]]>
Safe Sleep tips from Macworld's Mac 911 blog
The Intel-powered Apple laptops (and the last G4 PowerBooks) have a feature that Apple calls Safe Sleep. Windows laptop users know this as Hibernation. My iBook would sleep immediately when shut and come awake upon opening. It did not hibernate or Safe Sleep, near as I can tell. I never noticed or cared. It just worked. I could close it and put it in a bag or move it without worry. Since I got a MacBook Pro for doing freelance work, the damn thing restarts if I close the lid and do anything with it. When I would open the lid I would see the login screen. At first I thought this was random. Research and subsequent actions have proved that it is not random in the least. If I move the laptop too soon after closing it, it will restart. If I wait until the LED on the front pulses, I can move it with relative impunity.
The benefits to me of a hibernation mode are meager. While I can swap a battery in this mode, I don't own two batteries for the machine and since it's my main machine, I'm never away from it for days at a time. If I was going to be, I'd shut it down. So I'm wondering if it's worth it to change the settings via Terminal to turn off Safe Sleep? Anybody? Will it improve the time to sleep or should I just nut it up and wait for the pulsing LED magic?
This is what a father researches in the seventeenth hour of Barf Watch 2007. o
]]>]]>
As most of you who frequent this site know, I like to make photos that are impressionistic and artistic in nature; less "true" or journalistic and more interpretive. Some have argued that these aren't really photographs or in the case of a digg commenter, that I'm "shitting on photography". I see it less as an excretory function and more of an artistic one, but I'm certain arguments could be made for both. I'm going to forego that discussion on this post.
In the past, I used a lot of digital editing tricks to try to remove the technology of the camera from the final work. I know this is a paradoxical notion. However, for how I work, it's cheaper in time and money for me to use the tools I know and can afford to get the results I want. I love film, but was never really satisfied with my Holga. Without major modification, the Holga isn't as reliable as my digital SLR. And while I love film, I'm trying to capture that same essence of random weirdness digitally, while enhancing the experience for the viewer in terms of art over reality. In other words, I'm trying to create my view of a scene, not a real representation of a scene. I use the camera to capture a starting point, knowing that in most cases, I'm going to use some tricks to get the image where I want. With the Lensbaby 3G (link goes to shopping cart page on lensbabies.com because they use flash on their site and I can't link directly to a product page), the amount of work I'd have to do in an image editor or post-processing stage is drastically reduced, in some cases, nearly eliminated:
I remember seeing photos from Heather Champ's site in 2004 when she first got a Lensbaby [1, 2, 3, 4]. I wanted to get one immediately, but we had just bought the D70 and couldn't really afford any accessories. In 2006, we were looking at buying a new camera and before we started our lens collection, determined that we'd research the hell out of our next camera purchase and make a real investment with whatever body we chose and lens line. We did that with the Canon 5D and shortly after we got the camera, we were sent a Lensbaby 3G, which about detonated me out of my skin with anticipation. While I've been a fan of weird toy camera blurs and inconsistencies, I was giddy imagining being able to have a little more control and the ability to actually meter a scene and still have crazy blur. That's the beauty of the Lensbaby.
The 3G is a small, lightweight lens that attaches the same way most other lenses do to your SLR camera. The nice thing about the 3G over previous versions of the Lensbaby line is that you can lock the focus area and then use a focus ring and three adjuster screws to dial in the sweet spot. The lens also has a series of discs that have a range of f-stops. If you want a small blur area, you can remove the metal disc with a magnetic wand (included in the package) and replace it with a higher f-stop ring. The range is from f/2 to f/22 (f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22 are included with the 3G). I like a good amount of blur, so I've been using the f/4 and f/5.6 rings the most.
