• 08Jun

    I finally decided to clean up the disk space that is currently distributed on 3 computers and 3 or 4 external drives.  I have a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro - and I will use the Pro for performance and as a “home” for my data and software.

    The Mac Pro has 4 bays for disks. The two first bays will be for my two 150G WD VelociRaptors (WD3000HLFS — blackplane ready) for my bootable OS, applications and home directory - I will receive these two disk tomorrow morning from newegg.  The two other bays will be for 2 1T WD’s caviar black disks and they will host images and other media files AND a photoshop scratch disk.  I am considering RAID 0 for these two disks as well, but I am still undecided - maybe it is too risky.

    WDs VelociRaptor 150G SATA disk.

    WD's VelociRaptor 150G SATA disk.

    A Speedy VelociRaptor

    A Speedy VelociRaptor

    My backup will be a three tier process with (1) Time Machine on a Drobo/DroboShare - nightly backup (2) SuperDuper bootable & Media backup weekly - and cycling two external disks and (3) Off-site/backup.   I have three tiers because my main computer will be setup for performance (RAID 0).  Drobo uses a proprietary RAID like system and allows for variable size disks that can be replaced as needed.  The DroboShare allows the DRobo to be treated as network attached storage (with a gentle hack).

    Drobo FW800 & USB 2.0 4 Bay Storage Array with DroboShare

    Drobo FW800 & USB 2.0 4 Bay Storage Array with DroboShare

     

    I will use Shirtpocket’s SuperDuper both to make a weekly bootable copy of my OS and apps and a clone of my media & cycle two disks for each (so a total of 4 disks). I got Other World Computing external firewire 800 disks and also also Western Digital My Book Studio disks to accommodate this cycle.

     

    Shirtpocket

    Click here to get an overview of SuperDuper

     

    For offsite, I am seriously torn (and waiting for suggestions here  and elsewhere). I have a lot of data, close to the terabyte range - and it will continue to grow at a rate of 200-400GB per year. I would like a place that is both reasonably priced and doesn’t take ‘forever’ to transfer the initial copy,  preferable a place that accepts a disk(s) for the initial backup. So far I have looked at, Mozy, Carbonite, Backblaze, Carboncopy and Safecopy. I found this review here via a quick google:

  • 13Apr

    I have a 1 TB LaCie D2 Quadra Hard Drive and its power supply is not working right now (blinking blue light) - just when I need it. So I may be looking for a replacement. I could of-course send for another power supply - but somehow I lost trust in this product so I am looking alternate external hard drives. 

    I just called LaCie and their customer service was superb! and they have agreed to send a new power supply to test out. I like good customer service! 

    If I do get a replacement - the Seagate’s FreeAgent  looks promising and reasonably priced -  looks like ‘Go’ and ‘Desk’ are both varieties that work with Macs Time Machine. I am leaning towards the Desk model as it is a bit larger at 1 TB and 1.5 TB.

     

    Update - I decided to cancel my SeaGate order  after I learned that new technology (coating and electronics) enabling managing a large disks have a few problems (discovered in the Barracuda drives - but FreeAgent, I believe are made up of Barracuda drives.  One problem is a firmware problem and SeaGate has come out with a fix, others are not convinced the fix is not enough because in addition to the firmware they think the new coating on the platters causes problems. One is that  the coating flakes from the coating and obstructs the read/write heads - that in turn can ruin sectors that in turn aggravates the problem. 

    Interestingly, LaCie also includes Barracudas and that is the drive that failed for me in the first place.  I will hold off a few days before deciding which disks to get - who knows I may return to SeaGate if the Firmware solution is working.

  • 15Feb

    I have attended two of the leading workshops on child photography – the Secret Workshop by Cheryl Muhr that I attended in June 2008 and Brianna Graham’s workshop that I attended in October of 2008. With price tags at $1,100 and $1,300 respectively they are both rather expensive, so one needs to consider their value carefully before committing.

