# Friday, April 17, 2009

My phone's camera has a mode where it takes a 3x3 or 2x2 grid of images by snapping pictures in series. Press the shutter button and it starts going. There's the typical camera phone lag to get started and then it takes pictures on its own schedule. I tried it on Finney and here's what I got:

 

Autopilot for picture taking ain't too bad. It just reinforces the same old "take lots of pictures, you'll get something you like."

Friday, April 17, 2009 4:40:05 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Friday, March 27, 2009

Because I've become "one of those people" I've been taking a ton of pictures of Finney. When you take lots of pictures you often end up with something you didn't quite anticipate.

 484517153_jb8b2-S[1]

I took this while he was in the middle of playing with a rope toy. I've decided he doesn't look angry, just mildly insane... and that pleases me.

image

What's entertainment for a greyhound? Paula took a little video to give you a fairly clear picture:

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:08:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Monday, March 09, 2009

While my Windows Mobile phone is fantastic at synchronizing data with my PC and operating seamlessly with Exchange, it does lack in some of the non-business areas. Most frustrating for me lately: no EXIF information on the pictures it takes.

What is EXIF data and why does it matter? EXIF (Exchangeable image file format) is a standard that specifies, among other things, the metadata tags included in image files. The key bit of metadata that my camera pictures lack is the date and time I took the pictures. The pictures do have a date & time they were modified, but not having a separate entry for when the picture was taken leads to the date information being lost when the pictures is edited or copied to another PC. As a result, I have a lot of pictures from my camera phone like the example below, created in 2009, modified in 2007 and I have no clue if I took the picture on either of the dates... or some completely different date and time.

image

(Oh, by the way, iPhone owners, this is one more thing you can use to taunt your non-iPhone owning friends about: the iPhone adds EXIF data to the pictures.)

While I may have lost the historical data I haven't given up on my future pictures. I'm now using an excellent app from Phil Harvey, ExifTool. This powerful command line app allows me to preserve the date taken by copying the modified date to the date taken. In the process of adding the date taken I am also adding extra info to indicate what phone I used and correcting the time taken since my pictures are all date stamped in GMT (no, I don't know why, I've stopped being surprised by stuff like this).

Downloading and installing ExifTool

ExifTool is Perl based and will work on Unix, Windows or Mac OS X, your install steps will depend on your platform. From the ExifTool home page you can pick the version you want, Windows and Mac users will want to get the platform-specific version for simplicity. The Windows executable is a single file "install." Unzip the download and you have an EXE file, there is no installation or required dll's. Clean & simple (monolithic is good, right Jud?).

Creating and/or changing the date taken

Once you have ExifTool, creating date taken info based off the file's modified date is a simple command line operation.

  1. Open up a command window.  If you're using Windows, bring up the command line by clicking the start menu and typing "cmd" (for Vista or Windows 7) or selecting run then typing "cmd" (for XP).
  2. Change directories to the location you saved ExifTool (e.g. if it's in your documents folder, type "CD C:\Users\ME\Documents\ExifToolFolder").
  3. Create a date taken by coping it from date modified like this (you'll need to specify the path to your picture):
    exiftool.exe -"filemodifydate>datetimeoriginal" c:\Users\Me\Pictures\picture.jpg

Straight forward enough, no?

(Almost) unlimited power

Now that you have the basic info you can go crazy. Unlike the EXIF editing capbilities of most photo software (like PhotoShop or Windows Live Gallery) ExifTool allows you to create/edit fields like the camera's manufacturer. 

  • ExifTool can make changes to an entire directory of files by replacing the path to a picture with a folder path (e.g. exiftool.exe -"filemodifydate>datetimeoriginal" c:\Users\Me\Pictures\).
  • You can make relative date changes to files with -datetimeoriginal. For example, I need to take 7 hours off the time for all my pictures with -DateTimeOriginal-=7. You can also make changes in years, months and days if your camera clock was reset by mistake .
  • You can move files with the directory parameter, allowing you to move files from a temp directory after they've been corrected .
  • Since this is a command line tool it's really easy to create a batch file to make a whole list of changes .
  • Get plug-ins to use ExifTool from inside your some of your favorite apps like Photoshop or Lightroom.

To help make the process auto-magic for myself I've created a batch file which creates the datetimeoriginal data, adds the camera model and maker, corrects the time taken and, finally, copies the pictures from the staging folder to their final location. I have this batch file set to run periodically using a scheduled task. Now I just need to learn to have the scheduled task be triggered by new photos showing in the staging folder. smily face

Monday, March 09, 2009 4:59:44 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Random SmubMug picture

It's been almost two years since I posted a random picture from our trip to Salzburg, but strangely enough I never posted the mini-tip for inserting a random picture from a SmugMug gallery.  It's actually simple enough.  Just insert an image link which points to random.mg with the album id and desired image size.  The URL ends up looking like this:

http://pictures.little.org/photos/random.mg?AlbumID=1886470&Size=Thumb

You can find the AlbumID by browsing to one of your SmugMug albums then examining the URL.

Go forth and randomize!

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:09:12 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Wednesday, July 09, 2008

One of the reasons I'm a huge fan of smugmug is because they've made it possible for their customers to enhance and extend their web pages.

I wanted to have a gallery on my smugmug site which consisted entirely of my favorite pictures.  One of the ways I could do this was by taking each picture I like, then making a copy of it into a new, "favorites" gallery.  While this would have done the trick it also means having to manage duplicate files and I would no longer have the context of when the picture was taken.  I had to find a better way.

