YDA Conference

This weekend was the Youth Democrats of America conference in Manchester, NH. I’d toyed for months with renting a fast telephoto for the event. In hindsight, I’m glad I didn’t—most of the speakers I wanted to capture weren’t even there.

IMG_1785

Bill Clinton was the first speaker. He delivered an amazing speech, but also kicked off what would rapidly become an irritating trend—unabashed praise of Hillary. Right before Hillary was the state chair of something (Youth Democrats?), who explained that he was prohibited from endorsing a candidate. So his speech began, “Effective Monday, I resign from my post. I’m going to join the Hillary campaign.” It seemed pretty inappropriate.

Clinton, though, was a great speaker, and it’s understandable that he’d back Hillary. He talked about how excited the debates last week made him—the Democrats weren’t debating whether global warming was a myth, or whether health care was broken. They were debating the best way to fix it. I wish I had a better recall of the exact figures, but he mentioned that the US pays something like $700 billion a year more than any other nation on healthcare. He said that if we were to close our eyes, pick a country, and copy their health care system, we’d end up saving a lot of money. So he complained about the people that whine about “socialized medicine”—even if we went with a truly Socialist plan, it would save us money. But no one proposed that we become Socialists anyway.

The next morning we had a series of luncheon speakers. Most of them were pretty bad. The first one stood up there before it started pleading with us to hurry up. Like, probably every 90 seconds he’d make an announcement, alternating between asking us to get food and asking us to get food quickly and reminding us that there were two separate lines. And he’d add in “funny” comments like, “If the person in front of you is taking too long, shove them,” which really didn’t do anything but grate on our nerves. And then we had a series of speakers that no one knew that really weren’t that good. One of them I think was taking some serious drugs or something. He started of by talking about going “back to the future,” and all sorts of other things, and never really tied any of them together. And there was this joke that none of us even understood about Bush getting off an airplane carrying two pigs, but he started it off by pretending it was an actual news story. We were talking about it afterwards, and basically all admitted that we had either laughed because everyone else was and we didn’t want to seem like we got it, or, for a few people, they laughed just out of sympathy because he’d taken so long setting up for it and yet it came out making no sense.

Elizabeth Edwards

They served this big elaborate lunch, but only had coffee and water. So a few of us go find a vending machine. And I guess Elizabeth Edwards was just standing outside waiting until she was called as the next speaker, so they were able to just go talk to her. “And she talked back!” they said with some surprise. They came back and told us, so a few more of us went to see her, but she was going in right as we were coming out. So instead we went to find the vending machine. After checking a bunch of likely places, I asked at the front desk. “They’re on every odd floor—so 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11,” she told me. (One might assume that the lobby is an odd floor, but it’s called “Lobby,” followed by “Mezzanine” above, and then 3. So we took the elevator up to the third floor, bought a can of Dr [sic] Pepper for $1, and went back, by which time Elizabeth Edwards was speaking.

She delivered a really good speech about Edwards. I was very impressed, and when she turned it over to questions, the first question summed it up well: “Why aren’t you running for office?” The question drew a lot of applause. She’d make an amazing First Lady, because she really knows her stuff! And then a woman asked, “My partner and I have been together for 30 years. When I say that we want to be married, how would your husband—and how would you—answer us?” (Edwards has stood out as the Democrat most opposed to same-sex marriage.)

Her answer again drew applause, when she started off with, “Well, those are two separate questions.” Her answer was actually even more impressive, as she began talking about how it’s an “evolving issue” and that she hopes John’s stance would change with time. (Now you see why people wanted her to run?)

Someone else asked for her opinion on some obscure personal attack on a politician. Her answer was basically that she thinks it’s very important that the American people grill candidates with questions, but that sometimes people don’t respect people’s personal lives. She gave the example of people obsessed with Romney’s Mormonism, and then, “And some people criticized John for continuing in spite of my illness… I think that’s inappropriate.” (Again, applause.)

The rest of that day was going to be some sort of canvassing event that none of us wanted to go to. So we instead took the time to tour the local campaign headquarters of the candidates. We were given some really vague directions, and people kept expecting me to know all the backroads around Manchester. One direction involved turning at a prison, which somehow got misinterpreted. We pulled into a prison parking lot, and everyone was walking in. I pointed this out, but they insisted that his headquarters were inside. “No, there is no way that Obama has set up his headquarters inside a prison,” I argued. Someone else suggested, “Well, as long as we’re here, let’s just go inside and check.” I finally persuaded them that it would be incredibly embarrassing to walk into a prison and ask if Obama’s headquarters were there. (Actually, it would probably get interpreted as some sort of racist joke, as opposed to sheer idiocy?)

