Amazing Human Body
We saw a performance by Traces at the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry last night. An acrobatic dance show described on their site thus:
TRACES combines high-level circus skills with an electric urban street energy. With disciplines as varied as Chinese poles, basketball, skateboards, classical piano, dance, comedy and illustration, these five acrobats move quickly from one skill to the next, interpreting each in surprising and innovative ways.
It was breathtaking. I really like modern dance, especially street forms, but circus level performance with strong dance choreography in a well thought out setting is a truly uplifting experience. What well trained, athletic, talented people can do with their bodies at times defies our common experience of physics and is a joy to behold. There is a promotional video on the site well worth seeing (although probably best not to if you are already looking to go see them, so you get everything as a surprise).
We see a lot of performances at the Belgrade because it is not so far from the base office I am attached to for my employer although I very rarely visit there as I am usually working on client sites. It is also a good hour or so from home. I am though a member of the theatre club associated with the office which brings to my attention a wide variety of theatre productions usually at discounted prices. As Stratford is not so far away, this includes many performances by the RSC at the The Courtyard Theatre (we got to see the now famous performance of Hamlet by David Tennant at a preview show, for example).
There is another reason for liking the theatre: there is a rather good Indian restaurant a short walk from their called Tumeric Gold which is deservedly award winning and offers an atypical menu. There also use less oil than most such places and offer healthy options. The atmosphere is also rather special not least for being based in a four hundred year old building in the heart of medieval Coventry. Fortunately, we got to Coventry in plenty of time to have an extremely nice meal at a relaxed pace.
The trip home was not fun as several slip roads onto the local motorways were closed, and even when we finally managed to get onto the M6, we found it completely closed a couple of junctions before the the exit we needed so we ended up taking a detour through Wednesbury and Wolverhampton, cutting around the traffic diverted from the M6.
Posted in Arts & Entertainment, Eating out.
– 6 March 2010
Mortal
A few Fridays ago, I was sat in the coffee bar at Stafford railway station waiting for a train to London. A rarity these days as I am mostly working in Swansea and normally work from home on Fridays. My work phone rang but I failed to retrieve it from the depths of the correct pocket in time. A short while later I got the voice mail beep and was able to listen to a message from a friend telling me to call him back urgently. Worrying. I only spoke to my friend every few months or so and we tried to get together at least once a year.
The message said he had sent me an email, so I checked my personal email and Facebook on my iPhone whilst calling him back on my work phone. Looked like he had sent email to work which I could not get at from the station. My friend, P, told me that another friend, R, had been found dead in his hotel room in Edinburgh. Whilst I was talking with P, I received a message on Facebook from R’s daughter. She said “brace yourself i’ve got bad news. R is dead. … i’m sorry for your loss.” His daughter was saying “Sorry for your loss” to me. Continued…
Posted in Family Life, Musings.
– 28 February 2010
We used to have cats
I am not a cat person, by a long margin. We did not have any when I was a kid and what I did see of them in other people’s homes did nothing for me. I have long regarded them as parasites. I like dogs. We had dogs when I was a kid.
For many years it was impractical for us to have a dog. As I felt the kids were missing out on the experience of having pets, I relented and agreed (suggested in fact, as no one else would have dared) to get a cat.
We acquired a used model that we decided to call Kirtsie. A very healthy, cautious and smart example of the species who we discovered over time had something in common with me. She did not like cats either. We discovered this when we acquired a second cat.
The cats survived the move from our small home in Caterham to our oversized ex-farmhouse in Shropshire. In fact, Kirtsie thrived in the space and the convenient hunting grounds. The other sadly died within a short time from a hereditary disease. We decided to get some more cats. We acquired new models, too young, and riddled with ring worm. That was fun. I have these horrid memories of these rat like creatures (they had to be shaved) with sharp claws that would cling to us and crawl up towards our heads whenever we ventured near their medical confinement (the downstairs bathroom). Belatedly realised that the room was too cold for them. Eventually, they recovered and took to the environment happily. Kirtsie ignored them as well.
On a rare drunken night out with my wife, we decided it was time we got a dog to give the kids the very different experience to these as pets compared to cats.
We obtained an excellent medium sized dog from what is now know as the Dog Trust. She turned out to be extremely good with all of the cats, children (used by several parents to cure their kids of their dog fears – rather than cautions), and people in general.
Through illness and an uneven battle with a car, both of the newer cats passed on. We think this made Kirtsie happy. (“Two down, one to go was my catch-phrase for a while.”) She was less happy when a second dog appeared to keep our first dog company.