While trying to figure out if there was a good way to do this I stumbled across David's automatic "recent" featured gallery. The recent gallery used JavaScript to insert a gallery of recent pictures into the smugmug web page.  I realized that with a little massaging the code could instead display a gallery based on a keyword.

Favorites

I now have the feature I desired: a gallery of all my favorite pictures which didn't require duplicating pictures and was automatically updated.  Anytime I find a picture I like I simply add the keyword "favorites" and it is automatically included in the favorites gallery. Check out my smugmug site to see it in action.

If you are interested in doing the same thing on your smugmug site, I've written up complete instructions and provided downloadable JS files to cut and paste into your smugmug control panel.

Note: I really must give all credit to David for this since I really just trimmed and modified his code for this.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:02:34 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Monday, November 05, 2007

imageIf you're like me and like to adjust the look and feel of your SmugMug site then you'll love this: a visual reference for the SmugMug Class and DIV IDs.

I was poking around Chris MacAskill's SmugMug galleries and came across this wicked cool reference.  I'm now going to load the printer up with 8x10 photo paper and print this beauty for my wall.

Monday, November 05, 2007 8:52:07 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Tuesday, October 30, 2007

I've made no secret of how much I love SmugMug.  Great price, straight-forward UI, unlimited photo storage, open APIs... blah, blah, blah.  You want loyal customers?  Simple: make a great product and support it well.

Well, here's another tip for loyal customers: give 'em free stuff for no reason whatsoever.

image

I logged into SmugMug tonight to check the stats on my pictures and guess what?  They're going to send me stickers and a camera strap...  just 'cause.

I'm feeling the love.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 4:01:26 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Nikon announced some rather drool inducing product today.  The new bodies and lenses have me looking into my camera bag and feeling rather inadequate.  I turn my gaze into my wallet and find myself lacking there too.

We'll discuss my failing self-image later... on to my wish list... (someone pass Santa a note in gym class please):

New lens please - Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8

nikkor14-24

My absolute favorite lens for my Nikon N90 was my Nikkor 20mm 2.8.  The 20mm when used on a film camera was just shy of fish-eye and gave me a view of the world which almost matched what I saw with my eyes.  Even today I'll put on this fixed lens because it produces such great images.  I do have a wide zoom, an 18-55 hand-me-down lens... but it just doesn't go nearly wide enough (and the quality is, of course, questionable).

Now, at the very wide end of Nikon's new lens announcement is a lens which gets very close to the 20mm images I got on my N90.  The 14-24mm translates to 21mm on my D100... close enough.  I'll once again be able to get the interior perspectives I see in my head... but not until I come up with a spare $1,800.

New body please - Nikon D300

D300 Back in 2002 I made the switch to digital and have never regretted it.  The release of the D100 gave me a DSLR I could afford and a size I could stomach.  I've always drooled over the D1 & D2 cameras and the new D3 is no different.  The features are incredible (view and take pictures remotely from your laptop: sweet) but the size is still for the pros. 

When Rob bought the D200 I was certainly tempted but I'm glad I waited.  Nikon's new prosumer body, the D300, has some really great features and twice as many pixels as my D100.  The most interesting thing I'd like to try out is the new "liveview" mode which allows you to use the LCD for confirming framing and focus before taking the picture.  The reason I didn't get the D200 was I didn't have the scratch... at $1,800 I don't think I have the means for the D300 either. <sigh>

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:20:49 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 
# Friday, August 03, 2007

Back in May when Paula and I were state-side for her graduation we picked up a couple of presents for ourselves: a Nikon D40X for Paula and a Nikon 105mm macro lens for me.  Like most photographers with a new lens I have spent most of the past couple months shooting almost exclusively with my new toy.

What's the dealeo?

Early in 2006 Nikon updated their popular 105mm Macro lens with the addition of their VRII vibration reduction system.  Used by many as a multi-purpose lens, Nikon's 105 produces roughly a 1:1 reproduction ratio when used for Macro photography and the shallow depth of field make for a passable portrait lens.  While I've found I can use it for a lot of different types of photography, I must state: it's not quite a Swiss Army lens... and it certainly won't fit in your pocket.

VR on macro lenses?  Genius

Well, perhaps "obvious" is more apt than "genius".  Having the image stabilization functionality for close up photography is really a bit of a forehead slapper.  Why hasn't anyone done this before? 

Our backyard has some wonderful flowering bushes which draw in a happy little cloud of bees.  Having the VR allowed me to grab my camera out of my bag and hand-hold some close-ups of the bees with their pollen saddlebags, something for which I would certainly have needed a tripod.  Electronic Quaaludes... nice.

Say cheese... okay, again... wait...

Macro lenses can be roped into duty as a portrait lens, their shallow depth of field providing wonderful blurring of background elements.  There is, however, a catch: their focus is manageable when tight into subjects but getting a subject properly focused at 10 yards away can be a touchy operation.

That said, it still does a decent job in the role of a portrait lens.  As your lens collection grows you'll want to have both portrait and macro lenses (I assume).  My priority was macro first, portrait second... and I'll be able to press this lens into portrait service until Santa brings me one of those 30mm f1.4 lenses Rob's been raving about.

So, what is it? Whine or roses?

I love the lens, but there are a couple things to note: the touchy focus I've mentioned and the size.  The addition of the VR mechanism has turned the 105 into a beefy lens.  The barrel is thicker and the weight has gone up over 30%.  It's a good thing they added the VR, your arms may get shaky after shooting with this beast all day.

Break it down for me

Pros: great optics, VR
Cons: touchy focal throw at distance, hefty

Bottom line: get one

Friday, August 03, 2007 9:10:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Monday, March 05, 2007

Last November when Paula and I were in Rome we saw a fascinating thing: a swirling cloud of birds which, viewed from a distance, looked more like smoke or a swarm of insects than a flock of birds. 

flock of birds

Around dusk Paula and I were walking along the wall of Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome when we saw a massive flock of birds, all seeming to converge on the same location.  The birds looked as though they were heading towards a plume of smoke coming up from one of the city's parks.  The "smoke", however, was flowing both up and down.  The best way to get a feel for what it looked like is to check out the video Paula shot with our pocket camera.


Video: Swirling flock of birds in Rome

We still have no idea what was going on.  Our best guess was some sort of feeding frenzy, catching insects which were coming out as the sun went down... but the flock was way up in the air and I think of insects as sticking closer to the earth. Perhaps there are some amateur (or professional) ornithologists out there who can shed some light on this.  Or maybe I should just ask an Italian.


FYI: Castle Sant'Angelo is a huge mausoleum built for Emperor Hadrian.  It was later fortified and used as a defensive position on the Tiber River.  If you're in Rome we highly recommend visiting the castle in the afternoon as it provides wonderful views of Rome.  As sunset approaches grab a table at the little cafe located on the monument's wall.  If you're lucky you'll get one of the tables facing the Vatican and get some great pictures of St. Peter's Basilica with the sun setting behind it.

Monday, March 05, 2007 4:56:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
# Monday, December 11, 2006

I'm betting that you, like me, have been to plenty of cool places where your eyes could adjust to a dark space but getting a picture in the poorly-lit space was nigh-on-impossible.  A flash in many cases will create a harsh effect and (if you shouldn't be taking pictures) may draw unwanted attention (shhh!).  If, however, you carry one of the new, powerful flashlights you can get some great shots.

When Paula and I were in Salzburg we visited the catacombs at St. Peter's and came across this wonderful altar in a cave that dates back to medieval times.  The room was quite dark with a bit of lighting behind the items of interest.  Fortunately we now carry a great flashlight given to us by Phillip, Paula was able to light the center of the altar while I snapped a couple pictures.

altar

The flashlight was also helpful for examining the faded paintings on the walls (and before you get on us about deteriorating the paintings... Paula has a masters in archival studies, we were sure to not do any damage. smily face).  While traveling we've used the handy light to look into shadowy nooks, light up hidden signs and generally find our way in the dark.  At first Paula made fun of me for my geeky obsession with carrying the new toy, but she soon came to appreciate the added light-on-demand.


There are a whole mess of HI (high intensity) flashlights out there, but I'm quite smitten with the unit Phillip gave us, the SureFire G2.  It's carry-on friendly (no complaints from security yet) and despite being very small and light it packs quite a punch - the thing puts out so much power that you can burn yourself if you leave it on too long!

Monday, December 11, 2006 2:55:22 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Saturday, November 04, 2006

As I was browsing my friend network via my space... yes, I may yet breathe some life back into it... but I digress... I came across this self portrait in Tim's space:

 timSelfPortrait.jpg

The picture itself wasn't that striking to me until I read "self-portrait" in the post title.  This got me thinking... what makes an interesting self portrait?

True to my inner geek... admittedly I don't keep it that deeply hidden, get within 3 feet of me and you're likely collide, rather suddenly and sharply, with my "inner" geek carelessly strewn about... but once again I digress... true to geeky form I went to the web for answers.  I didn't go looking for a treatise on the self-portrait, I wasn't wanting for someone to spell it out for me,  I wanted to look at self portraits to try and understand what grabbed me.

Any image search will return thousands of self portraits... lots of paintings & drawings... fewer photographs.  The photos are, however, what I was looking for and find interesting.  Sure, there are a ton of pictures people took of themselves by holding the camera at arm's length (and I love 'em, lord knows Paula and I have taken enough of those) but there are occasionally the pictures where you feel the picture contains a bit of "self".  Self portraits which demonstrate the unique style of the artist (such as paintings by Van Gogh or photos by Warhol) are wonderful  but not quite what I was trying to find.  I was trying to find photos where it looked like the photographer was trying to tell the audience something more than "this is what I look like".  Paintings, drawings and other "hand-made" likenesses allow the artist to dispense with some real world constraints and give a little glimpse into their inner-self, I want to do something like that with a camera.

I'm always telling myself I'll start taking more pictures. I've been carrying my camera around on a daily basis, trying to keep an eye out for something interesting.  To and from work every day with my camera by my side... and yet... I have taken almost no pictures.  Tim's picture got me thinking... I'm looking for subject matter... here's some subject matter I'm carrying with me every day.

A picture taken of me, by me, will, by the very fact I took it, have some of my "self" imbued - it's unavoidable.  Ask ten people to each take a picture of the same thing and you'll get ten pictures.  Each picture will be affected by anything from the artist's personality, sense of composition to things as simple as the height of the photographer (granted only five photos may be truly unique in an artistic sense, but you get my point).  I am going to try to unchain the creativity even more by allowing myself the unfettered use of Photoshop for this project as well.  It will still be a picture... and it will still be of me... but I'm hoping by adding a little "hand-made" to the photography I'll be able to get closer to the "self" of self portrait than simply snapping a candid of Reeves.

I encourage the viewers at home to play along, I know Tami will be up for it.  I'm sure after I get through the first 4 ideas I have I'll hit a wall and will need inspiration so I definitely encourage you to send me links to your work... oh, wait,  one exception: Steve, please refrain, I'm still going to therapy to recover from the last self portrait I received from you [shudder]... I'm going to try for a weekly (weakly?) self-portrait and hope my reliability for this project is better than it was for my picture a day for a year attempt which lasted all of 2 months. 

So...  Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...

Saturday, November 04, 2006 2:15:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 
# Tuesday, October 10, 2006

It took a day-and-a-half to upload all of them, so that should probably warn you off... there are a ton (583 to be exact).  I'm not really sure you want to go looking at them, it may suck your will to live.  Yep, I said it, I don't think you can take this many pictures (but SmugMug sure can... I now have uploaded over twelve thousand images and am closing in on 22 gigabytes... not bad for a couple of Jacksons per year).

I'll post some of my favorite things shortly... but I'm waiting for Paula to make her massive post detailing the whole trip.  She has it all typed up, she just needs to spell check it.  C'mon Paula, now that I've outed you, you have to post!

You may proceed if:
a) You want to prove I've underestimated you by plowing through half a grand of pictures with no descriptions
b) Salzburg is your home town and you just want to see 574 crappy pictures with a few good ones mixed in
c) You're a tweaker

For the rest of you, I present a random picture from the gallery:

Random Salzburg picture

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:36:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Friday, October 06, 2006

Yeah, I fell silent there... but for good cause: Paula and I were in Salzburg, Austria for Paula's Birthday.  It was a fantastic vacation and we now have over 600 pictures to filter and geotag.  Salzburg is a beautiful city and there's much to tell... but we didn't get home last night until 1am and after a day at work I'm bushed and heading to bead.  I will, however, leave you with the view which welcomed us to Salzburg.

A picture-perfect start to a great trip.

Friday, October 06, 2006 2:27:26 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Monday, September 11, 2006

Pictures we took at Ground Zero when we visited in December of 2001.

104-0451_IMG.JPG 104-0461_IMG.JPG

38999920-O.jpg 104-0464_IMG.JPG

More on SmugMug.

Monday, September 11, 2006 2:10:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Wednesday, August 16, 2006

SmugMug now offers a 14 trial which doesn't require a credit card.  You now have no excuse to go try out what I think is the best photo site on the net.

Back when Omar turned me on to SmugMug a credit card was required to do the free trial, turning a bunch of people away from the site.  While requiring a CC caused resistance, the number of people who stayed is worth noting: of the people I know who did the trial, over 80% of them stayed with the service.  With props from PC Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Macworld, Newsweek, Businssweek and Forbes you can be sure you're getting a great product.

Oh, and once you sign up (because you will sign up smily face), be sure to download Omar's Send to SmugMug tool (Windows only, sorry).  Send to SmugMug makes the process of uploading pictures a simple task.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:59:29 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
# Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Just in time for the July 4th weekend here in the states digital photography school dot com has put up a great article on how to photograph fireworks.  So, camera happy people (you know who you are... Tami), read up, and get prepared for next week!

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:43:32 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
# Friday, April 28, 2006

Ever see people standing around a lobster tank trying to decide which one they should request?

Friday, April 28, 2006 10:04:25 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Monday, March 20, 2006

I never thought I'd see it happen... but it did.

One of my compact flash cards failed.

Nothing strange happened.  No shocks, no static electricity, no driving over it with a car (Rob).  Took ten pictures.  Downloaded them.  Took three more.  Poof.

I think from now on I'll carry an extra flash card or two when I travel.

Monday, March 20, 2006 8:36:35 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Saturday, February 11, 2006

It's too dark, use the flash
Remember how pretty downtown looked that night?  Remember grabbing a great snapshot of your friends enjoying the night?  Remember getting the picture back and having a great shot of your friends... on a completely black background?  Crap!

Don't fret, there's a solution (for next time, not for fixing your old pictures).

All digital cameras... um... all digital cameras with a flash... well, let's just say most digital cameras come with a special mode that improves the way your pictures look at night.  Traditionally called a "slow sync" or "curtain flash" this mode combines a flash to freeze the foreground (typically your aunt Greta) with the slow shutter speed needed to get the surrounding environment to show up at night.

 
One small setting change and Val goes from standing in the
dark to standing in Disneyland.

Making it work for you
This really isn't magic, but you may be surprised by the results.  Trying it out isn't daunting, there are just three things you need to do:

  1. Learn to turn it on
  2. Steady yourself
  3. Don't forget to turn it off (really... don't)

Turn it on
Turning on the night-time shot mode will differ for every camera, but it is typically grouped in the settings as a flash option.  Try cycling through the various settings for your flash but don't be frustrated if it doesn't just pop up, on my Canon PowerShot S410 (and on my old S110 as well) the mode is called "slow synchro" which requires the camera be put in "Manual" mode.  To find out exactly how to set it for your camera browse through your manual for this icon:

It takes a steady hand
You remember the old commercials for the game "Operation"? No?  At any rate... because the picture will be taken at a slow shutter speed you will find it difficult or even impossible to hand-hold your camera for the shot.  I've managed to get some okay shots by just standing very still, but the best shots always come from either using a tripod or finding some piece of the environment to use as a brace.  I often look for a door frame, light post or fence and just hold the camera against it.

Don't forget!
I have a number of great pictures which have be screwed up by leaving the camera set to slow sync.  And if you have multiple people using the camera you can frustrate your partner by handing them a poorly configured camera.

 
If we hadn't noticed the bad setting, instead of a great picture
with my parents I would have been left with a blurry memory.

Don't be afraid to experiment
The beauty of digital cameras is that you can just go nuts taking pictures and not be wasting film or processing costs.  So go nuts!  Try taking the picture even when you don't think you can hold it steady enough, you might come up with something you like.


A deep breath, a steady hand and a lot of luck
netted me a fun self portait with Paula on
Main Street USA in Disneyland.

Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:34:40 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Monday, January 30, 2006

Rob and Sharon are getting ready to have their first child and they asked Paula and me to come to the beach with them yesterday to take some portraits of the happy parents to be.  We had a great little lunch (their treat: thanks guys!) then headed down to the boardwalk to catch the warm tones of the sunset light.  A combination of some great light, some great equipment and great pre-setup by Rob produced some great pictures.  After grinding through over 300 frames I was bound to happen upon something they liked.

This was my favorite:

Now, I just need to bill Rob for the therapy I'm going to need to get over using his sweet camera (I'm not sure, but buying my own D2X just might cost less than therapy).

 

Monday, January 30, 2006 10:17:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Tuesday, November 29, 2005

When I made the choice between smugmug and Phanfare one thing I found I missed was the ability to filter my pictures by year taken.  To my delight, smugmug added this feature shortly after I joined.  The feature is currently hidden and considered beta, but it works quite well - the only bug I've found is it got confused about a picture I stamped as being taken in 1959 (seems they weren’t expecting dates that old... shocker).

If you want a nifty timeline on your smugmug page, here's how to do it:

  1. Go to http://yoursmugmugname.smugmug.com/?showGoodies=1 (be sure to adjust the URL for your member name)
    This will take you to your homepage with the phototimeline module visible
  2. Click the "show" link
  3. Very important: click the "date taken" link
    If you don't do this all your pictures in the timeline will be shown by date uploaded (which won't be very interesting unless you've been a smugmug member for multiple years)

That's it, now you have a nifty timeline on your homepage.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:24:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 
# Thursday, November 17, 2005

Over a year ago I started trying to find a photo sharing site. Now, many moons later, I have finally narrowed down my search and chosen the perfect service... all three of them.

My criteria:

After years of running my own server off my DSL line at home I finally came to the realization that it would be cheaper to pay a web hosting service and my site would be tremendously faster.  Outsourcing had one big negative: I no longer had unlimited photo storage (and I love to upload photos). 

Here's what I needed from a photo sharing service:

  • Unlimited storage - I will eventually have 100% of my digital pictures online for sharing and as a backup of my important memories.
  • Easy to use - I'd like to get my whole family using the same service... I don't, however, want to be tech support for it.
  • Per-gallery security - I will have some pictures that I'll want to lock down for privacy.

I also was hoping for the following features:

  • A custom domain - By putting pictures at pictures.little.org I will never have to tell people where to go... even if I change providers.
  • Fully customizable UI - I don't like having to have a site which looks "stock".  
  • Comments - While I think most of my friends are too lazy to add comments to my pictures (heck, I'll never add them to theirs), I want to post old family pictures and have my parents tell me who is in them.

The added bonus:

I harp on this a lot... BACK UP YOUR CRAP!!!!!

By picking a photosharing site with unlimited storage you are protecting yourself from the inevitable time when your computer will crash.  Think about it: you don't have negatives anymore.  If your computer crashes, you will loose all your pictures.  That's a terrible risk to take with your best memories.

The site:

Well, there isn't just one site, there are three.  The one that will work best for you will depend upon your personality, preferences and, quite likely, your friends.  For ease of selection I have arbitrarily divided the world into three groups:

  1. The social crowd (teenagers, college students and Pablo)
  2. Your average person (my sister, for example)
  3. The power user (computer and photography geeks)

The best social site:

The coolest features in Flickr revolve around tagging and sharing of pictures.  You can add comments to friend's pictures and even annotate specific regions of a picture (this is great for labeling people in a picture or pointing out that a friend's fly is open).  A strong social bent makes this service perfect for the high school/college crowd, at $25 a year for unlimited pictures (upload bandwidth is throttled) Flickr is also the least expensive (so it won't cut to deep into Pablo's beer budget).

The best everyman site:

My absolute favorite feature of Phanfare is how quickly a gallery is uploaded and posted to your site.  The trick is they use the desktop application to resize the picture before it’s uploaded to the web site, and later they upload the full-sized image in the background.  Phanfare also has the best support for videos and the largest range of image formats.  For $50 a year you get unlimited storage and a fast, easy interface.

The best power-user site:

I love the annotation features in Flickr and the ease of use of Phanfare... but when push came to shove I really wanted to have more customization than either of the two other services offered.  Smugmug is also great for professional photographers as it allows users with a pro account to completely re-brand the site and charge for prints of their pictures.  Adding more wood to the fire was Smugmug's exposed APIs that allow third-party developers to expand the Smugmug functionality.  There are three plans, all with unlimited storage: $39.95, $59.95 and $149.95 (note: use this coupon code and get $5 off - btqOt6mLHMm4Y).

Top Feature comparison:

Feature      
Unlimited Storage Yes (metered upload) Yes Yes
Custom UI No Preset Templates Templates or CSS
Custom Domain No Yes Yes (for pro only)
Per-gallery password Yes (per picture) Yes Yes
Comments Yes No Yes
RSS feeds Yes Yes Yes
Video clip support No QuickTime, MPEG and AVI MPEG-1 only
Upload via e-mail Yes Yes Yes
Published API Yes No Yes
What's special Annotating photos Uploads in the background Pros can sell pictures and set prices
Awards    

  Editor's choice for 2004 & 2005

Top rated site for 2005

Press/news Flickr Phanfare Smugmug
Yearly cost $24.95 $54.95 $39.95 to $149.95

But wait, there's more:

If you go with either Flickr or Smugmug, be sure to go looking for software which uses the published APIs.  Omar has created some handy tools for Smugmug and there are also nifty tools for Flickr.

As a bonus, both Flickr and Smugmug support geotagged pictures... take note travelers, this is a killer feature.

My personal verdict:

What’d I pick?  I was torn between Phanfare and SmugmugPhanfare supports many more image and video formats but is just not as customizable as Smugmug.  I elected to miss out on the variety of file formats in favor of the customizability (it's really all about looking good ;)).

Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:12:06 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [7]  | 
# Tuesday, November 15, 2005

When Dick and Trina got married they hired a really cool photographer, Craig Merrill, who 
   a) takes great photos 
   b) isn’t satisfied with producing "more of the same"

One of the Craig's complaints is there are always a bunch of frilly, girly pictures of the bride, bride's maids and the event.  There are no "guy" pictures of the event.  So, to balance out the pretty bride's maid photos, Craig takes the groom and groom's men to downtown San Francisco and takes pictures of the guys being "cool" (yeah, getting "cool" out of a bunch of computer geeks ain't easy... he's that good).   

Check out Craig's website for more information.

Dick decided that he didn't want to limit his guy photo shoot to just him and his best man and ushers but instead invited a bunch of his friends from in town.  I was flattered to have been invited to come be part of Dick’s extra-large Rat Pack.  I think the Chairman would have understood the entourage explosion, what with inflation and all.

Seeing as Dick shared the limelight with all of us I thought it only fitting to give him a more personalized picture of the event:

Now that's a good-looking bunch of guys!

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:08:05 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Pick a trip you took from, say, two years ago.  Take a look at the pictures.  Do you remember where each picture was taken?  Exactly where?  Great, do you think you'll remember that 10 years from now?  Don't worry, there's a soution (provided you don't loose all your digital pictures in both hard drive failures you're statistically likely to have between now and then).

smugMap_sm.jpg
My picture location on a satellite map?  How cool is that?

One of the nifty bits of data that can be embedded in a pcture's EXIF data is the longitude and latitude of where the picture was taken.  Adding this data to your pictures is called "geotagging" or "geocoding". While it's not hard to manually add this data to your pictures, you can also automatically add it if you have a GPS or an expensive camera.

EXIF: Exchangeable Image Format - descriptive data embedded in an image. This data is typically inserted into a JPEG image by a digital camera and contains information about the type of camera which took the picture, the shutter speed and date the picture was taken. A variety of free and commercial tools are available to allow you to view and edit EXIF data.

Okay, that sounds cool and all that... but so what?  Why can’t you just write down the information?  Imagine a slide show that walks along the path of your vacation, showing the pictures overlaid on a satellite picture of the area.   When we went hiking in Switzerland I took a GPS along and here’s an example of what Geotagging can get you: http://maps.smugmug.com/?feedType=geoAlbum&Data=859458 (look for a link to "play" in the right-hand column).  It is a large gallery (around 370 pictures) so it takes time to both load and play, be patient.  Tip: you can zoom in and out while the slideshow plays.

Manually adding a location stamp

When you add location stamps automatically (which I’ll discuss later) you’ll likely still need to adjust some of them manually, so let’s start with the process of manually adding or adjusting the geotag of a picture.  First, got get some software (don’t worry, it’s free and easy to use).  Microsoft Research, as part of their cool World Wide Media Exchange project, created a set of free tools for adding and reading tags.
First thing you need: Location StamperLocation Stamper requires you have the Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 installed, so I suppose that is really the first thing you need… but I digress.  Go to the WWMX download page and follow the instructions to install the .NET Framework (step 1) and WWMX Location Stamper (from step 3).  Don’t worry about any of the other software on that page at this time.
Now, let’s stamp a picture.  Launch WWMX Location Stamper and select a picture from your collection by choosing "Add Photos..." from the "Photos" menu.  You can select one or more pictures at a time, but let’s start with just one.  The picture will show in the right-hand column of the Location Stamper interface.  At the bottom of the interface is a box to perform a "Location Search"; type in the address where the picture was taken.  Since Location Stamper will search the whole world, try to be as specific as possible, separating the information with commas (for example: Street, City, State, zip or City, country).  To get the location more exact, use the plus/minus icons to zoom in and out and use the white arrows at the edge of the map to pan the map.

To add the geotag, simply drag the picture from the photo area onto the correct location in the map and drop.  A small dot will appear on the map showing you the location stamped into the picture.

locationStamper_sm.gif 
Location stamper, with images ready to be stamped.

Automatically adding stamps

I mentioned before that you could buy a camera with a built-in GPS, but I don’t recommend them unless you have a distinct business need (e.g. you’re an insurance adjuster).  The cameras with built-in GPS are expensive and likely to become out of date very quickly.  The best route to go is to buy a GPS with a computer interface.  If you have a GPS it will work with any camera you have.  In our case we take two cameras on every trip, a large digital SLR for nice artistic shots and a little, pocket camera for convenience.  Having an external GPS allows us to stamp pictures from both cameras.

Step one: get a compatible GPS.  There are likely a number of GPS units which will work, but I can tell you for sure that the Garmin Geko 201, 301 and Foretrex 201 all work for this purpose.  The keys are: a) a GPS that can connect to your computer and b) a GPS that allows track data to be downloaded in GPX format.  If you’re going out on your own to pick a GSP unit, look for a unit that advertises the things above as well as good battery life and quick satellite acquisition (my two-year old Geko 301 eats batteries and can take forever to get a fix on its location).  The Garmin Geko 201 will run you about $120 new, the Forerunner 201 about $115.  You’ll also need a cable to connect your GPS to your computer (it’s not a standard item with most GPS units).

Step two: turn on your GPS and allow it to get its bearings.  If you’re sitting inside, next to your computer, you may have trouble getting a good signal.  Stop reading this and go outside. ;)

Step three: set your camera’s clock to be as close to the time displayed on the GPS as possible.  This is important because the location of the picture will be based on correlating the picture time to the GPS time.  Another thing to keep in mind: if you travel out of your home time zone you will need to perform some added time zone magic to get the pictures to line up correctly with the GPS data (I’ll discuss that later).

Step four: take some pictures.  With the Garmin GPS units (and with many other types as well, I suspect) you don’t really need to do anything other than turn them on.  The GPS will automatically start keeping a "breadcrumb" trail of your path over time.  This trail will stay in memory even if you turn off the GPS and take out the batteries.  You don’t need to save a track log unless you are running out of memory (in fact, it’s best if you can avoid saving track logs as the breadcrumb trail tends to be more detailed).

After you get your new (or break out your old) GPS and spend some time running around and taking pictures you’ll need to get the GPS data off the receiver and onto your computer.  The easiest way to do this with the Garmin units is to use the free GPS Track Download software from Microsoft Research (there are commercial applications, but once again, I’m cheap).  Follow the instructions on the WWMX download page to install the GPS Track Download software.

The Track Download interface is very minimal.  From the window select the type of data you want to download (I download track log and routes each time).  Next choose "download from device" from the action menu and select a location on your hard disk to save the GPX data.  You’re done with your GPS and Track Download for this session.

trackDownload_sm.gif 
Ready to download tracks from your GPS device.

If you haven’t already, download all your new pictures from your first location-tracked photo shoot (put them in a new folder for simplicity).  Launch Location Stamper and add all the new pictures (do this by browsing to the new folder, clicking a single picture, typing ctrl-a on the keyboard to select all and then hit the "Open" button).  Next, add tracks to Location Stamper by selecting "add tracks" from the "Tracks" menu.  You’ll see lines appear on the map pane as the GPX data is read in.  Finally, click the "Apply tracks..." button at the bottom of the picture pane.

About the apply tracks options: I find the best options to use are the options to set the location but put in a tricky cases bin, always prefer existing location information and save a backup copy.
Those are the basics.  Now that you have locations coded into your pictures here are a couple of cool things to do:

  • Upload your pictures to Smugmug, you'll get a "Map this" button automatically for any gallery with geotagged pictures (Flickr also supports Geotags).
  • If you have a web site you can use the WWMX Travelogue Builder program to make a cool travel diary with maps attached.
  • Add your pictures to the WWMX web application (the client app appears to have been hidden for some reason, but if you dig into the source of the WWMX download page you'll find it).

Some final notes

There are a couple places where things will get out of sorts when geotagging pictures:

  • Starting picture taking before starting the GPS – The location stamper software will attempt to place the pictures along the route based on time and location stamps.  On one of my trips the software placed some of my pictures in the middle of the ocean because the only GPS data it had was my home in California and a location after the picture was taken... the software just guessed the picture was somewhere in between.
  • Taking pictures in multiple time zones – EXIF data doesn’t contain a time zone stamp, but the GPS data does.  The Location Stamper will assume the time zone of the computer is the timezone for the pictures.  If you do what I do and set the time on the camera to local time for your trip you’ll need to adjust the time back to your local time before stamping the pictures (you can do this in Location Stamper by right-clicking a picture or group of pictures and choosing "adjust timestamp").  After you geotag the picture you can set the time back again using the same method. 


Update: WWMX Location Stamper is now downloadable directly from MSR, a lot easier than digging into the source of the WWMX page for the hidden link.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:39:45 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 
# Thursday, June 02, 2005

The various competing digital RAW formats have been a boon to professional and pro-sumer photographers but to date the support for them has been limited to the manufacturer's software and expensive photo editing software.  Yesterday's news that MS is going to support RAW in the OS is great news, I hope it will drive some serious improvements for the format (compatibility, closed standards and more abound).  Just having the big camera manufacturers talking about the same topic is fabulous.

More info:
Press release: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jun05/06-01RAWWindowsPR.asp
Omar's comments: http://www.shahine.com/omar/MicrosoftRAW.aspx
Sean Alexander's comments: http://blog.seanalexander.com/LonghornGetsRAW.aspx
MS How-to article on dealing with RAW in XP: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/expert/rawfiles.mspx

Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:05:52 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Tuesday, November 23, 2004


Click for scary-big.

Ginger Elvis says: “I taste better than fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches!  Thank you very much!”

<crunch> Ginger Elvis's head has left the building.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00:32 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Thursday, November 18, 2004

I was just e-mailed this by a co-worker (thanks Paul!): the World-Wide Media eXchange.  It’s a Microsoft Research project gathering pictures from all over the world and arranging them into a map-driven interface.  It’s a really cool way to browse pictures as well as a neat way to find pictures of places you’ve been or may be going.  Here’s what the site has to say about itself:

The World-Wide Media eXchange (WWMX) is a centralized index of digital photos, where photos are tagged by the geographic location where they were shot.  It's an experimental research project run by the Interactive Visual Media Group at Microsoft Research.  

The project explores possibilities with digital photographs and geographic location.  The location where a photo was taken provides clues about its semantic context and offers an intuitive way to index it, even in a very large collection.  The combination is powerful, but still not supported well by either the photo-software or camera-hardware industries.  We're trying to establish a strong case for these features, and you can help us -- try the downloads, and tell us about your experience: wwmx(a)microsoft.com.  Your feedback can make a difference!  

