Why black and white? The eternal debate that does not have to take place

Because my pictures are so terrible, people have asked me in the past how I "choose" which pictures lose their colors and which ones do not. For me personally, as long as turning them into monochromes make the pictures worse than they were before, then I am ok with that. What I often do is to do a trial run of BW version of a picture to see how badly I hate it. If I do, then it is a go.

If you read photography books and magazines and other bullshit, many people have different approach about BW photography. Some exclusively shoot in BW, while others shoot roughly 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent and so on, of course. Many claims that before they shoot this particular picture they know that they are becoming BW.

It seems to me that when a color pictures "almost" look monotone, then it is time to try BW version of it. I feel like I have more control of the situation, where turning the picture worse than before becomes much easier, more intuitive, and rewarding than ever before.

Pentax K10D

FA 31mm ltd

1/250 @ f/4.5

0 ev

ISO 100

By the way I think that K10D's sensor is just superb for BW photography, compared to other brands in the same category, and hold its own admirably when stacked up against higher price DSLR. So I really should not be using it, really.

Into the light part 3

I just like doing that, because it pretty much ensures that I have a horrible picture, as you can see here. The lens flare can happen with the best of the lenses, and this was taken with, of all things, FA 31 ltd, the legendary classic made in Vietnam. No matter how good the lens is, in the wrong hands it can turn into the worst of the performers.

I am susre that People have tried to tastefully utilize the lens flares, and I am sure that it has been done beautifully many of the times. But it obviously did not happen here.

Pentax K10D

FA 31mm ltd

1/200 @ f/4

0 ev

ISO 100

Color rendition

First of all, I have to admit to a complete failure here that this is NOT the worst picture that I have ever taken. I strive daily so that the next picture that I take is worse than the one before. Certainly did not happen here.

So back to color rendition. The truth is that I am not sure what it is. People in the know love to talk about it in the photography forums that I frequent. Judging from their jargons and run arounds, I think what it means is the "ability" of a source(?) or a medium (?) to reproduce the colors that it is perceiving.

Having said that, I am not sure if it is an accuracy issue, or a precision issue, as they are clearly two different points here. Another difficulty that I have with the concept is that there seems to be a lack of gold standard that the comparison needs to be made to. May be there is such a thing, probably based on wavelength and frequency and temperature of the light source and the accuracy of the instruments that measure such things. But if the standard is laid out by the machine and if the human eyes may not be able to tell the subtle differences that the machine can only pick up, then the concept itself is completely nonsense and useless, especially in the context of photography aesthetics, because photos are observed by people, not by the instruments (at least at the time of this publication).

From the mechanical engineering point of view (if I may put it that way), there are probably two things to consider; optics and sensors. I am sure that these are the areas of technology where engineers have very little control in regards to the specifics of the outcome.

And, in the end it all comes down to a matter of preferences. Preferences of so called experts are better regarded than that of a dickhead like me. But I think we all should be careful not to put too much emphasis on the opinions of experts in things like this. What taste good to them may not taste good for you.

The picture here was taken by K20D with FA 31 limited. I am very suspicious of this particular combo because the colors don't look the way I remember them. In fact, there are more shades of green on this picture than I can possibly remember. I guarantee, the statue did not look this good....

Pentax K20D

FA 31 mm ltd

1/400 @ f/5.6

0 ev

ISO 100

Worst dog picture ever

Well, it had to happen sometimes, the worst dog picture ever. Dogs are so entwined with our lives that you cannot possibly avoid seeing them, talking about them, or taking pictures of them on daily basis. They can be tough subjects at times, as they are more jerky and unpredictable than cats for example. But nothing is harder than small children, especially the toddlers, because they never tend to stay still. Dogs at least do stay still often even while they are awake.

This particular dog belongs to our neighbor who also owns 3 more for companionships. Thank God for our industrial spec windows because otherwise we would be hearing them all night long. I personally love dogs. I have had 3 dogs in my life. Two were mutts, and another was a Bouvier. All were fantastic dogs. I miss them very much. I am so traumatized by their death that I cannot even begin to think about getting another one. The last dog was the last.