So we continued down the road, and not a half mile later, we were at the Obama headquarters. It was actually in the middle of nowhere, but the place was huge:

Obama's Offices

That just shows a small part of the office. It was substantially larger. Hillary’s offices weren’t as nice inside, though they were in a very plush office complex. But she wins points for largest IT infrastructure:

Hillary's Server Room

N.B. that this server closet just powers this one little branch of Hillary’s <i>many</i> campaign offices.

At both places, the staff was more than happy to take a few minutes to show us around and talk about why they were supporting their candidate. I was really struck that all these volunteers seemed so professional.

And then we went to the Kucinich headquarters. I didn’t take any pictures inside, because it was a small place and would have been awkward. In hindsight, I really, really wish I had.

Restaurant

It was above this big restaurant, though, with an obvious political history. Inside we found a couple surprised volunteers. “We were in the middle of something,” one of them said, as the other jokingly added, “Inauguration planning.” “But we can talk to you for a couple minutes.” We thought it was pretty strange. One of them moved and a lighter fell out of his pocket. They both seemed pretty… mellow… as they talked to us, and were really all of the place in topics. They actually raised some good points, but the whole thing was really pretty creepy and left me liking Kucinich even less. (The quizzes I’ve taken say he’s my best match, but there’s more than just his stance on the issues that matters. If I were running for President, for example, and saw a UFO one night at home, I might think, “Gee, I’d probably look pretty crazy if I brought that up” and not mention it.) They ended up talking to us at length. At one point someone else came in, seemed surprised anyone was there, and went through these tiny little doors into some sort of oversized closet in the back room. It was amusingly creepy.

After we left, we started talking about how weird the whole thing had been. Someone asked, “Was I the only one that thought it smelled like weed?” Someone else agreed, and then we discussed them dropping a lighter, and how vague the “Oh, we were doing something, but I guess we can talk to you” thing was. And the sketchy back room.

This is not how you should be running a campaign? At all?

We ended up being pretty unimpressed with the YDA Conference, though. We had a good time and got lots done, but some of the best parts were when we skipped the official parts of it and did stuff on our own. We were initially told there’d be “Presidential speakers,” which we naively took to mean that the candidates would be there. Bill Clinton was the big one, followed by Elizabeth Edwards. Kucinich was supposed to be there but canceled. (Don’t worry, plenty of jokes about him, UFOs, and green leafy substances consumed in the back room of campaign offices have already been made to explain his absence.) Obama was never scheduled to come, it turns out, and his “speaker” was his half sister. We were going to go, but it was actually a “party” in the back room of some pub that was very overcrowded. So we left. We ended up not even sticking around today, after seeing the only interesting event of the day (Kucinich) had been canceled.

ISO: The Next Frontier?

In photography, there are a few key variables in determining exposure. The first is the aperture of the lens: basically, how much light is let in. Really serious (or rich) photographers carry around very “fast” lenses–they’re enormous and let in a ton of light. Notice the huge lenses that you see on the sidelines as sporting events, for example. (Err, not the length, but the width–these things are huge in both dimensions.) Of course, these lenses (we call them “fast” lenses, or lenses with wide apertures) are very heavy, and insanely expensive: for a really good one, you’d pay at least $1,000, and that’s pocket change compared to some lenses.

Another control is ISO sensitivity. Back in the days of film, some film was more sensitive to light than others. For example, ISO100 produces great pictures, but requires a lot of light. It’s superb for outdoor pictures on a sunny day. On the other hand, if you’re getting shots indoors, you might be at something like ISO1600. The problem is that, as you increase the sensitivity, you also increase the noise. ISO1600 will get decent shots indoors, but they’ll be grainy. (This is especially bad if you’re like me and tend to try to boost details in the shadows in Photoshop.)

The two come together to control the third important variable, shutter speed. In some cases, it doesn’t matter a ton. If it’s bright and sunny, and I’m taking a picture of a building, I really couldn’t care whether it’s 1/100th of a second or 1/4,000th of a second. And, if I’m using a tripod, it’s not uncommon to have shutter speeds lasting several seconds. But the problem is that, if the shutter speed is too low, you get a lot of blur. There are two reasons–the first is that people rarely hold still. I use 1/60 as a general rule of thumb: below that and you risk some blur if people are moving a lot. This is a really rough guess: I’ve gotten great portraits at 1/8, and sometimes 1/125 isn’t fast enough.

The bigger consideration, though, is camera shake, especially with longer zoom lenses. The rule of thumb there is 1/length. For example, shooting with a telephoto 200mm lens, it’s recommended that I shoot a 1/200 of a second or faster.

Putting it all into practice… Bill Clinton was speaking tonight at an event we went to. I have a 55-200mm telephoto lens, and tended to stay right around 200mm. I stayed at ISO1600; I can go to ISO3200 but it’s very grainy so I don’t use it. Unfortunately, though, my lens can’t go wider than f/5.6 at that length, which meant that the fastest I could get shots was around 1/60th of a second. At 200mm, this really was inadequate: most of the shots came out okay because I have a steady hand, but they’re not all that sharp. Example:

IMG_1795

It’s okay, but now compare it to this picture:

Autumn Colors

Granted, the subject isn’t that interesting, but every time I see that shot I took, I think, “Wow, that’s sharp!” Not so for the Clinton photo. If you view it in larger detail (click on it), its subtle blur becomes increasingly obvious.

There was a professional photographer about ten feet away from me. She was shooting a 70-200mm lens, which is a similar length to mine. But hers is an f/2.8 lens, which lets in twice as much light as mine does. So while I was getting 1/60 shutter speeds, she could have been getting 1/120. (Hers had Image Stabilization, too, but that’s a story for another day.)

The thing is, taking telephoto portraits indoors isn’t all that rare of a thing to do. To get good shots, you need to get that shutter speed up. There are two ways to do it, as you should now know: raise ISO or get a better lens. The problem is that getting a better lens will set me back $5,000 or so. And it’s an insanely heavy lens as well.

The other option is one that, until recently, wasn’t feasible: raise ISO some more. ISO1600 is good. You can do ISO3200, but it’s decent on only a few cameras. But I really have to give Nikon credit with their D3. It’ll go to ISO25600. Check out some samples. I’ve seen some higher-res images at ISO6400, and it’s just about perfect! Its ISO6400 rivals my ISO1600. The thing is, that’s a huge increase to be able to shoot at 6400 and have a perfectly usable image. It would have helped a lot with getting better shots.

I truly hope this is the direction camera makers go in now, and that Canon and Nikon get into an “ISO war” trying to outdo each other.

Stolen Ideas, II

Hammacher Schlemmer has a second idea that’s eerily similar to something I’ve had in mind.

Granted, mine would be an order of magnitude (or two) more expensive, have a cell modem for enormous range, solar panels to aid it in flying for a long time, and an ultra-high res camera with a long zoom lens… 640×480 is pretty much a gimmick, especially when you can only store 26 of them. And a 7-minute battery life is gimmicky too. I want a high-quality lens and 8 good megapixels. And a 4GB flash drive or something.

Oh, and GPS. And WiFi. I want to be able to, on the computer, map out a path for it to fly over, and automatically ‘return home.) Granted, you’re far, far from the $200 price at that point. But it’s also seriously cool at that price.

Today’s Photoshoot

I’m home for the weekend, and stopped by the Turkey Hill Cemetery. Got some nice shots, perfect for Halloween. It’s funny how much of an effect the post-processing can have… Here’s a shot in black and white, with a little glow added:

Eerie Light

And here’s a shot in color:

Gravestone

This marks the second time, by the way, that the 10D’s AE has gone wonky and I’ve had to switch over to full-manual mode.

I created two new sets on my Flickr account, Foliage and the Cemetery Trip.

Not Compact

The one “problem” with my 10D is that you can’t possibly fit the thing in your pocket. I’m buying a “grip” for it from Andrew, which is going to make it even larger.

So I don’t feel as bad about tacking a huge lens onto it. Heck, the lenses I use are small compared to what the real pros shoot with.

But here’s what I need. Canon made a 1200mm lens. This thing is ridiculously large. At f/5.6, it’s as fast as my camera at 200mm. This is n amazing lens. This is the only lens where photos of the lens are routinely more interesting than photos taken with the lens. I knew for a long time that the lens was very expensive. But I wasn’t aware of the definition of “very” expensive, nor that Wikipedia had a page on it. It apparently cost just shy of $90,000, and was available only by special order.

So then I found this article about Nikon’s ‘version’ of that lens, a 1200-1700mm lens. Of course, being a Nikon, it’s black instead of white. Linked to from that page is this article on Reuters, written by one of their photographers in France who took the agency’s 1200-1700mm lens to an event this July to get some shorts of the new President of France. The situation is one in which most pro photographers would weep and give up, and the lens is barely long enough. (He jokes that next year he’ll put a 2x TC on it.)

I’ll gladly accept donations.

