normal view

Thinking of getting an Iphone?

2008-06-22T19:56:00.000-07:00

I just watched the 2008 Apple WWDC keynote. The Iphone 3G looks to be the coolest smart phone to hit the market. The question is do you need it ? Even if you can afford it, will you burn more time playing with it than you should?
The Iphone solves the data communication problems of an extremely busy, extremely mobile person and makes the power available to almost every cell phone user. Do we need so much mobile power? Are smart phones an overkill?
Personally, I could list real world problems - then evaluate the Iphone for how it can help, rather than just think about how I could use it (that would be just justifying the purchase!)

First, let's see what I use my powerbook for:
• Reading email
• Sharing photos with family
• Reading news and blogs
• Online shopping
• Catalog and play music
• Driving directions

The Iphone can do the things above but they are certainly easier done on the powerbook if instant access is not required.

What do I use a cell phone for?
• To make or receive calls while I'm out

The real answer for you should depend on:
• How mobile are you? Do you have a long public transport commute?
• How much instant access do you need? If you want to show photos to a friend on a train, it can't be beat.
• How affordable is it for you? If the Iphone was free with the contract, everyone signing up with AT&T would get one.
• Do you carry an Ipod and a phone and have a spare digital camera in the car? It can be all of them.

So, should I get one? Hmm ...

DSLR buying advise - March 2008

2008-03-20T03:45:00.000-07:00

The alpha 700 has live preview, which means you can see in the LCD while taking a photo, Nikon D300 has this feature too. But the downside is that If you hold a camera at arm length (so you can see the LCD), then there is more camera shake than holding the camera close to your body or eye. If you can flip the LCD, then you can hold the camera close to your body and avoid shake.
Today's DSLRs use APS-C sized sensors which are smaller than the 35mm negative, this results in a multiplication factor for the focal length, so a regular 35mm lens becomes a 52mm on a DSLR which makes wide angle expensive. Canon started making full-frame sensor (same size as 35mm negative) cameras (ex- Canon 5D $2000) a couple of years ago and Nikon finally gave in (they insisted APS-C was good enough earlier) and released its own (Nikon D3) this year. This is the most significant change coming to DSLRs and may mean that APS-C DSLRs will be obsolete in a few years and replaced by competitively priced full-frame sensor cameras. That's worth waiting and paying more for.
D40 is Nikon's entry level DSLR($500). D80 is a fine camera ($800). D300 is really good ($1700) and D3 is full-frame ($5000). They seem to have even introduced a D60 now. D40, D60, D80 use SD or secure-digital which are thin memory cards. D3 and D300 use compact-flash which is bigger and more robust. Incidentally the D80 replaced the D70 I have, but the D70 uses compact flash. That's a cost savings for Nikon hidden there. The Nikon D40 can take great images and seems well priced. A used D70 may be a good buy at $350- $450.
Canon, Sony have similar models and they must be equally good.
Canon's image processing yields more dynamic range, Nikon's is more neutral. Personally, I like Canon for flowers and Nikon for people.
Canon, Nikon, Sony/Minolta, Pentax, Olympus all make great cameras.
Pay close attention to viewfinder magnification (about 0.9x or higher is good)
Good lenses are important and expensive. If you don't like flash, make sure to get a bright lens (lower f number)
DSLRs have much less noise than the tiny sensors in the point and shoots. They also have better depth-of-field control. Evaluate if you want a portable camera. If so, get a good point and shoot. You may take more pictures than with a DSLR. Given a price point, the heavier the point and shoot camera is, the better its built.

Photography and Words

2005-10-20T13:23:00.000-07:00

I remember reading an interview of William Eggleston in which he said that there is no need to describe a photograph. I think Robert Adams wrote that most photographers are comfortable talking about the circumstances leading to, rather than explaining what they want to show by way of a particular photograph. No amount of words can do justice to a good photograph, which, while incorporating interesting composition and good light, also leaves an inexplicable element that draws us in. It reflects the symmetry and asymmetry we see and the order and disorder we experience in the world around us. A good photograph, itself, tells a story.

