Home » Discussion Forums » Blog Post Discussion » Chick chick chick
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44660 is a reply to message #44658 ] |
Sun, 04 September 2011 01:37   |
 |
 Diane in MN
Messages: 2730
Registered: October 2008
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA |
Senior Member |
|
|
Also the fact that it gives you choices like ‘aspect bracket’ and ‘IRI Resolution’ and ‘AF Assist Lamp’, helpfully annotated with cryptic runes.
Leaving aside that the text itself is incomprehensible, at least without reference to many pages of tiny print in the manual, I have often wondered why manufacturers think people will immediately understand their teeny weeny little icons. They are NOT intuitively obvious. And then there are the flashing lights in the viewfinder, which are meant to tell you something, but WHAT?? Come on, people, when I buy an automatic camera I really want the automatic part to do its thing without a lot of help from me.
“The good ship Literary Fiction has run aground & the survivors are frantically paddling toward the islands of genre.” [. . . ]I couldn’t decide whether to laugh in a good-natured sort of way—not my strong suit, as we know—or snarl, which is professionally incorrect, and probably politically too
Well, I started snarling as soon as I read the quote. Minnesota Public Radio does a lot of book programs, and it drives me NUTS to hear the host* going gaga over some Name's new vampire or werewolf or zombie novel (she's done an hour with the guy that wrote The Last Werewolf, and one with the guy that wrote The Passage, and guess what, Colson Whitehead will be here in person to talk about his zombie book in the spring) when people who work in those genres (except for Stephen King; he was here last year) are essentially ignored. I haven't read The Last Werewolf or The Passage so I can't talk about their merits, but the idea that this material is worth discussing only when someone from outside the genre decides to write about it gets me talking back to the radio in a big way. GRRRR indeed!
*She's actually very good, and I think it's great that she features lots of book programs and author interviews, but I definitely get the impression that science fiction and fantasy are not on her personal radar.
"The point of books is to have way too many but to always feel you never have enough . . . " Louise Erdrich
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44661 is a reply to message #44658 ] |
Sun, 04 September 2011 03:03 |
|
For taking photos of any size fast moving objects, switch the camera mode dial round to Tv (thats shutter speed) - using whatever dial you can, dial the shutter speed up to about 500 to start with (if it goes that high, if not then as high as it goes)
The one thing you REALLY need to do is learn how to set the camera to a fixed focus point. Thats the trick to fast moving objects - by the time you wait for the camera to find its own focus, the object is gone. If you used a fixed focus point (ie one that you pick and it stays there - like the very center of the frame) then you can use that to focus the camera much faster.
These two steps will allow you to get better shots of hellhounds in action - you can leave the fixed focus point on all the time - but you will want to move off TV when NOT shooting moving images.
The other reason why you had fuzzy chicks was cos you were shooting thru the bars of the cage. The camera will usually focus on whatever is closest to it. To counteract it you either need to get closer to the bars or go with the manual focus point option above.
The answer to your original plaint is that there ISNT one button on your fancy camera to get tack sharp shots all the time. Thats the point of the fancy controls, they allow you to aim for tack sharp shots in lots of different conditons, but you have to align all the levers correctly DEPENDING ON THE LIGHT AND CONDITIONS - thats the problem, not the camera. Everytime those things change you have to change the camera to suit.
Yes, this is why photographers are nuts 
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44663 is a reply to message #44658 ] |
Sun, 04 September 2011 13:08 |
|
I think little chicks are very cute. I even think grown-up hens are cute sometimes, when they aren't being ridiculous. And I even own some, for the purpose of having eggs.
Ms. Nicky and The Twins by abigailm47, on Flickr
Of course, since I have only had them for 15 days, the gloss of newness is still on the experience. And I have, sadly, learned some valuable lessons about what is adequate pen reinforcement in an area with coons, coyotes, foxes, and reportedly a bobcat.
Want a guest post on how not to be left with just one lonely little red hen? (No, Malvina has absolutely nothing to do with my chickens, but I love this song.)
(edited for spelling, sigh)
[Updated on: Sun, 04 September 2011 13:49]
|
|
| |
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44666 is a reply to message #44665 ] |
Sun, 04 September 2011 15:40 |
|
| Black Bear wrote on Sun, 04 September 2011 13:28 |
Too many cats/coons/possums/foxes/weasels round these parts. 
|
Now weasels ... weasels might get through my current pen. And I am sure that it is not bear-proof  It is built to be movable around the property after all. Bearproof is what the pens for sale at the feed store are -- sure they have wheels at one end, but I can't even budge them, what with the 4x4 construction. Fortunately there are no bears, and I think no weasels either.
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44674 is a reply to message #44658 ] |
Sun, 04 September 2011 23:32 |
EMoon
Messages: 664
Registered: March 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
The essay on literary writers fleeing to genre raised my hackles, too. Statements like "the future seems to be stories which combine the pacing and plots of genre with the themes and style of literary writing" come from a presumption that no such stories exist now, or have existed in the past...that genre writers haven't been using any "themes and style" of literary writing. (I've just read a book on detective fiction by P.D. James that makes hash of that presumption.)
