Playing with Time

Below is another one of Saturday's Decker's Creek pictures.  It's too dark for general consumption, but I like it nonetheless.

I shot this in broad daylight (1:00 p.m.) with my Canon EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.  Exposure was 1.3 sec; f/7.1; ISO 100.   A variable neutral density filter was stopped down to about 6 on the dial.

You can see the better-lit version of this shot here.

Decker's Creek

Today was my first bike excursion of the year.  Knowing what kind of shape I'm in -- basically, round -- I got dropped off at Masontown and took the rail trail downhill from there.  Before doing the downhill run, I rode just a little way up the trail, where the ground is relatively flat and the creek snakes under a series of bridges.  I heard choruses of peepers, but the only thing I actually saw was a snapping turtle the size of a dinner plat sunning itself on a log.

The turtle had the right idea, because it was cold up there on the mountain! When I started back on the downhill run, I saw patches of snow as well as icicles on the rocky overhangs.  The only blooming plant life at that altitude was coltsfoot.

I was backpacking my latest zoom lens and tripod in hopes of getting down to Decker's Creek at the same place I did last year.  Not sure how I managed to miss the spot, but I did.  After I got all the way down to where my car had been left off for me, I drove back up toward Masontown and pulled over to the side of the road where it looked like I could reach the creek.

It started as a wretched undertaking.  On the way down the ravine, I skirted all kinds of recently deposited garbage.  Luckily for the cold, I wasn't too worried about running into snakes, because the place looked like it would be crawling with them in warmer weather.  Soon, I found something that looked vaguely like a trail, and I made it down near the cascades.

Here are two different angles of the same falls:

These were both shot at a slow speed, using a variable neutral density filter and a tripod.

I think that there were even better cascades just downstream from this one, but I wasn't channeling my inner mountain goat today.   As it was, I was huffing and puffing like an old man by the time I got back up to the road again.

Don't say it!

Trip details, via MotionX-GPS on my iPhone:

Name:		Track 012
Date:		Apr 6, 2013 11:13 am
Map: (valid until Oct 3, 2013)		View on Map
Distance:		13.0 miles
Elapsed Time:		1:16:59
Avg Speed:		10.1 mph
Max Speed:		17.6 mph
Avg Pace:		5' 54" per mile
Min Altitude:		845 ft
Max Altitude:		1,842 ft
Start Time:		2013-04-06T15:13:38Z
Start Location:
	Latitude:	39º 33' 14" N
	Longitude:	79º 48' 12" W
End Location:
	Latitude:	39º 37' 06" N
	Longitude:	79º 55' 27" W

Sadly, this isn't The Onion

One of my favorite sites of late is called The Ononeon. Its motto is "It's not funny, 'cause it's true." I suppose that this helps to differentiate it from the humor site, The Onion, which is fake news that's often interpreted by some people to be reports of true events.

Headlines on The Ononeon are typically links to original posted reports elsewhere.  A recent News Highlight for example offers this tag:

Robertson: God gives less miracles to too-educated Americans who learn science

The tag links to a piece on The Raw Story by David Edwards (Monday, April 1, 2013 14:19 EDT) Robertson: God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science.  It sounds made up.

Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday explained to his viewers that “sophisticated” Americans received less miracles because they had learned “things that says God isn’t real” like evolution.

On Monday’s episode of CBN’s The 700 Club, Robertson responded to a viewer who wanted to know why “amazing miracles (people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, lame people walking) happen with great frequency in places like Africa, and not here in the USA?”

“People overseas didn’t go to Ivy League schools,” the TV preacher laughed. “We’re so sophisticated, we think we’ve got everything figured out. We know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn’t real.”

