Monday, July 31, 2006

camera camera go


There are 9 pictures here. Just kind of random trinkets from my last day watching the house out in Crofton.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Here are some bugs

I'm pretty sure this is a cicada that's stiffening (thanks for focusing too close, there, camera!)...

...and this is a mantis...

Mantis portrait
... and this is a portrait of a mantis courtesy of my reversed 50.

Isn't that neat?

I might post process up the levels on the mantis... I rarely did that with film scans, so I'm inclined to say whatever.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Battery life check

I replaced the batteries in my camera for the first time. Olympus Camedia CRV3 batteries made it through 1151 shots, a good many of the last 100 including flash.


But it took me nearly two months to kill batteries. I don't think rechargables will make sense for the camera body.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

I found a spider



The second (clickable, both are) is a 100 percent crop, I didn't sharpen it any. I was out taking pictures of my bird feeders (Thanks, Dad!) and I saw it, had to snap away.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

For Anon


I went out looking for a kingbird. What I got was atrocious light and a broken down lawn tractor. I got it home, desaturated it, and now I get to pretend it's art.

Really, okay... fine, I was testing the effective difference between my two long zooms, and the tractor I found proved a decent enough subject. I still haven't 100% cropped and pixel peeped, but based on a loose appreciation, the ONLY difference is tighter field of view on the 210, as we'd expect.

But there you go. Since the light was bad, you get a boring picture, I suppose.


I've figured out what my problem is, and why I'm so sold that I could make do with a 200mm lens as long as it was fast.

Pentax doesn't sell anything compelling in digital-appropriate focal lengths at the moment.

I'd love the 12-24 wide angle lens, save for the "i'd never use it" part. That's the only remaining DA lens I care about. The 50-200 is a decent enough zoom, but yeah. The most compelling lens I can find for sale on that there internet at the moment is the 28-105 f3.2-4.5 zoom, compelling not because I need it but because it has the ghostless lens coatings as found on the Limited lenses.

Speaking of limited... I'd LOVE to get my hands on a DA 40 f2.8. BUT... what is 40mm aftter the 1.5andabit crop?

40 x 1.5 = useless.

(aside:Unfortunately, the DA 21mm f3.2 pancake, which I believe I would actually find a use for, seems to have had the 1.5x FOV conversion applied to its price, as well.)

I hear people proclaiming the glory of that little lens all the time, but what is someone like me going to do with a equivalent 60mm focal length? Absolutely nothing. I don't want to pay for limited quality in a long lens, because that would be stupidly expensive. All I want is a 300mm f4.5 that doesn't cost 800 bucks. I know it's possible - just have a machine make it instead of a real live Japanese person. We don't need DA* lenses, nor did anyone really need FA*, F*, A*, or M* lenses. Pentax sold those to people who were too quick to go ROFLMG I WANT TEH GOAD LANSE???, as is evidenced by the number of people on the dpreview forums who have collected several of the FA* lenses and won't go near anything else. I'm sure they're nice, but imagine if you put their features in a regular lens - the price would have been quite a bit less, and chances are Pentax would have been able to afford to make more of them so people like me wouldn't be sitting on the outside of your elitist little clique, jealous of the fact that you got into photography earlier than I did. At least with the limited lens, you're getting metal construction, a real manual focus feel, and the ghostless coating... of course, when the 77mm limited costs like 700 bucks, that's also not likely to work out. Not that 77mm would be good for me, either.


Well, the good news is I found out today my rebate papers processed, so I get my money back.

Monday, July 17, 2006

new thread


He's always such a willing subject for a waste of frame.

Here is some more stuff that I found in here.

Now there are fewer than 40 comments!

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

More examples of wireless slave mode

That's a working example. It's from the same side as the santa because I was working on my bed and was too lazy to put something more creative together.
Another view
Here's another success. I held the flash over my right shoulder with my left arm and had the camera in my right hand. I didn't quite get the aperture right, as you can see now the reflections of the guitar hardware in the background. Oh well.
This is what happens when I don't have the camera set to manual mode below the flash sync speed. In this case, what happened is the camera fired the preflash (which triggered the external flash), it metered off of both, then horribly underexposed the second flash (expecting a second burst of flash equal in intensity to the first). So there you go.

Set the camera to manual below the flash sync speed, set the aperture to filter onboard flash, and shoot away.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Sideways Santa

wireless flash = wow

That is why I wanted a wireless capable flash. Now if I only had two...

AF-360 FGZ time


Yeah, I know - I sold out.

But I think that the high speed picture of Santa in this brief gallery is in line with what I want from a flash unit. It's the third pic, the dimmer one. I shot it at 1/250 second, probably ISO 800, but more importantly, flash on. It's dim, yes, but it's also a proof of concept - I can brighten up otherwise unattainable short shots.

Wednesday, July 5, 2006

Go boom boom.

or even

edit: I left this part out! Full gallery here.

Let's all pretend I had the energy to crop these 91 images to make it seem as though I wasn't standing behind a bunch of trees.

After the first 15-20 captures (maybe less), I turned off noise reduction. All of the exposures below should be NR-off. I might have gotten different results, but the NR processing was causing me to miss pictures.

Some specific points of interest here:
24.3 second exposure
16.3 second exposure
11.7 second exposure: this one features those really loud percussive mortars. I like how they're the only thing they shot the entire night that made apparent my aperture shape.
13.2 second exposure
12.9 second exposure: This is of note because it has a lot of red, a color the majority of Pentax users complain about in low light. Looks fine enough to me.
11.3 second exposure: I caught the very end of one plume, which is why the outer fringe of "things" look like they're moving inward toward the two fresh ones. They were in the process of burning out.
27.8 second exposure: I think this is the longest one I took. It became meaningless, though. Then again, I forgot what I was doing because I was angrily glaring at the couple next to me who were shouting at their baby and camcorder in Russian whilst illuminating one another with a flashlight.
9.4 second exposure: The grand finale lob was a bit lower than it was last year, and, thanks to the wind, much further to the right. Oh well; the effect I wanted to convey by leaving this and the two remaining after it in was the "let there be light" effect.

Tuesday, July 4, 2006

Happy Fourth of July!

boom boom

I have 115 more where that came from. I'm not staying up until 3am to process them tonight, though. Click to make bigger, so on so forth.

And for interested parties, I do have some in the 20-30 second exposure range. Red channel noise is great, but I think it's something of character for the image. You'll see eventually.

Sunday, July 2, 2006


Pollen clusters

I went out for a walk yesterday and took pictures of a bunch of bugs. Yeah, there are birds, too. I don't know. I think some of the bee shots worked out well, but all of my dragonfly pictures ended up somewhat soft, probably because I was having a bad bout of the parkinson's.