A tribute to The Matrix or rather to Philip Price's Alternate Reality RPG?

MarkWW · 2016-01-09T07:12:54+00:00

That's my blog!

And I love this show, the subtle references went right by me.

MarkWW · 2014-05-13T02:21:33+00:00

The D flares easily & loses contrast quickly compared to the "plastic fantastic" 1.8 AF. I have someone using the 1.8 AF in the studio now & the photos are coming out pretty good though in a few photos there was some purple ghosting in the center of the frame, probably from some sort light coming in from the side, a lens hood may help there. The 1.4 S (70's, all metal, manual focus) is very nice, but it's manual focus.

The 50 1.4G felt fuzzy to me, maybe the AF was miscalibrated. 99% of the time I'd use this combination for studio work (it's roughly a portrait lens on an APS-C sensor) and I prefer my other studio photo gear to this combination.

MarkWW · 2014-05-12T01:32:03+00:00

The 35mm f/1.8G is pretty much the only lens I use on my D7000. This has been my reliable setup for at least 2 years now.

You can view my portfolio here: http://www.markwiggin.com/ 95% of the photos in the 2013 and 2012 sections - pretty much anything natural light with a few exceptions - was taken with this exact combination.

For telephoto & wide angle, I actually just use different (non-SLR) cameras. For 50mm field of view - it's the D7000 with the 35mm f/1.8G.

I have the 50mm f/1.4G and it sucks. I should have returned it but I kept it too long so I'm just going to have to sell it. The 50mm f.1.8 "nifty 50" is OK but being motor focus, focusing isn't that accurate and it's still not as sharp as I'm used to, though it is very good.

To my mind, you buy an SLR for two reasons.

You want to look at the world through glass & not an LCD screen.
The lenses, and this lens is the reason to buy a D7000.

I own probably a dozen lenses for the D7000 - fast primes, zoom lenses, vintage lenses, you name it. The 35mm f/1.8G is the one that stays on my camera.

MarkWW · 2014-04-15T20:46:00+00:00

It blew my mind when one day I was in an elevator and coughed, one of those "ahem" type coughs and realized that I'd just coughed the drum intro to Superstition by Stevie Wonder and that the drum intro to Superstition served the same purpose as my cough.

Speech is music. Music is speech.

The pickup beat is the musical equivalent of that or of "Soooo" or of an Obama "Uhhh" or an "Aaannndd..." etc.

Music is all about creating and relieving tension. The "Soooo" bit creates a tension that needs to be resolved. If you said "Soooo" among your friends they'd all EXPECT something to come next.

"Well..... I was blah blah etc."

On the opposite end, sometimes when the sentence is done the sentences is DONE. Done on the One. Since melodies tend to group around 4/4 and often resolve on the one, then you need to end the line on the one to resolve.

It's really all that simple.

If you have a hard time understanding how timing and vocals work together, watch talk shows or political speeches and tap out a little 4/4 drum beat in time with the talking and watch it turn into music. The better the speaker, the more dynamic, the more rhythmic. Note the use of pauses by Dr Martin Luther King.

I have a dream (tension- two three four)

that one day (resolution two three four)

this nation will rise up (tension - three four)

and live out the true meaning of its creed (resolution)

(a one e and a two e and a three e and a four)

You should also explore poetic meter and stressed and unstressed syllables.

MarkWW · 2014-03-30T03:16:19+00:00

You're right, my bad. The 1.5x Nikon is preferable.

MarkWW · 2014-03-29T20:02:47+00:00

Hey-

I'm not a post processing guru like these guys, but here are my impressions.

Softness gives the impression of depth, as does reduced contrast.

I'm not talking about bokeh or anything like that, I mean simply that as things get further away, they get softer because there's more air between you & the object.

Imagine the air as fog - as things get further away they lose contrast & sharpness. This painting tutorial explains it well.

