"While photographs may not lie, liars may photograph." - 365 Project, Day 245

Given the finality of things, and how society changes every now and then, can different can a photo be viewed over time?  In the past decades, there have been some striking photographs taken, and some so important they have made their way into the societal psyche (if I say Tienamen Square, what do you think of?), but will these photographs stay impressive and stay just as important in the next decades?

The plays of Shakespeare are still studied, but unless you go into English lit, you will only read Shakespeare, and none of his contemporaries.  Taking this lead, I suppose most pictures will be forgotten and only the more iconic ones will be remembered.  The question then becomes, who will choose the iconic ones and what makes them iconic to begin with?

Enough ramblings, onto the pictures, which, unsurprisingly, all have a similar thread.

Frank

His note: Had to go with a dead tree and red background.  Happy Halloween!

Shannon

Her note: Happy Halloween!

Pat

Given I like pictures at night, and today, being the day that it is, I tried to get something spooky.  I liked the lighting and I liked the composition.  I only hope the effect shows through.  The only thing I don't like is the gaggle of people waiting on the sidewalk, though I think I'd still be there if I were still waiting for them to go away.  I'm happy with the mysterious feel, and the vague forms coming out of the lawn.

Tomorrow will be another day, and I will take pictures on this tomorrow.  Also, tomorrow is the start of movember.

"The photograph reverses the purpose of travel, which until now had been to encounter the strange and unfamiliar." - 365 Project, Day 244

It's been said before that an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters given an infinite time would produce the works of Shakespeare.  Logic would quickly say yes, but then again, just because something can happen, doesn't mean it will happen, even given eternity.

Regardless, has everything that could be photographed actually been photographed?  One has to wonder how much of the planet the 100 billion or so pictures on Facebook cover?  Has ever room of every house been shot?  Has every street in every city been shot?  Not even anything as thorough as every city.  Take Paris; has every street in Paris been photographed in the past century and half?  If not, then the question now becomes, will every street ever become photographed, and when?

Here's our little contribution to the history of photography.

Frank

His note: Of course it had to happen.  I didn't have my camera today but I did have my crackberry so this pic isn't as good as it could have been.  This bird was on the roof of a car in a parking lot.  A car actually pulled up in the spot next the bird as I pulling out the BB to tyake the pic.  To my surprise the bird didn't fly away. So I took this photo.

Shannon

Her note: Waiting for the train to come and pick me up.

My picture

My note: I went walking around Ottawa with my friend and her siblings (the picture being her sister), and just liked this moment.  My friend was trying to get her sister to pose, which the sister didn't want to do too much.  I stole this shot, though, to be fair, doesn't really look much like a stolen shot.  In any case, it's was a nice moment.

Onto tomorrow, which should be interesting.

"The viewer must bring their own view to a photograph." - 365 Project, Day 243

I was reading an interview with a singer a few years ago, and the interviewer asked the singer who her biggest influence was.  She replied something along the lines of, oh that's trick, I'll say everybody I've ever listened to.  I always found this answer to be really perceptive, and never found it ridiculous.

This raises a question about photography.  Not so much, are you influenced by others, but can your influences show in your own work?  Because photographers (and, to be fair, people) grow up in different neighborhoods, cities and times, no photographer can photograph exactly the same thing from the one that influenced them.  One can easily emulate a writing style, or even a film style, but can a photographic style be copied easily enough?

Here is our original work for today.

Frank

His note: I was on a date tonight!

Shannon

Her note: My friends front yard.

Pat

I've taken a few pictures of the fall colours but they generally make for a nice picture.  Nature doesn't produce such colours in vast amounts so readily (at least, not in Ottawa).  Especially when the picture is tweaked in some one, you can get some really nice-looking effects.

I should have a nice picture tomorrow.  Well, I'm not promising anything, but it will probably be nice.

"I began to realize that the camera sees the world differently than the human eye and that sometimes those differences can make a photograph more powerful than what you actually observed." - 365 Project, Day 242

Silly example, but one that supports today's quote: I didn't really pay attention to what I was photographing today, but looking back at my picture, it's easy to see the flyers/papers are advertising various parties and specialty nights at various nightclubs and bars.