The GIMP

I went out to get some more shots today. I decided to try shooting in raw mode instead of JPEG. The images were 7 MB instead of 2 MB, but I have a lot more control afterwards. It’s much slower when you shoot in burst mode, though, so I switched back to JPEG.

Afterwards, though, I wondered if I could open it. It turns out that Ubuntu handles it natively. (I can’t say the same for Windows.) So I uploaded the files to Flickr, but it turns out that Flickr doesn’t display .crw files. So I had to export it with the GIMP.

In addition to letting you export to JPEG, it lets you export to ASCII. And an HTML table. So, for grins, I exported one of my six-megapixel pictures to an HTML table. It popped up a warning that it would almost certainly crash my browser. I did it anyway. Several minutes later, it finished writing to disk. It was a little shy of 300MB. It didn’t really crash Firefox per se, but I didn’t see anything but gray table cells. I’m not sure what went wrong, really, but I can forgive it for not accurately displaying a 300MB table.

Bentley Falcon

That’s a JPEG. Although that was a native JPEG, not one saved from a CRW.

Tilt-Shift

PBase has a cool feature where you can search by lens. I searched for a few I was interested in, and came across some amazing photos taken with Canon’s 24mm Tilt-shift lens. Tilt-shifts are weird, and descriptions of them are either very basic (first sentence on the Wikipedia article), or very complex (involving the Scheimpflug principle).

I came across one particularly neat gallery. Tilt-shifts are known for two things. One is that you can use them to correct the ‘distortion’ where lines seem to converge. Check out this photo as an example, and another. Notice how nice and vertical the lines are? Compare it to this one, which is still a neat photo, but notice how all the building seem to ‘slant.’ (And an extreme example: it becomes more pronounced at wider angles.)

The other thing it’s good for, though, is playing ‘tricks’ with depth of field. An example. And here’s one with it tilted to the right.
So I think I want to try a 24mm TS lens some time.

As an aside, since all my photos were to this one neat gallery, I’ll point out some that have nothing to do with tilt-shift, but are just cool. This one is one of the more brilliant uses of unusual angles. (It’s the same concept as some other photos I saw once, which was done on ice/snow for an even cooler effect.) It’s really pretty remarkable. This one is cool, too. (And another.) Here’s a great one of Boston Harbor. And here’s one showing how cool a 12mm lens is. I think it saw some post-processing, but this one is really cool, too. Ibid.

But my favorite, by far, is this set of Logan. Last time I flew into Logan, all I could think was, “Wow, this would be a great spot for photos.”

Renting a Lens

I think I mentioned my newfound interest in camera lens rentals. In particular, the prices are lower than I’d have expected. I have a few different things in mind…

The weekend before Thanksgiving, I’m going to an event with all the major presidential candidates. I’ve found that 200mm isn’t long enough to get good close-ups, and that f/5.6 is far too slow for indoor shooting. (Especially as I don’t like shooting above ISO800.) So I need something longer and faster.

  • The ubiquitous choice is Canon’s 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. f/2.8 is extraordinarily fast, and, as an added bonus, it has Image Stabilization, which apparently eliminates motion blur from hand-holding. 200mm isn’t long enough, but with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter, it’s long and yet still fast.
  • If I didn’t need the image stabilization, Sigma has a 120-300mm f/2.8 lens, which is just as fast but has f/2.8 at 300mm.
  • Sigma makes another interesting one, an 80-400mm lens. It’s slower at f/4.5-5.6, but it has their OS (Optical Stabilization), basically the same as Canon’s IS. And 400mm is nice and long!
  • I’m a fan of zooms, because I like getting things framed exactly, but Canon makes a 200mm f/2.8 prime, which is highly-regarded and small.

There are some other lenses that I’m interested in, maybe for Thanksgiving or just for general shooting, that I’d like to try:

  • Canon’s 85mm f/1.2 lens is ridiculously fast. It gets the shots that nothing else can. (Well, except for its little brother, the 50mm f/1.2)
  • I’m interested in the wide end of things. Sigma has a 12-24mm lens, which is ridiculously wide-angle. There’s some (pretty much unavoidable) distortion at the wide end, although it can be cleaned up in software. It’s seemingly a popular choice with people taking interior shots.
  • Sigma makes all the interesting ones… They’ve got a 20mm f/1.8, which is both really wide and really fast. And it’s quite cheap.
  • Sigma also makes a 30mm f/1.4 lens, sometimes compared to the 50mm f/1.4 series for full-frame sensors. It’s also much cheaper than Canon’s 35mm f/1.4 lens.

There’s also something unavoidable about going for moon shots, something that requires a nice long lens. (And either a steady hand or a tripod.) It looks like the Thanksgiving time-frame will coincide with a full-ish moon.