Pentax K-7

DA 40 mm ltd

1/160 @ f/3.5

0 ev

ISO 200

Worst portraiture ever

Over the years one reason why photography became so popular was that it can actually take pictures of people, and the photo of them can be looked at without their presence, when these people were no longer around. Often times if the photographer was skillful enough he can make the subject much better looking than the real thing. "Taking pictures of children as they grew up" sounds like the best marketing angle ever. This was certainly the main and only reason I ever got sucked into photography to begin with. I feel sorry for my kid because she looks much better in person than these pictures portray. It is just that she happened to have me as a father, who is bay far worst photographer of all time.



Pentax K-7
DA 40mm ltd
1/125 @ f/2.8
-0.7 ev
ISO 200

Worst architectural photography

Here is another genre I know nothing about. It is hard to do this, but I think I know less and less about it everyday. It is an odd genre of photography in that you take pictures of buildings and ..... ah, ok, then next??


Here we have a picture of our library at home. This is a horrible picture. This is probably not even considered as architectural photography. The background is out of focus because I didn't use a tripod, which I wanted to talk about in the next few days. Here is a fair warning; I hate tripods.

Pentax k-7
DA 15 mm ltd
0.6s @ f/4
-0.7 ev
ISO 200


Here I could have gone for higher ISO which would have allowed me to have a faster shutter speed, and then the background would have been sharper. But, then again, I have to step back and think about what benefit I would get by having the background so sharp in focus. Would it improve the photograph? Maybe. Then I ought not to use it, obviously.

Worst hunting practices in the world

Whaling is looked up on as something not so nice. Some people get very emotional about it. Japan, one of those countries who stubbornly keeps on hunting these huge animals, has been catching crap from many other countries. I am not a whale lover, and if offered to me I would probably eat whale meat. Quite frankly, I don't see a problem. Well, I take that back. I do see a problem, and this is a very fundamental problem, and that is that I don't believe in killing anything. If killing whales is wrong, then raising and hacking cows and hogs for food is wrong too. Is it ok to slaughter one type of animals but not others? How abundant the population is has nothing to do with it, at least as far as I am concerned. So, the I way look at it is that we the human slaughter just about anything including each other, so why sweat about whales? I am sure they appreciate that, but none of these make any sense to me.

As for the picture, again,m the stupidity of it is really taken to another height here.


Pentax K20D
DA 70 ltd
1/90 @ f/3.5
0 ev
ISO 100

Rule of thirds - the worst rule ever

Framing is probably more than half of the game in photography. It comes so easy to some, yet, to others no matter how much you read about it and try to get yourself fascinated with it, you just don't get it. Golden rule of thirds has been in practice for supposedly thousands of years. No wonder there are so many pictures that look alike.

Pentax just came out with a silver version of K-7, a limited edition at that, and in the viewfinder you will find a grid that conveniently spit up your field of vision in thirds both vertically and horizontally. I am not sure how much benefit there is for serious photographers. Remember, like I said, if you don't have it, no matter what viewfinder you use, or rules you use, you can make your picture just so awful that you will never ever want to take another picture again, as you see here.


The picture here demonstrates nothing about the golden rule of thirds. I am not even sure what that is. Something about dividing the field of view in certain ways (probably by thirds). There is a part of me that want to google this thing, but at the same time I am afraid to find out. Something tells me that I would take much worse picture not knowing anything about it.

Pentax K-7
DA 70mm ltd
1/80 @ f/2.4
0 ev
ISO 200

Very amateurish macro photography 3/22/10

Macrophotography is interesting. It's hard to plan ahead (for me anyway) because what I see in the finder view with macro lens I am just not used to seeing. Tripod is a must. In fact, I think that cheap tripods won't do it either. You might as well call macro lens "flower lens" because that is what people seem to take the most of. A stupid picture like this you see every where, and it just does not capture your imagination or inspire your inner self or hidden talent or crap like that.


Currently, Pentax in their line-up offers 3 k-mount macro lenses.

DA 35 ltd
D FA 50
D FA 100 WR

I don't have the 50 but have the other two. Very distinctively different lens as expected, since the focal lengths are so far apart. WIth 100 you don't have to get so close, but 35 sometimes you need to get so close that using a tripod becomes difficult. All the difficulties I experience of course is wonderful because my pictures will be that much worse off. It is a lose-lose proposition that I just can refuse any time I want to.


