(Originally posted on 2015-04-15 as /archives/10286)
(Originally posted on 2015-04-12 as /archives/10283)
Tony and Chelsea Northrup on outdoor portraits:
From the design team at Make a Website Today
Image is linked to larger copy: right-click, or click twice, etc.
It’s quite common for photography writers to write something like, “The human eye… adjusts the colors you see,” whenever discussing white balance. I never encountered one of these articles that also referred to scientific research, and I am unsatisfied with the explanation.
For one thing: it’s not consistent with anything that I learned in physiological psychology or psychophysics regarding vision.
For another thing: it is extremely common for scientific-thinking people to disprove much of what photographers teach.
- Here’s one example: ISO 100 is NOT always the least noisy choice. That’s something that people repeat without verifying.
- Here’s another example: your prime lens does NOT collect more light than your zoom. Whichever one has the largest physical aperture does. What photographers usually teach is that the lens with the smallest-focal-length-divided-by-aperture does. (f/4 is better than f/5, for example, but that’s not necessarily true, as proven by Roger N. Clark: with examples.)
For another: it’s not consistent with my personal experience, which is more like this:
I don’t believe that my “human eye… adjusts the colours [I] see.” I am very aware of color temperature. I suspect that most photographers develop this awareness, and some people have always had it.
When I am in an environment with soft white light, that’s what I see, but it’s everywhere. It’s even affecting the color of the photos on my wall. If those were white balanced, then the light from the too-warm bulbs is affecting the colors of those photos exactly the same way that it’s affecting everything else in the room, so it’s tolerably similar, but not changed by my eyes.
I left that as a comment on a Picture Correct article on white balance, and Wendy disagreed, but her rebuttal is not actually inconsistent with my comment above. She wrote:
Some say it’s the “eye” that adjusts, some say it’s in the “brain,” point is, you DO adjust to a “normal” WB. If you’ve been inside with a bunch of tungsten–especially low-light, like in a theater–and then suddenly go outside, the world will be blue-shifted for a few seconds while you adjust.
I make temari (embroidered thread balls), and I’ve got one that’s got a design in blue and three shades of purple. Thing is, in dim light, your eyes will try to convince you it’s red, yellow, green and blue–that you’re just seeing it in a different “white balance” than you really are.
She gives an example of an adjustment here, but I am not convinced it is. To me it looks like an example of becoming aware of the different colors of light, but I am always aware of them, and people that think about light will be too.
The “human eye adjusts” isn’t a scientific explanation, it’s an expectation. Photographers think about white balance this way, because that’s what they have been taught, but in reality, they do see three shades of purple as non-purple, because there’s no real adjusting going on.
That said: adjusting white balance in your image is important, because the colors in your photo are affected by the light that you are viewing it in, exactly as much as every other color that’s in that same light. Your photos won’t look “right”.
On the other hand, by all means: monkey with white balance in order to meet your artistic goals.
(Originally posted on 2012-05-14 as /archives/2681)
I just added Colorado! I rarely go anywhere anymore, due to my disability, but we did get to Colorado.
States That I Have Lived:
States Where I Have Worked:
States Where I Rode Motorcycles (Florida was a scooter):
States That I Have Traveled-to:
Countries? I’ve only been to the USA, Canada, and Mexico.
