Rays with Shapes

Submitted by Photoplus Tutorials Blog

Step 13 : The Gaussian Blur dialogue box opens. I have set the Radius to 10 pixels because I am using a high resolution image. If you are using a low resolution image set it at less.

Click OK.

This is how your Shape should look like after applying the Gaussian Blur. It should blur a little only.

Step 14 : Go to Filter&g>Blur>Radial Blur.

Step 15 : The Radial Blur dialogue opens. Set the Amount to 100,  the Blur Method to Zoom and Quality to Good or Best. Click OK.

This is the effect you should get.

Step 16 : Reduce the Opacity of the Shape 1 layer by dragging the slider. I have reduced it to 50 %.

This is how the image look after reducing the opacity.

Step 17 : Click the New Layer icon at the bottom of the Layers palette and a new Layer 1 forms as the topmost layer.

Step 18 : Click the Single Column Marquee Tool from the fly out to select it. You can see where it is found.

Step 19 : Click once in the middle of the rays just created as shown. A single column of marching ants will form.

Step 20 : Click the Paths palette. It is different from the Layers palette. Click the Make Work Path from Selection button in the Paths palette t the bottom. A Work path appears.

Step 21 : Click the Brush Tool.

Step 22 : In the top panel click where the red arrow points to. Click on the Hard Round 5 pixels brush to select it.

Step 23 : Note that the Foreground Color is White.

Step 24 : Right click the Work Path. On the dialogue box that opens click on ‘Stroke Path’.

Step 25 : This dialogue box appears. Click OK.

Step 26 : The Path is stroked by the Brush.

Step 27 : Now click anywhere beneath the Work Path.

The Path disappears. The white line is visible.

Step 28 : Click back on the Layers palette.

Step 29 : Lower the Opacity of Layer 1 to 50 % by  dragging the slider.

Step 30 : Press CTRL+T. Hover you cursor over the top of the line. A double headed bent arrow will appear. Use it to rotate the line.  Press ENTER.

Step 31 : Click the Move Tool to select it.

Step 32 : Use the Move Tool to place the line appropriately on the rays.

Step 33 : Press CTRL+J. Layer 1 duplicates into Layer 1 copy.

Step 34 : Press CTL+T. Rotate the line. This is the line in Layer 1 copy. Press ENTER.

Step 35 : Press SHIFT and click on Layer 1. Both Layer 1 and Layer 1 copy are highlighted.

Step 36 : Press CTRL+E. Both the Layers merge into Layer 1 copy.

Step 37 : Press CTRL+J. Layer 1 copy duplicates into Layer 1 copy 2.

Step  38 : Press CTRL+T. Hover the cursor on a corner. The bent arrow appears. Use it to rotate the lines.

Press ENTER when done.

Step 39 : Press SHIFT and click on Layer copy. Both Layers are highlighted.

Step 40 : Both layers merge into Layer 1 copy2.

Step 41 : Press CTRL+J. Layer 1 copy 3 forms.

Step 42 : Press CTRL+T. Rotate the selection as earlier. Press ENTER when done.

Step 43 : Press SHIFT and click on Layer 1 copy 2. Both Layer are highlighted.

Step 44 : Both layers merge into Layer 1 copy 3.

Step 45 : Click on the Add Layers Style button on the Layers palette and click on Outer  Glow from the pop up menu.

Step 46 : In the Outer Glow dialogue click on Set Color of Glow.

Step 47 : The Color Picker opens.

Step 48 : Use the slider in the middle to move it to the light blue shade. Click on a light shade in the box on the left to select it. Click OK in the Color Picker.

Step 49 : Drag the Spread and Size sliders slightly. You can see the values that I have given. Click OK in the Outer Glow dialogue box.

This is how the image looks.

Step 50 : Lower the Opacity of the Layer to 75 %.

This is how the image looks after lowering the Opacity.

Step 51 : Press SHIFT and click on Shape 1. Both layer are highlighted.

Step 52 : Press CTRL+E. Both layers have merged into Layer 1 copy 3.

Step 53 : Click the Add layer Mask button and a layer mask forms next to the layer thumbnail on Layer 1 copy 3.

Step 54 : Click on the Brush Tool. Note that Foreground Color has turned to Black after you clicked the Add Layer Mask button.

