Taking the plunge: Film/Print Photo Scanning

After considerable deliberation, I just ordered a photo scanner. I've done a lot of research and had narrowed my selection to models from Canon and Epson, with the Epson V600 winning out. I was prepared to spend $250.00 to $300.00 for a quality scanner, but I find there is a price gulf between "very good" scanners, which top out below $200.00, and the "great" scanners for which the low end is nearly $600.00.

Maybe later, but not now.

My main personal interest is digitizing about 20 years worth of negatives and transparencies. But the main likely business interest I have in a scanner would be to scan original photos (prints) for digital restoration. The former calls for a film/transparency scanner, the latter calls for a flatbed 99% of the time. So, while film scanning is a high priority, from a practical standpoint, I had to eliminate any film-only units from consideration. Fortunately, there are several options on the market that do both, though the film scanning on dual-purpose scanners is reported in most reviews to be at least a small compromise. However, I judged that the Epson V600 film/print scanner gets sufficiently good reviews from multiple sources for both kinds of originals to warrant jumping in with my debit card.

My plan is to scan selected images at an "overkill" resolution (I'm thinking about 6000 pixels on the long dimension, after crop, enough for a 20-inch print at 300dpi), and save a scanner raw file of each with any and all metadata that may be available for each image, which in most cases will only be the date the photo was taken (I filed by date) and any details I noted or can remember about the event that was photographed.

I cheaped out on shipping, so the projected arrival time for the scanner is middle of next week. I look forward to seeing what this baby can do and will share the results here.

Recycle the Shuffle?

---

In the most recent "Pundit Showdown" on the Macworld podcast, Chris Breen answered a question about what Apple products should be "recycled" by saying that 5 iPod Shuffles should be mashed together and recycled into "a single iPod that would actually be useful." I listened to this through a mist of irony since this podcast was delivered into my ear canal via . . . you guessed it, a 4GB 3rd Gen. iPod Shuffle.

I commented in this blog three times (here, here, and here) last year on this newest Shuffle before I'd actually handled one, and I didn't comment in the most glowing terms. This is certainly a device that can leave one thinking. . . "Huh?"

But then, for Christmas '09, my wife gave me one. In green. You know what? I love it.

I come not to evangelize for the Shuffle. It appeals to me for very specific reasons that probably aren't applicable to a great many people. I like it because it's small and stays out of my way when I do physical work on my second job that serves to supplement my freelance photography income until the economy stops sucking. I like that it supports multiple playlists, unlike previous Shuffles. It took me a while to make peace with the proprietary headphones, and I thought Voiceover would be cumbersome and difficult to learn. But Voiceover is a breeze, and I soldered my preferred Skullcandy in-ear buds onto the Apple cable, which has been shortened with small rubber bands my wife had on hand for the college cheerleaders she coaches (for pony tails, don'tcha know). It's now the perfect iPod for me. Not for everyone, to be sure, but for me.

The only way to make it better would be to add an FM radio. I don't know if the that's possible in that small a package, but I can dream. (I visuallize a "playlist" of station presets that could be navigated like any other playlist on the Shuffle, similar to the way the original Griffin iTrip worked).

If you're into getting geeky with smart playlists, and aren't picky about being able to select one particular song to play at the slightest whim, (in other words, if you don't need or even particularly want a GUI interface) this could be the iPod for you. I have several podcast smart lists set up in iTunes that make me feel like I program my own radio station. Every time I refresh podcasts and re-sync the Shuffle, a new roster of news programs, tech podcasts, and audio fiction streams out and keeps me sane as I do the brainless work that guarantees me health benefits and that the bills get paid for one more month. With a few clicks of the in-line remote, I can switch to a different flavor of podcast, or to an audiobook, rock'n'roll, classical, or film scores.

Honestly, I wish Apple would go back to a design similar to the previous generation Shuffle. I never liked arm bands or belt clips, and the Nano tended to fall out of my shirt pocket when I bent over, which I do frequently, so the built-in "tie tack" clip shared by 2nd- and 3rd-Gen. designs is an ideal form factor. I'd like the remote control headphones to continue to be an option (controls are handy right next to your jawbone), but I'd like to see Apple put some actual buttons back on the Shuffle so the proprietary headphones aren't required. I have a Scosche Tapstick, which gives the Shuffle buttons anyway, but this is one third party accessory Apple should make obsolete.

I doubt I'm changing Chris Breen's mind, and I'm not trying to. But the Shuffle has it's niche and I hope it continues to evolve.

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens size specs

---

I fear I run the risk of sounding like all the iPad prognosticators I grow extremely tired of hearing, but I have a little more data on the upcoming 85mm f/1.4 lens from Sigma.

I was really interested in actual dimensions and weight on this lens for better comparison "on paper" with comparable lenses by Nikon and Canon in terms of handling. In response to a post I made on another forum, I was handed a link to lens specs that do include physical dimensions, but still nothing on weight. Here, we see the Sigma measures 84.7mm in diameter, and 87.6mm in length. Weight is listed as "TBD." One might guess that some materials are still not settled upon with finality, which could affect lens weight.

We can now see the Sigma is somewhat larger than the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens (80mm diameter and 72.5mm long) even considering Nikon's dimensions apparently do not include the lens mount flange. And Sigma comes in considerably smaller than Canon's f/1.2 hog, which measures 91.5mm diameter by 84mm long.


This Sigma lens, along with their previously introduced 50mm f/1.4 lens (shown at left), seem targeted to hit Nikon and Canon at points in their lens line where they are weak. Nikon recently introduced an upgraded 50mm f/1.4 lens, and canonrumors.com reports rumblings that Canon is about to follow suit with a 50mm f/1.4 update of their own. Would either company be likely to make a move on this type of lens without non-OEM competition?