Once attached to the camera, the lens is adjusted by first squeezing a couple of quick release knobs on the bottom of the outer ring and then bending the lens tube. The more severe the bend, the more harsh the blur. Once the sweet spot is found, there is a single lock button that is easily reached with a finger. Finer tweaks can be made by moving the limited range focusing ring and if needed, the three threaded posts that act as a bellows control on the tube. It's a bit of work, but once you get how the lens operates, sweet spots can be found and focused relatively quickly.
With the locking ability, it makes it much easier to set up and repeat a shot. The older generations of Lensbaby lenses were manual focus, meaning you had to do some gymnastics to hold the sweet spot/focus area with every shot. I would imagine this still has appeal for certain photographers and the shots they want, but for me, I prefer the lockability and tweakability that the 3G allows. It's really a testament to the engineering mind behind the Lensbaby line that an inexpensive, flexible focus system can be used on just about any SLR (film or digital) with a standard lens mount and get repeatable results. For fans of macro photography or tilt-shift photography on a budget, this is a great lens.
I typically shoot in natural light, but adding a flash for indoor shots has been relatively easy, given that the 5D will still meter through the Lensbaby. I'll take a couple of test shots and tweak the shutter speed and flash zoom settings, depending on the effect I want. This is where the digital ability to instantly preview shots is wonderful. It takes a little more time to get a shot, but with the lockable positioning and options for holding the focus, the results are spectacular.
One of the difficulties with this lens is shooting portraits of living creatures. I tried a few Leta shots, but gave up quickly. With Chuck, I had an easier time, but had to hold the treat on my knee while I worked the lens. Portraits with the 3G will take a compliant and willing subject. It took a little longer than normal shoots, but after a few shots, I did one that had the sweet spot where I wanted:
The lens does take some getting used to and I'm still working to understand how the sweet spot works. When you bend the lens, add the camera angle and distance to the subject, it really jacks the depth of field and in some cases, it's very difficult to see if you've nailed a shot without previewing and zooming in on the camera or even getting the shots on a larger screen. The depth of field can be extremely shallow and I found that breathing or moving could change what was in focus:
I'm looking forward to a long relationship with this lens and you should see more work from me in the future. To see other Lensbaby 3G shots, click here. o
Other reviews:
CNet has a more technical review with a lot of photos of the product.
NOTE: I just want to add a note about product reviews on this site. All reviews are unsolicited. That means I write them because I dig on the product or service or want to attempt to make constructive criticism. I do not review products because I'm being paid to do so. We get sent stuff all the time, and if we like it, it turns up in photos because we are wearing it or using it in real life and/or I write about it. If we don't, it is given away or donated. I'm moving towards doing reviews, not for the schwag, but because so many of you ask my opinion all the time and I think there is value letting others in on the discussions.
I've also hesitated in the past to call something a review, when I'm just spouting off about it. I'm making an attempt here to be a little more pro. I said little.
]]>]]>
What is the big deal? Does anybody have a valid reason for being upset besides something that makes one sound like a 3 year-old? o
]]>
]]>
A quick search yielded the following:
Apple Recalls iPhone; Forgot to Include ‘Phone’ Feature
Which was reposted here (without credit):
A nutty right-wing blog.
I so wish I could link to the video of the news report. Local news can be awesome in all the wrong ways. o
]]>
]]>
I buckled under the crushing power of my own curiosity and purchased the Apple Airport 802.11n Enabler. $2.12 US later, it downloaded in a moment and in a millisecond, I double-clicked the package installer. Imagine my pain when I got this message in the installer:
Turns out you have to run Software Upgrade and download/install the latest Airport Extreme update 2007-001.
After your machine reboots, run the Enabler. Et, viola. If your router supports the draft-N specs, you'll see a remarkable increase in network speeds. My almost two-year-old Belkin Pre-N router supports it enough so that it feels like I'm on a wired connection to machines on the network. Very sweet. And very worth the $1.99.
This could change how I work. Imagine... o
UPDATE: Tried a 1 gig copy of about a hundred files. Only got about 1.8MB/sec transfer rate. Disappointing. Finder windows populate faster and shared iTunes playlists are faster.
