Me in my friend Derek’s lenses:
An advertisement on the back of the November 1989 issue of National Geographic talks up Kodak’s new (at the time) EKTAR film. “You’re looking at a 2500% blowup with detail never before possible in a 35mm color print film,” it says. There’s close-up picture of a defeated football player. Inset is the original, uncropped photograph.
In fact, I found the image on Google:
What I find remarkable is that while Kodak boasts “detail never before possible”, the blow-up is actually quite soft. It is far from “tack sharp,” as they say. I read this and remembered several years back when I researched dSLR cameras, read lens reviews, followed the forums. What photogs seem to do these days is called “pixel peep”. They take a photograph, view it at maximum resolution and beyond, and then evaluate the lens or camera responsible based on how crisp the photograph is. I found this odd, as did others, since nobody ever looks that closely at a photograph. At normal viewing size, these photographs could be brilliant, but at the ultra-zoom level, they show flaws.
I remember, too, that the Pentax K10D, which I ended up buying, lost some marks from reviewers because its out-of-the-box settings didn’t produce a desirable quality of photrograph. The problem? The photographs were too soft. They weren’t “tack sharp”.
I’ve never been able to take a “tack-sharp” photograph. Partially because I don’t often use a tripod, partially because that particular Pentax model was design to produce film-like photographs. This is just fine by me. Surely there are other features in a photograph that are more important for judging its quality.
All this to say that that 1989 Kodak advertisement would not make the grade today. The never before possible “detail” in the blow-up would make the pixel-peepers scoff.
I wonder, have we lost something in our age of “tack-sharp” photographs and pixels in the millions? Do digital photographs have the same warmth and “personality” as analog photographs did? I suspect not. That’s not to say that I’m not thankful in many ways for digital cameras–mostly for their instant and forgiving output–or that there aren’t many brilliant and beautiful digital photographs taken. Yet I find that my dad’s old Minolta XG-1 (it’s older than I am) consistently yields better photographic results. And–sometimes–I crank up the ISO on my Pentax to add some of that “noise” and grain that is so hated these days. It may not show detail like cameras can these days, but I kind of like it.
Our credit card includes a rewards system in which, after accumulating a certain number of points, you can take your pick of a gift card for a variety of businesses. Usually we just get Esso gift cards; occasionally we will get FutureShop (an electr0nics store for you non-Canadians) gift cards. Since moving to Otterburne, however, we’ve had some difficulty with the bank. For some reason they are reluctant to send our bills and statements to a box number. Somehow Dixie managed to convince the bank to send our statements to our box number, but we have not been able to convince them to send the gift cards to the same address. (Banks!)
As a result of this obstinacy, we’ve gone a year or more without claiming any of our gift cards. Then we realized, a week or two ago, that we could just use the street address for the school and still get the mail in our box. So now we’re sitting on $350.00 in FutureShop gift cards.
We chose Futureshop because we want to buy a new point-and-shoot camera for our trip to England. I’ll probably bring my Pentax DSLR, but it’s nice to have a small camera handy as well, as I’m not sure I want to carry a large camera bag everywhere I go.
The question is, which point-and-shoot camera should I buy? I did a great deal of research before buying my Pentax DSLR. It seems to me, however, that with point-and-shoot cameras it’s a bit of a crap-shoot. There is a dearth of choice and, in my experience, you cannot count on brand-name alone to make a good choice in the point-and-shoot market. Our first digital camera was a Canon. We spent a ridiculous sum of money on this basic digital camera (back when they were just becoming popular), and I was delighted to find that the results exceeded my expectations.
After a number of years that particular camera deteriorated to the point of near-uselessness. Superstore presented us with an opportunity: no tax on anything purchased on a certain day. So I went out without any research and purchased another Canon. I assumed that it being a Canon would be enough, but I was disappointed. The picture quality, among other things, was disappointing. I spent $250 on that camera, I think. Frustratingly, the $70 Samsung we bought for Madeline the following year took very good pictures–significantly better than our Canon (which is now on the fritz, too).
So, as I say, a crap shoot. I have no idea where to begin with a point-and-shoot search. No–not true. I’d like to begin here: with a Canon Powershot G11. The G11 is about as close as you can get to a DSLR without actually buying a DSLR. It gets great reviews, but it’s pricy, so we’d have to shell out a bit of our own cash.