"Genre books written by literary writers are different than those written by authors who have always embraced and exemplified that genre." Really? Well, there is that matter of plot: it can take literary writers a long time to figure out what plot is and how to construct one. But otherwise? The writer mentions someone who annoys me because he teaches creative writing at my alma mater. In an alumni magazine interview when he first came, he spoke of taking five years to write a novel as a "hard working serious writer's" pace. And when he decided to do a big fat vampire book, he said (in another interview) that it was to please his little daughter. Speaking of patronizing.)
I've read one of this person's literary novels. Although "style" is supposed to be the crowning glory of literary writing, his was...to my genre-tainted eye...somewhat below the middle level of genre. Dull and pedestrian, in fact. Clunky in places. I kept having to restrain myself from using a red pencil on it. It had the requisite (for literary fiction coming out of a particular American school) characters so bland that they did not achieve even the dubious structural integrity of cardboard, being more of the lukewarm porridge sort, and offered the reader no reason to care what happened to them (since they were mostly passive and had things happening to them, rather than active and kicking life's tires.)
The fact is that genre writers--and I would argue particularly female genre writers--do not get credit for what they do that could be considered "literary" (a few exceptions, yes, but there are more good female writers than get the nod from Olympus.)
So, yeah, I react badly to the patronizing tone, too.
E
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44675 is a reply to message #44674 ] |
Mon, 05 September 2011 00:07 |
 |
Stardancer
Messages: 182
Registered: April 2011
Location: Florida, USA |
Senior Member |
|
|
| EMoon wrote on Sun, 04 September 2011 23:32 |
Statements like "the future seems to be stories which combine the pacing and plots of genre with the themes and style of literary writing" come from a presumption that no such stories exist now, or have existed in the past...that genre writers haven't been using any "themes and style" of literary writing.
|
I was trying to figure out how to say (more or less politely) what I thought about that article, but I think EMoon said it for me. Many, many of the books I love best are one "genre" or another, but I love them for their great writing, not for the...I dunno, "commercial" factor that this author seems to think all genre is.
Speaking of which, I think she's demeaning her audience. Or people who read in general. What is wrong with reading for fun, rather than edification? If I read a book for school and enjoyed it, I learned a lot more from it than if I didn't. I also took writing classes with other young, aspiring authors, and the ones with Great Literary Aspirations tended to give me a headache. There was, at least for me, an element of "I don't care how experimental and groundbreaking your style is, I don't understand it and I'm pretty sure the rest of the class is only pretending that they did." (The girl who wrote the best stories created dystopian worlds populated by robots, strange animals and mutant humans with character.)
Besides, what about all those books we call "classics" today but that were once genre? Or still could be genre? The Lord Peter Wimsey books (Dorothy L. Sayers). Narnia. And, of course, Tolkien.
|
|
| |
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44679 is a reply to message #44671 ] |
Mon, 05 September 2011 01:18 |
|
looking at the image - i think its a couple of things, one is the DOF - Depth of Field - isnt quite deep enuf - if you look at the first chick the bars and its eye are in focus but its body is a bit blurred, looks like small DOF and given it appears to be in doors or a bit dark that makes sense
the other thing about pixellation is on looking at image size it says its been SUPER CROPPED - so if you make the image tiniest file format possible then that can make it look pixelated on viewing if you try to make the picture bigger - by minimising the file size its taking all the detail in the image out
kinda like a jigsaw puzzle - if you took every second piece out you could still squidge it together to look like an image from a distance, but if you lay it all out and look at it close up you see the gaps? make sense?
upshot - dont shrink the file size quite so extremely when cropping the images, that chick file was 156 kb which is tiny - stick to around 5-600 kb and you will be fine and get a better looking image
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44680 is a reply to message #44674 ] |
Mon, 05 September 2011 03:29 |
Kim A
Messages: 117
Registered: August 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada |
Senior Member |
|
|
| EMoon wrote on Sun, 04 September 2011 20:32 |
Well, there is that matter of plot: it can take literary writers a long time to figure out what plot is and how to construct one.
|
*grin*
And ditto to everything else you said.
The funniest line in the whole article was, "Once they get the hang of genre – which can be a steep learning curve as they give themselves a crash course in learning how to plot – they end up having fun with the idea."
I think that says everything there is to say about the relative merits of "genre" vs "literary" fiction, whether the author intended it to come out that way or not. No plot = no story, and without story all you have is someone beating you over the head with cleverness.
It was the only lullaby she would ever sing, and it was sung in Hell. --Laini Taylor
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44682 is a reply to message #44658 ] |
Mon, 05 September 2011 04:08 |
Kim A
Messages: 117
Registered: August 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada |
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's a great article that explains how the Modernists created the whole concept of "literary fiction" in the first place.
