Lens Selection Time Again

It is possible that during the summer I might again have the option of adding another lens to my camera kit.

At present I am looking at two major options: a long-throw telephoto zoom, or a micro/macro lens.

Lens Tamron 18-270mm Nikkor 60mm MICRO Nikkor 85mm MICRO
Max Aperture 4-6.3 2.8 3.5
Min Distance 19.3 inches 7 inches 11 inches
Form Factor DX FX DX
Front Filter 72mm 62mm 52mm
Price $630 $540 $510

 

For aperture, lower numbers are bigger aperture, meaning faster lens.

Minimum focusing distance is how far I have to be from the subject to focus a shot.

Form factor is the size of image projected by the lens. DX is fine for my DSLRs, but wouldn’t fully cover on the 35mm camera, leaving it with still just 2 lenses available (50mm, 70-300mm).

Front filter size is just that, the size of the front threads that take a filter. I already have kits for 52mm as well as 67mm, but not 62mm or 72mm. I would likely purchase an adapter if I were to obtain a 62mm lens.

With the numbers laid out here, I still have to take into account that I so far use only Nikon lenses, and prefer it that way because of the high quality optics. I know that the Tamron would have slightly less optical precision than a Nikon lens, but for the incredible flexibility of that lens, I would be willing to accept it. The Tamron and the 85mm Nikkor have the flaw of being DX, meaning I can use them on my DSLRs without a problem, but that my 35mm wouldn’t use it at full coverage.

I would very much like to have a lens that internally can do macro and not rely on external filters to allow it, but at the same time, the idea of having 15x range on a single lens totally rocks. I am at the moment completely undecided, and unfortunately, I can’t afford another summer like last summer, where I couldn’t pick between lenses so I bought both ($199 and $450 is easier to swallow than $600 and $500).

image image image

35 vs DSC

It would seem that just as I am spending time with film again, I am also leaving ExIfDSC alone a little longer and working on ExIf35, even if I don’t really understand why. I keep adding features and finding little things that ExIf35 needs, when I don’t even have a clue what ExIfDSC is. I have done some work on ExIfDSC and certainly proposed theoretical functionality, but as of yet, its mission isn’t completely clear. I want to do things a certain way, but I am not sure how they will work out when they are put into practice, and I in general don’t have a background for which to build ExIfDSC. ExIf35 is a niche tool, which makes it easy. I don’t have to compete. My happy little tool does what it is supposed to do, and the world is a happy place. I decide on features based on what needs to be done to be additionally useful to the end-user. Since I am for the most part unrivaled in a utility that writes a complete metadata set for files, and specializing in record keeping for film. There are a few other tools, but none with my level of detail. I am very scientific and I must have information stored a certain way for a hobby to be useful to me, so hence it exists. ExIfDSC is harder. Tools exist to do what I am trying to do, at least in part. I don’t like that the tools are usually linked to huge clunky image viewers. I want a quick way to add information to images, but somehow my goal seems trivial.

[WARNING: Switching to SoC mode] 
Maybe its because I don’t feel like I can begin working on something while writing code and then just go back to it. There’s a thought. Maybe that’s where I should start. I keep everything written for ExIf35 from the time that the roll is “declared”, but with DSC the application enters the picture much later in the process. The files exist and as a result, I don’t think of storing their information, since it already exists. Is the answer to my problem with DSC to simply allow the storage of a temporary or “active” file for the purpose of being able to close the app and return to work later without having to save it to the images? Maybe even as a long-term option of saving a “project”? I think I like it. Its annoying as hell, but at the same time it could be really cool.
[end SoC]

The primary purpose of ExIfDSC is to add tagging and to apply rotations. It’s a pretty simple app, and I am beginning to feel a little bit like I might be trying to do too much to it at once. The other day I added ExIf reading ability to it, and I couldn’t figure out which fields I wanted to read, since I decided I didn’t really care. I am worried that a third application will develop, a general reader for the applications to share, but I suppose if it could be called from inside the other apps with arguments it might not be so bad (but I am teetering on the edge of having to write a library class for my apps). It would be really cool if next time I need to tag something huge for Flickr to be able to just go down the list and add the tags, or better yet, be able to use checkboxes to select from an existing list of tags (perhaps for the project, if not the overall app). Its a functionality I would love to use, but I just have to figure out how to write it. I’m not familiar with how to make an array of checkboxes in C#, so I will have much research to do.