    In this post I review Brianna Graham’s workshop. I first became interested in attending Brianna’s workshop after she served as the “secret guest” at Cheryl’s workshop (you can read the review of Cheryl’s workshop here). I was intrigued by Brianna’s approach to studio lighting, her philosophy to keep things simple, and her rapport with the models. When I met Brianna at Cheryl’s workshop I did not know that she was “famous,” that she had already made a name of herself. She was very down to earth and approachable.

    One thing that resonated with me then, and that I learned more about at this workshop, is Brianna’s philosophy to remove as many parameters as possible from your shooting and production workflow. As one example, she typically uses one large light instead of two small lights. It is simpler, of course, but still effective because a large light source can wrap around smaller subjects. She creates great results using a fairly simple set of techniques. She still encourages experimentation, but suggests you change only one thing at a time.

    The 3-day workshop was held in Grand Rapids, close to Brianna’s studio. Patrick, Brianna’s husband, helped run things. The first day was focused on natural light in an urban setting, the second day was in the studio and the third day centered on editing, workflow and marketing.

    On the first day we started by getting to know each other: Learning why we were there, and what we wanted to get out of the workshop. I really enjoyed the diversity of participants; we were two dozen photographers at various levels of expertise and backgrounds. There were 2 men, and the age distribution included folks from their early twenties to mid fifties. After the personal introductions Brianna gave us a 90 minute overview of her approach, ranging from planning, laying out the shot, finding and controlling the light, compositional elements to complementary clothing.The second part of the day consisted of shooting with models; there were about 20 models. Before cutting us loose to shoot on our own, Brianna spent about 45 minutes showing us how she selected locations and posed models. She illustrated 3-4 different settings near the area of the workshop.

    I teamed up with my neighbor and we grabbed a model. Most photographers were grouped in teams of two or three, but there were a few singletons as well. As we roamed a few blocks in downtown Grand Rapids, near the workshop site, we occasionally switched models. We set up the shots ourselves – trying to learn the new tools that we had (hopefully) learned. Our first model was a spunky girl with colorful clothes and we asked her to change into more neutral clothing to give us more flexibility of the outdoor settings. The models were mostly beginner models and some got tired easily – and that was a slight disadvantage, but on the other hand I also respect that they were out there with 20+ photographers.

    Later in the day I decided to forget about shooting to shadow Brianna and observe her shoot and listen to her narration. After all, I came to the workshop to learn how she got her shots. This turned out to be a good decision for me, and I learned a lot.

    Shooting ended around 5 PM. We wrapped up the day at a neighborhood restaurant with Patrick and Brianna. This may have been my favorite part of the workshop. They (Brianna and Patrick) stationed themselves at opposite ends of a long dinner table so everyone was close to one of them. The dinner provided a great venue for us to learn more. I was towards Brianna’s end, and I was pleased to hear her “let her hair down” and give us more insights into her experiences.

    The topic for the second day was studio lighting. We started with a lecture. Brianna covered various lighting setups, ranging in size, number of lights, direction and light modifiers. Brianna encouraged learning by experimenting. That rang well with me – I like to just do it and see what happens. She re-emphasized her philosophy that the key is to remove or control all the variables. The studio is all about controlling the light. I think this part was very helpful and provided a nice introduction to light and how it affects the subjects.

    After lunch we practiced what we had learned in the morning. The workshop now was set up with 6-7 studio station elements –with different light sources and backgrounds. Brianna started off by illustrating how to trigger the lights and pose the model with the light. We were divided into groups of three then we shot on our own. This portion was a bit chaotic. It was hard to grab fresh models for a station and I hardly got a turn to shoot in my group. Although I have experience with shooting multiple speed lights in studio I got a bad start and initially had technical difficulties. Neither Brianna nor Patrick was available to help. We rotated to a different station every 20-30 minutes, but a lot of that time was spent on finding a fresh and willing model and familiarizing ourselves with the new station – or waiting for the next station. I think this was the low point of the workshop and unfortunately people seemed to get anxious here –- with each other, other groups and taking turns, finding models and lack of guidance.I think Brianna and Patrick have recognized the problems with the studio portion of the workshop. They have changed this portion so there are only 10 participants in the studio at a time. This sounds about right to me.