How the Sigma lens will compare optically is a completely open question, since virtually nobody, save possibly for a few chosen souls covered by NDA, has shot with one yet. The added bulk of the Sigma compared to the Nikon lens may be explained by the HSM focusing motor, and will very likely be justified by better performance of the AF. The size reduction compared to the Canon offering will also with near certainty be accompanied by improved AF and MF performance at the paltry cost of 1/3 stop of light gathering power. (The f/1.2 max aperture serves Canon better in terms of bragging rights and profit margin than it does users in terms of usable lens aperture.).

While I enjoy and appreciate the faster apertures and (often) better optics of fixed lenses compared to their zoom counterparts, I don't own any right at this time and choose to rent them as needed, as Robert's Distributors in Indianapolis is a readily available source for me. I am normally reticent to go with non-OEM optics but Sigma has my attention with the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.4. It is impressive to me that Sigma is competing directly on lens build quality and performance and not just on price. Their 50mm is actually pricier than Canon's and about the same price as Nikon's. The Sigma 85mm will pleasantly surprise me if it comes in much below $1000.00 US, which would be lower than Canon's price and roughly the same as Nikon.. Whether or not I end up buying one or both of these lenses, I appreciate Sigma's mixing it up in the fixed-length marketplace.

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 update

I heard back today from Sigma on my information request about their upcoming 85mm f/1.4 lens. They told me that can't give more detailed information at this time on precise dimensions and weight of the lens, so I still can't do a direct comparison with the Nikon and Canon equivalents of this lens.

However, they did burst my bubble somewhat by stating this lens will NOT be compatible with a teleconverter. I was salivating a bit at the prospect of a single lens/converter combo that could obviate my need to periodically rent Canon's 85mm f/1.2 and 135mm f/2.0. If there were a matching 1.4X teleconverter, this lens could be both a very fast 85mm and a 119mm (which is close enough to 135mm).

Such is life. Hopefully Sigma will change their minds on this and issue a compatible converter, but I will continue to breathe normally in the interim.

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 HSM. Sweet.

---

Sigma, long a competitor in the pro-sumer zoom lens market, has also shown it is not afraid to mix it up in the higher-end lens market. For several years they have had well-reviewed versions of 70-200mm 2.8 and 24-70mm 2.8 lenses. They have also pushed into fixed-length (see this post on why I hate the term "prime" - except when it's used properly) lens markets with 300mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and others. Soon (thought no date was given), their newest entry in their "fast and fixed" line will be the 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens.

In Sigma parlance, "EX" refers to the special finish and higher build quality on its higher-end products, and DG refers to a lens suitable for full-frame digital and film cameras (as opposed to "DC" lenses, which are only for "crop-sensor" cameras, such as Nikon D300 or Canon EOS 7D, to name a few). HSM refers to focus driven by Hypersonic Motor.

I have multiple times rented the Canon 85mm f/1.2L USM (both the original and the "II" versions) lens for specific occasions when I wanted insanely thin depth of field or was working in ridiculously low light, such as a local college dance group that seems fond of performing in near total darkness. The Canon is a great lens optically, but it handles like a shot put. In addition to being larger and heavier than seems necessary, both manual and autofocus are slo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ow. The "II" version improved handling compared to the original, but only incrementally. Sigma's new lens is shown here in a photo provided by the company, apparently in Canon mount. Based on the known dimension of the mount flange, this lens appears to by noticeably smaller than Canon's big-ass 85mm, while only being a measly 1/3 stop slower. I would also say it is somewhat more compact than the Nikon 85mm f/1.4.

Way back in the day (late '80's), when I was a Nikon shooter, I owned a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 for a couple of years. This was also a great lens optically, though I could never master getting basketball action shots reliably in focus with it at f/1.4. I may not do a whole lot better with that today, as that is very sparse depth of field. Nikon's current autofocus version of this lens appears to be the same basic design, though it uses the old-style body-driven "screwdriver" type AF rather than the newer, more reliable "hypersonic" style motor. Sigma's new lens will almost certainly be a faster, more accurate, and quieter alternative for Nikon users.

Do I sound like I'm looking forward to getting my hands on this lens for a test drive? Well, yes, I am. While Canon OEM zooms are my bread and butter, I do like a fast fixed-length lens at times for certain purposes, and am not married to Canon glass only. Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 lens is very attractive to me, though I've not sunk the bucks into one yet. It is well-reviewed around the 'net, but for my work, the 50mm is more of a "would be nice" than a "must have." That scale may slide once there is a sustained improvement in the economy.

With it's greater reach, the 85mm could rate as a "must have" for my work, particularly with the aforementioned dance/stage events, and also with high school/college diving and dog agility events, both of which involve fast action under dodgy indoor lighting and usually a ban on electronic flash.

Sigma's press release does not specify if the 85mm is compatible with a 1.4X teleconverter. The lens would almost definitely be a "must have" for me if it was 1.4X-ready, as that would essentially give me a dual-duty lens that would also replace a 135mm f/2.0 lens, which is another lens I rent on a recurring basis for similar events. I have an inquiry in with Sigma at this time. Not surprisingly, information on exact release date and price are not being disclosed at this time, though I was told June is a target for release. I also asked about precise weight and dimensions of the lens for direct comparison with current equivalent Nikon and Canon lenses and if the Sigma 85mm to get a better idea of the handling and flexibility of the Sigma. I am told answers on these questions may come by Monday.

I'll let you know.

She was truly a lady.

---

Our neighborhood is poorer as of yesterday with the passing of Shania, a lovely and charming Siberian Husky who shared her two bedroom, two bath, 1 1/2 garage home with my good friend (and best "man" at my wedding) Eileen Cantin.

Eileen writes in an email giving us the news: "Shania was an ambassador in the neighborhood, and a quiet greeter to anyone who came for a visit. She was a sweet companion who was much loved. She will be missed. Together she learned with Eileen after their buddy Silver died that life goes on in wonderful ways and good memories are a special gift."

Included with her message was this photo, which I took this past Saturday as we took a walk in the woods near Shania's home.