In trials, she had seemed to stand her ground so it was not expected that there would be problems with the second dog. However, over a short period the new dog become bolder and chased her a few times and she backed down (at one point ending up in the rafters of our bedroom when it was being refurbished) – the dog made it to pretty high section of the scaffolding.
Shortly after, she left. She popped back a few times but did not stay. For the next year or so, the kids you see her near their school and sometimes she would go over and say hello, but she had clearly found a new home.
So, we now have two dogs. Funny how some things work out.
Posted in Family Life.
– 28 January 2010
Photography and digital editing
There seems to be a large number of photographers who object to the use of Photoshop and the like to adjust photographic images. There are clubs where such practices are banned for competition submission. Given that RAW images require a little post-processing to be usable (and not everyone is happy for this post processing to be carried out by the the computer in their cameras against broad-brush preference settings for vibrancy, sharpness, etc.) this is problematic for many.
I would argue that photographs have always been subject to manipulation, it is just easier to do it these days. Even the way a photograph is taken in the first place has a huge impact of course. There is no such thing in my view as a “real” or a “pure” photograph.
Recently, in response to someone again complaining about the digital editing of photos, I wrote this:
But surely doing lots of very detailed and careful dodging and burning as part of the printing process is just the same as adjusting levels, dodging, burning, etc in Photoshop. As soon as you shoot a 3d view with a 2d imaging device and make decisions around depth of field, you have moved into an artistic world. It might be easier and less time consuming to use Photoshop than working in a dark room, but the pricipled are the same.I personally do not like heavily over processed images either, nor am I a great fan of what I consider over saturated velvia film stock, I do not like HDR images that have been tone-mapped to death and have auras around everything but I appreciate the more subtle works which will do until exposure range greatly increases and HDR displays become available.
There is no pure form of photography though. I am with you in wanting to get things right to my taste in camera as much as possible with little post processing. That said, Mr Adams [Ansel Adams] is one of the world’s most highly regarded photographers, and I am not. You have to wonder what he would have done with Photoshop.
and Brian Culbertson made the point more clearly (reproduced with his permission – with minor corrective edits):
When film was the standard there was a degree of manipulation you could do in the developing or processing of the film itself as well as in the dark room. pushing or holding the developing times, adjusting chemicals to shift color and contrast, cross processing, film speed speed and types. There is also the adjustments made while shooting the shot f-stop, shutter speed, movement, lighting, reflectors,gels, filters…...the list goes on. And in the darkroom there were no limits. The paper used and the different levels of silver, and dye in them. Use carbonated water when mixing the chemicals? Are any of the forms of manipulation more pure or acceptable than others? In any case you can manipulate for a more classic photographic image, or non traditional image. It seems that the goal is always the same to produce an image that you envision. Is the process of manipulation, and capturing really the focus? Sometimes it is rewarding to try something new. Even if it is not right for the current thing you are working on it might be perfect for a future project or vision.
** updates **
Since the original post, discussions continued
Firstly, I provided an interesting link
And now I find an amazing contribution to the discussion from a guest blogger on Scott Kelby’s site:http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2010/archives/7617
Well worth reading don’t you think?
G Stormz Painchaud replied (copied with permission):
I agree that it was worth reading, Stuart.
My opinion has not change though. He said himself, “Most of my images only had subtle adjustments using curves or hue/saturation, but they were applied in a way that transformed the original capture.” (Scott Kelby)I believe that there are amazing scenes to photograph & keep original—simply because there would be nothing you could add to improve the perfection of the already existing piece. What I believe is that any great photographer could visit or find a place in which these images could be produced—how they are. Photoshop, however, make the photographer completely unchallenged That is too say, he knows he can adjust/add/erase anything bad within the photo.
ANY photographer could find that one image—but they are impatient.
They know that people want new photos a.s.a.p, which is why they find something that looks mediocre & photoshops it. The point is to get a great (photoshopped) image to the audience to show more of their work.
Scott mentions (as you & other have, Stuart) about Photographers from other periods in history. Some, who have the “purist” opinion of work—are in fact hypocrites. They have only praise for photographers from different eras, but bash those of today – who do the same (with better equipment). I do NOT agree with this. I am a naturalist—for those ancients & the newer photographers – & don’t agree with it—no matter who produces the work.
Before this discussion goes any further, I have a question . What is the exact definition of a “Purist”? I have been called a “Purist” when it comes to photography, but I’m not so sure. What are the terms in which a person is a Purist—to what extent? Do they take a photo & do not edit it at all, or do they only enhance with light/dark-black/white ? I do not agree with Photoshop, but I do not post my photos without a “natural” enhance. If a Purist is against all editing—then no, HELL no, I’m not a Purist in the least .