Still, ExIf35 is more special, and it gets my attention, but eventually ExIfDSC has to move out of its infancy (which would include its own web presence).

Stuck to Film

After developing two rolls of film and feeling like I am limited in subject matter for film and feeling like a lot of my shots are uninteresting, I have been coaxed back into doing more film. Effective tomorrow, I will be carrying both cameras.

In the process of trying to figure out WTF happened to make some of my portraits turn out almost white I sought out the advice of people in one of my Flickr groups, “I shoot film”. The very knowledgeable people there pointed out that it wasn’t just some of my portraits, it was most of my shots turning out that way. One of the key things that was discussed is the possibility that I am developing my film too long. I considered the possibility at first, but I wasn’t sure if it was a good idea or not. I keep thinking about exposure 7 from roll 1 (EXP_7). When thinking about it, that exposure SHOULDN’T have been developed as well as it was, since it was overly dark and I was using the “black magic” that is matrix mode. In addition to my developing technique it was also suggested that the film might not be the best choice (glad I just bought 5 more rolls). It was also suggested that the developer could be of a higher caliber, that one I will grant, since well, I am using Adorama store-brand BW Developer, and a developer time that is only roughly based on documentation (I assume it is close to being LC-29, since it has the same time for other films and the same dilution instructions). One of the more knowledgeable of the group suggested I try knocking my time down by 10% (which shaves about 35 seconds off of the time). I am likely to agree with him, as even if the advice throws things off kilter, just like in digital photography, it is always easier to add light after the fact than to correct for an overexposure (or overdevelopment).

The meter on the camera was also called into question, but I quickly defended the camera by testing it against the D90 set to ISO 400 (theoretically the metering equations are the same between cameras). I also verified that there were no stuck aperture blades on the lens.

With this new information I am going to give more time to film and see what I can do, and I guess I will likely end up developing again either this weekend or next week. I guess this whole thing is a science and I am just going to have to figure out the hard way how things work. Although, the knowledgeable guy (Dave I think his name is), has given me weekend reading homework, I will be starting to read “The Negative” by Ansel Adams. It is the 2nd book in the series, but I guess Dave assumes I know how to operate a camera (I have enough of them, so I hope I do). It says something about a book when it is still in print 11 years after the author’s death and is still being sold 26 years after his death. I am beginning to understand the meaning of the phrase “time arts” (the academic name for “photography”).

Cleaning Up

I sometimes let my buddy lists on instant messaging services get too busy. There are people on them that I talk to once, or gave me their ID in an email, only to never be spoken to. I find the cluttering of people on these lists to be a bit much to handle, so I feel compelled to clean things up. I am finding that I talk to no one on Aim, seldom anyone on Yahoo, although too many people on Yahoo come from my past and say “hi” periodically, I don’t like it. Finally, there is Google Talk, for which I have interactions with two people, one of which is quite often in the same room with me, making it redundant as well. Maybe I should be sad that I talk to so few people, but on the other hand, it makes things a lot simpler. It just really sucks that I can’t get the 3 or 4 people I talk to on one network so I can reduce the number of things I have to be signed in to (although, its already on 1 pidgin client). I don’t presently feel like I’m missing anything by not having people on these lists, but things do feel empty when I sign in and there is no one around wishing to talk to me (and I almost never start a conversation).

Eh, dilemmas for another day. For now, alone works.

Deciphering the Moods and Desires of People

Life is quite strange when dealing with these mortals called humans. Do exactly what you believe that these humans desire and then they change what they desire, making your actions and assumptions wrong. If you sit back and make no active change to appease them, they expect for you to have known their desires. Where is the balance and the fairness in interactions? I find the social expectations of individuals to be quite hard to read. You do what you think will make people happy, and then you find yourself alone in a library, staring mindlessly out of a window watching all of the other happy people wander around, carefully avoiding such horrible social situations. If is very uncomfortable to discover that you have no clue what another person truly wants or expects. There are so many variables in social interactions that it is impossible to know. Maybe one day I will figure him out, maybe one day I will understand, but for now, I am confused and alone.