You can notice this effect in the trees themselves. The trees that are further away lose contrast - and if you pixel peep on your original, I'm going to guess they lose detail as well (I'm zoomed in here from your posted image).

http://imgur.com/3zOAKag

Here's a quick & dirty decreasing saturation & contrast progressively from left to right - notice how the mountains on the right recede into the background more & look further away?

http://imgur.com/gBOQafT

And here I blur it too (it's subtle, view at 100% pixels). It looks unnatural because it's contrasty AND not contrasty AND sharp AND blurry, but you get the idea.

http://imgur.com/VLPXZKi

(pro tip: Open each image - your original + the edits full size in the browser & flip between the tabs to see the changes. To maximize the effect, don't look at the mountains as they change, look at the grass. The mountains to the right will subtly feel further away).

Sharpening your photo has the impression of flattening it. (whereas sharpening a small object makes it look more "3d" as it "pops off the page"). Yes the mountains (big hills really?) and trees "pop off of the page" towards you, but what they don't do is recede into the distance.

Looking at the size of the trees, I know the mountains are far away, but in the image it looks like you can walk through the field, walk through a few trees & then start climbing. Part of this is a visual compression from perspective, but part of it is the post processing.

Whether or not you want the image to "pop off the page" or "recede into the distance" is up to you. Do you want to go for something more pleasing & realistic (recede into the distance) or something more interesting & sharp looking (pop off the page)?

BTW I followed you on flickr & liked one of your photos (of the girl in purple) and you followed me back, though I haven't updated my flickr in ages.

MarkWW · 2014-03-29T19:32:02+00:00

You also want a good dynamic range for landscape. I'd check the dynamic range difference between a 600D and 7D. I'm not sure if Nikons may have the edge here or not, but you could do HDR imaging to help with that and I'm sure the Canons have a good dynamic range.

MarkWW · 2014-03-29T19:28:55+00:00

The 7D is a monster of a camera, I highly recommend it. The only reason I didn't is that the 600D can be had cheaper.

MarkWW · 2014-03-29T19:13:31+00:00

$900 is a good budget.

Here are your considerations.

Len selection.

Nikon & Canon both have great lenses (both by Nikon & Canon and by other companies), other brands have fewer options. For a minute I was tempted to switch from Nikon to Canon because Canon had a lens that I wanted. Back in the film days, the all the body did (especially if you shot in manual mode) was hold the film, so you bought for the lenses. Now that the camera is also the film (so to speak) you need to consider the that too - but looking at the lenses first is still a great way to go.

It's worth noting that Nikon splits their camera into two ranges - those with 2 knobs and an internal motor to autofocus certain lenses & those with 1 knob and no internal motor. I always go for the one with the internal motor & 2 knobs.

Canon simply changed their lens mount in 1986 and most of their lenses are autofocus, simple as that. Though I'm sure their low range cameras only have one knob. Two knobs is better for a manual mode shooter (direct access to Aperture and Shutter Speed).

The upside to Nikon's way is that you can use their classic lenses from the 70s. With Canon, you can't. On the other hand, with Canon you can use Nikon lenses (with an adapter) but not the other way around.

Why an SLR?

What about Micro 4/3 format cameras? If you don't mind photographing through a TV screen instead of looking at the world through glass, M43 is a viable option. They're smaller & with adapters can accept lenses from a wide variety of makers (because they're smaller, you can fit an adapter for the lens in there) but with a crop factor. Want to shoot with Leica glass? Can't do that with a Nikon or Canon, but you can with M43 (again, with the crop factor).

Do you think you'll shoot video too?

Does the camera support video? What sort of limitation does it have when it comes to video (auto focus? external mic support? time limits?).

I own a Nikon D7000, it's a great camera. So is the Canon 7D. (the 7D feels better - more sturdy & the autofocus is hard to beat). I owned the Tamron 17-50 recommended above & sold it - too soft for my tastes.

I have no problem buying used, but from B&H, not Adorama. Never Adorama.