    On the third day we focused on editing and business. We met in Brianna’s studio. When we arrived Brianna gave us a studio tour – including an overview of her marketing material and business approach. Her studio was impeccable and so was her marketing material. We later sat down and went through workflow and editing techniques. We wrapped up the day with portfolio reviews. I could not attend the last portion due to time constraints with my “day” job.

    Bottom Line: Even though there are a few points that need polishing, this is a good workshop, and I felt my money was well invested.

    Pros: Great overview of lighting and composition rules of thumb from a successful photographer. It is a good introduction to a useful shooting philosophy. The workshop benefited from having a smaller group of participants than the Secret Workshop. That helps a lot. There were 26 participants so it small enough for some one-on-one interaction with the organizers.

    Cons: Still not as much one-on-one interaction with the organizer as I would have liked. I suppose this is an issue with most workshops of this size and it is probably even worse at larger workshops. The studio portion especially needed improvement, but it seems like the organizers for future workshops have addressed those issues.

    Suggestions: I think the organizers should figure out a way to reach all the participants individually (as mentioned before I think they are moving in that direction). Or at least make the participants feel like they are reached on a one-on-one level. A challenge for them is that the market that they are targeting their workshop towards are the folks just starting in this business so they may not have the money to spend on a more expensive workshop.

     

    My result - set up the shot myself and minor post processing - (after studio hints from Brianna of-course):
    ~ Green Eyed Paris ~

    Studio portion (Day 2):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Studio Day)

    Urban day - Day 1 (Brianna in action illustrating how to see the light):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Urban Day)

    Urban Day - Day 1  (I think you can tell here how involved Brianna gets with the models (: and workshop - she brings it!):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Urban Day)

  • 14Feb

    One factor that is important when picking a camera is its auto-focus (AF) performance. Cameras differ on both accuracy and responsiveness (or acquisition) of focus and also tracking or keeping a subject in focus while the subject is moving. Accuracy means that the camera thinks it is in focus but it isn’t really (you end up with out of focus images even if the camera told you that it was in focus). Responsiveness is the lag between being out-of focus to being in-focus.

    It is a challenge to assess a cameras performance as it depends on so many factors such as power from a driving processor or battery, available light and particular lens.  Does the camera have a processor, or two? Does the camera perform in dim light and how does it perform in bright light?  How can you separate the cameras native autofocus capability from that of the capability of the lens? But perhaps lens choice is irrelevant to separate, because you may choose a camera because of its lens anyway – and perhaps one should assess autofocus with  the fastest  lens available.

    I looked at two sites to get insight on autofocus performance of Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras - both resources use scientific rigor when assessing performance  - Popular Photography and Imaging resource and found  conflicting results.

    Popular Photography below (higher better performance) favors the autofocusing systems of the D3X and Sony A900 while imaging resource favors the Canon.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Data Source: [D300] [D700] [D3][D3x] [A900] [5DII]

    Popular photography.. more to come.

     

     

    Based on Imaging Resource Data:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Note that the Imaging Resource data above shows over a 2X difference between the D3 and D700 (D300) for the “Shutterlag, Full AF” numbers while the “pre-focus and shutter” numbers are pretty close between the cameras. We noticed that they use two difference lenses while testing between the D3 and D300/D700, namely the fast focusing 24-70 f/2.8 on the D3 and D3x but the slower focusing lens, the Sigma 70 f/2.8 EX on the D300 and D700. We asked the Imaging resource researchers about this issue but they believe that lens choice should not make a significant difference as they test iteratively or multiple times- so the lens is already in focus in the final measurement. In this manner they claim that they isolate the cameras performance the lens performance, i.e., they measuring the camera’s ability to ‘determine’ focus instead of the lens’ autofocus performance.