However, it goes deeper than that.  Some photographs show more than simply their subject.  They show, perhaps, something about the photographer him/herself, or something about society, or even something about the human condition.  It doesn't happen all the time, but if all the elements mesh together, a photograph is more than a simple photograph.

Today's pictures.

Frank

His note:

Shannon

Her note: When I went outside this morning to get in the car, what do I see? Frosssssst!

Mine

My note:
I just saw this gathering of papers, seemingly having strewn about.  They will probably be cleaned up during the night, but this photo will be here much longer.  Who knows if the people attending these various nights will enjoy them, or even remember them?

Today was a very good day for me.  Everybody seemed in a great mood, and nobody seemed grumpy.  I wish the same kind of day on everybody for tomorrow!

"The two most engaging powers of a photograph are to make new things familiar and familiar things new." - 365 Project, Day 241

Somewhere in the depths of your mind, in a sulcus of your brain, there is a creative beast waiting to be let loose upon the world.  Well, unless you fall asleep.

Frank

His note: Had a craving for nuts.

Shannon

Her note: At the game.  Go Sens go.

My picture

It's interesting how many things in your world you don't really look at (or at least notice), unless you actually take the time, or are, uh, encouraged to notice every day.  In the past two weeks, I've notice three things I walked by every single day, and took pictures of them.  They may not be interesting in their own right, but they do provide an interesting photograph, like these parking lot numbers.

So, yes, I did fall asleep and had to wait another day before posting the pictures.

"A lot of people want to make films and do photography and things, but I'm quite happy doing what I'm doing." - 365 Project, Day 240

Taking a landscape shot is relatively easy; exposure is easy enough to figure out, you can take all the time you want for framing, and all you have to do is be patient for the light to be good.

On the other hand, taking a good picture during, say, a zombie apocalypse, would be much tougher.  Being on your toes all the time and quickly being able to aim and shoot a decent picture.  Being able to sense the scene and snap a picture at the right time has to be one of the tougher skills around, especially when surrounded by brain-yearning undead creatures.

Here are the pictures today, which, I assume, were easy to take.

Frank

His note: The peep hole on my door.  I tried to position it in an interesting location.  I don't know if it worked but I like it.

Shannon

Her note: Don't have much to say, but I've been looking at these headphones at work.

(They're not the most durable but they do sound really good.)

My pic

I was walking around and it was somewhat of a bland day, but I did like this shot I took.  I got a coupe of street shots, but I preferred this landscape.  I has nice symmetry, I find.

I can't say anything about tomorrow, one way or the other.

"Just remember one of Farace Laws of photography: Sucess is hard, failure is easy." - 365 Project, Day 239

Can anything be the subject of a nice photograph?  I, as I do, was walking around on various streets, and happened to see a pile of rubbish.  It was in a backyard, and it was taking up a fair amount of square footage.  It was not smelly, but it was still rubbish - patio chairs, plastic bins, boxes and such.  I wondered: "If I take out my camera and starting taking pictures, will one of them end up being nice?"

I thought perhaps if it were black and white, it would make a nicer picture, or if the background were blown out enough, it might give the whole scene an interesting feel.  In the end, though, as I realised, a pile of junk is still a pile of junk.  The question, then, becomes, can a pile of junk end up being a nice picture?  I did not try, as, at the moment I was passing by this philosophical heap of trash, I did not feel like stopping and taking out my camera, trying to figure out if it would turn out being a gorgeous piece of art.  I would, though, let you answer this question.  Let me know what you're pondering.

Shannon has had a long couple of days so only Frank and I will be able to entertain you will our picture-taking prowess today.

Frank

His note: My younger son's first bass guitar.

My picture

I've taken a lot of pictures of sunsets, so I decided today, may a sunise(ish) would be nice.  Also, for some reason, I wanted to shoot things at ISO6400 to see what it would look like when it's bright outside.  As a result, I had to boost the shutter speed to something ridiculous.  In any case, even though the picture turned out really well, I realised I shoot this little park way too much.  Offhand, I remember 4 pictures featuring this place.  Well, as long as it still looks nice in the frame.