Step 55 : Click where the arrow points to and click on Soft Round 300 pixels brush.

Step 56 : Paint away in the middle of the circle as shown.

The finished image.

I have clicked off the eye icon of the Background layer and added this image in its place.

This is how the Layer palette looks. Layer 1 copy 3 contains the rays, Layer 1 the new image and the eye icon in the Background image has been turned off. That is all.
Other photoshop tutorials are here.

My New Sister

Submitted by My Viewfinder Blog

From a portrait shoot I did this past weekend for some friends from church. (Click on photo to enlarge.)

New Life

Submitted by My Viewfinder Blog

A friend of mine with his new daughter. (Click on photo to enlarge.)

Moment

Submitted by Craig Photography Blog

Current Reading: A Life of Picasso (Vol 3) By John Richardson
Current Music: Pandora
Mood: Much Better
Sounds: My daughters laughter
Sounds: Calliou
Smells: Cantaloupe & coffee
Temperature: Currently 38 degrees high of 55
Thoughts: Walking towards divinity is walking towards your own heart…

FREE Photography Q&A

Submitted by Craig Photography Blog

1242 – It Could Happen To You

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

I’m back in Vienna, but I’m sick and at home. I’ve slept most of the day, and although I made a few images out of the window this morning, I’ll spare you the results.

These two images were both taken last week on the same day as “1237 – I’m Gonna Lock My Heart“. The first image is actually a failure. I probably should go back and try it again. The problem is, that I took two exposures with that walking man in the frame, one too early and the other, this one, too late. I’d have liked to have him a little bit more to the left, the scene less condensed, and then I would not have been forced to crop so much in from the left.

I’ve also played with some alternative crops, for instance a square that comes in even more from the left and that also cuts part of the scribble from the right, and although it is in some ways better, it does not satisfy me in the end. So this is a failure, but it is the kind of failure that interests me.

The Image of the Day was the other option from the same day, and I’m actually glad that I could finally use it. I would have forgotten it, but I really like the various strong lines in different directions, and the feeling of depth that they create.

Other than that, I’ve learned something. You know, here in the heart of Europe we have a political and social system that is very different from that in the US, and we tend to see the Republicans as evil, as being against freedom. Part of that is a fact that we’ve talked about often with Ted Byrne, namely that we associate completely different things with “left” and “right”, but especially with the political right. For me a Nazi is right, for him a Nazi fights for a system with tight governmental control, thus in his view Nazis are essentially left. Well, whatever. I guess in the meantime we have learned to appreciate each other’s positions.

But that’s something I had to think about, when I saw the recent TEDx talk by Lawrence Lessig. I really urge you to view this talk for three reasons:

First, I believe it carries an important message. I simply like what he says and I believe it’s true.

Second, it is enlightening on a completely different level, because it shreds some of my deeply ingrained prejudices. Unfortunately it also proves that politics are a damn complicated field. Well, and

Third, it is just an incredibly clever presentation. This man can really talk and this man really knows how to make a point. I heard it with interest and pleasure, hope you like it too.

The Song of the Day is one of my recent Sinatra acquisitions, the Johnny Burke / Jimmy Van Heusen composition “It Could Happen To You“. Hear it on YouTube.

1241 – Sweet Memory

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

This may seem like another “so-what” image, and in a certain way it is. Actually it is not a real image – meaning an image that I’m proud of – at all. It’s a memory, and to be precise, it’s a future memory.

This is of course the morning view from my study in Carinthia again. It’s not particularly interesting, just a morning, and during the last 17 months (so long have we been in Villach … so long), I have shown you many versions of this view, some of them maybe even good.

This is all going to fade away. Nothing will remain but a sweet memory.

See the red and white ribbons? They are all over the place, marking the outlines of furture buildings. So far they are nothing but a nuisance, making a lot of noise when the wind rushes in, but I suppose it’s only a matter of weeks until the bulldozers come.

It fills me with a certain nostalgia to know that this place will never again be what I have learned to love. But then: that’s life

The Song of the Day is “Sweet Memory” from the 2008 Melody Gardot debut album “Worrisome Heart”. See a live video on YouTube.

1240 – Don’t Ask Me Why

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

That’s gonna be a short one, promised

The image is one more from yesterday morning. Actually, yesterday’s two images and today’s one were taken in sequence.