Pentax K-7
D FA 100 mm macro WR
1/400@f/5
0 ev
ISO 200

Worst black and white (BW) photography

I love black and white photography, because it is so easy to do a bad job. For example, if the color rendition of the lens that you are using is just awesome, then you can take that out of the equation entirely from the very beginning. Trust me, there are others. People that are really into BW photography tend to have a lot of rules, so just by sheer chance, you would have a better luck breaking conventions. I do think that you have to be careful, because sometimes thinking outside of the box can make a great leap. Many advancement in all areas at one time or another was propelled at least in part by someone thinking outside of the box even though he was probably being ridiculed the entire time. Sounds familiar . . . . .


Here, the picture is absolutely putrid. There is not one area (perhaps other than the area where the carpet is) that is helped by taking the color out in my opinion. This will be another reject for sure at PPG!!




Pentax K-7
DA 15mm Ltd
1/125 @ f/5.6
ISO 200

Pentax Photo Gallery

Pentax Photo Gallery (I haven't figured out how to put down a link to another site yet!) is a very cool site. People who shoot Pentax, pros and amateurs alike, can submit their photos, upto 10 per week, to be selected for display on their website. Anybody can log on and vote on all the photos being submitted. Ones that make it through this preliminary selection process will eventually be evaluated by some sort of an editor, or a group of, who decides which one gets in and which one gets whacked.

Pictures being displayed are all fine pictures. Perfect focus and aperture, golden rule of third and all, pretty vibrant colors, exotic far and away locations, and the whole nine yards. They are not the kind of pictures that I would like to take, but nonetheless, I like going to that site and stare at pictures, especially when I have nothing better to do.

As for me, I have submitted literally thousands of pictures to Pentax Photo Gallery (PPG), and I am proud to say that not one has been accepted for publication. I do this just to make certain that I am still the worst photographer of all time. If my pictures get accepted by them, that would be the day this blog will end. That's for sure.


As for the picture, this shitty picture was also turned down by PPG. Not surprising, as it looks like crap.


Pentax K-7
D FA 100mm macro WR
1/400 @ f/5
0 ev
ISO 200

Taking pictures of a light source

Taking a photo of a light source is very difficult, which suits me just fine because it makes it easy to take a horrible photograph. Not only that there is shutter speed and aperture to worry about, but also exposure value compensation, ISO, and all the other non-sense that go with it.

What digital camera did for lame photographer like myself is to let me take as many pictures as my heart desires without bleeding through the nose like it used to when we were shooting films. So, if a picture turned out too nice, then I can always do worse on the next shot, as you can see here.


Pentax K-7
FA 31 mm ltd
1/80 @ f/2.5
0 ev
ISO 400

Worst Japan picture

I was born in Japan. I don't know why. I suppose that was because my parents were there at the time. Dah.

We go there here and there. Once a year, something like that. Took this terrible picture the last time I was there, and I believe that was in September of last year. This is a part of Tokyo that is famous for restaurants that caters to politicians and the likes. Many places do not even advertise or put up signs, and all by word of mouth, and reservation only. I have a friend who owes a traditional Japanese cuisine restaurant. She also does not advertise, although if you want to eat there, try booking on 6 months in advance. Also, no children allowed, if you can believe that. 16 and over.

The food was fantastic that evening, and the picture just as bad as always. A typical night out in Tokyo.

Pentax K-7
FA 31 ltd
1/40 @ f/2.5
0 ev
ISO 400

Big Green Egg

This is the one year anniversary of my entrance to the world of Big Green Egg (BGE). BGE is a outdoor grill based on a concept called Kamado technology. Kamado is a style of stoves developed by ancient Japanese people in Edo era (about 450 years ago), and I don't know how they knew it then, but the dome shaped hood reflects and concentrates heat on the food in a way that allow meat to retain its moisture while being grilled to perfection. The physics of it is enhanced by the material that the thing is made out of. Believe it or not, BEG is made from the same material that covers the underside of the space shuttle. You can fire this thing up in 5 minutes, and it will gladly crank itself up to 650 degrees where a piece of steak can be grilled to medium rare in about 4 minutes flat. If I may, this is the Pentax of outdoor grilling. There are forums and blogs all over the net, and there is a cult following that reminds you of the deadheads in the 80's and 90's. If Jerry Garcia was alive today, I know he would be grilling on this thing.