I think, besides being cold, tomorrow should yield some nice pictures.  I don't know how, it's just a feeling I have.

"Photography does not create eternity, as art does; it embalms time, rescuing it simply from its proper corruption." - 365 Project, Day 238

How do you back up your pictures?  Whatever the method, it may not be enough.  For now, say, Canon or Nikon RAW files are fine, but CR2 and NEF files will eventually be replaced by something else.  I suppose when a file type that can carry more information for less space comes along, RAW will change.

I don't worry about that too much.  Say everything changes tomorrow and file types as we know it become obsolete, there will always be a plugin or a piece of software capable of editing, or at least viewing the legacy files.  Also, if that happens, there will be some conversion software that will take your files to convert it to the newer type, while still keeping all the advantages of the old one.  I don't worry about storing my files in the RAW format - I worry more that my hard drive will fail long before CR2 becomes obsolete.

Here are the moments we want to save.

Frank

His note: My baby is sick and needs to get fixed... How sad.

Shannon

Her note: Looking thru the role of paper towels.

Pat

This is just something I saw.  It's interesting how the edges of the frame exclude extremely important information.  For example, the object in the picture was, at one time, a tree.  It's note even tree-shaped now.  It's simply a parking post.  It's just been cut in a way to expose its rings, and my angle shows the rings properly.

Tomorrow is near.

"In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular... sight and feeling will appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot of practice." - 365 Project, Day 237

I have no interesting news today, or anything else to say.  I do have a very simple thought.  How healthy are landscape photographers compared to, well, either other type of photographers, or people in general?  I wonder if anybody's ever studied this query.  By the same token, I wonder if portrait photographers are more or less healthy than the general population.

I asked this question, not because I took a landscape picture today, but because it popped into my head.  In any case, here's what we took today.

Frank

His note: The angles of the support bars on this bicycle rack intruiged me.

Shannon

Her note: Decided to bake today, and it's just not a chocolate cake...it's chocolate zucchini

My picture

I decided to walk around today, taking pictures and got his one.  It wasn't as dark, but it was as dreary.  As the title suggests, it was pretty peaceful to walk around, and felt good considering I hadn't done it in a while.

"The $687 million fee Japan’s Olympus Corp paid its financial advisers for the $2.2 billion purchase of a British medical equipment maker is one for the record books, literally." - 365 Project, Day 236

I don't really mean to turn this into a news blog, but keeping up with the trend this week, I figure I can talk about this.  It's also pretty interesting, and intriguing.

Olympus bought out Gyrus, a UK medical equipment production company back in 2008, for $2.2 billion.  This, apart from industry insiders saying it was a pretty high valuation for the company, is nothing strange.  However, things get very movie-like.  In 2010, Olympus paid a company $687 million dollars for advisory fees to this company based in the Cayman Islands.  This is unusual, as a 35% commission is massive by any standard, considering 1 to 2% is the standard fee usually reserved for the type of advice Olympus received.

Michael Woodford, who'd spend 30 years working for Olympus, and who had been promoted to chief executive two weeks prior, hired PriceWaterhouseCoopers to investigate this interesting payment.  He also asked heads of Olympus where this money went, showing them the final report from PwC.  On October 14th, 2011, he was promptly fired as chief executive from Olympus.

It seems the firm that accepted the ridiculous payments from Olympus lost its licence two weeks after the last payment and disappeared off the face of the earth, along with any trace of the money it had been paid.  Mr. Woodford is going around every financial news institution and the UK police, telling people everything he knows (which, admittedly, doesn't seem much), trying to get as much attention as he can on Olympus to pressure them to divulge the payments information.  He's is practically begging Olympus to bring him to court on breach of confidentiality charges.