New iPod Shuffle - Apple gets a clue

---

At the much-awaited September 9 Apple announcement, newly-minted organ donation cheerleader Steve Jobs and Apple surprised pretty much nobody by revving up the iPod line. The Nano muscles up in ways that will surely keep it at the top of the music player heap, and the Shuffle gets a right-sizing and pricing correction.

While not the top of the line, the iPod Nano is the real flagship of the iPod fleet, and it was given a huge boost in value with the addition of an FM tuner, pedometer, and video camera with microphone not to mention the most appealing new feature, a $20.00 price drop on the 16GB model. The addition of a camera has been rumored several weeks since photos leaked from a Chinese aftermarket manufacturer of new Nano skins with a hole on the back that could be for pretty much nothing other than a camera lens.

With the broadest range of upgrades, the Nano was the star of the show. The iPod Touch would have been had it gotten its long-rumored camera. (The MacBreak Weekly guys seem to think this is a temporary design glitch and the photo-capable Touch will come soon.) But it may be that the first item from the event to cause me to open up my wallet will be the less-sexy iPod Shuffle. Here's why:

I posted back in March (here and here) when the new button-less shuffle first came out about my misgivings on the design. While I think it is undeniably slick, the proprietary headphones with inline controls and $79.00 price tag has held me back up to now. Though I've made peace with the headphones, it's hard to spend $79.00 on a 4GB shuffle when, for only 60 bucks more, you can get all the navigation interface mojo and video playing goodness of the 8GB Nano. But now, in addition to pretty new colors to choose from, I can now choose to get a 2GB Shuffle for $59.00. I think this is smart.

Really, how many people need 4GB in a shuffle? The shuffle is a playlist based music player. You don't really need a huge chunk of space for your whole music collection in this type of player. At four gigs, it's doubtful that battery would last long enough to continuously shuffle through all the music through even once. Two gigs makes a little more sense. I'd load a Shuffle two or three podcast playlists, and a couple or three music playlists, and one or two audio books. That's probably only a bit more than one gigabyte of media.

When you buy a shuffle, you just know you are handing Apple one of the largest, if not THE largest, profit margins for any hardware product they sell. But a $59.00 price tag makes this easier to swallow than $79.00.

Prognostication From A Dark & Smelly Place

---

I should probably start this entry by stating a few things that I am NOT. I am not an oracle or a psychic. I am not a Canon fanboy and am not in the Canon inner circle or connected with the company in any way. I am not a Canon evangelist or a Nikon detractor. (I have a spreadsheet calculating the cost/benefit of a switch to Nikon to prove that.)

Recently, a mole at Best Buy revealed new UPC product database entries had been created for the Canon G11, S90, and 7D. That a G11 was eventually coming is a no-brainer. The "G" series has updated on a more-than-annual basis for years.

The S90, on the other hand, is thought to be a much more counterintuitive development. I have to take other web posts at their word on this, since I do not follow developments surrounding this type of camera. But, if we accept that the S90 prediction was either based on fact or an exceptionally lucky guess, the 7D gets added credibility, as well as a blogospheric tornado of speculation on it's specifications.

To amalgamate the myriad estimations of 7D capabilities, the new camera will most probably:

• be anywhere from 12 to 21 megapixels.
• have one, or perhaps two, digic IV processors or debut a Digic V.
• do HD video up to 1080p.
• have a 3.9 framp-per-second shooting rate.
• or, maybe, 8 fps.
• or 5 fps. Who knows?
• slice.
• dice.
• chop.
• make julienne fries.
• cost about $2700.00 (body only).
• or around $1700.00.
• have built-in pop-up flash. Or not.
• employ an APS-C 1.6x crop sensor.
• Oh, never mind. It's full-frame.
• have 15 focus points.
• No, make that 19 focus points.
• why not one meeee-lee-uhn focus points?.
• give you oral pleasure.
• ISO 50 to ISO one meeee-lee-uhn.
• have weather sealing comparable to EOS 1D MkIII.

The preceding list, delivered with tongue causing a rug burn on the inside of my cheek, goes to show how useless any speculation, including my own, truly is. As the old saw goes, "Anybody who knows isn't talking, and anybody who's talking doesn't know."

But what the hay? Speculatin's fun.

I went on record with an email to my friend Ron Wise over a week ago with the following predictions for the 7D:

• 16-ish MP with one or two sRaw modes
• up to 1080p video
• motor at least 6.5 fps
• 1.3x crop
• "real" ISO ratings to 6400, with "cheats" up to 25K
• one CF and one SD card slot

As I read this a week later, I find I still agree with myself. Nothing there is a particularly earth-shattering or out-of-the-box prediction with the possible exception of the 1.3x crop. I haven't seen that prediction anywhere else on the web. And like every other prediction out there, I pulled that out of a very dark and smelly place. But it still sounds right to me. And here's why:

I think Canon has realized (or should realize) that the advanced amateurs at whom the 10D thru 50D series has been aimed are just about played out on 1.6x crop sensors. Nobody who has shot with or even looked through a 5D has not pined for a larger sensor. Another 1.6x sensor is not going to excite like an upgraded 1.3x sensor would.

Also, as I recall, the 10D debuted at about $2000.00, and the 50D is now listing for $1199.00. That's at least a 40% deflation in price in a relatively short few years, which has to cut deeply into profit margin. If, as some have suggested, a 60D is also about to be released, the expectation will be for a big boost in features at the same price, or an incremental improvement for at least a slightly lower price. Video capability of the Rebel T1i notwithstanding, the current 50D is a significantly more solid-built camera with many more features than the Rebel for not a lot more money. Canon surely wants to introduce a new pro-sumer toy that can command a larger profit margin. 1.3x crop on the sensor will help with this.

Releasing a 60D simply does not make sense to me. Releasing a 60D alongside a 7D would be market-diluting lunacy.

The sleeping giant through all this 7D rumoring is the surely-impending update in the 1D line. But lately I've been wondering if it is still going to be a "line" at all. Without a doubt, the Nikon D3 is the camera to beat right now. And Nikon has apparently abandoned any kind of crop sensor on it's pro cameras. Would this not put pressure on Canon to do the same?

