365.348 ugly bokeh, an attempt

Simon Davis-Oakley—one of the curators of the 365 project and community over on G+—created this assignment (sort of) on the G+ 365 Community pages.

The assignment, should we choose to accept, was to shoot a 365 pic with foreground and background bokeh, and it followed a brief question and longer explanation of ‘Bokeh’ that took place over the preceeding days.

I don’t know why, but in pondering what to shoot today, I decided to produce some ugly bokeh.

I pulled out the second Most-Unlikely-To-Produce-Decent-Bokeh lens (the Nikon 36-72 f/3.5 E-Series), and started shooting.

I shot one of these at 36, but as far as ugly bokeh goes, this one (at 72) was better.

Note the line of gumdrops running across the center of the frame. Pleasant bokeh would likely feature a smooth wash of color through here.

Note also, the doughnut (or, in Ken Rockwell’s language, “rolled condom”) bokeh balls, and the colored fringing on the highlights in the background. The fringing is due to a bit of CA this lens produces, and the doughnut is due to this being a consumer-grade walkaround lens from Nikon’s cheapo line.

Despite these, I didn’t get the maddeningly ugly bokeh I was hoping for. Note the rather pleasant soft-focus on the pile of leaves to the left, and the way the foreground bokeh works to push the into the leaves.

So I might have to try again with the Most-Unlikely-To-Produce-Decent-Bokeh lens, the Nikkor 10-24mm…

D7000. Nikon 36-72mm f/3.5 E-Series, at 72mm. ISO100, 1/25th (AP mode), f/3.5, -1EV. About 15 minutes of slider play and brushings in Aperture. (If you think this is ugly, you should see the original…)

365.347 the case

I’m feeling woefully out of it today.

I woke up at 2:30am, looked at the clock, and said “Nope. It’s too early. Go back to sleep.”

I went back to sleep.

I woke up at 2:37am, looked at the clock, and said “Nope. It’s too early. Go back to sleep.”

I went back to sleep.

I woke up at 2:44am, looked at the clock, and said “Nope. It’s too early. Go back to sleep.”

I failed to go back to sleep, and was making coffee before 3. I’ve tried (unsuccessfully) to nap, three times, and I haven’t eaten much of anything all day. So it’s no wonder that I’m totally out of it today.

I managed to make some beans, and I managed to given the kitchen a half-arsed cleaning afterwords, but I didn’t manage to nap or do much beyond wishing I could nap.

But I did manage to make this picture, while lounging on the sofa with the cats and watching the newest Batman movie, (I bit my nails all the way through, and cried at the end), and I think it (the picture) may fit into the mystery story I’ve been working on, off and on, more off than on, for several months: it has a very noir-ish quality that I like quite a bit.

iPhone 4. Hipstamatic. John S Lens, US1776 Film. A very minor bit of cleanup of a couple of distracting bright spots in the lower right via the clone stamp in Aperuture.

365.346 a schizophrenic spiderweb (oooohh uh spiderwebs… leave a message and I’ll call you back)

…a likely story but leave a message and I’ll call you back…

And two days in a row now I’ve spent half my shooting time wondering what to shoot.

…and it’s all your fault

Given that I spent most of the day packing and arranging for a truck and conning buddies into agreeing to help me move in a couple of weeks (not to mention grocery shopping, naps, and randomly surfing the intewebs), this lack of inspiration is either understandable or completely mystifying. After all, I had all manner of potential subjects at the upscale-ish big box store, the pet supply mart, and the low-rent grocery, plus I was up early enough to have shot the sunrise or the random assortment of light sources around the apartments, but I passed them all by with narry a second thought. (I did pull the phone out and grab a couple of snapshots, but none worthy of a 365.)

I screen my phone calls

Even worse, I now have No Doubt stuck in my head… shudders

no matter matter matter matter who calls, I gotta screen my phone calls

D7000. Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 (Cosina), reversed, on 40mm extension. ISO400, 1/125th (AP mode), f/8, -1EV. About 10 minutes of fiddling in Aperture to get back to pretty much what the jpeg preview looked like…

Also: any idea why Aperture would be failing to grab the exif data on the first picture on a card? This is the second time it’s done this to me. I caught it this time, and was able to re-upload a version with the data intact, but I’d really like to figure out what’s up so I can fix it.

no matter who calls, no matter who calls
I’m walking in the spiderwebs
leave a message and I’ll call you back
I’m walking in the spiderwebs
leave a message and I’ll call you back
It’s all your fault
no matter who calls
I gotta screen my phone calls
it’s all your fault
leave a message and I’ll call you back

365.345 bubblicious

I was totally drawing a blank on what to shoot today, so I went to the kitchen and poured a nice glass of iced tea. Quite coincidentally, it was the last glassful in the pitcher, and—also coincidentally—the pitcher was filthy with accumulated tea stains dating back an unknown quantity of months.

I started to just leave the stains to accumulate and make another pot, as I was feeling rushed to find a subject for today’s picture, but since I didn’t have a clue, I decided to go ahead and give the tea pitcher a good scrubbing.

So I washed it: multiple stains remained.

I washed it again, and again stains remained.

So I decided to give it a good soak.

I started the pitcher filling with nice warm water, added a small quantity of soap, and soon the pitcher was overflowing with foamy soap suds.

!

I fetched the camera, bolted on the Vivtar 50mm f/1.8 in reverse, and went to town, with disappointing results.

I set the camera down to go back to scrubbing, and noticed that I had forgotten to wash the lid to the tea pitcher.

So I screwed the lid down, swished it around a good bit, and gave it a scrub.