Olympus say the firing is not over this particular incident, but rather a diverging set of ideas in how to steer the company and management between Mr. Woodford and the rest of the chief executives.  They also say the PwC report is all based on rumour and supposition, having no real proof.  From the snippets I've been able to find, it does seem very vague and non-conclusive, but I assume that was Olympus's intention when all of this going on.  There's talk of a Japanese banker, and two companies, AXES and AXAM and a few other vague things.  There have also been rumours of organised crime being somehow involved.  As a result of this hoopla, Olympus stock fell 50% in the past week (from 2482 yen on October 13th to 1231 yen on October 21st, to be specific), along with a lot of bad press (if you follow that sort of thing).

I'm very, very curious to know where this $687 ended up and if Olympus is actually going to tell anyone where this money went.  It's a lot of money, as it turns out to be 2 years worth of profit for Olympus!

EDIT: 18/11/11 - Olympus may be delisted on the Tokyo Stock Exchange if they don't cough up an explanation.  One possible explanation, thanks to a leaked internal memo, is that Olympus is connected to the Yakuza and has been funneling some of their $4.9 billion in unaccounted funds to such an organisation.

EDIT: 16/2/12 - I should have updated this earlier, but here the story goes: in the past, Japanese companies used to be able to sell ailing wings of their company to other companies for financial help, and buy back these wings a few years later when money was better.  This was a semi-acceptable way of hiding losses.  It appears that this practice has been strongly discouraged by the government for about a decade or so, though some companies still do it, and go to the mob, because, well, the mob doesn't much care about government crackdowns.  As far as I know, this is more or less what Olympus did to hide their losses.  An independent investigative panel found, though, that there were no mob connections in this case.

In December, Olympus revealed their books, re-adjusted to take into account the fraud, and found that it had a $1.1 billion dollar hole to fill up.  They're either going to issue new stock, or partner with another company to help with the debt they have.  Sony, Panasonic and Fujifilm are the three major companies interested in this partnership.  Nothing's been decided yet.

Also, Olympus is suing 19 executives (past and present, I believe) over this scandal.  The Japanese authorities have actually arrested 7 people in connection to this scandal, 3 of these people being former executives at Olympus, and 2 bankers (one of which being a founding member of AXES and one of them being head of a consulting firm hired by Olympus back in 2000).  There will be a big shareholder meeting in April 2012 where 6 of the 11 members of the board will resign (including the current president).  Michael Woodford is apparently writing a book detailing how he discovered the whole thing.

In any case, here are our non-troublesome pictures.

Frank

His note: Sunset through a very dirty spotted window.

Shannon

Her note: Broken scoreboard at the Ottawa Senators game.

Pat

I only realised while editing that, especially with the tree branch in the foreground, this picture looks very horror-movie-like/stalking picture.  I assure you the family was conscious of my shooting them and they didn't seem to be bothered by it.  I probably looked really awkward, as I was carrying three or four things, trying to take the picture at the same time.  I wanted to capture the simple joy of having fun in a park with your family, especially as a child.  It's a simply joy, but a very rewarding one.

For those interested, here is the article from which today's quote was taken.

"Lytro Camera First Look: It’s Small, Deep and Cheap." - 365 Project, Day 235

This is Lytro, part 2.  Today, the Lytro light field camera was officially announced.  It will come in a few sizes and colours, it will cost 400 or 500 dollars, depending on the amount of memory you want.

Though it's a very intriguing camera, with very interesting technology, this is why the camera will simply not work:

a) As I mentioned in my previous thoughts on the Lytro camera, the only way to end up with an image is to install some software and process the image to the final product.  I sell cameras and the majority of people tell me, when I ask what kind of camera they're looking for, say something simple, that takes good pictures and that they don't have to think about.  They want a camera that will take pictures that they can easily email or put up on Facebook, or go to the local photo store and print.  They have absolutely no wish to even begin to think about post-processing any pictures, nor to they even want to start and learn.  They are not photographers, they are simply people who want to take pictures and show them to their friends and family.  As I pointed out previously, this whole shebang is a system, given you need hardware and software to make it work, and most people want a camera, plain and simple.