Hmm … why this image? Don’t ask me. It somehow appeals to me. Maybe it tells a story. Maybe not. You decide

The Song of the Day is “Don’t Ask Me Why” from the 1989 Eurythmics album “We Too Are One”. YouTube has the video.

1239 – Once I Walked In The Sun

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

What do you do when you can’t decide between two pictures? Well, of course I use both. See “slightly below” for #2

Today winter was back again, but at the same time it was a wonderfully sunny morning. I rose early, left home shortly after 7 am, and when I went down Lerchenfelder Straße, I was walking directly into gleaming sunlight. As you can see, both images were taken in roughly the same place. Originally I wanted to take an image of the sun together with its many reflections, but when the woman passed by and the traffic lined up nicely, I made one more image, and that ended up as the Image of the Day.

As for the rest of this post, I’d like to clarify what I said in the last post regarding the need for “a system where you waive your rights by refusing to publish“. Flo reacted with a comment that made me realize how unspecific my rant had been, thus let me start by quoting her comment:

If you were a songwriter or composer of music, you’d feel just as proprietary about your hard work as photographers do about their images! It doesn’t matter whether an image has been printed, or if it exists as a film negative that has never been printed, or as a bunch of pixels/photons on a hard drive, that image represents a photographer’s hard work – and is given the same copyright protection as other property, such as paintings and sculptures, whether it ever is published or not. So I don’t understand why music should be any different.

All of us have seen paintings, sculptures, photo images, and other art work that we’d just love to be able to own – but we can’t just go and take them for our own use. But you want songwriters and composers to be willing to fork over their hard work to you for nothing, if they choose not to publish their work! I’m just not sure I understand what you mean by “publish or give it up.” You give something up only after you die, as you certainly can’t take it with you!

Should I give up all my images because I choose not to “publish” them, which means putting them on the internet or printing and hanging them in a gallery?

OK, I see, I should have been precise or shut up entirely I didn’t, so let me now try to do the second best thing, to try to explain what I really mean.

Oh, and one more thing before I begin: I am no lawyer, and even if I were, much brighter minds than mine have tried to solve those problems, so don’t expect me to succeed. Still, I’ll try to indicate a general direction.

There is no such thing as a “Natural Law”. Laws are agreements between influential forces in a society. In a democratic society, the agreeing parties can be thought of as rather broadly defined, ideally encompassing the society as a whole. In a totalitarian régime the participating forces represent only a small group, those who are in power, normally the ruling party and a group of wealthy supporters. I won’t speak of totalitarian systems here. I see totalitarian tendencies in our society, but I firmly believe that we still have a democratic consensus in what we frequently refer to as the “Western World”.

Modern democracy is firmly rooted in the philosophic system that developed in Europe’s Age of Enlightenment. One of the fundamental ideas of democracy is, that laws should be for the general good, not for the benefit of a certain group.

Just as there is no “Natural Law”, there is no “Natural Right” to enjoy unrestricted private property either. It’s all a matter of agreements. History saw systems that were vastly different from our current one, and even in the last 30 years we have seen many countries in Europe change from being oriented towards social welfare, to a system that more and more resembles that of the United States. There are many reasons for that. One is the complete failure and the demise of communism, another is the strong political influence of the US as the only remaining superpower. None of the political tendencies we see today is “just given”, nothing is an “only natural way”, everything is just as it currently is, and when anything of it turns out to work badly, to be inhuman, to be detrimental to the greater good of the society as a whole, there is nothing more natural than to think about changes.

Our system of “Intelectual Properties” is just that, a consensus, an agreement, and it has evolved a long time ago, well before the advent of computers, of digitalization, of the Internet, well before we learned to copy information in a completely lossless way. Flo writes about this matter in a very personal way, addressing it from the perspective of the creative artist. The problem is, that the current system does not exactly protect the interest of the artist, it protects the interest of the publisher.

Much of what is published, is not owned by its original creator. Contracts in the recording industry are normally much in favor of the corporations, not of the artists. Sure, some few artists get real rich, but this is not the rule. The rule is, that the recording industry takes most of the money, and normally they exercise their rights long after the artist has died. Ella Fitzgerald is long dead, but there is still a lot of money to be made with her work. Look at Billie Holiday: did she die incredibly rich? What did Vincent Van Gogh get from the billions of dollars that have since been paid for his paintings?