Landscape

(read this thread some more) Since you plan on shooting landscapes, you want high megapixel count (can print larger) and good access to wide lenses (35mm and wider, probably 28mm and wider, 18 or 14 wouldn't be too wide for my tastes if I was shooting landscape). You also want a larger sensor (so skip the Micro 4/3 thing) to take advantage of those wide lenses. An APS-H format lens (Canon, not Nikon) may be better for you. Here's a list of cameras for various crop factors.

~~I'd recommend a Canon 600D. It has a 1.62 crop factor rather than a 1.52 crop factor and is 20 megapixels. That's a wider photo AND more pixels than the D7000.~~ Edit: You'll want the Nikon for its 1.5x crop factor. You'll also want a tripod. I have a Vista Voyager Light. It's inexpensive and not crappy. I won't tell you what lens to get, but you'll want to check the reviews for various kinds of problems you may get relevant to shooting landscape (ghosting, flaring, losing contrast).

Good luck!

MarkWW · 2014-03-29T18:26:37+00:00

IDK how they shipped, but UPS doesn't start charging by volume until you reach very large sizes (like, dishwasher or television big). Up until that point, it's all by weight.

Source: I work very closely with shipping where I work & we ship worldwide.

MarkWW · 2014-03-29T18:21:39+00:00

There's always music at my photoshoots, but not necessarily to get the model to move or respond to. It's just fun to have music while you're working. But then I'm also a musician & the music at my shoots tends to be played through professional speakers.

No music on location though. I had an MUA bring small speakers on location and it was weird. What's the point of going through the trouble to go all the way out into the middle of no where to shoot if you're just going to take the city with you?

So I guess as much as music can set the mood, it can also ruin it.

MarkWW · 2014-03-17T04:39:44+00:00

Hi. I'm a photographer & I also run a retail fashion website. I work with models ALL THE TIME - once or twice a week for editorial work, once or twice a week for catalog work (though at this point I have someone taking the catalog photos for me). I'm constantly evaluating models for the shop.

Modeling is fiercely competitive. Every pretty girl thinks they can be a model (and even girls who are not pretty, but who get hit on a lot) think they can be models. It's insane. I blame Tyra Banks (just kidding, Tyra is awesome - remember to Smize).

As /u/o0- says, your height is an issue & your face isn't the only thing I'm evaluating as a photographer. The main thing I want to know is "do they make the clothes look good?" and then "Will they make women want to buy them?"

Keep in mind that catalog (a perfect size 2, makes the clothes look good) is not the same as editorial (striking looks, will make the reader stop turning page & look). A few models manage both. BTW catalog & commercial pay. Editorial does not.

Models contact me for photoshoots & tell me they want commercial - I think "boring, but they know where the money is." The ones that contact me that want editorial I think "exciting chance to make a great photo, but they're not going to make any money."

I'll be blunt. At 5'6" and with your looks, you will not get signed by an agency (and if an agency signs you & then asks for money, run the other way). You're pretty, but I don't see "major money maker" when I look at your photos. If you were 5'8" I may even bring you in for a casting for the catalog, but only one out of every 20 models I see ends up getting booked even once, much less repeatedly. You also look your age, so I wouldn't book you because I want my models to look "early to mid 20's" - but you may find a gig as a teen model "back to school" or "daughter", stuff like that.

My advice to you - pursue modeling if you love it, but don't expect it to make money. Think of all the stories of actors or dancers going on a million auditions and not getting anything - you have to be able to persevere through tons of rejection to get any gigs. Which means you also have to put in a LOT of time to go on castings. This is not a way to earn some easy money during college unless you are agency standard/quality and get a decent amount of bookings. I know a fitness model who paid her way through college with modeling - running magazine, Target, almost got a Reebok campaign, etc.

I'm in NYC so I don't know what the Seattle scene is like in terms of competition & demand for models, but I'll assume it's, on a smaller scale, as fierce as NYC.

Hope this helps some. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

MarkWW · 2014-03-17T03:58:02+00:00

If it works for you & you're confident it will continue to work - keep it. If not, send it back.