b) The software that comes with the camera is, as of now, Mac-only (which just boggles my mind).  Iphones and iPads are popular beyond ubiquitousness, but not many people have Macs.  True, the Apple marketshare in laptops and PCs is growing, but the total percentage of people using Macs is small.  This severely limits the use of the camera by a large chunk of the population.  Lytro is working on a Windows version of the software, though why they didn't code for Windows first, given it's massive marketshare is a mystery to me.

c) This was actually going to one of my points in favour of this new system, but as I've been reading about Lytro and its gizmo, it turns out a checkmark in the 'con' column has to be inserted instead.  When capturing light fields, the sensor not only captures light, but also the direction in which the light rays are travelling, which enables the camera to know the relation of different objects to each other in the scene, allowing for focusing after the fact.  Now, what I was imaging could happen was that you could play around with the depth of field.  Because the software knows where everything is, it could as easily create a picture with an f-stop of 0.95 as it could an f-stop of 64.  However, the system doesn't allow for an infinite depth of field, which tells me (unless I'm thinking about this in the wrong way), that the f/2 aperture the camera has is rigid and even within the editing software cannot be tampered with.  That, to me, is as severely limiting as in standard cameras where you have to pick the focus yourself.  What's the point in being able to refocus if you can't play around with the focus?  (To be fair, Lytro has said they're working on this issue.)

c, part 2) From what I've read, there is no way to change the shutter speed, aperture or ISO.  Maybe this is close-minded of me given the uniqueness of this technology, but without being able to change some of the settings, there's no way to get the perfect shot.  (Some people that have had hands-on experience with the camera have said the pictures seem a bit dark unless the scene was well-lit.)  There's also no way to create certain effects, like long-exposure shots.  This leads me to believe that this camera is more for regular Joes instead of professionals, which again, leads me to my first point.  Maybe the software that comes with the camera will be able to brighten or darken a scene, but the only thing I can say to that is, you can't brighten a scene if there's nothing to brighten.  (This also leads me to wonder about the resolution of the files.  Lytro says the camera captures 11 million rays of light (11 megarays), so how does that translate to actual picture resolution?  All the Lytro examples I've seen are actually pretty small in size, and apparently the file size of every picture would roughly equate to my 7D's RAW files, about 25MB per picture.)

c, part 3) The pictures taken can be uploaded to Facebook, for example, with the light field engine, or can be saved as photo files.  Neither of these are in, say, JPG, TIFF, RAW or anything of the sort.  The files uploaded to the web are saved as Adobe Flash format, which is a very strange format for a picture.  This again falls into the post-processing part of things, but it seems very complex simply to create a picture, and most people don't really want to deal with it.  Especially with mobile devices, even if the picture is saved as 'html' (as

d) This is more of a personal observation, but I suspect that, if I am thinking it, many people are probably on the same wavelength.  The more I read about the camera, the less impressed I am with it.  It is roughly the size of a 500ml water bottle (or a little bit shorter), has 8x zoom and a constant aperture of f2.  It has built-in memory that cannot be expanded.  I've been talking about the general population, and not professionals.

e) Professionals generally have an intent when they take a picture.  They want something to be in focus and something to be out of focus (or something to that effect).  That effect is what creates the desired emotion in the viewer.  Now, if anybody looking at that picture online can focus and refocus that picture, the intended impact flies out the window.

There will no doubt be professionals (or, to be more precise, certain artists) that embrace this kind of picture, and that will allow the viewer to play around with the picture, because this type of camera will create a new type of art, and a new style, in the same way that, say, quadraphonic sound allowed artists to create a more immersive sound field over simple stereo sound.  However, this will only be of interest to certain types of people - artists, technology-mongers and early-adopters.

As such, this type of camera will be somewhat of a curio, a funny little piece of technology that people will find interesting to look at, but have no real interest in.  This will be a niche product, pure and simple, in the same way that Holga and Lomo cameras are niche cameras.  They have a following, but it's definitely in a tiny minority.  Much like 3D, over the years, they will probably be waves of interest in light field cameras, but until it can be as versatile and simple as regular cameras, they will not catch on with the digital camera-buying masses.