Again, I am not strictly against intellectual property, but I am strictly against the current trend to see it as god-given. The concept of “Intellectual Property” grants to the artist, the inventor, and to the one, who bought the work of art or the patent, a temporary monopoly. This is believed to foster creativity and to be in the best interest of an advancing culture. But still, this is meant to be a compromise. We make it easy for artists or inventors to profit from their work, and we do it in exchange for their increased output. It’s a deal. Society grants some privileges in order to get something back.

Unfortunately there is a tendency of capitalism to favor the concentration of wealth, and with concentrated wealth comes increased political influence, which again tends to even increase this tendency, and so on. As a consequence, it is hardly important to concentrate on the protection of the rich, they can perfectly care for themselves (and they certainly do), no, the primary focus must be on protecting those who can not pay for their political influence, those who can not pay for laws in their favor.

In that light, let me clarify what I meant with “publish or give it up”.

First: If I create any kind of work and don’t publish it, it is entirely my decision. No one is or should be able to force me. For the general public, it is just the same as if I had never created it at all.

Second: If I have published my own work and want to stop its circulation, I am free to do so. I don’t waive any rights. I probably won’t be able to completely undo the effect of the prior publication though. People may have seen or heard it, they may have quoted it, and it would be unreasonable to expect the world to help me undo my work. After all, from the moment of publication, my work begins to influence others, begins to become part of our shared experience, part of our cultural heritage. Creation is communication. Once the word is out, it can’t be unsaid, the book can’t be made unread, the song can’t be made unsung. But still, if I believe it was an unworthy piece, I am free to try to unmake it as good as I can.

If you think of it, no harm to society is done by these premises. We can assume that artists in general want to publish their work. There may be exceptions, but there is no real need to force anybody. Artists give gladly and freely, to compensate them is in the best interest of any society.

This is not necessarily the case with derived rights, for example those of publishers or those of organizations that mainly trade intellectual property rights. Just look at the patent system: There are companies, so-called “patent trolls”, that do nothing but buying trivial, broadly formulated patents, and then look for someone who actually invents their “invention”, or at least something that is similar enough to take the case to court. They are a special kind of non-practicing entities. They have never ever invented anything. Those companies are nothing but a bunch of lawyers, their only purpose is to sue those who actually do the research. Normally their patents are not even strong enough to win an actual case. No, they get their money because real companies try to avoid litigation. Litigation can damage an actual product, can delay its introduction, can make for bad press, and so the parasites “earn” their money. It would obviously be in the best interest of our society to redefine the patent system, in order to make such parasitic behavior impossible.

Squatting on a work of art for financial reasons is a similar thing. It’s certainly not in the interest of the artist. Artists want to see their work published. The idea is not, as Flo has insinuated, for me to want something for free, is not to leave the artist uncompensated, not at all, the idea is to prevent publishers from hoarding music or other works of art.

Now, as we talk about other works of art, let’s think about paintings and sculptures. Are they the same? Would I want to see them exhibited, by force if need be? Mind please, I say exhibited, not published! There’s a difference: A painting cannot be published, it can only be exhibited. Why? Because it is unique. It’s not that it can’t possibly be reproduced in an almost perfect way, at least so well that practically nobody could see a difference, no, I don’t rule that out, but reproduction is not the usual way to enjoy a painting or a sculpture. We expect it to be unique and we enjoy that uniqueness. Copying simply makes no sense in that context.

A book or a music record is different. We don’t mind getting a copy. Normally nobody even gets to see any manuscripts. What we expect are industrially manudfactured copies.

Thus I’ll rephrase my request:

Any work of art that (a) is of a kind that is normally reproduced, and that (b) is not in the possession of its creator, and that (c) has already been published once for a minimum duration of, say, a month, and (d) has been published commercially, has to be held in publication perpetually, in order to retain its proprietor’s copyright.

Additionally I’d require a reasonable price. Publishing the works of Frank Sinatra as digital downloads at Amazon.com, that’s perfectly OK. A price of below $1 per song or around $10 per album, that’s OK, twice as much would probably be already frivolous.