Software or Hardware?

For a long time I collected Motorola radios. I soon realized a “trick” — a lot of them had the same ‘guts’ and just had different software controlling them. If you cut the little “stopper” off of the channel knob on the channel knob and changed 2 bytes in the firmware, you had a 16-channel radio.

The higher-end radios were even more seriously software-dependent. The price of a radio could go up hundreds of dollars (thousands when new) depending on the features it has. But it turns out that the whole series had the same hardware, and various features were loaded via software. (This was actually publicly-known.) Soon, people realized how to suck the software out of one radio and drop it into another radio, and suddenly most hobbyist-owned radios had just about every feature possible.

I’m getting out of the radio trade, though. I began by getting a lot of two Canon digital SLRs off of eBay. The two cameras were very similar: both, in fact, had the same sensor. I kept the 10D, which was bigger and had a solid-metal casing, and sold the 300D, which was smaller and had a silly silver plastic case. Mine has a bunch of features that the 300D didn’t: ISO3200, the ability to control flash brightness, and a whole mess of “Custom Functions” that let you fine-tune things, to name a few.

It turns out that I was more right than I realized about them being closely related, though. There’s a firmware hack that brings a lot of the 10D functionality to the 300D. (All the ones I mentioned and then some!) Of course some features are missing: you can’t select autofocus points, for example.

But it’s interesting to learn that model differentiation via ‘crippling’ features in software is more prevalent than I’d once believed.

A Plea to Camera Makers

Dear camera makers,

Canon’s 1Ds Mark III is 21 megapixels. Please, acknowledge that Canon has won on the megapixel front, and move on. My camera’s resolution is 6 megapixels, and I have a flawless 20×30″ print from it. 21 megapixels is too many for most uses. Going further is wasteful.

Nikon has the right idea, though: improve things other than resolution. My camera maxes out at ISO3200, and the pictures are very bad there. Sometimes, though, ISO3200 isn’t enough. In a dimly-lit room, there are times when ISO3200 still gives me 1/8 of a second or slower shutter speeds. My lens is pretty slow, with f/3.5 as its widest, but even using something like Canon’s 50mm f/1.2 lens, I might not be able to get a useful shutter speed.

Nikon’s D3 goes up to ISO25,600. The images are practically useless at that point. But at least they’re trying. To you camera makers, I present a challenge: top them. I want to be able to shoot at ISO25600 (“25K?”) and get clean images. Can you do it? I bet you can, especially if you quit trying to one-up unnecessarily large resolutions.

Oh, and give us innovative new features, too. Or let us write our own apps! Why isn’t there “aperture bracketing?” Say I’m not sure whether f/4 is enough depth of field. Why can’t I take the picture at f/4, f/5.6, and f/8 and decide afterwards?

Why, on a camera body that cost $2,000 new, is there no “intervalometer” to let me, say, automatically take a picture every 5 seconds? I can buy a $150 accessory to do it, but is it really that hard to make it a software feature?

HDR photography is all the rage. Why not have an “HDR Composite” feature, that will meter for the darkest region, meter for the brightest region, and automatically bracket across the whole range? (Bracketing is not at all new, but it’s “dumb” bracketing — I can do +1/-1 or +2/-2. What if I want to go from +3 to -5 in 16 steps?)

Why do no cameras have an embedded GPS? It’s not the most useful feature, sure, but it’s cool. Make it a “module” people can upgrade to. I’d be awfully tempted to buy it.

It’s slowly becoming a reality, but why not have a USB2 port and let me plug in accessories? Currently USB2 ports are just for copying images to your computer. Why can’t I stick my thumb drive in and record to that? Or my external hard drive? And why can’t I just copy pictures over to my external hard drive right from the camera? Why do I need a computer?

Why are the LCDs on back such low-resolution? Play with an iPhone for a while, at 160ppi, and then look at any camera’s LCD. It looks like comparative crap. That LCD is important, too: I’m trying to see how my image out. Why would you give me a piece of crap for that? I’m yet to see a camera with an interface that doesn’t look like it predates Y2K, either. Again, play with the iPhone. It just looks cool. Don’t overdo it, but would it kill you to at least make the interface on your cameras look nice?

Some really high-end lenses have an IS/OS feature — basically, the lenses compensate for minor shake through the use of a gyro. This feature gets rave reviews from anyone able to afford the $2,000 lenses. Why not build an IS sensor into your camera instead, so that, regardless of lens, your sensor stabilizes for minor shake?

Please, camera makers of the world, quit it with megapixels. Let’s go for some innovation.