Enhancing & Photoshop are not the same thing. Scott mentions this in the blog aswell. I edit the shades of my photos with the free common downloads you can find anywhere on the web. Yes, I am agreeing that enhancing with these types of programs is a type of Photoshop, but the term for these programs are used lightly. Real photoshop can do things to photos that the common download cannot—ADD/REMOVE items in the image. Photoshop (what I am against it for) is that it can REMOVE/ADD & change anything in the photo that the photographer dislikes & didn’t want or couldn’t take out at the time the photo was taken .
My response:
I think we broadly agree Stormz XO, we are just at different points on the same scale between enhancement and manipulation. I am happy to some personal arbitrary point with enhancements using whatever tools one chooses but less so with manipulation (which is what most people think of when talking about Photoshop) where content is changed (remove/replaced/added) and/or fundamental colour relationships are altered.If an image can not stand alone without significant manipulation, then I think you and I would agree that time would have been better spent taking a better picture.
Purist was a term using without definition but was intended to mean someone opposed to all digital post processing of an image (perhaps even in camera). You are clearly not a Purist.
Thank you. This has been interesting. May I quote you also on my blog? Do you have a public portfolio of images online? I would be interested to look at examples of your work.
and finally, for now
Thank you, it has been one of my more mature conversations on this subject.
I am looking into having a site with all my work (not just the ones that have been alowd to post), but I have a fanpage & a deviantart ;
[snip]
You can quote me, I hope we can have similar discussion in the future .
Posted in Photography.
– 27 January 2010
Echo from the past: Butterley Engineering 1985
A lifetime ago, I worked for a heavy engineering design and manufacturing company in Ripley in Derbyshire. Sadly the site was run down last year with business transferred elsewhere within and without the holding company. The manufacturing site has some historical relevance though and the aditnow.co.uk website and forum has been tracking the demolition works.A friend pointed out to me a recent posting of a copy of a 1985 company magazine featuring news about improvements to the site and a photograph of me and my boss at the time sat at a CAD workstation. Fortunately I am seen only in profile, which does not look much different from how I am now.
Posted in blog.
– 27 January 2010
Shooting portraits
On a group on Facebook, a beginner posted links to some nice vivid family photos and asked how he could do the same. I posted the reply below. His own camera is a Nikon D90 with a 50mm f1.8 prime lens.
Yes, you can achieve the same sort of results with your camera.
The Nikon D90 is an excellent camera and you have a great prime lens. You have the choice of generating the images tweaked the way you want in camera and output as JPEG files or using unprocessed raw files that you then process on your computer. There is a lot of advice on the web about the best ways to set the profiles on a Nikon D90 to produce various results.
There are many raw processors around, some are free or very cheap, and you should have got a basic one with the D90 from Nikon.
There are many photo editing applications around. Whilst Photoshop is the best known, consider also the current versions of Paint Shop Pro from Corel and Photoshop Elements from Adobe. Also, look at free options such as the open source GIMP (photoshop like) application or Google’s free Picasa.
It is not really about the software though. You should focus on getting things right in the camera in the first place as much as possible.
Remember, it is all about the light. Some tips:
- Learn to shoot using natural light – especially preferred for the shooting of babies
- Shoot when light is well diffused – cloudy days are best, net/shower curtains over bright windows are great for indoor shots.
- Avoid harsh, direct light (midday sunlight is not at all flattering) – best outdoor light lasts for around an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening – the golden hours around sunrise and sunset when the sun is low in the sky, a lot weaker and helps to give scenes a lot more texture.
- Learn to use cheap big reflectors (large reflective boards from your local DIY store) to bounce/reflect light to where you need it.
- Learn how to use your aperture settings to control the depth of field so you get just the effect and impact you are after (typically popping the subject from the background)
- Read these “rules” on portrait photography: http://www.lumitouch.com/benstudiotutorial/rules.html
- Learn to read the histogram on the back of your camera to check exposure and do NOT rely on just the picture preview.
- Practice. Practice. Practice.
- Only when you have mastered your camera and are managing light to a level where you are comfortable in what you are doing and know how to go about getting the results you are after, should you start to think about playing with software to any significant extent.
Portrait 1 – natural light
This photo was taken using the first Pentax digital SLR with a basic zoom lens. You have much better quality equipment.The subject is sat in a chair near a window that has a net curtain drawn across it and my wife is holding a white chopping board (yes, a chopping board – we were in a holiday cottage in Scotland) near to the left hand side of the face of the subject to reflect some of that window light on to the side of the face that would otherwise be a bit too dark (you want different levels of light around the face to help shape it but not too great a difference or you end up with some bits overexposed or other bits too dark).