I suspect we have seen the last EOS 1DS camera. The next pro camera will be full-frame and the APS-H sensor format will go by the wayside for pro Canons. That's another reason I think the 7D will be 1.3x crop. It will essentially fill the niche that will not be filled by a successor to the current 1.3x-crop 1D MarkIII (at least in my fevered imagination).

Were I CEO of Canon, engineers would have been tasked many months ago to design a camera with the fullest flexibility for any pro shooting situation. Need to shoot a full-bleed magazine cover or a portrait suitable for extensive retouching and uber-large reproduction? Shoot 25-30 megapixels with motor speed of around 5 fps. Shooting a fast paced sporting event where most of your work will display half-page or less in print or on the web? Drop down to about 12MP resolution and crank away at 10 or 12 fps.

Essentially, to regain it's competitive leg up, Canon should strive to deliver a camera that combines the Nikon D3 and D3X into one machine, and do it at around the price of the D3. In today's economy, few professionals have the luxury to specialize only in high-end commercial work at the expense of fast-paced editorial photography. And top-line cameras should not force professionals to pay top-dollar for a "specialist" SLR.

But wait! There's no more. . . Billy Mays

---

The world got a little bit quieter last weekend as verbally boisterous info-mercial pitchman Billy Mays succumbed to an apparent heart ailment. By all accounts, Mays was quite a nice guy (but then, few people get negative reviews after they pass away). That said, I can't personally say I will miss his yelling at me about Oxyclean or the Awesome Auger.

It does kind of make me feel bad about the joke I made a couple of weeks ago about how the gadget I'd most like to see Mays hawking would be an electronic device that automatically mutes my television whenever a loud, obnoxious voice comes on.

Anyway, rest in peace (and quiet), Mr. Mays.

AppleScript To The Rescue

---

I'm posting an AppleScript I just wrote which I hope might be useful to some people who listen to podcasts in iTunes. Paste the script text shown below into a Script Editor window and save it as a compiled script in the iTunes Script folder. After you re-launch iTunes, you will be able to invoke it from your Script menu in iTunes. The purpose of the compiled script is to skip forward 30 seconds in the currently playing track. Some folks may have other uses for it, but I find it very handy to jump forward quickly when certain podcasts go into "commercial mode."

========================

tell application "iTunes"

playpause

set _playhead to bookmark of current track

set bookmark of current track to (_playhead + 30)

playpause

end tell

========================

I'd like to refine it further with voice recognition algorithms so it will automatically skip forward 2 minutes any time Leo LaPorte says "Go to Meeting," "Audible.com" or "Drobo," but I confess that is beyond my skill level at this point.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to plug a great place to find other scripts that extend the capability of iTunes in many unique ways, Doug's AppleScripts for iTunes, a fine site run by Doug Adams.

Enjoy.

Oh, what a difference a daylight balance makes.

---

Here are two more HDR's from last Saturday night, this time of the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, part of the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, IN. In the case of the photo above, I set the white balance on the camera to the Tungsten setting, although often I will set the white balance with a gray card based on whatever weird lighting is on the scene.

Compare that with the version shot with daylight balance below. Both look pretty good, and it's a matter of preference, but I like the heightened contrast between warm and cool colors, as well as the deeper blue sky, in the tungsten version.

The software I use to create and tone-map HDR's, Photomatix, does allow adjustment of white balance, but I find that setting rather limited in the range of adjustments. Therefore, I always consider doing multiple exposure series at different white balance settings.

HDR with a little "Strobist" thrown in

---

Last Saturday evening, my friend Ron Wise and I did a little exploring on the campus of IUPUI (Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapois) for some HDR opportunities. I actually had an assignment from the University for some general photos of a few select campus buildings and some sculpture art on extended loan from museums.

One shot on my list was "East Gate/West Gate" a very large (about 25 feet tall) tubular structure that almost looks as though it could have been inspired by and M. C. Escher illustration. One of my acquaintances, who shall remain nameless, described it as "two ampersands in a coital entanglement." (Actually, that's a paraphrase on my part to avoid usage of a certain 4-letter verb which often doubles as an adjective.)

Anyway, where the client was no doubt visualizing a standard daylight photo, I wanted to explore this unique shape under night lights.

The result is at the top.

The building in the background is University Library, and an HDR image preserves detail in the lit interior as well as the exterior shadows. The metal of the sculpture did a good job of picking up the other light sources in the area, but with the camera still on the tripod, I added pops from a gel-ed Vivitar 283 to put some color into the image. Ron was pressing the shutter release and watching to be sure I didn't venture into the frame as I held a Pocket-Wizard-fired Vivitar 283. For these exposures, I used a much shorter shutter speed to capture mostly just the light from the flash and not a lot of ambient light.

I hit it from all four corners in separate exposures with both a red and blue gel, and also with a full CTO, which was effectively white light since my white balance was very close to Tungsten light. In post production, I layered two exposures with the blue gel at camera left and two with the red gel at camera right into a single image with the "Lighten" blending mode. This varied the colors from red to purple to blue. The flash image was layered over the HDR to impart the color onto the sculpture, again with the "Lighten" blending mode.

UPDATE: Here is an interesting video that gives a little information about the East Gate/West Gate sculpture, created by artist Sasson Soffer (1925-1973), and shows the process of moving it to it's current location by helicopter. It includes an interesting aerial tour of downtown Indianapolis.

Welcome Back, Steve

---

Steve Jobs, his razor stubble, and his black turtleneck will soon be returning to Apple's Cupertino Campus according to recent business news reports. That's not a surprise, as a late-June return date was announced at the time he went on his self-imposed hiatus. What IS a surprise is the he will be bringing with him a replacement liver.