    Personally, I challenge that assumption, for two reasons – first the data from popular photography seem to differ and second removing possible variables (such as lens choice and power) in experiments is more fair and it is only one way to eliminate lens choice as a question and that is to not use different lenses.

    The focus engines between cameras (the D3 and D700) are the same, Nikon’s Multi-CAM3500FX system. The real difference is that the D3 has two processors giving it more ‘power’ while the D300 and D700 have only one. So the question is whether the D3 performs true parallel processing or not. Leveling the field between the cameras by adding more power to the D300/D700 or add battery grip with AA.

    I offered imaging resource my equipment for retesting (my camera, lens and battery grip) for further testing - they responding by saying they would get back to me but so far I have not heard an additional response. Possible because of they are busy with the upcoming PMAi.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Review Site Data:

    http://www.popphoto.com/

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/

    http://www.dxomark.com/

    Tags: , , , , ,
  • 30Jan
    Categories: Predictions Comments: 0

    I love making predictions and my predictions for 2009 are as follows:

    • Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire, no contest.
    • Best Director: Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionair).
    • Best Lead Actress: Close between Winslet (The Reader) and Streep (Doubt) - both are great actresses but the best is the one and only - Meryl Streep. She already won two Oscars and the Oscars don’t seem to like repeat winners. But the best should win.
    • Best Lead Actor: I am rooting for Rourke (The Wrestler), he is a ’strangely’ good (and weird) actor (e.g., his role in Angel Heart).  Penn (Milk) will be at his heals.
    • Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz (Barcelona).
    • Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) - what a fantastic performance. 
    What are your predictions/thoughts?
  • 12Jan

    It is time for an informal review – I had hoped to do a more thorough review but it is not happening.  I am just too busy with work, traveling, mothering and moving part of our household to the left coast (CA) - so this will have to do for now.

    I have tested both cameras – I initially rented the D700 in July/Aug of 2008 when it first came out and a couple a weeks ago I rented the 5D II.   I was considering becoming a bi-shooter, he he he - but that too is not happen.  There are different advantages of each camera (i.e., between a Canon FX and Nikon FX). I think it boils down to a responsive focus engine and resistance to noise [Nikon] OR better resolution and slightly better tonality [Canon].  Both camera manufacturers have great lenses –the 85 f/1.2L is outstanding (and I suspect also the 50 f/1.2L) for Canon, and on the Nikon side the 24-70 f/2.8 is fantastic & the 105 f/2.8 macro is WOW and so is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 zoom lens.

    So - if you look at just the image quality given perfect focus and exposure, Canon may have a slight edge (in terms of resolution & tonality) BUT in practice, when you have fast moving kids and/or pesky low light, the Nikon gives you an edge with its better ‘hit-rate’ due to its responsive focus engine and seemingly more resistance to noise. I also enjoy Nikon’s built in speed light system (CLS) - (e.g., I have the light weigt and far reaching SU-800 to trigger my off-camera lights (SB-800s). 

    And for me that (the focus engine) sealed the deal so I finally decided to upgrade to the D700 - wohooo (I did say this is an informal review). I do like both cameras, the video capability on the 5DII was nice to have - and I miss that – and I miss the 85 f/1.2 L lens… and the extra resolution was nice so I admit yes I want BOTH but no I don’t think it is worth it. But maybe I should try the D3X. Nikon please send me one.

    IN the end I recommend that anyone considering both should TRY both, maybe via rentals as I am sure it is a personal decision - so stop the suffering in wondering if one is better than the other (like I did).

    For me the D700 is the BEST – YEAH! 

     

    Canon 5D Mark II:
    Green on green

    Canon 5D Mark II:
    Pondering: What do I need for Christmas?