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] [Rode] Alabama California [Traveled] [Worked] Colorado [Traveled] Connecticut [Traveled] [Worked] Delaware [Traveled] Florida [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] [Rode] Georgia [Traveled] Hawaii Idaho Illinois [Traveled] [Worked] [Rode] Indiana [Traveled] [Rode] Iowa [Traveled] Kansas [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] [Rode] Kentucky [Traveled] Louisiana [Traveled] Maine [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] Maryland [Traveled] Massachusetts [Traveled] [Worked] Michigan [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] Minnesota [Traveled] [Worked] Mississippi Missouri [Traveled] [Rode] Montana Nebraska [Traveled] New Hampshire [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] New Jersey [Traveled] [Worked] New Mexico [Traveled] New York [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] North Carolina [Traveled] North Dakota Ohio [Traveled] [Worked] Oklahoma [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] [Rode] Oregon Pennsylvania [Traveled] Rhode Island [Traveled] South Carolina [Traveled] South Dakota Tennessee [Traveled] [Rode] Texas [Traveled] [Lived] [Worked] [Rode] Utah Vermont [Traveled] Virginia [Traveled] West Virginia [Traveled] Wisconsin [Traveled] Wyoming Washington [Traveled] Washington D.C. [Traveled]
(Originally posted on 2016-06-09, 2016-06-19, and 2016-07-28.)
I recently participated in online non-credit courses (MOOCs), and I did well. This gave me a real sense of accomplishment. That’s something that I miss from my software development days.
I have a college degree, but my disability makes homework a real challenge. This format allows me to study, and attend lectures, when I am at my best, which is rare.
That flexibility makes online lectures better than live college lectures. Although, yes, you would also want access to your instructors.
The first course was Survey of Music Technology.
This was like a recording studio engineering course that I took at the Crane School of Music, SUNY Potsdam (back in 1990?). Back then we did the recording on tape, and when we needed to splice it? We used razor blades, and we walked uphill, both ways, and we liked it!
Here is a video that shows what we did in the Crane class. We also spent a lot of time doing wacky things with analog synthesizers. I was always able to figure out what the sound would be just by seeing how the modules were hooked up.
The course had one quiz each week, and two projects. The first project involved using the Reaper DAW as a virtual recording studio. For the second project we did something similar, but we used the EarSketch instead.
I earned 100% on all tests and assignments.
The second course was The Blues: Understanding and Performing an American Art Form.
Dariusz Terefenko taught the class. He is from the Eastman School of Music, the University of Rochester. I completed it on June 8, 2016.
Dr. Terefenko’s version was much deeper with regards to composing and improvising on the piano. I suspect that he has covered everything. If you are a piano player, and you love the blues, then you need this course.
It’s pretty amazing how much information was in the lectures. This would have been difficult to do in a live classroom setting. The logistics of getting everyone into the class, out of the class, and on the same page, eats up way too much time in a traditional setting.
The third course was Programming for Everybody (Getting Started with Python)
This is a basic beginner’s programming course taught by Charles Severance from The University of Michigan. I would recommend it to any beginner. You really need to take all five courses in the Python for Everybody specialization, in order to get the full benefit though.
What’s “For Everybody” mean? For some reason, in academics, there’s a stigma attached to anyone using relational databases to create computer programs. Outside of academia? Everybody does this, but inside academia, there’s Computer Scientists, and then there’s “everybody” else.
I believe that this is a bad name for the course. It makes it look as though it’s not as serious, and the name itself undermines the accomplishment made.
I earned 100% on all tests and assignments.
Lastly there’s Python Data Structures.
This was about how to use the data structures built-in to Python’s standard API.
It was very different from my previous data structures courses which involved using pointers, and other techniques, to build our own data structures.
I earned 100% on all tests and assignments.
(Originally posted on 2016-07-06)
This is why you should use a camera with a bulb setting. You open the shutter when you hear the first pop, and close it when the light dims to get something like this:
This infographic covers the same information (below):
(The top part was originally posted on Dec 21, 2007 as /archives/131, and the lower part was originally posted on Jan 7, 2009 as /archives/1939)
I don’t know how many times I see green=biodiesel. No it does not. Perfect combustion produces C02 and H2O. Bio diesel is very inefficient, but even at its most efficient, it would be adding more CO2.
CO2 is required by the photosynthesis process. Breathing and burning put more CO2 in the air, plants take the carbon out of the air, and return the Oxygen to the air. Burning is done to provide things to animals. Both processes that add CO2 (burning and breathing) are done by, and for, animals. The only natural process that removes carbon is done by plants (animals get the carbon by eating the plants). If you assume that global warming is real, then the only logical conclusion is too many animals, not enough plants.