My first gut reaction is some squeamishness. Not at the thought of swapped internal organs, but at the thought that investors may feel deceived about the severity of Jobs' health difficulties. Last we heard, it was a "hormone imbalance" and/or a "nutritional problem." It sounded like he needed rest and herbal tea, not an organ transplant.

I hate to say it, but I feel Apple may be lucky to elude SEC scrutiny over this. Especially after the last year, where Wall Street ran completely amok with opaque investment vehicles, deceptive and irresponsible loan practices, and probably outright lies to shareholders, the government and the public at large, we need transparency more than ever.

I respect Jobs' privacy and am sympathetic with him to the extent that I wouldn't want certain aspects of my health condition made generally known. Keeping a lid on this is understandable from a business standpoint, as there are always unreasonably wild stock price fluctuations every time Steve gets so much as a sniffle. It doesn't bother me that he kept personal health issues personal (especially since I'm not an Apple shareholder), but some investor-type people take this kind of thing seriously. Too seriously, perhaps.

While the possible appearance of deception may be troubling, it may also have been one of the smartest things Jobs could do for Apple to step down for half a year. Just as the L.A. Lakers' Kobe Bryan recently had the chance to prove he could steer his team to a national championship without Shaq, Apple has had six months to show they can run their business without Jobs calling every signal every day. Several new computers have been unveiled since Jobs stepped aside. Prominent Apple application suites like iLife and iWork have been updated and the development of the "Snow Leopard" operating system has proceeded apace and is on schedule for fall release. And, just a couple of weeks ago, a new iPhone was unveiled and sold a million plus units in it's first few days on the market.

The only possible clinker was the iPod Shuffle released back in March (which I previously discussed here and here), but just because it doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean it does not have a market.

The important thing is, Apple has shown it will not become the equivalent of the Scarecrow without a brain should Jobs disappear from the scene. Maybe now there won't be a massive selloff of stock the next time Steve has a hangnail.

Color Me Any Color - Yeah, Let's Gel!

---

I've stumbled across a few references recently on the web about ways to attach gels to portable flash. Most of the methods discussed are rather rough, referring to rubber bands or gaffer tape. It thought I'd share a way I've found to easily and securely attach gels to my Vivitar units.

This simple, easy, and cheap method comes courtesy of plastic name tag holders. These are readily available at office supply stores, and many of you have probably packratted away a few of them already if you ever attend or work at seminars, sports events, or other credentialed or "managed access" events. The one's I've used measure about 3 1/4" by 4 1/4". Some have clips to attach to lapels or pockets, others have lanyards. It doesn't matter which you have, because we are only using about the bottom two thirds of the holder anyway (uncut and cut-down tag holders seen here).

For the Vivitar 285/285HV (seen amber-gelled at right), you will want to cut the holder's height down to about two inches. Try to cut it for a rather snug fit so it does not want to slide out as you hand hold the flash in different positions or, heaven forfend, if you use the flash in the hot shoe and turn the camera vertically. Different holders have different degrees of "flex" so I can't give a precise measurement that will work with every tag holder.

Now, just cut some gels to fit, slide the holder into the diffuser/filter holder built into the 285/285HV, and you're good to go. The gels will be less prone to wrinkle and allow unfiltered light leaks, your gels will last longer, and no tape or rubber bands are needed.

I nip off the corners of the gels so they better fit in the rounded corners of the typical name tag holder. Think of it as releasing your inner Commander Adama.

If you cut the tag holder slightly too narrow and it slides out too easily, or if the holder begins to get some wear on it, a couple of thicknesses of Scotch Magic Transparent across the bottom (as I did on the 285HV gel holder above) should restore sufficient friction to keep it in place without causing you any noticeable light loss. And, sorry, but freebie sample gels are really not large enough for this method. You just may have to shell out for a few actual gel sheets.

My preferred flash is the Vivitar 283, and this same method works with the 283's accessory lens/filter adapter. I have about six of these and if you don't have one yet, they are available on eBay for ten bucks or less. While you're at it, pick up a lens kit LK-1 (also around ten bucks) so you can concentrate the light where you want it and compensate for some of the light loss from the gels (see red-gelled 283 with "L. Tele" lens at left).

Gel holders for the 283's lens/filter adapter need to be cut to about 2 3/8", but again, this is a guideline. Cut it slightly large, test fit, shave a little more off as necessary for a snug fit.

Are you gellin'? I am SO gellin'.

But what about poor A-Rod?

---

Sarah Palin, continuing her dogged attempt to stretch her fifteen minutes of fame into 2012, last week expressed outrage at a joke made by David Letterman. Letterman had unleashed a quip implying that, during a Yankees game attended by members of the Palin family, Palin's daughter had been impregnated by New York third-sacker Alex Rodriguez.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with that joke, surpassing any offense to the Palin family, is that it's just not funny. In an apology by Letterman on Monday night, he called the joke "coarse," which I would characterize as an understatement. I think it was an honest mistake on Letterman's part to assume the daughter attending the game was famed unwed Palin mom, Bristol. (Poor Bristol. All she got at home was "abstinence only," so she and Levi didn't know they needed to roll on Mr. Trojan EVERY TIME.) Even if it had been Bristol at the game, the joke still wouldn't have been funny, but it at least might have had some relevance. In fact it was a different weirdly-named Palin daughter who was at the game, and she happened to be 14 years old. That effectively turned Letterman's jibe into a joke about statutory rape, and that's never funny.

In response to the apology, Palin said, "Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's right to free speech."

Good job, Governor. It should have been a simple "apology accepted," but you were able to turn it into a morsel of patriotic red meat national defense rhetoric for the right-wing. Keep that up for three more years, and they might actually remember who you are in 2012 after all.

The person I feel sorry for most in this fiasco has been the one most ignored: A-Rod. Granted, he's not exactly the poster boy for marital fidelity, but he's done nothing I am aware of to warrant being painted as a connoisseur of jailbait.

Hey, Dave! How 'bout some love (and an apology) for A-Rod?

Giving new meaning to "rudderless"

---

The Republican Party is in serious trouble, therefore we are ALL in serious trouble.

I gave very serious consideration to voting for John McCain in '08 (compared to having given no serious consideration AT ALL to George W. Bush in '00 and '04). I did this mainly on the grounds that I thought a heavily Democratic congress needed the counterbalance of a Republican in the White House. But as the campaign wore on, the economy continued to worsen, due in large part to policies authored by Republicans like former McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm.

In the supposed masterstroke of the McCain campaign, a dingbat former beauty queen was chosen as running mate. And as election day neared, I could not escape the perception that Obama was young and agile, and McCain was old, inflexible and ineffective. After all that, I just couldn't bring myself to pull the elephant lever.

But I stand by my initial logic. Everybody knows the Democrats will destroy the country if left unchecked. Just like the Republicans did from '01 thru '06.

So I'm pullin' for the Republicans. I really am. But it's not looking good.

This is brought home by a Gallup poll released last week that showed that 47% of Republicans could not name anyone they perceive as "speaking for their party." Think of that. The winning candidate among the minority party is "none of the above."

John Dickerson of Slate.com points out that it's perfectly normal for a party to find itself with no clear leader after being shellacked at the polls as the GOP has been in '06 and '08. Just look at the Democrats in '94.

But the problem for the GOP goes deeper than a mere leadership vacuum. The top four people GOP faithful named as "speaking for us" ranked in inverse order to any sense of reason or logic. In a virtual tie for number one was crackpot, bomb-throwing radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh and occasionally ethically-challenged blowhard Newt Gingrich with 10% each. Both are better suited and better paid to speak into media microphones than in the well of the Senate, so their claim to party leadership rings hollow.

Next up with 9% is the smirking, fear-spreading, warmongering, shooting-friends-in-the-face-ing Prince of Darkness himself, Dick Cheney. One of the least-loved figures in a disgraced administration, Cheney inexplicably keeps finding microphones in his face. One wonders how many Republicans really perceive him as a leader and how many "just saw him on the television last night." Ranking even below Cheney is John McCain (6%). He is a welcome voice of reason in the Senate, but if his showing in the '08 campaign is any indication, his party leadership chops need a lot of work.

"Other" and "Nobody" combined for a total of 31% of Republican respondents, which beats the top 3 combined. Factor in "No Opinion" (29%) and you have a filibuster-proof majority.

Names that surfaced in the poll which actually make some vague sense as party leaders were former Governor Mitt Romney, Representative John Boehner, and the guy who theoretically IS the leader of the GOP, party chairman Michael Steele. Steele and Romney each got 2%, and Boehner got an asterisk, which denotes "less than 0.5%." By the way, this puts Boehner in a tie with George W. Bush in the poll. Make of that what you will.

Especially now that one party has a death grip on the reigns of power, we as Americans NEED a viable opposition party to foster debate and critical thought on the vital initiatives before us today. But sadly, right now the Republicans probably would be hard-pressed to muster the votes to get anchovies removed from the congressional pizza order. And this poll seems to indicate the self-identifying members of the party are, at least for now, selecting as leaders those who will only take them further down the path of destruction.

The Vivitar 285HV is better than the old 283, right?

---

If you read my last post, you know I'm in the midst of a "Mission to banish AA's." Experimentation is ongoing, and results will be reported in a day or two. I've already gotten a result that surprised me with the AA Alkalines that is causing me to reconsider my testing method.

In the meantime, a question that might rightly enter the mind of a reader would be, "Why do you use the old Vivitar 283 and not the 285HV, which is readily available new?"

This is a question I have been asked more than once while on assignment. Simplest answer is that 283's are what I have. They last nearly forever, and when they die, more lie in wait on eBay and in used departments of your better camera shops, both brick-and-mortar and online. I think I've owned at least two of them ever since my sophomore year of college. At one point, I had seven of them in perfect working order. These days I have four that work flawlessly, one that works "well enough", and three on the autopsy table for spare parts.

The 285HV is a very good flash. Always has been. I've owned several over the years, but only have one right now. The venerable Strobist has recommended it highly, and I agree. It has the distinct advantage of being a currently (or at least very recently) in-production flash unit, so I assume there is a warranty on new units, and repair and replacement is easier without resorting to eBay.

Another very important advantage to the 285HV is that it has a much safer sync voltage right out of the box. Very important note here: Only the newer 285HV models have the lower sync voltage. Older 285 (non-HV) models you may find on the used market most likely have sync voltage in the 300V range and can and probably will send your 40D or D40 to an early grave, or at least in for an expensive repair.

Two other significant advantages to the 285HV are the zoom head and the variable manual power settings. I will discuss both and indicate why, for me, the 283 is still the better option.

Zoom head: A three position zoom head on the 285HV adjusts the beam angle to cover 35mm, 50mm, and 105mm lenses (based on full-frame SLR viewing angle). This is pretty handy. The 105mm (Tele) setting gives you extra reach for subjects viewed with long lenses at a distance, which is sometimes a necessity. The 50mm (Norm) setting is good for efficient bouncing from the ceiling or from an umbrella. The 35mm (Wide) setting is gives good coverage for general use and prevents vignetting. This setting closely mimics what you get with the 283 with no modifier.

To get the same functionality from a 283, you need the lens kit LK-1 and the Lens Filter Adapter, which holds the LK-1 lenses. Extra accessories are extra dollars, although both are readily found on eBay for about 10 dollars each, sometimes less. The advantage is that the Lens Kit has the ability to vary the angle of coverage to a far greater degree, from 20mm to 135mm. If I need wide coverage, I'm probably bouncing from the ceiling or from an umbrella, but I often use the 85mm or 135mm lenses to increase the reach of a unit placed on a stand in the back of a room or to concentrate the light and allow surrounding areas to go dark (useful for lighting up a speaker in a dark room while still allowing his/her PowerPoint slides to remain visible in the image).

The added flexibility overrides the disadvantage of having to buy and carry extra accessories, in my view.