This is my honey grilling a rack of baby back ribs. How gruesome.

Worst abstract photography ever

At one forum there was a photo contest being held, and the theme for it was "abstract photography." Most pictures submitted were pretty good, but they were just pictures of various repetitive patterns demonstrated by buildings. Not one picture was trying to convey a theme by not directly and visually demonstrating the subject, in an abstract manner.

So this is my attempt, and it is just terrible. This picture is supposed to signify the advancement of technology, where a plane can fly across the world without refueling, while contaminating the air with pollution along the way. The price we pay for such an advancement does not seem to justify its existence, as it disturbs balance and harmony of the earth, as you cannot see here.




Pentax K10D
DA 15 ltd
1/400 @f/5.6
+0.3 ev
ISO 200

Flower Portrait - How putrid

I suppose you can say that taking pictures of flowers is sort of like portraiture photography. There are so many zillions of cameras out there that the pretty pictures are dime a dozen these days. For me, there are plenty of bad pictures that I need to make sure that my pictures need to do worse than. The point is that just taking plain pictures of them is no longer enough any more. You need new angles, or I need new angles that make certain mines look far far worse than others.

Here, I tried to work with the background, not so much the flower itself. I mean, who give a lick about the flowers anyway??

Then again, maybe not. Whatever I try, it never works. Great.



Pentax K10D
DA* 50-135
1/125 @ f/2.8
0 ev
ISO 800

645D

Pentax announced today their new digital medium format (larger sensor than APS-C) camera called 645D.

Naturally, being the worst photographer, I am very afraid of an equipment like this. What if something like this makes my pictures look better? OMG!!! On the other hand, in the most incapable hands like mine I am sure I can shoot worst pictures with the best equipment in the whole world.

This thing retails about $9,400. Plus tax and 10G. 18 months from now, perhaps down to about $7,500, perhaps $5,000 with a 55f/2.8 used. It is a very very expensive toy. Professional photographers, who I think are a dying breed, can easily justify plucking down 10G for that. Hasselblad and Mamiya (other larger format cameras), and I almost forgot Leica with their S2 can all cost 2~3 times that. Pentax medium format cameras were so very much loved by pros, especially in fashion industry that there are still lots of them I am sure who still use medium format film set ups. As with many Pentax cameras, many of the 645 lenses they have manufactured in the past are compatible with 645D. Lenses are really the strong point of this company, so this move makes sense if that segment of the market is big enough. I am not sure if horrible photographers like myself with disposable income can justify buying something like this. This would be the opportunity my wife has been looking for, to put the nail on the coffin, to finish me off. So I have to be very careful what I wish for here. I still want it though. My guess is that there are some kinks that they need to work out here. My guess would be the speed of the image down load to your computer. If you have, say, 100 pictures and and want to download, you better start the process before you go away for your vacation so that when get back, hopefully pictures are all down loaded. That would prevent you from taking the monster to your vacation . . . . . I guess you cannot have it both ways. I bet you, however, that the images are fantastic. Oh well.

Or I wonder if Pentax would dare enough to sponsor me with a camera like this to prove their point? Doubt it.


How about it, Ned?

Anorexia

Psychiatric disorders are very sad. I am sure that to a certain extent all of us have it one way or another. What a pain that one has to live with this, deal with this, and make excuse for this. Having to explain to someone other than yourself - that has to be hard too.

I wonder if something like photography exists int his world because we all crave for other's approval. I don't think I do, but I must because I keep taking photographs.

Maybe I should stop altogether.


Pentax K20D
DA 40mm ltd
1/125 @ f/2.8
0 ev
ISO 200

Into the light part 2

I mean this is photography I can make up any rules as long as I can justify it. Actually, I take it back. You don't even have to justify it in words. But your picture should convince the eye of the beholder that yes it did make sense shooting into he light. As for my picture, it is evident that one should not try this at home. It didn't work. The picture looks horrible.