]]>Thanks, Doug. o
]]>
I wanted this to be an in-depth post about the Canon 5D and why we chose it over other cameras, specifically how that relates to our existing Nikon D70s. Also, how it relates to the Canon/Nikon "war". Apparently, a "war" that is similar to the PC/Mac "war".
Instead of dealing with those large issues, as I don't really have a platform preference for cameras (I love Holgas, for example, does that mean the Diana or other toy cameras need defending or shouting down??), I'm going to just give you the gear rundown and a brief note about why we chose the 5D. We still use and love the Nikon D70s. But we fight over the 5D. Which is why I did a morning walkabout in Manhattan while Heather was doing her thing on our New York trip last month.
Points
First, we wanted to buy a second camera, largely to reduce the back and forth when we travel together and shoot. "Did you take this one? Did I?"
Second, I wanted to take a step up. We looked at the Nikon options and the Canon options. For us, the Canon options looked more attractive from a price/specs vantage point, very similar to where we were in 2004 with the Nikon purchase. I think I'm more drawn to the Canon lens options. Save your arguments about awesome Nikon glass for a photography forum or a digg post. It's not so much about the quality of lenses as it is options with price/features. I think Canon and Nikon make great lenses. As do a number of manufacturers. The Canon line appeals to me a bit more. Faster speeds and a wider selection. Will I use all of that range? Dunno. But when looking for lenses for the D70, I decided to wait, as it seemed that Nikon was in the middle of a lens lineup refresh.
When we were in Austin last spring, I shot with a Canon 24-70 2.8L USM and its buttery goodness forced me to make a mental note. A couple of hours later, I was able to take a few shots with a 5D and the game was nearly over at that point. So a Canon would be our second camera. And then we replaced our sewer. And got sued. I took on more freelance work. And then Santa Claus came.
Third, to get a full-frame sensor in a digital SLR meant that there were only a few options. The 5D was not only the cheapest, but really the only one in the Canon line for us. There was only one other full-frame, high megapixel camera: the 1DS Mark II. It is more than double the price. It's a fantastic camera, but for us, too rich.
Fourth, we purchased the following gear (with rebates!) from Canon:
--5D body
--24-70mm 2.8L USM lens
--50mm 1.4 USM lens
--Canon Speedlite 430EX flash
--extra battery
--B+W UV filter
--Lowepro Stealth Reporter D300 AW (It's too small)
--I can't decide if I want a super wide angle or a 70-200mm next, but we'll likely rent a few lenses to figure out our next purchase, sometime in 2015.
Fifth, Canon is not paying for anything in this post.
Sixth, I've gotten a flood of email and a few comments about what we use to handle the RAW files. On our tower, which is Heather's machine, we have Adobe Creative Suite 2, using Bridge and the Camera Raw plugin into Photoshop. I use Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (a free beta app) on my laptop, and I'll pop into Photoshop CS when I need to make a quick edit. I've heard good things about other apps, but it really depends on how you work and what you are looking for. Right now, this is our setup, but it will likely change.
Seventh, storage. We've gradually purchased larger and larger Compact Flash cards from Costco. We have three 2gb cards and two 1gb cards. For the computers, I'm looking at external drives, and we'll probably settle on a Western Digital or Seagate. The Western Digital 500gb RAID 1/1Terabyte RAID 0 with dual FireWire 800 ports is looking pretty sweet, if a little more expensive than the Seagate options. I'd like to be able to move it around from computer to computer for backup purposes, so an external drive is looking like the way we'll go.
Eighth, getting pro-level gear (I think the 5D is on the high end of the prosumer designation) is part of the process, as is working to take better pictures. The extra megapixels and improved sensor mean that we have more information to work with when doing things like Chuck's calendar or other stuff we'd like to share. More on that soon.
Conclusion
Finally, we hope to get better as photographers and share our work with you, because you are a big part of the reason we can do this. So thanks again and if you have further questions, post them in the comments. o
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>