URBivore

Alone in the Kitchen with an Eggplant

I'm hearing a lot of good things about this book. It's about cooking alone in the kitchen. Is this an existential treatise on personal gourmandism?

Amazon.com: Alone in the Kitchen with an Eggplant: Books: Jenni Ferrari-Adler

Powered by ScribeFire.

Nikon D3 @ ISO 5000

  Nikon D3 @ ISO 5000 
  Originally uploaded by BKMD

This is the image posted on a Japanese Web site, reposted on dpreview.com, taken at the Osaka Games:

Again, I did a little PP to remove the cyan cast and open up shadows.

Selected exif data:

Make = NIKON CORPORATION
Model = NIKON D3
Exposure Time = 1/1000"
F Number = F4
Exposure Program = Manual
ISO Speed Ratings = 5000
Date Time Original = 2007-08-28 21:07:04
Date Time Digitized = 2007-08-28 21:07:04
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Max Aperture Value = F4
Metering Mode = Pattern
Focal Length = 600mm

Free Wi-Fi in NYC courtesy of Yelp

Sam P., "The Mayor," provides this list.

Free Wi-Fi or Places you can find me doing work... New York by Sam P. | Yelp

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why a DSLR?

I sent an e-mail to Ken Rockwell, asking him what he thought about this image that I tweaked in photoshop that purportedly was taken with a Nikon D300 @ ISO 6400. He asked me if I'd seen the results from the Canon 1DMkIII. I didn't understand the logic behind this response--a $5,000 portable pro camera compared to a $1.8K prosumer APS. Apples and Dells, I say.

He then provides these two links:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

and

http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm#perf

The first compares a Canon P&S to the 5D with a pro lens by him shooting the same tree scene with both. $150 vs $5000. This is a common experience for those first moving up to a DSLR, "My p&S takes better pictures than this!" Highly saturated, overly processed images seen on a screen have a more eye-popping quality without a doubt, something like the cover of a box of cereal or laundry detergent. (I have another rant about how advertising affects we choose color.)

The second link compares a $5 Olympus film camera picked up at a thrift shop to the 5D. Another very bland scene was chosen: a landscape shot with a overcast sky.

Having read other sections from Ken's Web site, I know not to take all this too seriously, as he's winking at his audience on this one. He's always made the point that the quality of the photographic image was based on the skills and talent of the photographer and not some special intervention on the part of the camera equipment. But you have to understand who he considers his audience: those who just want to buy a "good camera" and then point and shoot at each scene and then move on to the next. Vacation snaps. This is also why the people on the various photography forums get riled over some of his statements. But, I don't think he expects them to get it--his audience is the Googler.

For me, I can't imagine any shot where I wouldn't want to use an off-camera flash either as a fill or main light. Of course, I don't do landscapes, or architecture. But working to optimize a shot requires the better equipment. The more you work at it, the more problems you see, and then have to fix. You need the better tripod and ballhead, the bokeh isn't right, the distortion is hard to fix in PP.

I think when each person buys his or her first DSLR, they should go to strobist, and see how they can dramatically improve the image quality of their photographs by utilizing their equipment on the level of a "prosumer." Another thing is to forget the hype by Canon and Nikon that their DSLRs make taking better picture easier, in that the camera automatically does wonderous things such as providing spot-on exposure for all conditions, or guaranteed auto focus.

I've read multiple comments on these forums from noobs who want a firmware update because the camera missed on exposure, white balance, or focus. Sure, if you're not shooting with fast glass, you might not notice that the camera isn't focusing on your subject's eyes but rather on the high contrast pattern on the subject's shirt. That is, until you proudly post your photo for the world to C&C, then you begin to see the flaws.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE CAMERA, Ken would say. I would say some cameras listen to you better than others, but you have to know what to tell it to do.

What happened to moblogs?

I received an e-mail from moblog:uk today, reminding me that I had an inactive account which I might reconsider using again.

I went to their new Web site, tried out their service again (the pix from my Treo uploaded without a hitch), then looked around to see what others were doing with the site. Like most photo-hosting services, you have a lot of badly composed, badly lit shots of people sitting around eating, drinking, or clubbing at night. The better moblogs mostly used better digital cameras than camera phones for the bulk of their images.

One ambitious site is owned by mountain climber who proudly displays the logos of his sponsor, Motorola. He even has an file of a cell phone call purportedly made from the highest altitude during his climb of Mount Everest. "This is the call I made using my MOTO Z8 from 29,035 feet / 8848 meters
on the highest peak of Everest at 5.37am local time this morning."

There's a "Shoot London" moblog that seems to be some sort of team contest at an art gallery where the theme was "water." I think this is a great idea, and I'm all for this type of task-oriented photography rather than seeing people post the shots they've been chimping over ("Oooooo, ooooo, you gotta see this one!) for the past few years. I participated in a challenge like this with the International Center of Photography here in NYC, and all the contestants were given the same model polaroid camera.

So, except for need to use a client's product or entering a contest where the limited tool is part of the challenge, I wouldn't necessarily be interested in limiting myself to working with a camera phone. It's easy enough to carry a point & shoot. Also, the idea of immediately uploading the image without doing the slightest bit of PP, such as cropping, really bugs me.

Even if you do dedicate yourself to doing some interesting stuff with a camera phone, you want enough of an audience to get some feedback. I takes time to build a following on a service as Flickr, and not worth the energy to try to support various services all at once. I think it's OK, even preferable to combine sets of images using all sorts of cameras. Each one adjusts your perception just the slightest bit.

I bet moblog:uk has a community of users who work well together. If I can think of an interesting angle to engage them, I will.

Is the D300 considered a "pro" camera?

According to Thom, it's a prosumer APS, where APS designates the sensor size. For the Nikon DX format this is 23.7 x 15.7 mm. It's competing against the recently released $1300 Canon 40D, but the D300 will cost about $500 more.

Here's Thom's breakdown of different models:

From this table, you can see that Canon and Nikon should have 6 DSLR models to compete equally in every category. But, Canon is missing a Medium Consumer camera to compete against the D80, and Nikon is missing a Prosumer 35FF camera to compete against the 5D (and possibile replacement to come early next year), and a Studio Pro camera to compete against Canon's 1DsIII.

Thom on the D300

He describes the D300 this way: "...the D2xs just got better, smaller, faster, and significantly cheaper."

He predicts that even with production at 60K per month, even starting now, the D300 will sellout and be hard to find after the November release.

Don't be fooled by colored water

I deleted this obnoxious widget where you can't disable autoplay. Sorry, for those who came here expecting this wonder of the advertising world.

Nikon D300 @ ISO 6400?

  Nikon D300 @ ISO 6400 
  Originally uploaded by BKMD

This is based on a shot from tinyurl.com/3xjapt, that seemed irretrievably overexposed. With a little a photoshopping, it doesn't look that bad. Noise reduction wasn't used.

The translated page states that it was taken @ 6400, the exif data states that it was taken with a D300. Adobe Info shows High Gain =2. Could be real.

Hmmm....looking good for Nikon, if this is believable.

UPDATE: Here are some other shots taken at lower ISOs, during the same event.

The lesson learned here is that a fill light will help you minimize noise at high ISOs, but only in the foreground. You can also get away with a slower shutter speed to get a lighter background. I've done it in the past at some restaurants, and I'll probably shoot some new examples to show what I'm talking about.

The strobe technique could be a lot better in this shot. It could have been another photog's flash caught coincidentally.

My NY Times

This is the Web's new portal with the obligatory local weather reports and other widgets to push all types of info that we would normally consider. There may be a problem with that in this ADHD-driven online world. It's finally moving the Times from the broadsheet format to something more suitable to browser organizing and reading.

They give you a head start with the RSS feeds by having their journalists suggest feeds, which is not a bad idea, but if you're finding out about Engadget through David Pogue, you've really been out of the tech loop.

At the top you have tabs, much like the iGoogle portal. "Home Page" is the old splash page which is click-this hell. I still see the gray and orange TimesSelect logo linking to content behind the cash wall. I thought they were going to do away with this.

"My Times" is in it's beta version, but it doesn't differentiate itself from most other personalized portals. They do have a Flickr slide show widget that shows all photos tagged "New York." You can edit the tag, so that if you want, you could have your photos showing.

"Today's Paper" (tomorrow's recyclable) will show you the front page layout, and then they have more links to the various stories by section.

"VIDEO" mercifully doesn't start each piece with an ad. On the bottom of the page are video ads you can click. Yeah, right.

"Most Popular" are lists of the most: e-mailed, blogged, searched, popular movies, so you know what your Web mates think is important. Their searching for "modern love," "india," "sex," "castro," "china," "iraq," "immigration," "obituaries," "bush," and "the war as we saw it." Love, war and death seem to be the major areas of interest.

"Times Topics" is a listing of everything you wanted to know about.... Clicking on Michael Vick you can read all of Times stories and catch links to other sites as well as his personal Web site. "Jenna Bush" and "Global Warming" are other Times' topics.

Does this replace the experience of sitting down with a copy of the paper with the early morning light streaming in while you drink your coffee--you know, where you can turn each page and discovery items that you never imagined searching for? A click-free morning is such a relief. You won't get it with My Times.



My Times - New York Times

Technorati Tags: My Times, online newspaper, rss

Powered by ScribeFire.