The camera does have a ton of promise down the line, but this is its first popular iteration and falls short of being impressive.  I can only imagine what the possibilities would be.  I would, for instance, love to be able to see 3-dimensional light writing, or play around with the focus of such light writing.  (Lytro says they're working on 3D support, as well.)  Being able to play around with the aperture value within a scene, and being able to recompose the scene (based on the fact that the picture is in three-dimensions) also help with the camera's appeal.  Selective colouring, messing around with exposures and white balances, playing with clarity and contrast on different elements within the same scene would also be a lot of fun.  Integrating this kind of technology into cell phones would definitely move this technology light years ahead in an extremely short time.  However, until the camera becomes as flexible and as easy to use as, say, the Sony HX9, with picture quality (and video quality) to match, there's not much to say or do other than to say, 'huh, isn't that neat?'

Enough of this, onto the pictures!

Frank

His note: A friend's blue spruce.

Shannon

Her note: Wonder how many people will be participating in this?

My picture

It just so happened I took this picture before I knew I was going to talk about Lytro, but it seems kind of fitting given you could easily fiddle with the focus.  For some reason I liked the fact that the R is hardly visible on this post, and it creates an interesting look.  I boosted the grain and made it black and white simply to give it texture (which is another thing that would nice to do with a light field picture).

I am, once again, looking forward to tomorrow.

PS.  For those interested, today is my cat Tux's birthday.  He's 1 year old.

"A photograph is always invisible, it is not it that we see." - 365 Project, Day 234

Far removed from photography, but still a part of it, screen calibration ensures that the colours on your display will be perfect and as realistic as possible on your display, whatever that display may be.  Now, when it comes to photography, that means any editing done will ensure the most realistic colours, so that you get exactly the picture you want.

Although this is a good intention, it's only really useful if every single screen were not only calibrated, but also calibrated by the same tools.  Given that A) there are different companies making different calibration tools and software and B) most people don't even have their screen calibrated to begin with, calibrating your own screen is somewhat of a moot point, as everybody will see your picture with slightly different white balance, brightness, colours and detail.

I don't mean to be negative (though, unfortunately, I am), but calibrations is somewhat of a lost cause when it comes to online use.  However, in relation to today's quote, a good photograph is a good photograph, and though the slight variations in colours may alter the picture slightly, these are very small variations and will not take away the effect of a stunning picture.  A good photograph is a good photograph, regardless of any screen being calibrated or not.

My laptop is not calibrated, but I think these look fine.  How about you?

Frank

His note: Fall is happening outside my window.  Pigeons appear cold, leaves are nicely coloured and the crane in the background seems to want to finish its job before the first snow falls.

Shannon

Her note: After a day of rain, this was nice to see.

My picture

I don't have much to say about this.  I had a few pictures I wanted, mostly some raindrops in a puddle at night, but they didn't turn out the way I wanted, given the fleeting nature of raindrops in puddles.  However, this is nice, and has the effect I want.

Tomorrow will be even more fun!  Just sayin'.

"A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there -- even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." - 365 Project, Day 233

I saw a review of the new Pentax Q mirrorless system camera, and I remembered something.  The first mirrorless system/micro four-thirds/compact system camera I saw was the Olympus PEN 1, and the first thought I had was 'nice, but way too expensive'.  I still think they're too expensive, because they appeal the the photography enthusiast that doesn't want the bulk of an SLR, and the ease of use of a point-and-shoot.  Most people will not find themselves in that category, and the people that do are not willing to spend the kind of money for the camera (and they have gone down in price in the past couple of years) and the extra lenses.  It also kind of defeats the purpose of having a smaller camera if you still have to carry around a relatively big bag with all the lenses you need.  Add to that the fact that some of the lenses go north of $2200, it gets just as expensive as any SLR system.

Having said that, the compact system cameras are extremely hot now, and they do offer great performance in a small package.  Most people want better quality than their point-and-shoot can offer and the added flexibility the mirrorless systems offer make them a great buy.  I've played around with the PEN Mini and I would definitely enjoy owning that camera: it's small, has a good size sensor and Olympus has some great lenses to go along with it.  The problem is, as was my first though a couple of years ago, the cost of the camera and the lenses I'd want is just too much.  I'd rather buy an 85mm f/1.2 for my 7D than a 14-35mm f2 for the PEN mini.