The real cause of rising CO2 levels? Population growth. Not even Al Gore is willing to talk about that, but that’s what it is. Al Gore showed us those sharply-rising graphs in An Inconvenient Truth, he even showed the corresponding population growth graph, but he didn’t suggest that we lower the population.
We need less people:
- Let’s say you lower your CO2 production by 50%, but you also have children, (“All right: you lower your CO2 production by 50%, but you also have children.”) and your children have children, and so on. So, you divided your CO2 production in half but you potentially are responsible for creating 100 times (or… pick a number) that amount of CO2, because you created descendants, that created descendants, and so on, and they all use energy.
- Why aren’t folks talking about this? …because it means telling people not to have babies, and people will not stop having babies.
- Read Maybe One.
Plants breath CO2: yes, that “evil” carbon footprint is potentially good for plants. The natural carbon-sequestration solution isn’t all of this sci-fi, it is more plants, but more plants means less room for other things that people want. Raising livestock uses more energy than raising plant-produce. If we raise less livestock and more plant-produce, then the plants will be sequestering CO2, and less energy will be wasted creating food.
I love electric cars, and I would really like an electric motorcycle. I have been replacing our crazy Lutron switches (these things give new meaning to the words “poor user interface“) with ones that are compatible with CFLs, and using the CFLs. I would rather get electricity from wind, solar, and hydro.
Carbon dioxide is not toxic though. It’s a natural part of our world that is absolutely essential for life on earth. No CO2 means no plants. No plants means we all die. Admittedly too much of anything can be bad for you, but I don’t want to hear about my “carbon footprint” from people that aren’t willing to do what’s necessary to change their own.
Many people think that ethanol is OK, because the CO2 that gets put back into the atmosphere was removed from the atmosphere, so there is no net gain, but that is true for ALL fuels. ALL CO2 came from the atmosphere. Besides, it takes more than one gallon of oil to create the nitrogen based fertilizer needed to create less than one gallon of ethanol, let alone the energy used to transport it, process it, etc. …and ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline.
I love properly designed electric vehicles. Powerful electric motors move diesel trains, so they can sure move an automobile, or a motorcycle, but electric vehicles are still much more expensive than gasoline-powered vehicles.
Who killed the electric car? You don’t need a movie to answer that question. The batteries would have cost more than a new car to replace, yet needed to be replaced too often. Did the movie mention that? No? (I actually got to see GM’s electric car, the EV1, before it was unveiled. I worked at the GM Powertrain Engineering Center in Warren MI.)
I like wind farms, and solar, and geothermal, but technology is not enough.
(Originally posted on Mar 11, 2016 as /archives/10854)
Scott Devine from Scott’s Bass Lessons created a video lesson about why you shouldn’t always use one finger per fret. He gives us some advice on when to use it, and alternatives, for when you shouldn’t.
Here’s the video:
Here are my thoughts:
For myself, on a short scale bass, one finger per fret is fine.
There is an optimal amount of tension that the strings should have. If the neck is too short, then they will flop around when the bass is tuned correctly. Even with that in mind, the 34″ scale neck is longer than it needs to be.
I suspect that Leo Fender measured the scale length of a standup bass, and that was that. (Standup bass necks, and bass guitar necks, are the same length. The standup bass neck only looks larger, because it’s bridge is in the center of the body, and a bass guitar’s bridge is at the end.)
I had a professor that insisted that I push with the ends of my finger bones, use one finger per fret, and not slide my hand at all. He believed that this would help me avoid tendonitis. He was incorrect. My hand’s bones aren’t even long enough to do that at full stretch. A full scale bass isn’t a plastic-stringed classical guitar, and different techniques are needed. Which are discussed in Scott’s video above, and other videos by Scott.