The wall paper behind the subject is sufficiently far behind for the aperture I was using for it to be out of focus. We had removed a picture from the wall first.
The black and white with blue eyes effect is somewhat clichéd but easy to do in just about any photo editing package; in photoshop or paintshop it is along these lines: duplicate the layer, use the channel mixed in monochrome mode to make the topmost layer go grey, adjusting red/green/channels to get the best image you can (we stopped trying to add up to 100% years ago), and add a mask the layer to show though the original eye colour.
Portrait 2 - natural and flash light combined
This photo, by contrast, was taken with a D300 (which, in picture quality terms, is slightly inferior to the D90) but with the help of some Nikon flashguns in softboxes.
It was processed in Photoshop Lightroom from the raw file. Processing was very light, just setting the white balance correctly and boosting the blacks a little.
Posted in Photography.
– 18 January 2010
Next meeting, 21st Jan @8, theme: ethical trading
YOU ARE INVITED TO JOIN US AT THE PUB TO CHAT ABOUT GREEN ISSUES, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OR WHATEVER TAKES YOUR FANCY ……
NEWPORT GREEN DRINKS MEETS EACH MONTH
COME ALONG TO OUR NEXT MEETING AT ‘THE BRIDGE INN’, LOWER BAR, NEWPORT TF10 7JB ON THURSDAY 21ST JANUARY 2010 at 8PM – for the theme ‘The minefield of ethical trading’ led by Bob Unwin.
Green Drinks – How it all started
In 1989, at a pub called the Slug and Lettuce in Northern London, Edwin Datschefski was sitting with several of his green design colleagues when he noticed an enviro-minded acquaintance at a nearby table. As it turned out, the friend was sitting with a few of his own eco-conscious mates, so they pulled some tables together – so a movement was born. The concept evolved into Green Drinks and now it’s global. In 2001, an official website came about, and the movement has since spread across the world – see www.greendrinks.org
The spirit of Green Drinks is that anyone can come along, and this makes for interesting interactions. There are lots of benefits to green drinks; they are hard to quantify, but when you have seen people come and make new links and learn and argue and set up new schemes and get new jobs etc, it is a good feeling.
Posted in LA21.
– 13 January 2010
Raw v. Jpeg again
Revisiting the raw v. jpeg debate, a key difference is that the raw file is what the sensor captured without any processing (other than some compression, if selected) being applied whereas a jpeg (or TIFF) is what the camera itself post-processed from the sensor data in accordance with various camera processing settings. The preview on the camera shows you the embedded jpeg preview in the raw file if you are reviewing a raw shot, and that includes application of the picture control camera settings. If you are reviewing a jpeg shot, you look at that of course.
In the case of Nikon, if you review and/or process the raw files using Nikon software on your computer, then you see the raw file with the same camera settings as were set at the time the picture was taken (a profile reference is embedded in the raw file) but you can switch to an alternative profiles. None of the other major raw processes (including Adobe Camera Raw – until ACR 5.3, when Adobe reverse engineered a reasonable approximation) can understand and apply the Nikon picture control data to the best of my knowledge because Nikon have been somewhat secretive in the encoding of it (even changing the encoding between recent models) of the profiles. If you post process using non-Nikon software then you work from the basic raw data and whatever profile the processor has built in (or selected) and then make changes you want. Obviously, we can not apply an alternative picture control profile to a JPEG or TIFF file from the camera, as the original data has already been processed and lost. As far as I can tell, it is the same for Canon except that they have been more forthcoming with their profile data formats so that other raw processors can read them. Ditto Sony. In addition, if you shoot raw and intend to process you are probably working in the AdobeRGB colour space rather than the sRGB colour space, which is what the display on the back of the camera operates in. (The cameras are generally at least slightly better in their overall gamut footprint than sRGB.) I am not sure therefore that reviewing a raw file on the back of the camera that has a sharpening filter applied is especially informative – in fact, isn’t the display really mostly useful for looking at the histograms? Regarding sharpening (once of the picture control settings), note that this is usually the last or nearly last step in the post-processing workflow. So, although I would set it for JPEG or TIFF images produced by the camera, and, in the case of raw files, may want to preview it when originally viewed on my computer before commencing post-processing, I would remove any sharpening until I had finished other post-processing work. Useful thread on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d300_users/discuss/72157605667434167/ (especially contribution from intrHawkPosted via email from kyber’s posterous
Posted in Photography.
– 31 December 2009
Having nude photographs taken
(Taken from a reply I posted on a facebook group discussion)
Posted via email from kyber’s posterous
Posted in Photography.
– 22 December 2009