Regardless, here's what we did today with the equipment we do have.

Frank

His note: Still some red leaves hanging on to their branches.

Shannon

Her note: Sun coming up this morning.

My pic

I've had this idea for a picture for a couple of months now, but every time I go out with the intention of taking that picture, something else always pops up.  (For the record, I don't go out every night trying to get this shot.  Only on certain days when it's right.)  This time, this lady, almost posing for me with her crossed legs and umbrella, was waiting for the bus, and I couldn't resist the temptation.  It's a bit fuzzy due to the shutter speed I had to shoot at, but had I had my dream gear (M9 with Noctilux 50mm f/0.95), the shot would have been dead sharp and surreal.

Tomorrow should be fun.  Just sayin'.

"We are proud to introduce this camera to the worldwide community of professional photographers and cinematographers with the features and capabilities they need to capture the great moments that display their talent." - 365 Project, Day 232

It's often been said (and I've said it also) that the equipment is not all that important in taking a good picture.  Though this is true, better gear means making a good picture easier.  Nobody on a cell phone - no matter the cell phone - can get nice bokeh in the same way the Canon 85mm f/1.2 lens can, for example.

It is with this that I'll completely date myself and say that Canon today announced their new flagship pro DSLR, the Canon EOS-1D X, which is a beast.  It has 3 processors (one for metering alone, the other two for picture/video processing), can do 12 frames per second at 18MP, on a newly-designed full-frame sensor, and has a maximum ISO of 204,800 (!!!) thanks to the dual Digic 5 processors.  For comparison, my 7D has a maximum ISO of 12,800 (with dual Digic 4 processors), and the reigning kind of ISO, the Nikon D3s, can go up to 102,400.  It is completely SMPTE-compliant for video, with all the most important resolutions and frame rates available to shoot.

The camera will also be able to sync up with other cameras for clock and shutter actuation.  It will also do such mundane things as remember a person's face, so as to track that face later on.  Finally (or at least the last thing I'll mention), is that it has a completely new 61-point autofocus system that should kill anything on the market today (or, in March 2012, which is when this camera will be released).

Like I said, this camera will be a BEAST, and will only cost you $6800.  I suppose the very long delay in release is so that people can start looking through their couch cushions far in advance to find all the quarters and nickels they'll need to save up for this bad boy.

Here's what our lowly apparatuses have done for us today.

Frank

His note: One of my favorite stores ever.

Shannon

Her note: Thought this was pretty funny as my friend in the UK calls me Shaz.

My picture

Not too sure what I was doing here.  I guess inspiration was a bit slim given my long-ish day.  What is interesting to note is that I could still see the sun when I left work, but it was pretty dark by the time I got home (and I didn't walk for an especially long time, either).  I named it 'Falling', because I just think the sky seems to be crushing the ground for some reason.  Chicken Little would have something interesting to say about it, I'm sure.

I will have something better tomorrow.

I hope.

"I treat the photograph as a work of great complexity in which you can find drama. Add to that a careful composition of landscapes, live photography, the right music and interviews with people, and it becomes a style." - 365 Project, Day 231

There is always a distinction made between, say, an actor and a movie star, or a director and an auteur.  I suppose the same can be made for photographers.  Some people take pictures for their own pleasure.  Some people do it as a job.  Some people do it for the attention they get.  Now, anybody intending to become famous by taking pictures is not completely right in the head, but I'm sure some people have that intention.

Here is the flip side of this thought: is it more karmically satisfying for the person doing it him/herself getting attention, or the person doing it for attention to not get any?

Here are our attention grabbers today.

Frank

His note: My cooking timer... Would be lost without it!

Shannon

Shannon didn't know what to put.  All I'll say is that this is my "fixed" S95.

My picture

Another sky shot, which I seem to like.  This one has the added effect of birds flying south through the sky, though you don't really see them.  I was debating whether going colour or black and white, but decided with the colours because they add a little atmosphere, even though they don't show up too much.