When it was nice and clean, I noticed that the pile of bland-looking suds in the pitcher had reduced to a skim of rainbow bubbles on the surface of the water.

Again with the camera and the macro rig, and this time: success!

D7000. Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 (Cosina), reversed on 40mm extension. ISO800, 1/60th (AP mode), f/1.8, -1EV. About 4 minutes of slider play in Aperture to bring out the color in the cloud and bring up the shadows in the field.

365.344 the D7000 and I

I had planned to enter this in the Me and my Camera contest over on Google+, but looking at it now, I’m having second thoughts.

I’m not particularly fond of the composition, it would probably be better in black & white, and there’s all sorts of grain in the camera because I forgot to reset the ISO from 2 days ago.

So I’ll have another go at it in a day or two.

D7000. Sigma 30mm f/1.4. ISO400, 1/160th (AP mode), f/1.4, -1EV. Flipped, cropped, spot/stray hair/etc. removal, and maybe 30 seconds of slider play in Aperture.

365.343 an extra-ordinary tap

This may or may not be my best attempt at the A Simple Tap event over on G+. Only time and distance will tell. But it’s the one I’m going to enter. I really like the lower half, and the top half has loads going for it too. Plus, it was shot with the Zomb-E, so GoGo.

D7000. Nikon 75-150mm f/3.5 Zomb-E Series. ISO400, 1/20th, f/3.5. SB-700, SU-4’d, at 1/128th, fired into the ceramic backsplash and triggered by the pop-up in commander mode. B/W conversion and about 3 minutes of slider play in Aperture.

365.342 the same river twice

A couple of weeks ago, A Lesser Photographer (aka CJ Chilvers) posted the following to his excellent blog (back when he ran alesserphotographer… now it’s only cjchilvers: own your writing and your photography):

Longevity in photos has become inversely proportional to the lack of longevity in the subject.

Apparently, this drew the ire of some readers, and so today he posted a clarification.

Let me say straight off that I agree with his point. Loosely stated: so many pictures have already been made—and are, these days, always already being made—that we must strive to capture the “fleeting moments” within our subjects if we want to make memorable photographs.

This is especially true of Fine Art photographers, landscape shooters, abstractionists, etc., and has been true of people shooters at least since Cartier-Bresson’s Decisive Moment, and likely since the first artists scribbled on the walls of the cave.*

But I do have a minor quibble, stemming from this absolutely true, yet still somewhat curious, claim: “if I were a modern day Ansel Adams, my best photos… have probably been duplicated by dozens of like-minded photographers.”

First, Ansel Adams. Let’s take that picture of Half Dome that everybody knows, the one with the moon.

How many people have made that picture? How many people have tried to make a similar picture?

There has been exactly one picture of Half Dome and Moon made (or one negative and n prints), by exactly one person. And there have been numerous attempts, some more successful than others, perhaps some that might one day be even more well known, but there is only one “Moon and Half Dome” by Ansel Adams.

So there is duplication, and then there is duplication.

Sure, I can make a picture of Half Dome. You can make a picture of Half Dome. Everyone can make a picture of Half Dome: this is likely the duplication of which Mr. Chilvers speaks.

But all of these are simulacra: copies without an original. By the very nature of time itself, every picture of Half Dome is a unique picture of Half Dome. After all, you can’t step in the same river twice.

This is, of course, not A Lesser Photographer’s point: he wants to make a picture of Half Dome that carries some longevity within it, and likely some longevity out in the world, and not simply sitting on a hard drive or in some forgotten photo album. No, if we want to make memorable pictures, there must be something in them that is more or less unique, and this is where the fleeting moment comes in.

Now the question becomes something different: how to determine the fleetingness of the moment.

Does Half Dome have fleeting moments? On some measures of geologic time, I suppose it does, though these could never be captured by a digital sensor or on film, as the time scales are too long. In the Heraclitean sense, however, every moment is a fleeting moment, though, again, this is not what Chilvers means.

Perhaps the fleeting moment of Half Dome is one where the light is just so, and the Moon is precisely the perfect spot.

If so, that moment happened once, and will never again occur in precisely the same way. Even if the Moon were to be in exactly the same spot during precisely the same phase, there would be clouds, or birds flying, or some other thing that would make it some other fleeting moment, and not the fleeting moment that Adams captured so famously.

Over on Digital Photography School, Piper Mackay captured a different way to say something similar when she wrote “…it does not have to be new; it has to be you.”

Despite the differences in language (and likely audience), I take this to capture the same sentiment found in the A Lesser Photographer post.

If I want my picture of Half Dome to have even half of the longevity of Ansel Adams’s Half Dome, my picture must have something that is does not, and that something must be something memorable or important or meaningful or especially aesthetic or whatever.

So, again, I agree with Mr. Chilvers. And I’ve offered nothing new here, and I’ve left much unsaid, and glossed over some bits that require more explication to have any meaning to most readers, and I should probably save this as a Draft and come back to it later, but I won’t: this is the curse of the 365.

D7000. Vivitar 70-210mm f/3.5 Series 1 (Kiron, maybe), in Close Focus mode. ISO400, 1/20th, f/8. 11 images, all with the same minimal adjustments to exposure, contrast, saturation, and vibrancy (less than 15 seconds of slider play on one image, then copied/stamped onto the other 10), plus a slight crop to remove some dead space.

And speaking of fleeting/decisive moments, did I pick the right one? Can you even tell which of the below I picked to be the 365 pic?

*to call these people ‘artists’ is likely inaccurate: they were perhaps priests or shamans, or perhaps adolescent taggers. But the they were capturing the fleeting moments of the hunt or some other otherwise mundane subject.