    Canon 5D Mark II (ISO 64,000):
    Just a quick check at ISO 6,400

     

    Nikon D700:
    Retro Swing

    Nikon D700:
    3, 2, 1, Blast Off!

    Nikon D700:
    "Come on in: Best Ribs &  Blues on Beale Street"

  • 31Dec

    I just got my Nikkor 50 f/1.4G and I love it. It is fast focusing – but not as much as I had hoped - it may be  slightly slower than the original f/1.4D, and definitely not as fast as my 24-70 f/2.8 which is strange as it is longer/larger lens. The best part of it is the creaminess and beautiful contrast. It reminds me of Canon’s 85 f/1.2L II lens – which I loved! The Nikkor version is way faster focusing though.  In summary, the focus is fast, not blazingly fast, the bokeh is rounded and the out of focus areas are creamy.

     

    Creaminess at 1.4 and sharp where it needs to be:

    Honest

     

    Rounded bubbly bokeh:
    Happy New Year!

    As a comparison, here is the 1.4D at f/3.5 notice the more edgy bokeh:
    Profile of a Daughter

  • 24Dec

    After over a week of fun with a rented 5DII (review upcoming), I played with my almost one year ‘old’ D300.

    Today, I played with the “Live View” mode and setting the white balance. Live view is a great resource to get direct visual feedback on different white balance settings as you can see the scenery change on the LCD in real time.

    Live view is really easy to  use – just turn on live view then while viewing the scenery on the LCD you change the camera settings and get direct feedback of the effect of changing camera on the camera LCD screen/monitor.

    (1) Turn on live view (use the camera dial under the ISO/QUAL/WB buttons – same dial where you set shooting mode – single/remote timers and set it to Live View (Lv).

    (2) Push the shutter release button down once – now live view is activated.

    (3) Look at the LCD screen and compose the image or change setting such as WB and

    (4) push the shutter again and hold the shutter to take the shot.

     

    Turn on Live View by moving this dial to Lv

    Turn on Live View by moving this dial to "Lv"

     

     

    Try it!

  • 26Oct

     

    The Secret Workshop is a photographers’ workshop focused on child photography hosted by Cheryl Muhr. This is my review of the workshop I attended in June, 2008 in Flint Michigan.

    Cheryl is a fun person to be around. She has managed to integrate her business into her family life, she treats life and her profession as a hobby, as something to live and strive for. Her motto is that if you don’t enjoy something — get rid of it and maximize the fun factors in life. Cheryl is a joy to listen to and she keeps your attention. Cheryl’s enthusiasm made the workshop inspiring and helped me to see things in a new light.

    This is not just a motivational workshop, it also teaches you how to price yourself and your work; get clients in different target markets and how to break into new areas of the photography market (commercial, editorial and portraiture). She also covers portrait photography and processing techniques.

    The Secret Workshop is a two-day workshop:  One “secret” about the workshop is that you don’t know who the guest speaker will be before you arrive. We were treated to Brianna Graham, a Grand Rapids-based photographer.

    The first day began with a lecture by Cheryl about how she broke into the business, what inspires her and her philosophy on photography. It was followed by a presentation by Brianna Graham where she explained her lighting and studio techniques. She did not discuss her post-processing techniques.

    The first day ended with a two-to-three hour shoot-out. 15-25 child models were shared among 45, mostly women participants (there was one male). We were split into groups by table – so we ended up with about 5 groups with 7-8 women/men per group. This part of the workshop was also the weakest – it was chaotic - the jungle law ruled: eat or be eaten – you had to recruit the models on your own – if there was a free and un-tired one, pose her or him and then get your shot. Each group was on their own practicing their skills.

    In retrospect, for this part, the most valuable way to spend your time here is to stalk Cheryl or linger at Brianna’s studio shot station and to forget about getting your shot. After all - I was there to get a good sense on how to create an image from their point of view, what to look for (in terms of light & setting & pose) and how to reach a final product.