Pentax K-7
DA 70mm
1/20 @ f/2.8
+0.3 ev
ISO 400

What these eyes would see

What these eyes would see are all but the same, even if they may be looking at exactly the same thing. There is no proof that all of us see things more or less the same. Think for example the color blind people. What they see is not what we see. Who is to say the red I think I see may well be yellow for you?

From this line of reasoning, I can potentially become the best photographer of all time. Not a comforting thought.

Into the light part 1

The rule of thumb (up the ass) says that it is usually not a good idea to shoot right into the direction where the light source is coming from.

I really don't give a shit, personally. I do what I want.



Pentax K10D
DA 40mm ltd
1/125 @ f/2.8
ISO 200

Well . . . . .

Well, I never got around to Pentax being the absolute worst.

The truth is that of course they are not the worst. In fact, a manufacturer like Panasonic who has had ver little presence in the DSLR market for example created an entirely new class of camera without a penta prism (more on this later) that I am not sure if they should be counted as a part of that particular segment of the market. Canon and Nikon hold a very strong market share, upto 70% combined, or something like that. So, they may well be the very worst. They may well be the prostitutes of DSLR, whatever that means.

Canikon is what we call them. There are so many of them. My god. Try going to disney land and count how many Nikon and Canon there are. Total brain washing.

Olympus EP-1 is a camera that is sort of like what Panasonic is trying to be the pioneer of. It is a nifty camera. I want one. In fact, if Pentax is not planning on coming out with something like that, I may just buy one. It is based on the format called micro four-thirds.

You cannot survive in this day and age if you don't listen to the consumers. Pentax, obviously understands that, but the different thing about them is that they seem to cherry pick what they want to listen to, and I can see that there are some hard headed guys still holding grounds, not wanting to budge on certain issues. I think that for them these issues come from the aesthetics of photography itself. Japan has a very interesting and amazing history of photography of all genre, and in general, the photographers of Japan are one the most under-rated group of artists you will find in just about anything. These hard headed people probably try to preserve what they think is fading away. This is why they are not in the hurry to dramatically improve auto focus mechanism although many Pentaxians scream about it. I bet you some of the Pentax people probably don't understand why one needs AF to begin with....







Pentax K10D
DA 21mm ltd
1/60 @ f/4
ISO 200

Is Pentax the absolute worst?

Of course I know that many people go into photography for different reasons. I know that. But if one took a poll, and God knows how many of these polls have been conducted, I bet you that the percent of people who do so because they want to take pictures of their growing children is rather large.

Once they start walking, it is very difficult to take a good picture of them, which is fine with me of course. They don't stay still, wouldn't look at you no matter how loud you scream their names, and can fall right off the ledge if you are too caught up in capturing the not so priceless moment.

They also represent the difficulty involved in indoor photography as well. Because they move, you wan to shoot them at a faster shutter speed. But, being inside, you may not be able to unless you have a very expensive lens on your camera. And this is where they get you, the lenses. Pentax certainly got me. The rule of thumb (in the ass) is that the more expensive the lens, the brighter the aperture (smaller f/ number). Suddenly the lens taken in more light than the cheap kit lenses and take sharp picture. The wife is impressed, and the dude justify yet another buy.


Is it really priceless though???


That is entirely another debate there.

Worst cat picture ever

I am a cat lover. So I don't eat felines, even if there is nothing to eat. I wouldn't eat them even considering the possibility that when very hungry and if they could, they would eat us without reservation.

Cats are excellent practicing subjects. They won't move much, and takes a lot of bad talent to mess it up. Here, with expensive camera and lens, and the fact that I was a cat lover didn't help at all here. The picture is horrible.


Pentax K10D
DA* 50-135 mm
1/20 @ f/2.8
ISO 400

Hopelessly bad

According to some, there are people that just "have it." Well, excuse the hell out of us for not "having it." I might add that I am proud of it. What a farce that anything they shoot at, it turns into gold. The Andy Warhol effect, I might say. On the other hand, there some of us have absolutely nothing. Anything we shoot, it turns into shit, as you can see here. I can take a picture of a young child, and still make it putrid. You just cannot do that unless you "have it."