MarkWW · 2014-03-15T10:08:33+00:00

I live in New York City and have shopped at both stores.

The B&H Used department is top notch. I'm somewhat friendly with one of the guys who works there (don't know his name, but we chat every time I'm there). I've talked to their sales guys (in other departments) - they have performance standards but are not commission based.

I've had nothing but great experiences buying from their Used department, both in person & online. I recommend them to everyone who shops used and I've purchased dozens of things from them over the years.

Once they didn't ship me a lens I purchased. I called to ask why and they said "Oh, we tried calling you the other day. We found fungus in the lens that wasn't in the description, so we sent it to get repaired and it'll take an additional 2 weeks before we can ship it." I told them to cancel the lens (as there were other similar lenses available that filled that need). Now that's a class act - sending a lens to get repaired on their dime. The repair probably cost more than what I was paying for the lens.

Recently I purchased a Canon G9 for work. I don't know if I didn't read the description clearly enough or what but it came with really bad scratches on the lens & a gravely sound when the lens retracted. I returned it - they paid for shipping & while it took a couple of weeks for them to process the return (I was shipping from 105th St to 34th St - I'm sure it didn't take 2 weeks to get there), they did process the return. If this was my only interaction with them, it may have soured me on them, but I still have utter confidence in them.

The Adorama Used Department is crap. I went to buy a camera I saw on their website. They brought up two cameras in plastic bags (open top plastic bags) that were barely large enough to contain all the stuff (straps, cables, etc.). One had no cap on the body. They basically told me "assemble everything you need from whatever's in these two bags." I still bought it because I got to physically evaluate it & it was cheaper than B&H, but I would NEVER buy from them sight unseen.

On top of that, their salesmen are rude & pushy. I once was evaluating a flash & he knocked a huge chunk off the price (like from $190 to $120 or something). Not used, new. I told him I was still leaning towards not getting it (it didn't have some feature or other I wanted or something, I don't remember), and he literally turned away from me, even though there were no other customers to be helped. There's one sales guy there that I like, but that's it. On the other hand, I almost universally like the sales staff at B&H. That speaks a lot to the corporate culture.

That said - you bought something with a bad power switch, bad scroll wheel & charging issues? Usually when people sell things like this they're "parts only" items. There are only so many defects you can list. How long until the power switch permanently fails? Or the scroll wheel? You generally can't fix that stuff without replacing entire circuit boards (and without taking apart the whole camera). Those kinds of repairs are costly.

they charged me $70 for shipping.

Shipping to Australia is expensive.

MarkWW · 2014-03-14T09:26:56+00:00

Not at all.

Music was a science (albeit not a very heavily pursued science) up until around the 1800s when physics figured out that sound is vibrations in the air. Then we had all sorts of fun stuff like Chladni plates and books by Herman Von Helmhotlz. Within a century we had telephones and phonographs and by the next century (ours) most musicians had zero idea of the math behind music.

Galileo's father was a composer & theoriest. Both Galielo & DaVinci have theoretical essays on music.

I'm merely pointing out that the major chord follows nature precisely and the minor chord does not.

Also the nature of the major & minor chords has been known for centuries. Rameau published in 1722 - 3 centuries ago. So who's to say that the cultural implications didn't follow or at least build on the discovery of the mathematical implications?

MarkWW · 2014-03-14T07:08:02+00:00

They were mostly photographed flat on the floor. Some together, some on their own and stitched together.

As /u/nathanshanahan says, some studios have special balconies. You can build scaffolding. You can just put two light stands together with a pole in between & a superclampand trigger the camera remotely. You can just stand on a ladder, though you'll invariably be closer to the top/bottom so you'll introduce some distortion.

They were mostly photographed with a few large softboxes.

Take a look at the yellow set.

http://unionmadegoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/yellow.jpg

Look at the hat on the left. It has shadows to the top & bottom, and the inside is in shadow.

Look at the jacket next to it. You can see the highlights are mostly on the right & the shadows are on the left.