Variable power: You know, it's nice that the 285HV, unlike the 283, has variable power built-in, but it has LAME variable power built-in. You get 1/2, 1/4 and 1/16. Dat's it. Hummingbird shooters or others interested in extremely short flash duration probably want to tune it down lower than 1/16. Maybe LOT'S lower. And how did 1/8 power get thrown under the bus, anyway?

Again, the 283 is proves to be more flexible, but also at the expense of another accessory. The Vari-power module VP-1 (find it cheap on eBay) allows continuous adjustment of power from Full to 1/64 power. The downside is that, frankly, this is a rather poorly designed accessory. While useful, it has no clickstops or other capability to "lock-in" a power setting. It's just a dial that rotates freely and can easily get pushed higher or lower if the flash is hand-held (not so much an issue for lightstand use). Also, in my tests with several different 283's, you don't actually get 1/2 power at the 1/2 power setting. You need to go down near to 1/4 power to reduce the power by half. So watch your image preview/histogram or use a flash meter to test power settings, and don't assume that adjusting from 1/4 power to 1/8 power is a one f/stop adjustment.

Brave 283 hackers can use various Radio Shack potentiometers or resistors to gain control over the power setting as well. That's fodder for another post.

On thing I dislike about the 285HV: I don't use the color coded auto modes very much, but sometimes they are the handiest way to easily and automatically fill in the foreground of a multiple light set-up. The 285HV gives you 4 modes to choose from. At ISO 400, the corresponding apertures for these modes are 4.0 (yellow), 8.0 (red), 16 (blue) and 22 (purple). Blue and Purple are pretty much useless if your working distance exceeds about 4 feet, so that leaves Red and Yellow. Yellow requires f/4.0, which is just a bit too wide for my taste. 5.6 gives me just a bit of extra depth of field and is more comfortable for me. My next option with the 285HV is red mode, which calls for f/8.0. That's not bad, but the red mode consistently overexposes with my unit, so it's more like f/11. That's a 3 f/stop jump and dumps a LOT more flash power, leading to longer recycle times and more dead batteries.

Behavior of my five 283's is consistent across the board, but I have no way to be sure if my sole 285HV is normal or "special."

The 283's bottom two modes are f/4.0 (yellow) and f/5.6 (red), and are both consistent with their respective apertures in exposure. This is my personal preference, but "red mode" on the 283 is a better fit for the way I work than any mode on the 285HV.

Mission to banish AA's, part I

---

I truly HATE AA batteries.

I frikkin' hate them with a PASSION.

The treehugger in me hates them because I have to collect them in a milk jug and unload them for proper disposal at a special recycling event that only happens twice a month in these parts.

I hate them because they cost money. And any and all cost savings are vital in this economy.

And most importantly, as a professional photographer, I hate them because the performance sucks. I get approximately 30 to 40 good flashes with decent but far-from-stellar recycle times before the flash unit begins to slow to an annoying degree. I hang with a set of batteries for 20 or 30 more flashes to get my money's worth or until recycle times begin to put me in serious danger of missing a "money" shot. Then I break out another 3 dollars worth of batteries, fumble with an awkward exchange, and start all over.

The Quantum 1 battery is an obvious solution. Quality flash performance for about 120 to 170 flashes (or perhaps MANY more, depending on how you flash) and then take it home and recharge practically for free. But there's that awkward cable going down to your belt. It gets pinched in my rotating flash bracket. It ends up caught on the petals of my lens shade and is visible in the picture. It beats AA's, but still has it's annoyances.

In a "There's got to be a better way" Google search, I turned up a pre-wrapped, pre-wired five-AA NiMH cluster intended for radio control model airplane servos. I found a pair of such packs rated at 6V and 2300mAh on eBay for about $15 including shipping. Even if this works well, there will still be days I need to use the Quantum 1 for extended shooting without fussing with battery swaps, but I thought these units would be worth a try for shorter, lighter assignments.

A little research in RC model forums confirms my assumption that the five cells in this cluster are 1.2 volts each to make up the 6V usually found in a set of four 1.5V AA's. Obviously this cluster will not fit in the usual battery compartment on my Vivitar 283's but a Quantum style "battery replacer" module can't be hard to whip together.

I'm going out on a limb a bit by posting a blog entry on this experiment which, for all I know, will be an abject failure. But hey, the failures teach us too, right? This will be the first of at least two and possibly three posts on the subject. My immediate challenge now will be to find a way to charge the packs and adapt them for use in the Vivitar 283 (should be easy enough) and to test the performance. If that goes well, I will document a mod I'm planning to the 283 that will allow quick and easy transition from powering the flash with this battery pack to powering it with the Quantum 1.

I may then follow with a couple of related posts on topics like "Why the 283 and not the 285, which is readily available new?" and "OK. You've convinced me to go with the 283. How do I keep it from destroying my digital camera?"

Stay tuned.

Battle of the Lightweights

---

Let me put one thing out right in front. I could not care less about beauty pageants. I was briefly interested earlier this year when a student at the local University of Indianapolis, who by all accounts is a fine young lady, was named Miss America, but I moved on to other things pretty quickly.

In spite of my professed apathy, I could not help but be fascinated, in a gory-car-wreck sort of way, by the controversy surrounding Miss California USA and Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean. What's strangely fascinating about this is how it caused a number of political and social lightweights to flex their meager head-shake and chuckle inducing muscle.

In one phase of the Miss USA pageant, Prejean was asked about same-sex marriage by "celebrity blogger" (now there's a job description we didn't need) and lightweight #1 in this saga, Perez Hilton.

Let me say now I could have happily gone to my grave having never heard of Perez Hilton.

Hilton, who is gay, loudly blogged about Prejean's opposition to same-sex marriage rights. I tend to disagree with Prejean, but she has every right to her views. But shrill denunciation like Hilton's only drives me to be more supportive of her right to expression.