Why then, do I like reading about photography? Reading along with looking at scores of photographs has helped realize personal artistic likes/dislikes and can help development of a unique style which is essential for any artist.

What makes a photograph art? Art has to be about life and art has to be original. Toting a camera, lenses and a heavy tripod around the national parks to reproduce the works of Ansel Adams, albeit in color, may not result in art. Although, the photographs can impress a bunch of folks and one might even be able to sell prints, its not necessarily art. Master photographers over the years have developed their own unique styles, which are readily identifiable from their work. While one can and should learn from them, an artist should bring something unique into his/hers photographs.

Resources for reading about photography:
1. Frank Van Riper's Camera Works Column
2. Michael Johnston's Sunday Morning Photographer Column
3. Susan Sontag's book On Photography
4. Robert Adam's book Why People Photograph
5. J.Colberg's Conscientious weblog
6. Auspicious Dragon weblog
7. del.icio.us links I've tagged with photography

Previous | Next

at the stores ...

2005-03-26T12:58:00.000-08:00

I had the opportunity to handle a few digital cameras in the stores yesterday. Here are some brief notes:
Canon G6: Best ergonomics in the G-series yet. The lens no longer obstructs the view as it did in the G5. Additionally, the mode control (to switch between shutter priority, aperture priority etc. ) has been made vertical so it can be rotated with the thumb while your finger is on the shutter. The camera is smaller too.
Sony F-828 & M1: Good ergonomics. Intelligent designs. Expensive.
The one problem with all digicams is that the blanking out period of the LCD after you click and shot-to-shot time is just too much and doesn't allow for rapid picture taking. The Nikon D70 really excels in this area.
DSLRs:
Konica Minolta 7D: Solid camera. Large. Heavy. Large viewfinder. Large LCD. Anti-shake. Expensive.
Pentax *ist DS: Small. No clutter of buttons. Would be a very good streetshooter. Inexpensive.

I suppose if I was buying a digicam today, the Canon G6 would be my choice and if I were to buy a DSLR, I would probably go for the Pentax. The Nikon D70 is probably a bit faster than the *ist DS, though. If you're in the market for a digital camera, buy the camera that best fits your needs. I generally like a camera that really excels in one area rather than one that is the best compromise of all. Good luck shopping!
(Review links from dpreview)

Previous | Next

valentine

2005-02-14T22:49:00.000-08:00

We had our valentine's dinner at The Saffron House, an Indian restaurant in nearby Addison. After a brief wait, we were committed to a table, the last one available in a corner of the not-too-large restaurant. They were doing a valentine special at $49 a person. The price was a bit unsettling and caught us unawares, but we went with it.

They had live Indian classical music and the menu was a delight. However, champagne and strawberries dipped in chocolate for starting off didn't sit very well, because we shy away from alcohol (Aditi does, and I've been sitting on the fence since we got married with a been-there-done-that attitude, making occasional forays to grace memorable occasions). After Aditi promptly devoured the two strawberries, the lady of the house brought extra samosas to make up for the skipped drink. She wore a beautiful burgundy sari, exquisitely embroidered suiting the rich candle-lit Indian deco and served each table personally and carefully.

We picked the lamb kadhai from a list of entrees and asked to make both portions extra spicy as we always do. Later, we were to develop a healthy appreciation of the chef's willingness in this matter. My appetite surged as the food was brought to the table and I started making a meal of it. The naan was soft and the lamb tender. The flavoured rice was cooked just right and we ate contently.

An asian couple in their early twenties made their way to the table beside. They were within earshot but spoke a language incomprehensible to us. Our conversation seemed plain compared to theirs and it was easy to conclude that they were yet to be married. We couldn't help observing from the corner of our eyes but turned away as they became cuddly, early into their dinner. They finished their meals rather hurriedly and left.