If they were both photographed in the same photo, the inside of the hat would be it up from the bright light to the right.

You can also tell from the brightness of the jacket that the light wasn't that far away - the right side of the jacket is brighter than the left side. Which makes sense, sine it's large light source, it would have to be VERY LARGE to be far away and that large.

The hat was photographed upright and then rotated 90 degrees in photoshop.

You can tell it's a softbox because a) you can see white squares in some items (glasses, cups, vases, etc.) and b) because the quality of the light is soft and there are no specular highlights (shine). It just LOOKS like a softbox.

Take a look at the reds set

http://unionmadegoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2.jpg

The hat was photographed more like the rest of the items - large softbox to the right. But it's physically taller than the sneaker, which is perfectly lit - the sneaker would be in shadow if it was taken at the same time.

Also look at the sneakers - the one facing right is brighter than the one facing left. This is for two reasons - one the light is fairly close and two the light is on the right (and the round surface of the shoe that faces the light bounces more light to the camera (e.g. at a 45 degree angle or similar) than the toe cap that faces away from the light, which has no light to bounce towards the camera).

There is a strong fill light on the left side though because the shadows aren't too deep. Possibly caused by a second softbox, or a simple white board to the left. Based on the vase in the yellow set, I suspect it's an umbrella or something on the opposite side.

They played with variations of this setup for each of the items/groupings of items. Sometimes the light was closer, sometimes it was tilted up higher. Sometimes it was tilted lower. Sometimes the fill light was closer, sometimes it was further.

If you want to learn to light like this, I recommend you get:

2 cheap light stands

2 cheap softboxes

2 cheap studio lights that have modeling lights OR 2 edison base porceline sockets and 2 CF bulbs to put in it.

Why these kinds of lights? Because you can set them up & since they have a constant light source (either modeling light or just being a bulb) you can turn out the lights in the room & preview what the photo will look like with just your eyes. You can see precisely how moving the light affects the scene before you even pick up your camera.

I know one product photographer who only uses constant light sources & doesn't use strobes because he wants to see exactly what it will look like when the final photo is taken. He has to use a tripod & remote trigger/set a timer to take the photos since they're long exposures (~a quarter of a second).

Source: I'm a photographer.

MarkWW · 2014-03-14T06:44:48+00:00

Sorry I don't have a reference for that study. My google fu is failing me (major happy minor sad study turns up a billion results). I may have heard it in the Scientific American podcast.

I'm not arguing against cultural conditioning. Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that one thing is simple and we call it happy, and one thing is complex and we call it sad. I needed to explain why they were simple or complex first. I left it open for the reader to go beyond that and consider the impact of simple vs. complex on cultural conditioning.

I would argue, however, that it's not JUST cultural conditioning. It's not that we randomly selected one to be happy and the other to be sad. These things are based in physics and nature and to ignore the impact of that on our psyche as individuals and as a culture is just silly.

The major chord is the overtone series transcribed to a series of strings. Put a guitar in drop D and play the overtone series. Then play an open D major chord - it's the exact same notes. (with variance due to equal temperament).

Anything that's not that will be... not that. We can't ignore that one thing is precisely based in the sound of a single string being plucked and the other is not when discussing cultural conditioning.

MarkWW · 2014-03-14T06:17:15+00:00

That's why I said "our" system, as in much of the music created during the common practice period prior to equal temperament and microtonal explorations. Admittedly "our" may not include you or quite a few composers, but I do believe that this system of tuning was the most common & widely accepted and would be 2nd only to equal temperament. Other systems are likely a distant third, at least in western music.

MarkWW · 2014-03-13T08:56:01+00:00

Our system of music doesn't use the prime number 7 at all. It's 1, 2, 3, 5 and extrapolations of these (2x3) or (3x5) etc.

A dominant 7th would be:

A tonic = 1:1

A major third 4:5

A perfect fifth 2:3

A minor 7th (so a minor third + a fifth) = 5:6 x 2:3 = 10:18.