It was the only lullaby she would ever sing, and it was sung in Hell. --Laini Taylor
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44685 is a reply to message #44658 ] |
Mon, 05 September 2011 08:52 |
|
*reads article*
*eyebrow*
Right. What you and EMoon said.
Smooshes!
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44686 is a reply to message #44679 ] |
Mon, 05 September 2011 09:10 |
 |
Robin
Messages: 6004
Registered: September 2008
Location: England |
Senior Member
[Hellgoddess] |
|
|
Okay, I know what depth of field is, so I sort of know what you're saying. Is this an actual *setting*? I thought . . . er, I think I thought . . . it was a result of other stuff . . . which, okay, I clearly am not setting correctly.
. . . But why could I super-crop photos from my old, far less fancy camera, with better results? In this particular case yes, this is inside a shed, and although it's only three sided so there's lots of sunlight to the human eye, it's darkish by camera terms (and for obvious reasons I didn't want to use a flash). But when I crop well lit outdoor stuff it STILL looks pixelly.
Thanks for the bothering you're doing!
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44699 is a reply to message #44686 ] |
Tue, 06 September 2011 03:00 |
CathyR
Messages: 575
Registered: July 2009
Location: NW England |
Senior Member |
|
|
Okay, I know what depth of field is, so I sort of know what you're saying. Is this an actual *setting*? I thought . . . er, I think I thought . . . it was a result of other stuff . . . which, okay, I clearly am not setting correctly.
DOF is not a setting as such, it's affected by other things you choose to set. It largely depends on the aperture, the Av setting. The wider the aperture (the lower the Av number), the shallower the DOF (ie a very narrow plane of focus). The narrower the aperture (the higher the Av setting), the greater the DOF, ie a much greater depth of focus from front to back.
But you probably knew that anyway ...
. . . But why could I super-crop photos from my old, far less fancy camera, with better results? ... when I crop well lit outdoor stuff it STILL looks pixelly.
That I'm afraid I'm not sure about. Have you got your camera set to take the optimum quality images - large, fine (or ultrafine) jpegs? Is the ISO setting as low as it can be, eg 100 for bright daylight? High ISO = poor colour quality = lots of noise and pixellation when heavily cropped.
Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly.
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44701 is a reply to message #44686 ] |
Tue, 06 September 2011 04:28 |
|
DOF is related to the other settings, and its a little complicated (of course)
The wider open the lens (ie the lower the F number F2 etc) the shallower the DOF. And the reverse is true - so F8-11 is a good average range to shoot in for every day stuff.
Some landscape shooters shoot F16-22 to get the miles of DOF needed.
It also relates to how far the camera is away from the object (I only discovered that one myself recently) which is quite tricky and therefore necessitates you getting as close to the desired subject in lower light conditions.
Re the pixellation - they looked like they were cropped fairly heavily which doesnt help. It will also depend on the ISO setting - if you shoot on auto ISO in low light it will probably up it and anything above 800 on most cameras is pretty noticeable.
It will also depend on what quality the camera is shooting at as well - for JPG you want it on Ultrafine or its equivalent. Personally I shoot the largest image size but you dont have to for web images - if you are never likely to print or view at full size then a med size might suit - will give a smaller file size but everything will be a bit smaller when you crop it too.
Never have I wanted to jump on an plane and zoom over to fix it for you more
The key components for a quality image out of any digital camera are
- the amount and brightness of light (which affects everything else)
- the shutter speed you use in relation to the speed of the subject
- the aperture (affects DOF and shutter speed)
- the ISO amount (in lower light need higher iso)
All 4 things are deeply interlinked so you have to balance them all for it to work. In normal bright static shots this isnt hard, the camera will do the heavy lifting.
Its where you move to the thin end of the bell curve for any of these it becomes a more involved process - low light, fast moving objects etc
Hopefully that makes sense - I can recommend an excellent book for a photography newbie The New Manual of Photography by John Hedgecoe - available in hardback and a lite edition in PB
http://www.amazon.com/New-Manual-Photography-John-Hedgecoe/d p/0789496372/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
I also STRONGLY recommend the Digital Field Guide to x Camera series - and they do all sorts of P&S as well as DSLR - they help explain WHAT the settings do and WHY you need to set it a certain way. Rather than a tiny manual that lists the functions and thats about it.
|
|
|
| Re: Chick chick chick [message #44731 is a reply to message #44693 ] |
Wed, 07 September 2011 14:27 |
PamAdams
Messages: 248
Registered: May 2010 |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
It's a 1-hour interview with Lev Grossman, who wrote a book called "The Magician" and its sequel, "The Magician King." I haven't read either.
|
| Quote: |
That's the same guy who wrote the article linked above
|
And who just won the John W. Campbell Award for Best New* Writer at this year's Worldcon. (I've purchased The Magicians, but not yet read it)
*New to the genre+
+Oooh- my own footnote!
|
|
|
| |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 22 16:23:21 EDT 2013
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.11169 seconds |
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