Wide angle lens

I am not sure how to use a wide angle lens, although I own a few of them. I am sure this is not how it is supposed to be used, as this picture is just aweful. I certainly wish it was worse however.



Pentax K-7
DA 15mm ltd
1/20 @ f/4
ISO 200

Pentax DA 40mm ltd

It is a very small lens, as you can see. But it takes much better pictures than I would like. The only complaint I have is that it is just not small enough for me. It is so big that it is not small.

JPEG vs. RAW

For all digital shooters out there, I am sure you know this by now, but you all can shoot in two different modes; JPEG or RAW. Snobby advanced amateurs like to show RAW because most pros do that way for whatever reasons.

JPEG is a digital file format already processed by in-camera computer chip. The chip does it its own way, and each manufacture have their own set up and preferences, or so the experts say (it's probably full of crap). What that means is that the manufactures control how your pictures are going to look like, to a great extent.

I don't want that, so I shoot RAW. The disadvantage of RAW is that the files are bigger in size, and if you don't know what you are doing in terms of adjusting the images with photoshop and all that, they are going to look like shit.

By the way, I shot in JPEG, because that was the only way I can throw a digital filter on this picture. It looks horrible.


Pentax K-7
DA 35mm macto
1/60 @ f/2.8
0 ev
ISO 200

Ned, Ned, Ned, Ned . . . . . . .

Ned Bunnell is the president of Pentax, USA. He has extensive journalistic background, impressive knowledge base in printing business, and most importantly that he seems to be genuinely a good guy. Of course, you really don't know until you actually meet the person in person. He may well be a SOB, although I doubt it.

I follow his blog, because I shoot Pentax. If I am going to be shooting the worst pictures in the world, I need to know what defective and unpopular Pentax products they have out there so that I can buy them. If Ned admits to such failures of products (doubt it), then more credibility.

Here is his recent post:



He says there are no differences in quality between Japan and Vietnam versions. Of course, Ned. Of course. I know that you would tell as well if there is indeed a difference. . . . . Huh huh. Okie Dookie, dude!!


Among pentaxians (which I will talk about sometimes in the future), there has been a great debate amongst themselves in regards to the quality of the lenses, especially FA ltds, between those made in Japan versus Vietnam. Most people are saying that the ones made in Vietnam are inferior. That was just so 60's and down right racist. So I went ahead and bought a FA 31 ltd, specifically avoiding the made in Japan version.

The result of this purchase has been very disappointing. The lens is fantastic. It makes anybody's pictures look better than what they really are. So I don't use it much any more. I have never owned the Japan version, and now I am definitely not interested because if it is indeed better (doubt it), then I certainly wouldn't find any purpose in it.




Pentax K-7
DA 70mm ltd
1/125 @ f/2.8
-1.3 ev
ISO 800

Bad bird picture, again

It is not that I am a bird lover. In fact, far from it. I eat chicken without reservation, even if there are other things to eat. As a photographic target, they are pretty good for practice. I am sure that they would be glad to hear that there is something that they are good at other than being eaten. Good for them.

Here, again, this picture is a horrible. If I had a 135mm film camera, I might had made a mistake of making the picture better by practicing better exposure technique on the "feather" area. But digital photography - it just brings out the worst in me, as many things amazingly do. It turns out that it is not just photography. You should really see me with a scalpel....



Also, this Pentax K20D - many "Pentaxians" rave about this sensor now that K-7 is out (they have other things to bash). They say the color rendition of the sensor is like no other. Here, being WP (worst photographer), I disrespectfully disagree. I say they don't know what the hell they are talking about. The color rendition, first of all, do not entirely rely on sensors, you idiots. Second, often time the colors shot by K20D look almost fake. So I use it for BW photography... Here, I shot it in JPEG (another sin according to some), but toned down the color.


Pentax K20D
DA 70mm ltd
1/350 @ f/6.5
0 ev
ISO 400

Bokeh

It is most often advisable that you choose the background color or texture to differentiate the subject. The blurriness behind the scene is called "bokeh." It is not French, but Japanese.