The atmosphere sank in and we relaxed after a rather tiring Monday. The music was soft and stayed in the background. We talked and and ate as the hour passed by. When we looked around, everyone seemed to be having a good time. The waiting staff visited often as I emptied my glass of water half-a-dozen times, but they were hardly intrusive. We reminisced of an easier time back home, with moms and aunts cooking and delicacies taken for granted at dinner time. I arguably eat more than I should when presented a good meal and was hardly going to make an exception here. When it was time for desert, Aditi opted for kheer(rice-pudding) and I had gulab-jamun. The kheer was subtly sweet and the gulab-jamun were rich. Enamored by now, I even finished the rich sheera the gulab-jamun floated in.

To complete the meal, the hostess brought us a small cake with a lit candle and wished us a Happy Valentine's. By now stuffed, we could only plead for a to-go box to take it home along with some left over lamb. We walked out pleased, agreeing that the restaurant staff had done a great job of making it a memorable night.

Previous | Next

The Apu trilogy by Satyajit Ray

2005-01-27T19:18:00.000-08:00

We recently watched the three B&W movies Pather Panchali(1955), Aparajito(1957) and Apur Sansar(1959) made by the late Satyajit Ray. I had always heard about these movies and so placed them on our netflix queue. It was quite an experience. The movies follow a baby boy Apu, born in a middle-class brahmin family in rural pre-partition Bengal through his college years in Calcutta and on to parenthood. The characters are gentle making one fall in love with them and the storyline is fluid. The story of Apu's family is presented in a simple yet striking manner. Music and sound is used to very good effect.

They are filmed like a photographer's dream. Camera movement is rather restricted. In a typical shot, the subject enters the frame from a corner and disappears in the distance. Almost each shot is so well framed and composed, you could pause the movies anywhere and have a wonderful photograph. But there is more to the movies than that. They are true to life. Satyajit Ray's love of the land and empathy with its people shines through.

Previous | Next

photography, blogging and camera bliss

2005-01-10T16:43:00.000-08:00

Thinking about photography recently, I realized that while painting and sculpture are expressions of form and texture in space, photography combines these with the time dimension. I wonder then, what the significance of landscape or nature photgraphy is? Is photography best suited to capture only the decisive moment, as expressed by Henri Cartier Bresson ?

It seems that nature photography is more at heart with everyone. I've come to realise this by the popularity of some of my images on this blog, even though my portfolio is minimal (the images seen here are hosted at flickr, a pretty cool site for hosting pictures, popularity can be judged by the number of views). I also posted this photo on a words/no words thread on the photo.net leica forum and it elicited positive responses. One could be tempted to follow the populist route. Nature photography can be easier and less intimidating than stranger photography on the street. The right thing to do probably is to just continue taking pictures of whatever one feels like, and let the pictures fall into their own categories.

The next issue I have is the aesthetics of a photograph. I'm just lazy to learn photoshop, though I know I'd benefit from it. Some of this is to rebel aginst the multitude of gorgeous-looking-cleaned-up images appearing on photoblogs and the obvious immediate popularity of these. Most of the fun for me is done when the shutter is clicked and I tend to view the rest as perfectionism, as I've alluded to in a earlier post.

I think photoblogging is one of the coolest things to come up on the Web (see photoblogs.org). It does require that you take pictures daily, and I'm discovering this is not easy. The other option is to keep a buffer of images, but then it would not be a photoblog in the classical sense. Uploading/taking a daily picture while keeping the quality up requires a lot of dedication and a lot of time for photography.

As for gear, I've gotten used to my new camera, the Nikon D70 with the 35mm f2 lens bought around thanksgiving last year ... have taken quite a few pictures with it, some of which I've put up here in the last month ... no regrets on the decision to go for a single prime lens, this self-imposed limit actually lets me see more clearly and experiment with composition. The 50mm equivalent is the right choice for me because it lets me do portraiture too, though I find the 35mm much easier to compose with otherwise. The 50mm also makes a photograph with more visual tension. I remember reading somewhere that the 35mm can make more hits, but the 50mm can pull a masterpiece.

With crowded family occasions such as birthdays, however, I often find it extremely difficult to compose well with the 50mm, because of being unable to move. In such a situation, I've found that sometimes moving in very close might open up some new compositions, otherwise unrealized. Of course, you do miss the 'overall' photograph.