After that, I don’t know where to go. A Canon Powershot S90? A Pentax Optio something or other? A Samsung? Maybe we should just ask Madeline if we can take hers…
I’ve had essentially the same pair of glasses for some 12 years or so. I began with a brown-speckled frame and then when I needed new lenses moved to the same frame in black. For a while I considered doing the Woody Allen/Bruce Cockburn thing and simply wear the same frames for the rest of my life, but this semester I decided it was time for a change. The before and after:
The old glasses were, I now realize, a little too small for my face. The new frames are bigger and bolder and for the most part I think they work. I do feel a bit pretentious with the new frames, my leather coat and scarf and my dad’s (now mine) flat cap on.
In other news, my brother’s newfound passion for photography has reinvigorated me and I’ve got my photoblog (Photolicious — permanent link above the banner picture) up and running again. I’ve also decided to try and take and post 365 pictures in 2010. Photolicious will include both the 2010 pictures as well as some pictures lifted out of the 8,000-odd unsorted and unprocessed pictures I have sitting on my hard drive. For just the 2010 photographs, you can follow my Flickr set of the same name. I don’t want to call it picture-a-day because I’ll likely miss some days and other days take more than one good picture to make up for it.
Last night Linea and I led our annual Maundy Thursday service at the church. It was quite an intimate affair this year, with only 11 people in attendance. We left the service in silence as a symbol of the continuity between it and the Good Friday service.
Of course, most people won’t stay silent for the rest of the evening. Dixie went off to Sobeys to get some groceries, while I ordered pizza from the church for her to pick up on the way home. I went to Futureshop and purchased the new Tragically Hip album on a whim (along with another one on sale). Almost bought the new Neil Young album as well, along with a couple of remasted early U2 CDs, but resisted both.
As I sat in my car, idling in the parking lot, and opened the new CD (I always open and listen immediately) I made a momentary connection with Jesus’ disciples, who scattered after he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane. A group of us Jesus-followers had just gathered to commemorate the Last Supper and the new command to love each other and then we scattered into the world, back to our normal lives of TV and eating and drinking and shopping. It seemed for a moment like such an incongruity to go just go on about our business as usual after that service. But, I thought, tomorrow we collect ourselves again at the Good Friday service.
In the mean time, Dixie and I had our long put-off Thursday evening date: pizza, junk food, a couch, and two hours of NBC sitcoms. Yes, incongruous.
My intention was for at least one of us to go to a Good Friday service (I hadn’t looked into whether there were any children’s programs at the multiple services in town). It seemed like I would be going to St. George’s Anglican (my biannual tradition, it seems) for their service, but a miscommunication turned into an at-home Good Friday service with the kids. At first I was bothered by this, because I foresaw a “service” with the kids as a futile endeavour, doomed to failure. And I was right, to a degree–there is only so much that a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old in particular will pay attention to. Plus, all the kids were cranky and whiny and disobedient most of the day.
That said, historically the kids have not participated in any sort of Good Friday anything, so it was a good thing to tell them the story again and provide a little context for the weekend.
We showed them an Easter video, then went to the dining room where they coloured some Easter-related pictures (we have tried desperately to avoid the bunnies and chocolate theme over the weekend–we did a chocolate egg hunt earlier in the week to get that out of the way). I then told them the story of Jesus and his disciples in the garden, Jesus’ arrest, trial and crucifixion (using this).
This was followed by the kids singing along to the Veggietales Easter album. Here’s Madeline reading (!) the lyrics and singing along (although I’m pretty sure she knew most of the words already, but she loves reading, she says):
And here’s Luke colouring:
And here’s Olivia putting marker lids on her fingers:
Then one further craft: three crosses made out of popsicle sticks, which we intend to put up somewhere in the yard. I added the “This is the king of the Jews” sign to one of the crosses and Luke insisted that one of the crosses should have a sign with his name on it:
The morning reached a crescendo some time after this, when the two younger children were screaming at the tops of their lungs in anger over something , while Bob and Larry sang “I Know That My Redeemer Liveth” in the background. It was kind of funny.
And for lunch: poffertjes! Here’s a photo set of the preparation and consumption of poffertjes. They’re kind of like pancakes, but not. It was a tradition to have them for supper on my birthday. This was my first time making them myself. Here’s the end product:
After lunch: naps, homework, relax. Tonight: a game with Dixie maybe and sermon preparation.
I suppose these should go on my photoblog, shouldn’t they? Poor thing’s been neglected since August.