Lightweight #2 is Prejean herself. (Sorry to pile this on after your runner-up finish in Miss USA, Carrie, but your not even the #1 lightweight in your own story.) Prejean, could have just ignored Hilton, but instead went out of her way to stake out for herself an acre of moral high ground on the gay marriage issue. That all but assured that anything risque or embarrassing in her past would almost certainly come to light, which brings us to . . .

Lightweight #3: Nik Ritchie. He is the proprietor of the aptly named blog thedirty.com. Ritchie's forte seems to be publishing amateurish photos of scantily-clad women and then engaging readers in deep, philosophical gender-related questions along the lines of, "Ya think those are real?" and "Would you do'er?" Nik did us the "public service" of publishing at least two topless photos from a fashion shoot done when Prejean was 17 years old. I checked them out. She's hot. There's a teasing glimpse of the side of a breast, but this is nowhere near porn.

Ritchie recently tried to boost his journalistic cred by openly defying a cease and desist order demanding he remove Prejean's photos from his site. Sorry, Nik, but these aren't the Pentagon Papers. You're still a lightweight.

I was so fascinated by this story that I forgot to check last Monday if Prejean had actually lost her crown over the photos. The final authority on the matter was Donald Trump, and the Donald has decreed Prejean shall not lose her crown, which I think is probably as it should be. On one hand, if she had ever looked down the business end of a Nikon with no bra on, and she clearly has, she was lying by not disclosing this to pageant officials as contractually required. On the other hand, the photos are pretty tame in my view, with no fully-visible "naughty parts" and a cutesy "girl next door" pose and expression.

The Donald is no lightweight. In fact, there's more gravitas in his ample toupee than in the total combined body mass of the other three people mentioned thus far. And I believe he was smart not to dethrone Prejean and thereby grant her instant martyr status among right wing conservatives. Quite simply, the story goes away faster if she stays right where she is, and the last thing we need right now is a junior Ann Coulter.

Sarah Palin briefly vied for the spot of Lightweight #4 by pouring her derision on "the liberal onslaught of malicious attacks" against Prejean for her views. She went on to congratulate the Donald for letting Prejean stay on as Miss California USA and for standing up for her first amendment rights. Palin and the rest of the far right must learn to accept that mere disagreement with their platform does not constitute an "onslaught." Palin also failed to cite any actual abridgment of Prejean's constitutional rights. The First amendment guarantees free speech. It does not guarantee the right to be heard, agreed with, or liked.

No, Sarah, I've award the Lightweight #4 slot to Shanna Moakler, co-director of Miss California USA, who resigned in protest of Prejean keeping her crown. Moakler wisely seems to have stayed clear of the semi-nude photo debate. She is a former Miss USA and went on to be a Playboy centerfold, which I guarantee you was a lot more than "semi-nude." Moakler aspires to make a bold statement on gay marriage rights by walking away from the pageant which allows a person holding contrary views on the subject to keep her crown.

I feel certain this "statement" was already drowned out by the several states which have recently legalized same-sex marriage to one extent or another. I presume Moakler will now return to her sizzling acting career, which numbers 20 movie and TV guest roles in the last 13 years. Good Luck, sweetheart.

And now, I remind you of something best forgotten.

---

Recently, while poking around the iTunes Music Store, I was reminded of something best forgotten. So I thought I would remind you of it as well.

The Sci Fi channel "re-imagining" of the series "Battlestar Galactica" just had its finale last week. The just-ended series was of course a remake of a series from 1978, which was at it's core an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of "Star Wars," the film that had re-written the definition of "blockbuster" the previous year. Well, long before the latest incarnation of Galactica, but shortly after the original, a bastard child named "Galactica 1980" was brought wailing into the world. As much as the Ronald D. Moore's new version of the series raised the bar set by the original, "Galactica 1980" lowered it much, much farther.

Even though the "Galactica's" original Vipers looked too suspiciously like the "Star Wars" X-wing fighter, and the Cylons were little more than chrome-plated imperial stormtroopers, the 1978 series transcended rip-off status because it had at it's core a very intriguing concept: Humans, just like us, having been vanquished by an evil faceless empire, embark "on a lonely quest. . . a shining planet known as Earth."

Richard Hatch and most of the rest of the original cast never found Earth. The characters in the new series, guided by Moore's hand, did find Earth at the conclusion of a brilliantly crafted, four-year-long saga. (That's not really a spoiler.) In "1980", Lorne Greene and a scaled-down replacement cast also found Earth. They looked out a porthole one day and said, "Hey! Check it out! It's Earth. Let's take our flying motorcycles down and have a look."

The iTunes store has offered the original "Battlestar Galactica" series as video downloads for several years. I have several of these episodes in my iTunes library. But only recently has the iTunes store made "1980" available. I can't tell you how much I have NOT waited for this to happen.

I was inspired to write only my second review on the iTunes store, the text of which I share with you below:

=============================

Absolutely, POSITIVELY do NOT spend more than $1.99 on "Galactica 1980." And only spend that much if you download the final episode, "The Return of Starbuck" and none of the rest of this awful garbage.

The only purpose of this series was to try to make "Battlestar Galactica" into a series that was more appealing to kids (it aired opposite "Wonderful World of Disney" if I remember right). Oh, and to also to make it extremely CHEAP to produce as the rapidly withering udder of the Galactica cash cow was nearly dried up for good.

Everything that made season one of "Battlestar Galactica" worth watching was ripped out like so many discarded fish entrails in "1980." Many of the special effects in "Galactica 1980" are an ongoing continuity error as we see "two-seater" Vipers in close-up cockpit shots, but single seat versions in all the (recycled) "open space" special effects shots. That alone show's the network's and producer's assessment of the viewers' intelligence level.

Apparently, people with some actual respect for the Galactica's founding concepts and possessing an iota of creativity staged a commando raid and took over the studio just long enough to produce "The Return of Starbuck." After that, with quality threatening to propogate, ABC rapidly made the decision to bury Galactica for all time. (Well, at least until 2003.)