Something around that. A customary price in that market, and to be precise, a customary price for new music, thus already a little high for remastered songs from the 1950s. The market may not buy at that price. I, for instance, have bought the digital downloads for a Frank Sinatra collection called “Concepts”, originally released in 1992 as a boxed set of 16 CDs, currently available in the Amazon marketplace, used from $175.98, new at $899.99. That’s frivolous.

The current price for digital downloads is $185.76. Still a tad high, but then, maybe not. It’s the customary price, a little below $1 per song. After all, there are 248 songs in this collection. I was particularly lucky though, because – for whatever reason – Amazon sold it for $5 in the US and for 5.98€ in Europe. Cool, huh? What a bargain!

It was completely by chance that I saw it. Would I have bought at the current, customary price? Hell, no. I already had some Sinatra collections, many of those songs are probably duplicates, but then, at that bargain price I did not care.

Thus, the normal price for new songs may be a little high for Sinatra songs, the average music buyer may find it too high, but even at this price, the music is available for everybody who is interested. Setting the price for the digital downloads at $1000 would be much too high. It would be so high, that practically nothing would be sold at all. The price would have been set as a means to induce artificial scarcity, making the price an equivalence to not selling at all. That’s what I want to avoid, and for that reason I would make this pricing illegal.

As a govenment, I would not force prices on you as a publisher of art, but I would have a law against artificial scarcity. Thus you would lose a lawsuit aganst you.

And if you refuse to sell? Well, that’s the “give it up” part of my original rant. Our legal system grants copyright holders a monopoly, and it does that, because we believe, that it is in the interest of our society. That monopoly could be revoked. Why not? You act egoistically, why should scoiety protect you? You could still keep it from being published, but the law would allow unrestricted copying of such works. Essentially you as the formerly exclusive publisher would have given up copyright.

That’s not at all unreasonable, not anti-capitalist, not against private property. Monopolies are a danger to free markets, and they have been fought even in the US. Think of IBM and AT&T.

Speaking of music, here the problem is the availability of a semi-public good. We as a society grant some publishers the exclusive rights to take money for what other people, long dead, have produced. There is no reason why we must do that. Copyright could end with the death of the holder. It could end ten years after the work has been created and even for the artist. Why not? Ten years should be sufficient time to monetize a good song.

Or there could be no copyright at all. Copyright is an invention of the 19^th century. The world has endured thousands of years before the invention of copyright, and we can’t say that it did not develop quite well, can we? The absence of copyright protection did not mean that there was no incentive to produce art either. So what?

But then again, that’s not what I would do. I would just prevent copyright holders, that are not the original artists, from taking works, that have already been published commercially, off the market, either by not selling at all, or by creating artificial scarcity via outrageous prices. Finally, I would do this only for works of a category, that is applicable to selling as digital downloads. This certainly encompasses music and movies.

Note that I have phrased it “published commercially”. Actually this is because I want to take most photography out of the equation. Not necessarily my own. I sell images via Imagekind and the Fine Art Photoblog. Theoretically at least

There are uses where photography is sold to a publisher and then given away as part of a product, for instance press photography. Digital downloads are not a customary distribution method for these kinds of photography, thus I would not want to force digital distribution upon it.

There may be many similar examples, there may be holes in my “legal” construction, but in general it would reach its goal, the availability of our cultural heritage, and it would do so without undue restrictions to current proprietors.

The Song of the Day is “Once I Walked In The Sun” from the 2002 Jane Monheit album “In The Sun”. Hear it on YouTube.

Don’t Fight Mother Nature

Submitted by Howard Grill Blog

When out photographing, I have always found working with the prevailing conditions to be a far better idea than stubbornly resisting what is going on around me. Let me be more specific by using an example. If I were to go out with the idea of photographing wildflowers and find that it is a windy day, I am much more likely to return with interesting images if I decide to shoot using long shutter speeds in order to create abstract images than if I decided to ‘fight Mother Nature’ and insist on trying to get tack sharp images using fast shutter speeds and waiting (and waiting and waiting) for the wind to die down briefly. Sure, I might come back with a sharp image or two after the fight, but I would not have enjoyed myself, would have a feeling of frustration, and would have robbed myself of the opportunity to have tried something new.