The camera has come around very useful for family portraits and I've taken some good photos of kids this past holiday season. Its very obvious that I'm more prolific with a DSLR.

Previous | Next

Digital Cameras

2004-11-12T14:45:00.000-08:00

There is endless info on the web on digital cameras and I've scoured quite a bit of it. A couple of digital cameras I've read about, suitable for the type of photography I like:

Nikon D70 DSLR. Everything seems good about it. I don't like the small viewfinder but agree one can get used to it. Basically I'm looking for a APS sensor body and 35mm f2 lens for 50mm photography. I've read the Canon EOS 20d combination will be noisier than the Nikon D70 combination. Good rebates at this time. The Nikon setup is around $1200 after rebate.
Contax U4R. Recently released, $500 . Shirt pocket camera 35mm-105mm f2.8-4.7. Seems like a good camera, can be very discreet. Maybe use it like a TLR!

They are at two ends of the spectrum. One is ultra-capable and the other ultra-portable.

Previous | Next

Neiman Marcus Parade

2004-10-23T11:36:00.000-07:00

Previous | Next

The Dilettante

2004-10-22T08:32:00.000-07:00

dil.et.tante n. a person who dabbles in a subject for his own enjoyment (Oxford dictionary)

Here's my first real attempt at a weblog and we'll see how it goes. Much thanks are due to my buddy Ramesh for encouraging me to write this.

While I do ocasionally come up with ideas, I wonder if anyone would be interested in routinely reading my blabber. I'll try to keep this blog focussed on photography but it may get out of hand and spill into my opinion about anything that happens to briefly pass by my ever digressing, distracted mind.

I don't know how often I'll update this blog, lazy as I am. One thing I do want to try is to stay away from personal diary like stuff, which may not be useful for anybody anyways. I'll try to write stuff that is mildly amusing or entertaining, if not useful for the reader. I'll post pictures if they're good enough for sharing and add to a permanent gallery of images. Maybe this can to evolve into a column on photography, somewhat like Mike Johnston's SMP column or Frank Van Riper's column in the Washington Post. However, I can hardly claim the kind of experience or expertise either of them has.

Somehow I've been hooked on books since I was a kid (If I have to leave a bookstore or library after an hour, I'm usually not happy about it). Much of my time while inside is spent looking through books than reading them. I also had a early fascination with photography but I was not serious about it until a couple of years ago. So reading photography books was a natural culmination of the two pastimes. Recently, I've bought several dozen books because flipping through the pictures at the bookstores wasn't enough. Also, I have another dozen checked out from the Dallas Public Library at any given time. As for my own photography, I manage to take a few good pictures here and there but know I have a ways to go before my photographs can move to the art level. Anyways, I always keep my aspirations high.

I also spend a lot of time surfing the web, so I may share a link whenever I find something worth reading. Web surfing to while away time is quite like flipping books in a library without reading in any detail and I have cultivated both rather useless habits to a high degree. I've lost endless hours reading and looking at pictures on photo.net and have chased this category of the internet down with hyperlinks to the point that finding something in my bookmarks folder is almost as hard as finding it on Google.

I'll put stuff here sometimes with good intention and sometimes just to get it out of my system. Hopefully, this will go on and maybe you will like it enough to come back and see what I've been upto lately. Please do email me on what you liked or didn't like and you can be assured I'll take the critique well.

So far, I've stuck to the 35mm format, mostly using SLR cameras. Here's a list of the kind of pictures I like to take:

Life/Street/Portraits (I don't know what exactly to call this)
Huge landscapes which give a feeling of the real thing (yeah, I'm shooting slides here)
Color photography, if color adds to the picture

I'm not enthusiastic about learning to develop or make prints myself, so I'm just using labs. I think the most fun for me is when I'm actually taking the picture and I want to spend most of my spare time doing just that.

I'd rather stay away from cropping and want to keep digital manipulation out of most of my photography. Like most photographers, I have my formed my opinions about digital photography and digital cameras, but we'll leave that for another day.

So then, ... , until whenever ... hope y'all have a jolly good time !!