better.
Sales people will try and impress you with numbers because most people don’t know what those numbers mean. I’m convinced that many sales people don’t know what those numbers mean, either, but since the MPs are stamped right there on the camera, they will try and tell you more is better in the hopes that you’ll believe them. Don’t believe them!
Here’s a pretty good article that showed up in my Twitter stream that explains why the megapixel count is more than a marketing ploy, it is a scam:
The Great Megapixel Swindle: An Example:
http://petavoxel.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/mp-swindle-example/
Let me give you my own example, comparing two cameras, one with a low megapixel count and one with a high megapixel count. (As you can see by the side-by-sides above, the cameras have slightly different aspect ratios, but it won’t affect the argument, which is megapixels overall.)
This was shot in Iceland with the Pentax K100D, my first DSLR, which I sold last spring (reluctantly, because I loved that camera — the straight-out-of-the-camera JPEGs were great). It is an entry-level 6.1MP DSLR, with a maximum resolution size of 3008×2000 pixels. It was a sunny day, the ISO was relatively low (200), and the focus was for the entire landscape (infinity) so everything should be in focus. Click on the picture to view it at full resolution in a new window.
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 33 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Image Width: 3000
Image Height: 2000
Now, here’s a photo taken by my brother, Allan, in Vancouver with his Canon G10, which is a point-and-shoot with a whopping 14.7 MPs. It wasn’t shot at max resolution (4416×3312 pixels) — which is another beef about marketing, and I’ll get to that in a bit — but the important point is that it was shot at a resolution GREATER than the 1st photo, specifically 3753×2814, or 17.55% bigger. Ignore the colours and contrast, just look at the sharpness and detail. Click on the pic to view it large in a new window.
Note that the ISO (or film speed) is 80, which means the sensitivity is lower and therefore the noise level should be lower than the Iceland shot, for which an ISO of 200 was used. In basic terms, the Iceland shot should theoretically be grainier, or “noisier”, than the Vancouver shot. The Vancouver photo was taken at half the shutter speed of the Iceland photo, but 1/500 is still fast and there should be no shake.
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/4.5
Focal Length: 30.5 mm
ISO Speed: 80
Image Width: 3753
Image Height: 2814
I’ve sliced away some parts of both photos to do another side-by-side at 100% (Iceland left, Vancouver right):
See the difference? Which do you find grainier? The Vancouver photo on the right side was shot by the 14.7MP Canon G10, which is more than double the MPs of the Pentax K100D at 6.1MPs on the left side. Now, part of the difference in quality is the lens glass. I am fairly certain that I took the Iceland photo with my Pentax kit lens, the 18-55mm, and a kit lens is the lowliest of all lenses in a brand line. Kit lenses aren’t always terrible, but it’s comparable in quality to the stock stereo you get with your car — for the average person it’s bearable, but people who enjoy music are going to replace it, anyway. On a camera, a kit lens is soon to be replaced, too.
The major factor in the difference is the sensor. If you were to go and read the sensor specs for both cameras, this is what you’ll find:
Canon G10: 1/1.7-inch type Charge Coupled Device (CCD), which is 7.17 mm x 5.31 mm
Pentax K100D: 23.5mm x 15.7mm CCD sensor
Now here is where size does matter! As you can see, the Pentax K100D has a much bigger sensor than the Canon G10 — around 3x bigger. DSLR lenses are bigger because their chip sensors are bigger. It is the one of the reasons why point-and-shoot cameras are more compact, even with a zoom, because it requires less glass to bring light to that little sensor. When companies try and cram more pixels into a small sensor, it actually reduces the quality of the photo.
This article by digitalcamerainfo.com puts it this way:
Fitting more megapixels in the same small amount of physical space means that all the receptor sites on the sensor must be smaller, which means that each site has less light hitting it. Less light per pixel means images that are less clear and sharp.
However, between two different manufacturers making CCDs that are the same size, there’s no way to know which produces better-quality photos using spec numbers because they use different computations when capturing and processing pixels. At that point it is a qualitative difference rather than quantitative. The only way to compare is to compare their photos, and that’s where personal preferences come in. But if you compare any DSLR to any point-and-shoot, the DSLR will always come out on top when the photos are displayed larger — because of the sensor, and because of the glass.
What’s that beef you were talking about?
I mentioned that Allan didn’t take that Vancouver shot at full resolution, which is what I was hoping for in my example. Actually, I couldn’t find any Canon G10 photos in his Flickr collection taken at full resolution. This is actually very common, and most people don’t think about it when they buy a point-and-shoot: if megapixels are such a good thing, why don’t people take advantage of them?
For one thing, the file sizes are way too large. My Nikon D300 is a 12.3MP camera, and the largest photo I can make is 4288×2848 pixels with a JPEG-format file size of around 4-8MBs (depending on what I’m shooting) and that’s plenty. (My RAW files are much bigger, at 9-12MBs.) Why would a point-and-shoot, with a sensor roughly a third of the size, need more pixels than a DSLR if it can only capture a third of the detail? Because it’s a gimmick! You’d never email a full-size snapshot around, and it’s far too big for a web page, Facebook, or any social media site. That size is really useless unless you’re considering enlarging it to hang over your fireplace.
Which brings me to my next point: you’d never want to enlarge a point-and-shoot snapshot, anyway, because even at the size I showed you, which is probably at least 75% of its resolution capacity, it has purple fringing and artifacts. You can barely make out the trees on the mountains. The level of detail is less than ideal; the cost of enlargement would not be worthwhile. The shot itself is good, the colours are set to vivid (that can be toned down in Photoshop), but the detail can’t be increased because Canon’s sensor is too small. It’s about pixel quality, not quantity.
But what about the price?
When you take away the bulk of the DSLR, there’s usually a gripe about the price versus a compact camera. It’s true, they can be pricey, but if you’re an amateur or a beginner, the prices of entry-level DSLRs are actually lower than the higher-end compact cameras. Using the same cameras in my example, I bought my Pentax K100D in May 2007 for about US$500, including the Pentax SMC-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. The Canon G10′s suggested retail price today is US$500. Which means that if you scout for a used Pentax K100D on Craigslist right now, you could probably get one with the kit lens for about half of what the Canon G10 costs currently, and make better-quality photos for much cheaper.
I try and tell people that for the cost of the new compact cameras, they could invest in an entry-level DSLR and even get a lens, but I think people are reluctant to learn how to use a DSLR. I would be willing to teach ANYBODY how to use their DSLR, if that would convince them to make the move.
It’s not that I dislike compact cameras or even Canon, not at all. In fact I owned Canon compact digitals for five years (2002-2007) before I bought my first DSLR, which was a Pentax. I still recommend Pentax for its value, especially for entry-level users. My current DSLR is a Nikon. (As you can see, I’m not particularly brand loyal. There is no need to be except that switching an entire system is expensive due to the lenses and bodies being incompatible between brands; each brand has strengths and weakness across all their lines.)
I learned composition on compacts, which is an important skill regardless of equipment. I still shoot with compacts on occasion, for video and some snapshots. I think it’s very possible to take decent photos with point-and-shoots if the settings are used properly (and displayed small so their flaws don’t show), and I have actually sold photos taken by compacts. But the newer point-and-shoot models mystify most people because they have a lot of bells and whistles. Nobody likes to read the manual (I generally don’t, either, I only use them as reference tools but usually I go online), but the manuals are written by technical writers and they don’t tell you how to take a good photo, they only tell you about settings and specs.
I think this is the longest post I’ve ever written on the subject of photography, but I wanted to take the time to write it out because photographic equipment at the average consumer level is rife with confusion and misleading information. People are bombarded with features that they don’t understand. At a professional level, sales people have less sway with buyers because pros have the technical knowledge and a more watchful eye on the industry. Professionals are pickier about their equipment and view it as a business investment. However, the consumer market is big money and companies like Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Pentax, Casio, Kodak, Konica, and all the rest sell point-and-shoots every day to people who don’t know what to look for in a camera. If you want to compare them, I suggest the side-by-side comparison table feature over at DPReview.com’s buying guide section. There are also comprehensive reviews if you want to go more in-depth, and summary-length versions of the reviews if you just want to get their rating.
My recommendation is to do all your research before you walk into the camera store, then try out a few cameras that are your top picks to see how they feel in your hands, if the controls are in logical places, and if the way you would use it requires digging around in menus versus the settings at your fingertips. Better yet: borrow them from friends or let your friends show you their cameras. It’s also a good idea to read some reviews and ratings, but ultimately, you should look at the photos you already take — portraits? low light? action? landscapes? — and base your search criteria on the style of your shooting rather than gimmicky things like megapixels and dozens of “modes” (eg. snow mode, beach mode, museum mode). Hmmm… I’m getting into another topic (buying), so I’d better stop here.
And if I’ve confused you even more, I take full responsibility and welcome any questions to clear it up!
Category Consumer, Fave, Other Photogs, Photography, Unabashed Geekiness | Tags: | 7 Comments
December 31, 2009 by Gail
via the Flickr Blog
I had to do some cat wrangling to try and get photos of both cats this evening, as you can see! Maybe next year I’ll try and get all of us in one photo. The House of Fielding wishes you a safe, healthy, and prosperous 2010!
Last video for 2009: Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings performing “100 Days 100 Nights”. I was listening to an interview with Michael Buble this evening and he was saying what a trip Sharon Jones is to work with in the studio (she used to be a prison guard at Riker’s Island!).
Category Critters + Creatures, Music, Other Photogs, Videoclips, Xena & Beano | Tags: | No Comments
Copyright © 2012 Gail Edwin-Fielding