Cross Platform Compatibility Crushed

I discovered last night that Mono does not contain certain parts required to make ExIf35 work on other platform, mainly, the basic parts of the Windows Presentation Foundation, which allow the metadata writing components that I use to function. At the moment I have no idea how I am going to proceed. It has crossed my mind to neuter out Form3 (the thing that writes exif to the files) and ship the application as is for other platforms, but that is somehow less than optimal. I have also considered doing everything normal, but then creating a special form3 that will write a .xmp sidecar file for each image, for later reintegration by another application. At the moment I am attempting to locate any way possible to write those values to the file that doesn’t use any part of WPF, so that there will be a chance that Mono can use it. My fear is that I will end up having to learn how to write directly to the image file in byte form to implement all of these fields. It would be neat to learn how to do that, but at the same time, quite a huge annoyance. So for now, sorry Mac users, it isn’t going to happen any time soon 🙁

Working Around a Flaw

I have been fighting with a problem in code for several weeks now relating to the writing of a negative exposure bias value to exif information using the .NET framework’s metadata class. The class has a set of properties and a table of what is allowed to be written to each of those properties. Unfortunately for my project, there was an oversight in that system. A variety of properties, such as System.Photo.ExposureBiasNumerator, do not accept negative values, even though they are supposed to hold signed integers. This has caused me to need to cast an absolute value on all of my exposure bias values, making them all positive. I have attempted to inquire through the MSDN forums and other sources for a reason for this, waiting for someone to point out that I’m wrong, but so far, no one has, so I must assume that there is a flaw. All other values are easy enough to write correctly with no special cases.

Tonight I have reinstated the ability to write negative values to exposure bias. Effective in ExIf 35 build 20100410 that functionality will be again functional.

I knew that there had to be a way to make it work, since those values are present in other applications and applications using the .NET Framework can read those values. I pulled some images into my diagnostic form and began reading /app1/ifd/exif/{ushort=37380} (thats ExIf 0x9204) from each of them. I found that there was an 11 digit number recorded in the space for all of them, both with positive and negative values. This got me curious, since a 32 bit integer is only 10 digits. I double checked with Visual Studio and it turns out that my two signed integers were being stored as one giant unsigned 64 bit integer. I began by trying to determine what those numbers could represent, trying to find any and all relationships between those 64 bit integers and the 2 part signed shorts I was working with (relationship between 30064771068 and –2/3 for example). Finally I gave up and decided to read the bytes.  30064771068 is 251, 255, 255, 255,6,0,0,0. I know they are supposed to be 32 bit numbers, so that takes us to 251, 255, 255, 255 and 6,0,0,0. 251 –255 = –4, and 6 = 6, making a rational of –4/6, reducing to my expected –2/3. Now it all makes sense, but I ask myself, why must I generate a 64-bit integer manually to make this work when Microsoft has created perfectly understandable way to write this crap to a file. I guess sometimes being able to do things the old way has its benefits.

So, now I present, my code:

//Assume exp.ExposureBias is a string such as -2/3
if (exp.ExposureBias.Contains("/")) //check for rational
{
double tmp = Convert.ToDouble(exp.ExposureBias.Split('/')[0]);
tmp = tmp / Convert.ToDouble(exp.ExposureBias.Split('/')[1]);
tmp = Math.Round(tmp, 1);
exp.ExposureBias = tmp.ToString();
}
//convert to a valid integer value
int exposureBias = Convert.ToInt16(Math.Floor(Convert.ToDouble(exp.ExposureBias) * 10));
//create the array to hold the 64 bits
Byte[] exposureBiasByte = new Byte[8];
if (exposureBias < 0)
{
exposureBias = 256 + exposureBias;
exposureBiasByte[1] = 255;
exposureBiasByte[2] = 255;
exposureBiasByte[3] = 255;
}
else
{
exposureBiasByte[1] = 0;
exposureBiasByte[2] = 0;
exposureBiasByte[3] = 0;
}
exposureBiasByte[0] = Convert.ToByte(exposureBias);
exposureBiasByte[4] = 10;
exposureBiasByte[5] = 0;
exposureBiasByte[6] = 0;
exposureBiasByte[7] = 0;
Int64 exposureBiasLong = BitConverter.ToInt64(exposureBiasByte, 0);