I will be carrying my 7D tomorrow.  'Nuff said.

"Photography. The best cure for a bad memory." - 365 Project, Day 230

Even though Facebook has some 90 billion pictures (and I'm not saying that's incredibly impressive), technology is fleeting and the site will not always be there.  It will no doubt disappear one day, and even the internet does not keep a record of everything.

A few years ago, I found a song called Bad Head, Bad Hat, by Hew.  It was the artist's only available song on the website and less than ten years later, even with the power of the internet, that song is nowhere to be found.  It's the same thing with photos.  Unless, say, Facebook, transfers its entire library of pictures to, say twitter, or Google+, or whatever the next big social networking site may be, many of those 90 billion photos will be gone.  Moreover, even if this happens, it cannot go on indefinitely, as one day the internet should end in one way or another.  There's simply no way to keep all these memories going.

This is, of course, speaking in the (extremely) long term.  As far as your own pictures go, in your own life, pictures to bring back memories, for better or for worse, and make you happy you took them.

The things that we don't want forgotten.

Frank

His note: Pringles seemed like a good subject matter even if it was empty.

Shannon

Her note: I'm guessing gold is now in style.

Pat

Just walking around, you tend to see things.  Longboards are getting relatively popular, as these three will more than likely tell you.  They were leaving a pizza place to go somewhere.  I just this shot because the colours are a bit more vibrant at night, and there's usually a bit more to see.

Onto tomorrow.

"Most things in life are moments of pleasure and a lifetime of embarrassment; photography is a moment of embarrassment and a lifetime of pleasure." - 365 Project, Day 229

Today was a long day, which is why I'm posting this a bit late.  I woke up early, out of the blue ended up being asked to help shoot a wedding.  My afternoon was devoted to that.  On my way home, my buddy asked me over to his house and left my place as soon as I changed.

This has nothing to do with photography, other than to say, I was very busy and didn't really have many chances to take a picture I could use.  I suppose technically all the pictures I took at the wedding aren't mine, as they're used for business purposes.  Some people may think taking pictures every day is easy, which may or may not be true, but taking a picture with the intention of putting it on this blog can be tricky at times.

Onto the pictures that we did put up today.

Shannon

Her note: This was taken just beside the parking lot at Costco.

Pat

My note: I spent the day taking pictures, though I couldn't use any for myself.  I did get some pretty good ones, but you guys will have to settle for this.  It's one of the more typical shots I take when I haven't had the chance to do anything, but I tried to make it different by editing the crap out of it.  I like the way it looks, but I still would have preferred a few of the shots I couldn't use.

Day 229, coming up!

"Photographic success is not just about getting the equipment. And you can't market yourself without a portfolio. If you love photography enough, the equipment will come, the portfolio will result and if you enjoy the process, successful will follow. You will evolve your own 'formula'." - 365 Project, Day 228

In the past couple of weeks, I've been surprised by people.  It seems, by my experience in the past couple of weeks, that people seem more prone to spend money on niche compact cameras than on popular entry-level DSLRs.  I've talked to a fair number of people ready to spend a few hundred dollars on a compact camera simply because it can shoot RAW, like the Canon S95, or roughly the same amount for the Sony HX9 because of its zoom and video quality.  These are small cameras with big price tags, and people don't seem to care after they learn what the cameras can do.

These are niche cameras, but I suppose all the people interested in these are congregating in one spot: near me.

Our work for the day.

Frank

His note: For the first time I'm very satisfied with the crispness of a shot with my new camera.  These droplets are so smooth and the reflections are so sweet. Plus I love the red aura of this shot.

Shannon

Her note: Love doing these.

My picture

About five minutes after this shot, I was wet.  Unfortunately, my lens wasn't wide enough for my tastes, as I would have preferred the 10-22mm from Canon.  For the most part, though, I like the sky and its ominous feeling.  It was a very distinct front that I tried to capture it as best as I could.

I'll be relaxing tomorrow, unless the weather clears up, in which case I'll be relaxing by walking around.