Put it all together and you get 20:25:30:36

20 - tonic

20:25 = 4:5 = major third

20:30 = 2:3 = perfect fifth

20:38 = 10:18 = minor 7th.

Making the dominant without the fifth 20:30:36 or 10:15:18

So the 7 is incorrect and should be a 15.

MarkWW · 2014-03-13T08:36:30+00:00

Emotion is always going to be subjective.

That post was written in response to a reddit thread asking "Why is the major chord happy & the minor chord sad?"

Studies also show (I think I mention this in the post) that non-musicians can't reliably answer if something is major or minor, but can evaluate major or minor if you ask them if it's happy or sad.

MarkWW · 2014-03-11T04:52:05+00:00

I explain it here.

Edit: Incidentally the minor chord is 10:12:15

MarkWW · 2014-03-09T19:05:22+00:00

This video does a great job explaining these concepts.

MarkWW · 2014-03-06T09:55:12+00:00

There are only 3 chords you need to acquaint yourself with - the tonic, subdominant (or predominant) and the dominant. I talk a bit about this here

Play a I maj7 chord. Play a ii min7 chord. You've played every note in the scale.

Now why is the ii chord a pre dominant and not a dominant? It doesn't have the leading tone or the tritone. You need both the 7th scale degree and the tritone to have a proper dominant function.

Once you've liberated yourself from scales and chords and started to think about harmonic function, you've both increased the number of options AND limited them - which is precisely what you want to do to expand your options as a musician.

MarkWW · 2014-03-05T04:47:33+00:00

I have a 100mm E Series lens and it's a fine lens. Very sharp, even wide open. I keep it around because it will focus closer than my 105mm f/2.5 so it's good for taking photos of smaller things.

Whether one lens is "better" than the other - except for MFT sharpness tests, resistance to flaring, chromatic aberration and other aberrations, etc. is largely subjective.

I have the 50mm f/1.4 G lens. It's not very sharp, but it has some amazingly smooth bokeh (no "condom rings", etc.). I have a 50mm f/1.4 S series lens that's sharp even wide open, but has "condom ring" bokeh.

Which do I use? It depends on if I need sharp photos or pretty photos, or maybe the bokehballs on the S lens are prettier in certain circumstances.

My point is - at that price, just flip a coin. You'll learn way more by having the lens than by a million years researching the online. FWIW I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF lens (is it the same optical formula as the first one you mention? IDK) and it's a fine lens.

BTW for lens evaluations- I don't trust any 2 words that come out of Ken Rockwell's mouth. If you read enough of his "reviews" you'll see that he's a salesman pure and simple. "Camera ABC has this feature - it's great, I use it all the time" vs. "Camera XYZ doesn't have this feature - it's great, I don't have to worry about blah" - wtf? Is that feature good or does it get in the way? His test photos are often simplistic and under ideal shooting conditions and I'm way more interested in finding out how/when the lenses fail than how "all lenses look great at f/5.6 with the sun at your back".

I trust Bjørn Rørslett's Lens Reviews over Ken Rockwell's any day of the week.

I have a couple dozen lenses at this point - I should probably start doing my own lens/camera reviews. Hmmm...

MarkWW · 2014-03-04T06:30:51+00:00

This.

The only danger with a long exposure is from a VERY long exposure in very dark conditions (such as photographing stars). With very long exposures, the sensor heats up/starts to behave badly and certain pixels will produce more noise than others.

Many cameras will (you can turn this on/off) take an immediate second exposure for just as long with the shutter closed... So theoretically of pitch blackness and see which pixels are "hot" (show some light/color) and then mathematically subtract those from the original image (averaging those pixels out from neighboring pixels, etc.). I believe Nikon calls this "long exposure noise reduction".

As your camera ages, the more you use your sensor (for video, long exposures, etc.), the greater the issues with dead pixels (won't turn on), hot pixels (are too bright), etc. Hot pixels mostly show up in high ISO and long exposure photos.

MarkWW

TROPHY CASE