    The final day was about post-production, setting up a business, including pricing and selecting supporting products or companies (printing companies, accessories and more). Cheryl illustrates her technique with images she shot from the day before and accommodates her thought process in creating them.

    As with any workshop - there were a few weaknesses: My chief complaint is that it was too crowded. 40+ photographers are too many for the price of the workshop and there is really no one-on-one time with Cheryl. The crowdedness is especially a problem at the shoot-out session. The workshop could probably improve if the models had certain tasks or stations – and a rotation scheme was implemented. I suspect that this is not unusual when you have a number of models and photographers. But despite the somewhat chaotic shootout and difficulties overall the workshop went smoothly. Second – I think it would have been nice if Cheryl attempted to spend some time per group – this could mitigate the need for one-on-one time per participant. Most of us left the workshop wishing for more one-on-one time. However, Cheryl had recruited a number of volunteers from previous workshop and they were at hand. I appreciate that forethought. Amanda – was especially helpful.

    The workshop concluded with door prizes and awards – two of them were Blu Domain web sites (OH and I wish I had won one of those) – there were some actions sets awards (Nichole Van and MCP Actions –and Jodi of MCP actions was an attendee) and other awards. We got a goody bag with coupons, a workbook with the stuff we covered (slides) and a CD that includes pricing and Cheryl’s workflow actions.

    My results – despite the period of chaos during the model shoot-out – were several nice images. I also came out of the workshop feeling more confident in my photography and that I could start a photography business if I wanted to. But for now I am a hobbyist – so that aspect of photography will probably not be for a while. The pricing and strategies in setting up a business was valuable, however. Cheryl’s greatest strength is that she inspired you and she creates a positive atmosphere just to be there – and that in it self is priceless.

    Secret Workshop: Secret Guest Studio Portion

    Secret Workshop: Secret Guest Studio Portion

     

    Secret Workshop: Model Shoot Out.

    Secret Workshop: Model Shoot Out.

     

    Secret Workshop

    Secret Workshop

     

    Secret Workshop

    Secret Workshop

     

    Secret Workshop: Day 1 - Model Shoot Out.

    Secret Workshop: Day 1 - Model Shoot Out.

  • 11Oct
    Categories: Science Comments: 0



     
    Barbara Simons on left [Photo by Peg Skorpinski]

    Diebold Touchscreen Voting Machine
     A Diebold Touchscreen Voting Machine.  

    I recently went to a talk on voting machines by Barbara Simons, a computer security expert from Stanford who is spearheading an investigation of the problems of these machines. I also had a one-on-one talk with her on this upcoming election. She has been involved since at least the 2004 election.

    Here are my thoughts resulting from our discussion and her talk: This is an important issue and it is of-course not a partisan problem as it affects both sides and our freedom to vote and impact the election. There are several problems:

    • Monopoly:  Only one company is in control of these machines  - no competition to drive up the quality of the hardware of the machines or the software that drives the machines.
    • Unverifiable Results: The software used is proprietary to the company that supply the machines: less control, less opportunities to verify the results or that the software works correctly. Worse the company refuses to have their software evaluated and verified by computer experts. The machines are also paperless which magnifies the problem, i.e., recounts are difficult if not impossible as there are no verifiable paper records. There are numerous examples of the problems caused with these unverifiable machines.
    • Security Holes: The software is plagued with errors and security holes. The company inadvertently released a beta version of their software in 2004 (I believe by an employee / software developer) on a bulletin board. Computer scientists found serious problems of this version and demonstrated that the software is easily hacked due to poor software practices.

    I believe that a solution is to publically release the software; releasing it allows it to be scrutinized by experts and consequently improves security and reliability. Promote competition in developing the technology of the machines: Allowing competition in both producing the machines (hardware) and software improves the quality of the software and machines. And I echo David Dill’s of Stanford sentiment when he said, “Our democracy depends on our having secure, reliable, and accurate elections.”