Assessing My Photographic Worth

Yesterday was a rough day for my photographically. I couldn’t manage to get myself to really get into it for a while, mostly because I felt redundant and my images felt only mediocre, leaving me feeling kind of empty. After a while (and some brief counseling of a friend) I managed to get myself into a somewhat more photographic mood, taking over 600 images of various buildings, plants and athletes. Some of the images turned out nice, some didn’t. It doesn’t really matter, because I enjoyed doing it, and it got me to be outside and around people. That still doesn’t fix my artistic need to feel as though my photography is interesting or that it matters in some way or is in some way unique. I upload a lot of my images to Flickr, but that isn’t really useful since I upload so many for general viewing, and it is really just a mess to dig through unless things are sorted properly, and I don’t really sort much. My general photostream is a mismatched set of images from various perspectives on the world with no consistent meaning, and the images are of varying quality.

This morning after becoming annoyed with the fact that my photostream is so cluttered, I created a new set, called “Portfolio”, although its intentions are a little more vague than its name. I have presently placed several images taken from the time I started using Flickr through present that I find interesting or that I feel showcase a special part of what I like to do with photography. I came up with 41 photos so far, but I intend to add to it as I have more images that I really like.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kularski/sets/72157623680948821/

Changing of ExIf Tools

As of Monday, ExIf 35 had its first major release. With the release of “Milestone 1”, daily build number 20100405, I decided that the application was feature complete and stable. The entire build package contained the released executable for the Windows version of the application, as well as two different mobile platforms (PocketPC 2003, Windows Mobile 5). The application works quite well for what its designed for, which is nothing more than tagging scanned negatives or prints with proper information that was recorded when the image was taken. This comes with several major problems, the least of which is that every film photographer in the world except me runs a Mac. The worst of the problems is that the majority of film photographers are not in it for the art of it, or any nostalgic purpose, they are just lazy and un-adaptive, which means that they are avoiding the digital side of things for convenience and in general do not record exposure details. In my opinion, there is as much science as art in photography, especially in film (we can say for certain that there is chemistry), and as scientists of light and optics it is our responsibility to record details about each “experiment” we capture.

Now, off of my film soapbox, I am finding that the level of precision and care I take to tagging and keeping orderly my film information I wish to apply at least partially to my digital work. Of course the exif portion is already handled for me (thank the great maker for that), but I will be working on ExIfDSC to further manage this information. This will allow for manual adjustment of orientation, adding of tags, titles and descriptions. I plan to make the application function in two ways, first, just an image-by-image view that will let the user easily make adjustments without being distracted by 36 thumbnails on screen. Next there is to be a gallery view that will allow multiple image manipulation, mass rotations and such. ExIf35 works from its XML files, so will ExIfDSC, but it won’t be limited by them. ExIfDSC will support a majority of its processes by way of interacting directly with the image files. On the other hand, the gallery view will support forming gallery files, which will be images selected by the user that are important, have significance or are display-worthy. Sort of a more polished way of viewing images, eliminating much of the clutter that is associated with digital photography.

I am not abandoning ExIf35 and intend to actively support and promote it (as well as poke at it frequently for minor tweaks), but I need to change my focus to ExIfDSC so that all of the processes can be streamlined and my photographic world can be a happier place (but my happy place is a topic for another blog entry).

Film Sleeves

I am having a little trouble understanding the way that film sleeves were designed. Most are designed to hold 7 strips of 5 frames each. That means 35 frames per sheet. Most 35mm rolls are 24 or 36 exposures by standard. The fun part is that in most situations a camera will use 37 to 38 frames on a 36 exposure roll. For me it seems to be 37. Either way, I will always have at least 1 frame hanging off, but in most cases I will have 2. Would it not have made sense for there to be 6 places for strips of 6 on these things? I wouldn’t be opposed to sticking a single exposure in the holder backward so that all of them fit, but at least if the thing had 36 spaces I would have a fighting chance. When I had a very nice friend cutting my film for me I at first told him to cut the strips 6 frames, since that is what most things now handle (because of the move away from 24 exp rolls). At this point in time, film is a rare thing, no one really uses it anymore, so wouldn’t it make sense for the companies that are still making products for film to make them the best that they can to fit the needs of people still using film (or going back to film)?