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!

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:

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.

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!

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.

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 file size of around 4-8MBs (depending on what I’m shooting) and that’s plenty. 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!

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!).

The Anti-Santa, as it were. The monochrome Santa isn’t a Photoshop trick, she’s actually dressed like this with face paint. If you look closely at her neck, you can see where some rubbed off.

Heard of Santarchy? Or Santacon? There have been scores of Santa Mobs around the Christmas-loving world, even here in Toronto. This was shot in San Francisco, where people love getting dressed up in costumes or running naked, whether there’s an event or not.

Music for today: 1984′s Band-Aid singing “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” — can you believe it’s been 25 years since this song was made?!? Between the USA (USA For Africa/”We Are The World”), Canada (Northern Lights/”Tears Are Not Enough”), and the UK’s efforts in the category of cheesy-and-awkward celebrity musicians video to benefit victims of the Ethiopia famine, my favourite was Band Aid due to my longstanding British New Wave junkie phase. I must’ve watched that video at least a hundred times just to fawn over the members of Duran Duran.

It’s definitely not the 80′s anymore. I noticed a few things I wouldn’t have thought of at age 12:

• Phil Collins looks like he wants to turn a hair to the left and beat the videocamera guys with his drumstick, but he’s holding back.
• Look at how large everyone’s hair is! Magnificent in the coiffed messiness, except for Sting, who looks like he just got out of bed.
• Paul Young has a smooth voice, and it’s very distinct. Where has he been since 1985??? Just checked. He could really use a better website…
• Boy George’s eyebrows put mine to shame. Total shame. And he needs to hand over the tweezers to George Michael.
• I cringe now when the camera turns to Sting as everyone sings “… bitter STING of tears…” — he’s probably cringing, too.
• All the girls at school dressed just like Bananarama. One of them is smoking AND singing.
• The group looks so sheepish, like they’re a reluctant school choir (complete with getting caught for chatter!). “My publicist is making me do this.”
• The production value of this video was the equivalent of a round of pints at the pub. And we’re not talking rock star pints, either.

This is not only a great picture, but an even more remarkable story which takes place in Bangladesh. Click on the pic to read Naser‘s commentary. He also has a blog that features his photography, which is both technical and enthographic in nature and right up my alley. Check it out!

Music for today: a clip of driving in Dhaka, Bangladesh (where the photo was taken) with music

A wonderful photo taken by one of my longtime favourite Flickr photographers, a 70+ year old lady named Julie (her Flickr URL is ‘joyoflife’), who also keeps a blog in French. Between the inspiration I find in Julie and Claude (who recently returned from India!), I am looking forward to growing older.

Julie’s photo description:

Enchanting happyness of that white haired pair to be together, I was so happy to look at them.

At first I did not even dare to ask, than, I took only their hands, and finally I dared to ask even if I could take them: they were happy to be taken. What a memory! Their happiness fills even today my heart with joy.

Click on the photo to see comments in Flickr.