Nonetheless, I recently found myself ‘fighting Mother Nature’ without really knowing that’s what I was doing. When I finally realized that I was resisting what nature was giving me I had a much more enjoyable time and came away with a reasonable image or two. Let me explain….. In a park near my house there is a group of three trees. They are special trees, though I don’t know what species they are. They are quite short, but have an aged appearance with contorted and twisted limbs. Truth be told, I don’t have a very good ‘relationship’ with these trees. I find them fascinating and intriguing……even a bit mysterious. For a year or two I have intermittently gone to see the trees with my camera but have never taken a single photograph of them! I have never been able to compose an image that I liked despite my feeling that there should be a hundred fascinating images among their twisted and contorted limbs. There has always been a bad background I can’t eliminate (the trees are right near a busy street) or the composition doesn’t really express what the trees make me feel etc. Sometimes, in situations like this, you are defeated before you even try……having tried so many times you go in with a losing attitude and an adversarial position (yes, I know those trees can’t really think….but why won’t they let me take their picture???).

Well, on Friday I went back again. There was snow on the ground and I thought that perhaps I could somehow use that as a ‘clean’ background. Of course, it turned out to be a bright day, something that is a rarity during a Pittsburgh winter (November through March is mostly gray…..if you don’t have seasonal affective disorder before you move here you rapidly develop it). Because the sun was shining, there were strong shadows on the snow. I was trying to compose images of the twisted limbs, but every time I thought I was getting something interesting the trees’ shadows would clutter the background.

After continuing to circle the trees in order to try to get an interesting composition without a distracting shadow in the background, it occurred to me that I was fighting this way too hard. Why not accept the fact that the sun was there and that unless I came back another time the shadows were simply not going away? Why not work with ‘Mama’ and use what ’she’ was giving me? Why not try to incorporate the shadows into the composition? In fact, why not make the shadow the main subject of the image since, over time, I had been having so much difficulty making an image with the trees themselves as the main subject?

So that is exactly what I did! Once I started accepting the shadows as part of the image instead of trying to eliminate them, compositions became much easier.

Is this an ‘award winning’ image?? I think not, but it is the only composition that I felt intrigued enough with to actually make me want to push the shutter button.

After liking the way my prior HDR bare tree image looked, I decided to use the same treatment for this image. The contrast range, given the bright snow and dark tree, lent itself to making an HDR composite of 6 images which was then converted to black and white and toned using SilverEfex Pro.

Pittsburgh Photography Workshop Reminder

Submitted by Craig Photography Blog

Another reminder about our upcoming HOW TO EVERYTHING: PHOTOGRAPHY workshop. It’s coming up fast and seats are getting filled.

You can click HERE to go straight to the registration page, or you can contact us at craigphotography@mac.com or               724.355.9079         724.355.9079 with any questions.

Hope to see you there!

Anniversary (Self) Portrait

Submitted by Craig Photography Blog

Six years & she hasn’t kick me out yet…

1237 – I’m Gonna Lock My Heart

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

Or maybe not, it’s just that I took a series of images of locks, with this one the best of the bunch

The Song of the Day is “I’m Gonna Lock My Heart” by Billie Holiday, and this presents me with a dilemma. Let me explain:

I normally link to CDs at Amazon. I don’t know, I am that way, I have always bought my music, and I liked to buy it in a way that gave me something to put on a shelf. No more so. I wrote about it recently, I have begun to buy digital downloads.

I have this song in a collection of ten CDs that are not available any more. I got them for 10€ sometime last year. On Amazon I found it in a single CD that’s only available via their marketplace, and in a collection of nine albums, “Good Morning Blues, The Complete Columbia Recordings 1933-1950″, that are currently only available as digital downloads and, as so often with digital downloads, you cannot buy them from Europe via this link. It’s not that I normally bought CDs from Amazon.com that often, I normally used their UK or German branch, but at least theoretically I could and sometimes I have.

Of course what I really recommend are the downloads. Go figure: 230 songs for $15.98, and you don’t even have to rip them! It’s a steal.

But then: in an age of digital downloads, this artificial market fragmentation created by a copyright system long gone crazy, a copyright system that is completely inadequate for world-wide digital distribution, in such an age I find it increasingly hard to link to something that all of you could possibly buy.