Don't try to think too hard about what he's saying; it may hurt your head.  You'll have better results with this logic (transcript follows):

BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this? CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit. VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart. BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch? VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt. BEDEMIR: A newt? VILLAGER #3: I got better. VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway! CROWD: Burn! Burn her! BEDEMIR: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. CROWD: Are there? What are they? BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches? VILLAGER #2: Burn! CROWD: Burn, burn them up! BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches? VILLAGER #1: More witches! VILLAGER #2: Wood! BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn? [pause] VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...? BEDEMIR: Good! CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah... BEDEMIR: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood? VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her. BEDEMIR: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone? VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah. BEDEMIR: Does wood sink in water? VILLAGER #1: No, no. VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats! VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond! CROWD: The pond! BEDEMIR: What also floats in water? VILLAGER #1: Bread! VILLAGER #2: Apples! VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks! VILLAGER #1: Cider! VILLAGER #2: Great gravy! VILLAGER #1: Cherries! VILLAGER #2: Mud! VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches! VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead! ARTHUR: A duck. CROWD: Oooh. BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically..., VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood. BEDEMIR: And therefore--? VILLAGER #1: A witch! CROWD: A witch! BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales! [yelling] BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports! [whop] [creak] CROWD: A witch! A witch! WITCH: It's a fair cop. CROWD: Burn her! Burn! [yelling] Transcript from Scene #5, lifted from here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm

To Infinity and Up Close!

The Polaroid film that I was initially disappointed with may not be as bad as I thought.  Maybe it was just me.  I brought the SX-70 into work yesterday and offered a photographer friend a chance to try it out.  His result are much better than mine:

Not bad, eh?

This is Buzz Lightyear, if you don't recognize him, shot in my cubicle under florescent lighting.  This was shot hand-held, and the exposure wheel was dialed to darkest.    I'd like to make excuses that all of my shot, which were overexposed, were taken in daylight.  Yeah, I'll stick with that one. 

Apropos to the photo above:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

These aren't the 'roids I was hoping for

The Polaroid film that I had ordered, Impossible PRD2442 PX 70 Color Protection Film for SX-70 Cameras, came yesterday.  I hope I'm doing something wrong, because the results are pretty lack-luster.  Witness this Cooter 'roid^(TM) taken in natural light:

 

Yes, I obviously had to scan it.  Before I waste any more film, I'd better see if I'm doing everything right.  I can see right away that the tripod would be a very good thing here:  notice the blur around the cat's ears.  Looks like I should also dial down the exposure a bit.  A more cooperative subject would also help a lot, too.

This is a stark reminder of how great digital photography can be.  "Getting it right" does not involve experimenting with expensive film or processing.  The only thing wasted there is time and electrons.

Another 'roid

Along with the old Polaroid 95A, I also received a newer SX-70 Alpha 1 model that dates from the late-seventies.  Price-wise, it was out of reach for me.  At that time -- more like the late sixties -- I was using the less expensive Swinger model.

There are some interesting things about this camera, though.  It was an SLR, using a complicated series of mirrors to go to the main lens from the viewfinder at the top.  It doesn't have any internal batteries -- power comes from a battery in the film pack.  And it has one of my favorite focusing features:  a split-image rangefinder prism.

But wait!  There's more!  You can still get still get film for it, thanks to the Impossible Project.  I had to bite the bullet at least once.  I ordered a pack of PRD2442 PX 70 Color Protection Film through Amazon.  In this day and age, it will be ironic that I'll have to first scan any pictures I take before you can see them on the computer.

Ode to an Old Tool

Someone didn't want this old Polaroid 95A camera, which was produced between 1954 and 1957.  I offered to give it a home.

It cleaned up nicely.  I photographed it in a white light box, but then decided to isolate it entirely -- no distractions.

The 95A is pretty iconic in appearance, but it's not in much demand.  Around 500,000 were made during its production run.  In really nice condition, it's said to be worth approximately $60.  That's probably if you have all of the original goodies.

Sadly, film is no longer made for this model.  Someone reports that they've been able to take PZ680 Spectra film and manually load single shots, but I'm not that desperate to resurrect old technology.

You can go retro on the cheap by getting the Instant app for the iPhone or iPad.  I may well give that a try.

Update (next day):  I did get the Instant app for my iPad.  Here's a 'roid of the 'roid: