Businesslike
Posted: Fri 1 September, 2006 Filed under: 2006 Resolutions, Getting Organised, Own Business, Photography 1 Comment »Over the weekend, we’ll be up in Birmingham at the Autumn Fair, a tradeshow for all kinds of gubbins at the NEC. We’ve got some specific stuff to be checking out, but I’m also aiming to sort out a couple of those resolutions, and make some contact with a few photo publishers and the like. Should be interesting.
Anyway, because of this I’ve had to make myself look somewhat professional, and get some business cards printed along with getting a useful stand-alone number that I can redirect to anywhere, so I know if it’s a business call instead of a personal one.
The cards came yesterday, and actually look pretty good considering that they cost me about £6 all told. In fact it’s quite surprising how easy it can be to set up all that kind of stuff now, with all the trappings of respectability…
Photographic Stuff
Posted: Tue 29 August, 2006 Filed under: Photography 1 Comment »Of late I’ve been wondering what’s next on the list of photographic gubbins that I want – and it came down to a few things, really.
- Something for time-delay shots
- A decent Macro lens
- A portrait lens – particularly the spectacular Canon 85mm f1.2 USM II lens
or - a decent flash
While all of these are on the list still (well, with the exception of that Canon 85mm lens, which as it currently retails for around £1500 is actually more expensive than the camera – and I’m definitely not that good yet!) I’ve only ended up getting one of them at the moment.
So following on from seeing some very impressive stuff with it on DDOI, (such as this, this and particularly this) I’ve ordered a PCLix time delay device (plus control cord) that’ll allow me to do time delay and time-spaced photos with the camera, as well as long-exposure shots well over the current 30 second limit.I should point out, I know, there’s the Bulb setting, but to my knowledge without some kind of cable release etc., I’d have to hold down the shutter release for as long as I wanted the shot, and that brings too much vibration to the shot, what with heartbeats, wobbles, and all. So this device is going to be winging its way towards me, and it’s cost £100 all told, including the control cable and the airmail postage from the US.
Obviously I’ll post more about what I’ve done with it once it arrives.
Competition
Posted: Sun 27 August, 2006 Filed under: Animals, Getting Organised, Photography 3 Comments »This weekend I’ve finalised – and posted – my entries for the Kennel Club’s Dog Photographer of the Year competition. I was going to submit some last year, but didn’t get round to it in time. So this year I made sure that I was in line for it, and got the entries in on time.
It’s going to be interesting to see what the results are. I’ve no idea how many entries they get – and I also know that Herself is sending in some entries of her own, which could make life interesting too – but it’s one of those things where we have so many great photos of Hound, it’s got to be worth a go.
Workflow
Posted: Thu 10 August, 2006 Filed under: Geeky, Getting Organised, Photography, Technology, Thinking About... 7 Comments »Yes, I’m afraid I’m going to be banging on about iTunes, Picasa, JPEG vs Raw, and so on again. Because it’s all come up in the last week, Workflow has been on my mind a bit (and there’s some work-related stuff behind the scenes as well) so it’s all ending up as a bit of a brain dump.
Personally, I can be bloody disorganised. Well, that’s not strictly true. I usually know where things are, what needs to be done, when it needs to be done by, and how I’m going to do it. It’s just that I can be very “last minute” about things – particularly when it’s all to a deadline. It’s something I know – and acknowledge – about myself, and that I know I need to fix, or at least learn to handle better.
So anyway, I working on organising myself a bit better. But that’s not what this post is about. Oh no. Instead it’s about file structure, and file organisation instead. You lucky people.
You see, Gordon has said a couple of times that certain bits of software (iTunes, Picasa etc.) mean he no longer needs to know where files are – the software keeps track of it for him, and – for him – that’s fine. Unfortunately, doing that kind of thing drives me utterly fucking crackers.
Because I know where I put stuff, and I know (pretty much) what is where. I know that all my music sits in c:/music, but then I know that under that it’s kept in a file structure, so it goes c:/music/[band]/[album name]/[tracks] , and I never, ever have a problem finding where the stuff is that I want. To me, that’s organised, because I don’t need to fuck about thinking “is it in that folder? Or is it (iTunes, I’m talking about you here) in ‘compilations’? Or in some utterly random other place?”. I don’t need to use Google Desktop Search, I don’t need to Search for files. I think I use the “Search for files” function in Windows maybe once a year. If that. I know where my stuff is.
With photos it’s similar. Everything sits in c:/photos. I know, it’s unimaginative. But it’s easy to find. Then I name folders with where I was, or the subject of the photo series, and all the photos from that session/day/trip go in. If it’s been a holiday, you’d find it in c:/photos/[trip name]/Day [number] . I’m bad in that I don’t rename the files individually to say what’s in them – I should, but I don’t. But I know what’s where, and I can usually find the images I want when I want them. And again, to me that’s what being organised is about.
Yesterday, Gordon wrote
WHERE the files are doesn’t matter. HOW iTunes structures the folders doesn’t matter. As long as you can find the MP3s in iTunes (which is where the ID3 tags come in) then why do you care that an album is stored in ‘compilation’?
To me, it does matter where the files are. I want to be able to find them, to use them outside of that one specific application. For my music stuff, I can play it on the PC using RealPlayer, but I also use another program to write the music files to my MP3 player, or yet another one to write them to the phone so I can use that. For my photos I can use one program to view the thumbnails so I can select what I want, I can use Photoshop – or Paintshop Pro, or ImageMagick, or Corel, or whatever – to edit those photos, I can write them to a CD/DVD as backup, or I can transfer them using FTP to another site. Because of the way I work, I do need to know where the files are. I don’t want to be wasting time figuring out where Application A has stored them so that I can find them with Application B, C or D and use them in that.
So yes, it’s my workflow. Maybe I should be more flexible, or something. But because I do use different programs for different things, I want the files that I use to be in the same place, in my own organisation. Not in some arbitrary thing that one program uses, and then insists I have to use because it uses it. It’s a personal perspective, but I don’t like having workflows and decisions forced on me, whether it’s by Arsehole Bosses, or programs.
Maybe I’m a dinosaur. Maybe I’m a control freak. I don’t know. What I do know, though, is that at no time soon am I going to be letting a fucking program tell me it’s storing stuff according to its own structures where I can’t find the bloody stuff easily without using a search to do so.
JPG vs RAW
Posted: Tue 8 August, 2006 Filed under: Geeky, Getting Organised, Photography 5 Comments »In a post I wrote last week, Richard asked me a question.
Do you shoot JPG or RAW images. I understand that RAW images need more post-processing on your computer, but are there quality gains to be made by doing that?
Way back in November ’05 I wrote a bit about image manipulation, JPG, and RAW and basically said that at that time I was still using JPG rather than RAW.
And to be honest, that situation still hasn’t changed. I still shoot in fine JPG rather than RAW – and I’m probably going to attract howls of derision from other photographers now for saying so. But I just can’t get into RAW. I know it gives me a greater flxibility, a greater range of data and image information, and can allow me to do a lot more, and resurrect data from blown-out areas of a photo. All of which JPG just can’t do – you take the photo, and really that’s it (well, unless you want to spend a lifetime in Photoshop® doing image cloning, airbrushing, resampling, and all that bollocks)
It’s the workflow with RAW that I just can’t be bothered with, I suppose. And maybe that’ll change once I’ve done a set of photos and had them all fucked-up and blown out without the details I want. But so far – and we’re talking about five years of photos here – that hasn’t happened. Yeah, there’re a couple of images where I would like some more data, and where sections have blown out because of light/white conditions. But those sections are small, and it’s only when I’m looking at entering those images for a competition or something that it becomes an annoyance. And even then the annoyance is a minor one.
If I were taking shots of an important event – a wedding, for example – then I’d probably move over to shooting RAW + JPG, to make sure I’d got a backup for a one-off event. For the normal stuff I do, I’m quite happy to just keep using Fine JPG at the moment.
Maybe as time goes on I’ll get to a point where I do need to use RAW. I hope I’ll be able to identify when that time comes, and then I’ll probably also invest in some decent software to handle/edit RAW files, rather than just Photoshop (Sorry, Gordon, I just can’t get into Picasa at the moment either) but for now, JPG suits my needs just fine.
Yuck
Posted: Sun 6 August, 2006 Filed under: Photography, Weirdness Leave a comment »All I can really say is Blech. Caterpillar hell.