Well, it’s not all that bad, actually you get the same collection at Amazon.de as well, it’s even the same price (numerically, 15.98€, the straight conversion not considering taxes would be 11.71€, but we Europeans always like to pay some more ), but still, this is not always so and it’s still not the same link. It’s not even possible to take the Amazon.com link and exchange “.com” with “.de”. Amazon.de has it, but under a different link. Oh my!

Enough of the rant. What about you? Do you still buy plastic? Do you buy downloads? Or do you just download?

Oh, by the way, hear it on YouTube.

Photo of the Week

Submitted by Craig Photography Blog

1236 – Perfect Blue Buildings

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

Giving titles. Even (or because of) my habit of using song titles, it can be really hard.

Sometimes it takes me as long as working on the image. Here I had three of them to choose, none of them a clear winner.

In the end I decided for the one that gave me a Song of the Day. Actually I would have rather taken this one: a damaged bicycle with an infinitely twisted wheel, but really, among 34000 songs, there is exactly not a single one called “Infinity”.

Or the other one. I would have expected “Obscure” (at least that’s what I read: “Obskur”) to be a word that occurs at least once in 34000 song titles. Nothing.

Of course “Blue” was the cheap way out. 1557 songs, most of them Blues

The Song of the Day is “Perfect Blue Buildings” from the 1993 Counting Crows album “August and Everything After”. Hear it on YouTube.

In 15 Days ~ Q&A Meet-Up

Submitted by Craig Photography Blog

Shoot N’ Learn, Connect N’ Grow
We invite you to join us and ask all your burning photog questions:
~ FREE to all
~ Open to all interested in photography, art and business
~ If you attended a past Workshop or a Photo-Walk it’s a good time to get any problems fixed
~ Meet local photographers of all levels, make a friend, find a mentor
~ Discover why its better to collaborate then compete

You
~ Bring your questions, camera and smile (bottle of wine optional)

When
Thursday–3/18, 7pm-9pm

Location
Studio ~ 502 W. North Ave, Pittsburgh PA 15212

RSVP, Please craigphotography@mac.com

PS. A good read by David Burke (HERE)
PSS. See all Craig Photography events (HERE)

So, Curious…let’s discuss

1235 – Death Don’t Have No Mercy

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

Funny guy, huh? Somehow reminds me of Achmed the Dead Terrorist, but instead he is mounted under the saddle of a bicycle that I found yesterday

The Song of the Day is “Death Don’t Have No Mercy” from the 1969 Grateful Dead album “Live / Dead”. YouTube has a version from a concert 20 years later. Not bad either

No Photos

Submitted by My Viewfinder Blog

I’ve been posting to My Viewfinder since December, 2005, and I believe this is my first post with no photo. We’re still locked in the grip of winter in the Smoky Mountains (3-6″ of snow forecast for today), and I haven’t been motivated to go fight the elements for some new photos. I’m scheduled to do some bridal portraits in a couple of weeks, so I’m spending some time preparing for that. Needless to say, they’ll be done indoors.

In preparation for a wedding I’m doing in May, I ordered another, larger CF memory card. I got an 8GB card for only $18.95 at Adorama. I ordered it from Adorama because I was already ordering some other items from them. I didn’t check around to see if this was the best price, so you may be able to get an 8GB card for less than I did. How much have memory cards come down in price? When I bought my first digital camera in 2003, I paid around $40 for a 128MB CF card. That’s mega bytes; they don’t even make cards that small any more. My new card has 40 times the capacity of that 128MB card for less than half the price. If only gas was coming down in price like memory cards!

How would you like to go to MIT for free? Good luck! Well, then, how about some photography courses online from MIT for free? Click on this link and see what they have to offer:

http://www.yourphototips.com/2010/02/16/want-more-photography-knowledge-try-these-free-mit-courses/

I’ll close today with one of my favorite quotes:

Just A Few Minutes

Submitted by Howard Grill Blog

One of the intriguing aspects of nature photography is the constant realization of how things change. This is most easily apparent when returning to favorite nearby locations at various times of year. But very frequently, things change much faster than that, and perhaps no time demonstrates that more than sunrise and sunset. The rapid change in light levels, temperature and subsequent wind makes a scene change so rapidly that photos that were taken just minutes apart can look as if they were taken on totally different days.

Such was the case when I was photographing in Oregon a few years ago. I had previously written a post about this image, taken at Haceda Beach:

Sea Stacks I
Copyright Howard Grill

A short while later the sun had dropped lower in the sky, offering this composition, with the orb of the sun placed squarely between the two sea stacks.

Sea Stacks II
Copyright Howard Grill

Finally, only minutes later, the sun had sunk completely below the horizon. The warm yellow/orange coloration of the sky and water was now gone, but the clouds began rolling in and the sky became a deep blue with the clouds painted red/pink by the sun below the horizon.

Sea Stacks III
Copyright Howard Grill

Changes. All in a matter of just a few minutes. Nothing like photographing sunrise and sunset to make you cognizent of the passage of time!

Accidents & Purpose

Submitted by Craig Photography Blog

Yesterday was my first day of walking outside in the cold Pittsburgh air since returning from our trip. Shoveled the driveway and went through a month of mail and then magically life returned to normal.

Received some very nice comments on my nature dreamscape photography, which felt good. The style and approach to this body of work had a specific shift in my method to photography.

First, the approach…accidents happens. I forgot to pack the tripod base (the part that attaches the camera to the tripod). I take the slow photography movement approach to creating images. For that to work you need to have a tripod, a good heavy tripod. I ended up buying a cheap lightweight tripod from Wal Mart, I died a little inside making that purchase.

Second, the style…accidents can have purpose…it was very windy, daily. High winds and a cheap tripod created camera shake, typically this is not good. I discovered that creating exposures around 2 seconds (traditionally I try to create 30 second exposures to slowly burn deep focus into the image) would allow me to capture slight windy blown trees and water to produce brush strokes in tandem with a long enough exposure to capture light shifts and color change.

Next, I need a new project….any suggestions?

1234 – For No One

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

Here’s one more of yesterday’s images. I was too lazy to go out today. Sorry

This is an abandoned house not far from Klagenfurt, located in a wonderful spot, obviously belonging to an estate not far away, a solitary house, abandoned and closed, with an “Entrance forbidden” sign on the door, of use for no one.

The Song of the Day is the Beatles song “For No One“, sung by Anne Sofie von Otter on her collabration with Elvis Costello, the 2001 release “For the Stars”. Hear it on YouTube.

1233 – Sitting On A Barbed Wire Fence

Submitted by The Daily Photography of Andreas Manessinger Blog

It’s Sunday evening by now. I have whiled the day away and now I am in a hurry. As usual

This images is from a short trip on Saturday afternoon. Saturday was warm and sunny, eating the snow away at enormous speed. The image is a composite of two exposures, one taken at f5.6, the other at f2.8.

The Song of the Day is “Sitting On A Barbed Wire Fence” by Bob Dylan. I have it on disc 2 of “The Bootleg Series, Vols. 1-3 : Rare And Unreleased, 1961-1991″. Hear it on YouTube.

Can You Help Me?

Submitted by Ralph Nordstrom Photography Blog

I’ve been running surveys for some time now.  It looks like a lot of people are visiting the survey but I’m not getting any results.  I don’t know what’s wrong.  So if you wouldn’t mind helping me, please take the following survey by clicking on the link below and let me know what you experience.

I would like your opinion.  Please take a short survey.

Leave a comment on the blog or in Facebook, whichever is more convenient.  Let me know when you took the survey and how many pages you completed.  You should see a total of 8 pages.

Thanks for your help.

Conte Crayon Filter in Photoshop

Submitted by Photoplus Tutorials Blog

Had Enough

Submitted by My Viewfinder Blog

It’s March 1. There’s more snow in the forecast for Tuesday and Wednesday. Spring is still 20 days away officially. In the Smoky Mountains where I live, it’s another 5-6 weeks away practically. I had planned to get out yesterday afternoon with my camera, but it was just too miserably cold and windy. Instead, I stayed inside and finished reading a biography of Jackie Gleason which depressed me even more. I’ve had enough of winter.

Since I had no new photos to post, I dug into the archives and found this photo from a rod run and car show back in November of 2008. I believe hood ornaments became popular again in the 1980s, but today’s versions are lame compared to ones like this from the 1930s. Instead of merely plopping a manufacturer’s badge on the hood, automaker’s of the past utilized designs that can only be described as sculpture. Compare this one to today’s offerings. Now that’s a hood ornament! (Click on photo to enlarge.)

Hood Ornament, Cherokee, NC - 2008