Here, just when I thought that DA * lenses are crap, it reminds me its optical capability. This was taken at wide open, and pretty sharp although you are right, this is right at the center of the lens. From the framing perspective, you want the stupid bird slightly off the side, but then she would not be as sharp. But there is nothing wrong with not being sharp. Photography is very confusing.

Pentax K20D
DA * 50-135mm
1/125 @ f/2.8
0 ev
ISO 200

Scary picture

This is picture is scary, not because it is a scary picture, but it is just a horrible picture. My god.

Pentax k20D

DA 70mm ltd

1/250 @ f/2.4

0 ev

ISO 200

Ugly buildling, ugly picture

SF federal buidling. Very controversial in terms of aesthetics and all that. Some people who live in SF hate it, while others embrace it.

Nobody is embracing this picture however.

Pentax K10D

DA 70mm ltd

1/60 @ f/2.8

0 ev

ISO 200

I completely disagree

There is not one sentence that is right here (writing on the wall I am talking about).

First of all, human spirit does not thrive on this planet. It infests and destroys this planet. Secondly, music has never ever been a living form of any kind whatsoever. It is a dead end, the music is. All it is is the vibration of air in various frequencies and amplitudes created by various means and modes. Any emotional contents elicited from music is purely fictional.

Never mind how bad the picture is. Can't believe some dumbass decided to put that up there.

Pentax K20D

DA 21mm ltd

1/125 @ f/5.6

0 ev

ISO 200

Child Photography

A couple years ago, I took up photography because my kid was growing up too fast. She looked different every time I laid my eyes on her. Photography does slow that process down just a bit. Just enough that it makes you appreciate the relentless nature of time; that nobody can stop it.

Pentax K10D

DA 40mm ltd

1/125 @ f/2.8

0 ev

100 ISO

Cannot believe we eat this crap

Blue cheese.

The first person whoever tasted it, I wonder if he or she had the courage to say that it tasted good.

Photography can be a bit similar, if you know what I mean.

Pentax K20D

DA 35mm macro ltd

1/125 @ f/4

0 ev

ISO 200

Macro photography

Funny, I know nothing about it. I guess you get really close, try not to shake, and use the most expensive macro lens you can afford. You can still mess it up badly, as you can see here.

Pentax K-7

D FA 100mm macro WR

1/100 @ f/2.8

0 ev

ISO 200

THis is getting pretty bad

I am not sure how bad this picture is. I am just not sure about it somehow.

Pentax K-7

DA 21mm ltd

1/60 @ f/7.1

0 ev

ISO 200

Brothers

These guys are brothers. The dude who is at the top of his swing - I went to junior high school with in, of all places, Japan. He was one of few close friends. We didn't keep in touch. But, his older brother, the dude in white pants, is a pediatrician locally, and we often play golf together.

The classmate, whom I have not seen for 20 years, looked well.

I suppose it is ok to take a good picture for an occasion like this.

You never know the next time you see the dude.

Pentax K20D

DA 21mm ltd

1/250 @ f/7.1

0 ev

ISO 200

I really don't know about golf

I don't know about golf.

I certainly miss those days where people used to laugh and snicker at people that played golf. Right or wrong, it worked out pretty good for me because the courses back then were not that crowded. Now, Tiger Woods ruined it for all the good amateurs. We have no places to play without being bothered.

I also played college golf. Played everyday. Probably 300 rounds / year for 4 years. I then went on to play about that for 6 more years without anything to show for.

I hit them well today but putted poorly. Shot 78, I was told. That is horrible.

Look at this stupid picture. The only good thing about it is the flowers. Yellow and pretty. But the background, the golf course, the lake, and the houses beyond - how corrupt it is. Don't know what I mean by that, but probably someone made more money than he should on something like this.

Horse's ass

It was supposed to be a natural segue from the last picture into this one, the horse's ass. Really, I was going for the Da Vinci kind of effect, with muscle anatomy and all. His goddam gluteus maximus is truly gluteus. Just did not turn right, once again.

Pentax K-7

DA 70mm ltd

1/125 @ f/3.5

0 ev

ISO 200