It’s free and cool, check it out.

Thursday, November 18, 2004 11:54:39 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Thursday, October 28, 2004

It seems that one of these “best pictures of [some year]” directories shows up every year... and they never indicate how the pictures were chosen.

Where do they come from?  Who choses them?  What authority does this site have to publish them? 

I don't care... they're purty.  Check out the “best pictures of 2004

Thursday, October 28, 2004 8:59:54 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 
# Saturday, October 09, 2004

Okay, so perhaps it's a little weird that my toolbox is still littered with screws I pulled out of a radio-controlled car in Jr. High School, but hoarding old stuff isn't always bad.  I was looking through some pictures I took when I was in South Korea and I found a picture of a street cafe which I almost tossed right when I took it.  I'm glad I got distracted and didn't delete the picture, I'm now quite fond of the colors and feeling of movement.


(larger version: streetcafe.jpg (245.71 KB))

Along many of the busier streets in South Korea are little food stands which offer seating for 4 to 6 and have food within arm's reach.  During rush hour many corners are packed with these part time restaurants.  They remind me of a grown-up lemonade stand with friendly proprietors chatting up the patrons in a neighborly fashion.

Saturday, October 09, 2004 3:34:19 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Wednesday, October 06, 2004

For a while now I've been wanting to get more of my pictures on line to share with friends and family.  Here are the sites I've dug up to date.  Any suggestions or comments?

My requirements:

  • A ton of space (unlimited would be nice, I have over 24 gigs of images)
  • Ability to have a custom domain (e.g. http://images.little.org)
  • Customizable look and feel
  • Per gallery security

Nice to have: per image comments.

Some photo hosting sites:

Some photo review sites (they tend to be geared to artists who want to get feedback, some only allow you to upload one image per day).  Not quite what I need.

 

Photography | Net | Web
Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:37:59 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Thursday, June 24, 2004

This, um... "enthusiastic" fellow was seen sitting in the front window of Jamba Juice in Downtown Disney:

 Click for big

Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:09:25 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Wednesday, June 23, 2004

... and especially if you've been drinking, this kind of thing is really funny.

 Clicky for biggie

Perhaps they really know their customers.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 12:55:46 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Aren't computers grand?  The magic of the web and blogging technology allow us to keep a virtual eye on Rob and Sharon as they each celebrate their 30th birthday in Paris.

Rob has quite the photo setup and the skills to back it up.  The pictures are bound to be beautiful.

Photography | Blog | Web
Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:33:08 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Tuesday, April 13, 2004

My week-long vacation gave me a chance to get caught up on all the unprocessed picture-a-day “digital negatives” I had sitting around.  My PAD gallery is now mostly up to date.

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:53:10 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Saturday, March 13, 2004

I finally got off by lazy butt and processed all my waiting picture a day pictures adding almost a month's worth of pictures to the gallery (including a picture of a very thrilled commuter, hi Rob).

I still need to add descriptions... baby steps.

Saturday, March 13, 2004 9:18:22 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Friday, February 06, 2004

... and from there onto your CCD.  What to do?

I came across a good CCD cleaning tutorial on Luminous Landscape.

Friday, February 06, 2004 9:28:18 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Monday, January 26, 2004

Here's some great photography, voted the best pictures of 2003 by the readers of... well... something (the root URL doesn't have much, the page just states “These photos were voted by readers as the best images of year...”).

Monday, January 26, 2004 9:33:28 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Tuesday, January 20, 2004

A good article from BBC news via Locker Gnome:

Digital cameras don't only eliminate the cost and hassle of film processing, they should help do away with bad holiday snaps and see us all become better photographers.

Get the full text here.

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 3:55:25 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I've found that I really like taking pictures at night with long exposures.  Sometimes the colors are not true to life, but that doesn't bother me, I like what I see. 

While waiting around for friends on Saturday night I was able to grab a few pictures in the back yard.  I ended up with a flower picture i like.

I have been surprised.... getting a picture a day is not as easy as it sounds.  It is fun, however, because I am forcing myself to take any picture that comes to mind just to make sure I have something.  It's really helping to learn what works and what doesn't. 

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:11:23 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Wednesday, January 14, 2004

Tonight I borrowed a couple of micro photography lenses from Phillip (thanks dude!) and played around taking close up pictures of anything that came close.  I found taking pictures of the dog to be a challenge since the depth of field on these lenses are a touch on the narrow side. smily face  At any rate, stuff looks really cool when you can get really close.

For the curious, the lenses I borrowed are a 60mm 2.8 Nikkor and a 105mm 2.8 Nikkor.  I put the pictures which were mildly in focus in my micro gallery.  The pictures of the dog were taken with the 105mm and the others were taken with the 60mm.

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:20:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 

I've enjoyed taking pictures for as long as I can remember.  After getting annoyed by me stealing his camera all the time my Dad gave me my first camera when I was 6.  I took pictures of everything, but mainly my GI Joe.

So, now I'm older and wiser, I don't take quite as many pictures of dolls and I'm not always happy with the pictures I take.  I was inspired by Rob's description of the picture a day challenge (PAD).  The idea is you need to take and post at least one picture every day for a year.  As you take pictures and are forced to choose your favorite each day (provided you take more than one) you will also be forced to improve (also, now that I've gone public with this I'll be embarassed to quit smily face)

To that ends I've started my Picture a Day gallery.  You'll find that it's a little bare as I've done a poor job taking one picture every day so far this year.  I will, however, keep it up now that I will suffer public humiliation if I don't follow through.

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:22:43 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |