What a Ratio!

Some mathematics

I just got finished taking and editing some pictures of a couple of bouquets that my wife got for her birthday last week.



As I uploaded them from the camera to the PC, I noticed that I was on about picture 6,500. I also know I've reset the counter a couple of times (not intentionally, it just took me a few uploads to realize that the camera resets the counter at times, which I've now turned off). I'll bet I still haven't shot quite 7,000 pictures with the camera though.

So lets say I've shot 6,750. I got the camera at the end of August, which was 8 months ago. That's less than 1,000 pictures taken per month. In fact, it's about 843 pictures per month.

I wonder how that compares to other people?

I also have posted around 270 "finished" pictures to my gallery (it's uploading my new pics right now so I don't know the exact number). I think I have more to go. So let's say I may have 300 pictures that I consider good.

That would be 300 out of 6,750 pictures taken, for a ratio of about 4%. I was hoping I was getting closer to 10%!

And, if you grant me 300 pictures that I think are good, and note that I've spent roughly $3,000 on my camera gear, that means each "good" picture cost about $10.

I don't know if they're worth it on a per-picture basis, but I know that when I've gone through my pictures again I remember the places, the times of day, the peaceful feelings, having my dog with me, the drive to and from the location, etc. The older I get, the harder those memories are to relive on their own so for me the pictures are priceless!

My latest post processing workflow

Keep Evolving and Minimizing

I posted earlier that I've started using jAlbum software to host my pictures in an online picture gallery. You can see the gallery at:

http://www.RandyMorter.com/Photos

The new software has caused me to re-visit, and ultimately, re-edit a large number of my pictures that I had previously posted elsewhere such as Facebook and Flickr. I reached this decision for a few reasons, some pictures didn't have my watermark on them, some pictures appeared to be sharpened too much, some I just wanted to crop or fix some other things in them such as stray branches from a bush.

If you look at my gallery, one of the groups of photos that I spent some time on are the Wildlife > Out of Africa pictures. Out of the 44 images currently posted (I've got more to do for this folder), there may have been 4 or 5 that I didn't re-edit.

I actually enjoyed re-editing them, and I believe they look better than the original versions I posted. I found that my tastes now are to do as little as possible to the image, and to let the image speak for itself more. Sure, I'll bump up the contrast, saturation, and sharpness, but not nearly to the point I was before. I want the picture to pop as much as possible but not at the expense of adding noise or jagged edges or "pixilation".

For my new post processing, I was able to do all of my editing in Nikon CaptureNX 2 - and didn't use Adobe Photoshop at all. Photoshop is great for editing an individual photo, don't get me wrong. But, I don't always want to do a lot of intensive editing.

My typical work flow is probably not much different than anyone else uses, but if you haven't looked into it much, I'll describe how I worked on this last batch of images:

Prior to the actual editing I sort out the images. In my "librarian", Nikon ViewNX 2, I look through the images in a folder. If it's a new folder, that is, one that I've freshly uploaded from my camera, I go through all of the images and rank them. If the picture is one that I don't think I'll use at all, I don't give it a ranking. In ViewNX 2, I use the "stars" which go from 0 to 5. If I think the picture is okay, and one that I want to edit and publish, I usually give it a 3. If I think it's really good (good composure, good color saturation, good focus), I'll give it a 4 or 5.

The intent of this is to sort out the images that I want to process further, generally using Nikon CaptureNX 2. While I go through the images, I know that I can generally deal with the color, brightness, noise, etc., in CaptureNX 2 without any issues. What I can't always determine is whether a soft (out of focus) image can be sharpened enough. I often adjust the sharpness in ViewNX 2 to see if it is okay with a sharpness setting of 5 to 7 in ViewNX 2. If it still looks soft, I won't usually bother with it beyond that point.

Once I've gone through the folder and have the pictures ranked, ViewNX 2 (as well as other image library software) allows you to filter to only the pictures that have a certain ranking. Using that feature, I can hide the pictures I don't plan to do anything to, and see the ones that I do want to edit or publish. Then, I open each one in CaptureNX 2 for the post processing, including at a minimum, the JPEG conversion.

In Nikon CaptureNX 2, I generally do the following steps listed below, generally in the following order, because it makes the most sense. By straightening and cropping first, I don't waste time on any of the other edits in areas of the image that are no longer visible IF straightening or cropping are performed. Sharpening should almost always be performed as the final step (and I always do it as the final step). Beyond that, the work flow is basically following the options in the order presented in CaptureNX 2.

1. Straightening - use this to make the image normalized - horizons or other items that should obviously be horizontal or vertical are adjusted as necessary to get them horizontal or vertical.
2. Cropping - use this to enhance focus on the subject or eliminate distracting elements that aren't adding to the image composition. When cropping I look at what the remaining portion of the image is, often using the built in "rule of thirds" grid to guide my crop, and I also look at what will be removed from the picture to ensure it is really of limited value. Note that after doing this I start trying to do more of this in the camera - there's no sense wasting pixels on things you're going to throw away any more than it makes sense to only capture half of the desired picture.
3. Spot removal - my little lens has spots in it that I have to remove in post processing (I need to have the lens repaired I think - my older pictures don't have the problem). But there are other times as well that I want to remove a spot. CaptureNX 2 has a great blemish removal tool. I use it for both camera/lens issues (dust spots) as well as some corrections to the image itself. For example, in some of my shots from the Out of Africa Wildlife park, I removed animal droppings. Yeah, they naturally occurred but that doesn't mean people want to see them!
4. Image adjustments
1. White Balance - I often try the software's automatic calculation to see if I like it better. Generally I shoot with the camera white balance set to "Auto" and since it was actually at the location when the picture was shot, it's usually the best. But sometimes the PC will calculate something a bit different and it may look better (or at least different).
2. Picture Mode - this is the overall setting for contrast, saturation, brightness, etc., and includes multiple individual settings. In my Nikon D3200, I use the "Vivid" setting or an even more "Vivid" setting, and I've got a "Vivid-Randy" setting that I've adjusted in the CaptureNX 2 software. I have been accused of over-saturating my images. But I always use one of these. If the picture appears too exaggerated, or if it appears flat, I may try a different option for this setting but I generally don't change this.
3. Noise Reduction - this is where I have issues. I have the noise reduction turned off in the camera, mainly because I've lost shots due to the noise reduction processing (specifically, this occurred while I was trying to shoot meteors in December, 2013). So, I need to usually use it in the PC with the CaptureNX 2 software. I tend to use the middle option in CaptureNX 2, the new version. I don't like the "Better 2013" noise reduction. I think it creates more mottled images than it corrects. The "Better" or middle option produces better results, IMO. I tend to use about 5-10 percent, with the sharpness at 5. Once I've adjusted it, though, I may need to come back to this after sharpening is applied. I think that sharpening and noise reduction often have to be worked together to get the best combination of both.
4. Level adjustments (called "Quick Fix" in CaptureNX 2) - this is where you can set the color / level curves, limits, contrast, highlight and shadow enhancement, etc. I generally bump the contrast to 10, the saturation might get another bit of a bump like from 3 to 8 or so. Then I adjust both the highlight and shadow enhancements to taste. Highlight enhancement will attempt to regain detail in the bright areas of an image, generally causing them to appear darker and hopefully have some more detail (like being able to see more contour in clouds). Shadow enhancement does the same thing for the dark areas, attempting to show more detail in the shadows resulting in an overall brightening of them. I don't want to loose all of the difference between the light and dark areas compared to the mid-light areas though so this is something that needs to be done on an image by image basis.
5. Light Control - I've started using the "Auto Levels" function a lot. On the one hand I'd like to think that I'm in control of all aspects of my image processing and this seems like cheating. On the other hand, Nikon has more experience than I do in picture processing (shocker!) and brightness IS something that can be calculated. I very often like how this setting enhances my pictures without me having to do much. There are some times that it's too much, however, and it ends up blowing out the whites. In these cases, if there are some areas that I do like, I will use a mask to only apply the changes to part of the picture. If I want the effect applied to the entire picture, but just less of it, I can adjust the opacity of the adjustment to blend it as desired.
6. Additional localized level control - if I still want an area to be lighter or darker I may apply another light control using a mask to only apply it to a small area of the image. Since one control is either lightening or darkening, if I need both I'll either use "D-Lighting" or separate brightening and darkening adjustments.
7. Sharpening - I use the CaptureNX 2 Unsharp Mask function to apply sharpening. Generally I'll start with 20% sharpening, 5% radius, and 1 pixel threshold. I find this to be a pleasing setting to my eyes and not usually overdone. But, I also will bump the sharpening up higher depending on the picture and I find I can usually go up to 50% or higher. In these cases I usually need to go back and forth between the Unsharp Mask settings and the noise reduction.
8. I save the edits as a .NEF (raw format) and then as a full size .JPEG in my "Publish" folder, as I described in an earlier post. Then I use Adobe Lightroom to batch edit them by superimposing my logo and exporting them to a new "FullSize" folder.

And that's about all I tried to do with this re-editing batch..

Three thoughts RE: Post Processing

The Good

 
I have read about how other people organize their folder structure when dealing with their photos, and I've incorporated various ideas and have had a good structure, in my opinion, as an initial stab.
 

I use Nikon ViewNX2 and its Transfer software to import and manage my folders. I also have Adobe Bridge and Adobe Elements 12, but I prefer the Nikon software. It will read from the storage device (I actually pull the card(s) out of the camera and insert them into SD card readers built directly into my Windows 7 PC) and will copy to two folders with the one process. I copy to my internal hard drive for my working copy as well as to an external USB hard drive for a back up. At the same time, the software will re-name and re-number the files (using something more useful like "CaveSpring_20140410_001.NEF").
 
If desired, I can also add EXIF data or even delete the originals from the SD card. I rarely do the deletion - that way I have the originals until the copy process is done. Before I go shooting again I reformat the SD card in the camera to help make sure it's formatted the way the camera likes it.
 
The problem I've had with my folder structure until recently is how to handle the images after post processing and I think I've settled on a decent structure. In each of the main image sub-folders, I create a sub-folder I label "Publish". This is where I store the images after post processing, whether I've used Nikon CaptureNX 2, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom, or Adobe Elements. This folder contains all of the images I've touched and declared ready for others to see. But, they're not quite done at that point...
 
I've created a logo that I put on all of my images (or try to). Adobe Lightroom makes it very easy to apply the logo in a batch process (BTW, I don't know how they do it in Lightroom since Lightroom doesn't support layers through the user interface) and to apply other processing if desired, such as sharpening and resizing. What I normally do, then, is run all of the images in the "Publish" folder into one or two additional folders: 1) one sub-folder under the "Publish" folder that I call "FullSize" which I use Lightroom for adding the logo and nothing else, and 2) another sub-folder that I call "2048" which I use Lightroom for adding the logo, applying a small amount of sharpening, and resizing so that the maximum size of either the width or height is 2048 pixels. I use this folder to store images that I post on Facebook or on this blog.
 
My top level folders are generally broken down into a high level subject such as "Arizona", "Family", "Pets", or "Music". Under that I'll have a more specific sub-folder with perhaps additional sub-folders separated by date. For example, I've been to Dead Horse Ranch State Park a number of times so I would have folders similar to the following, including my "Publish" and sub-folders:
 
<drive:/>Pictures
                    Arizona
                             Dead Horse Ranch State Park
                                        Dead Horse Ranch State Park 20130828
                                                 Publish
                                                         2048
                                                         FullSize
                                        Dead Horse Ranch State Park 20130915
                                                 Publish
                                                         2048
                                                         FullSize
                                        Dead Horse Ranch State Park 20131107
                                                 Publish
                                                         2048
                                                         FullSize

Note that it may be desirable to have additional folders under the Publish folder, for example, if you use special treatment for printing you could have a folder using the printers name.

This structure  more readily separates the original images from the edited images so I don't have to wade through folders with hundreds of files trying to figure out which ones I've selected for publishing or otherwise doing something useful with.

The OKAY (not so good, not so bad)

Once I get the post processing done, I've settled on trying to use "jAlbum" software for hosting my own image gallery as a place to show them off. It is pretty popular and after trying a number of the freebie sites, like flickr.com, jAlbum offers things I want. Specifically, it supports GPS information embedded in images by displaying an image on a Google map corresponding to where the picture was taken. I think that is cool.

The software has a nice look (I'm using the "Turtle" skin) and works pretty well on multiple devices by resizing the images, etc. It has a good amount of functionality such as thumbnails, the google maps, and a shopping cart.

However, it's inexpensive and it seems to work accordingly. Like a lot of software these days, there is very little help documentation available. My copy seems to hang up frequently when I'm uploading files to my host. I can't do much of anything else on the PC when it's running. It doesn't seem to like images or folders with names that include spaces - which I don't mind, but I wish there was some sort of documentation that let you know about this instead of having to figure out why some images cause the software to abort.

I see things that make me realize that it is still kind of a hack bit of software, such as dialog boxes saying it's processing item 5 of 0 (zero). The timers it tries to display are as bad as most Microsoft timers - it'll say 1 hour remaining for an hour then it'll be finished without showing any of the shorter durations. I know that's hard software to write (especially software that is dependent on an Internet connection), and maybe the better statistic is something like the number of bytes or files processed.

There are other things like dialog boxes that display at their default size but command buttons are only half displayed. Settings that can't be set (like the URL for the website in the "Upload/Manage" dialog (what kind of name or English is that?).

I don't think the authors are native English speakers, which is fine, but it'd be nice if they'd found an English speaker to do translations or grammar checks, perhaps pay them by giving them a free copy of the software. I'm sure there would be takers out there somewhere.

I paid my $40 and I'll use it but I won't brag about it or advertise for them.

You can see my site at: http://www.RandyMorter.com/photos

The Bad

One final note about post processing. While I enjoy getting my images ready to show to the world, I've found over the last couple of months that sitting at my PC using the mouse so extensively causes me pain in my right shoulder (I'm right handed and use the mouse with my right hand).

I have to take a break at least every hour or so. I don't even want to spend more than maybe 4 hours total doing post processing in order to keep my shoulder out of the red zone. I never thought that taking pictures would cause pain!

Critique my early picture

Everyone's a critic

I'm on a roll today I guess. I just posted the exposure blog, and started looking to re-edit some of my old pictures to post on my new online gallery (more about that later) and this picture just struck me as an example of the things I was talking about in the exposure blog.
 

 
Since this embedded image isn't easy to see the details, here's a link to the full size, un-edited image:
 
http://www.poppavein.com/images/Arizona/Examples/dsc_0017.jpg
 
It's about 10M so it'll take a few seconds to download.
 
This picture was taken on 8/24/2013 at 7:10 PM. I took it at Dead Horse Ranch State Park, near Cottonwood, AZ. I got my camera on 8/12/2013 so I'd had the camera for 12 days - less than 2 weeks.
 
I used the VR 18-55mm kit lens with the following settings:
 
Focal Length: 34mm
Focus Mode: Auto Focus (AF-A)
Vibration Reduction: On
Aperture: f/5
Shutter Speed: 1/15 s
ISO: Auto / ISO 400
 
This picture does not have any out-of-camera post processing applied, including sharpening.

Let the bullets fly

 
What struck me about this is a few things...

1. I believe this was actually shot on my cheap Velbon tripod. That ended up resulting in the tree in the lower right corner not being too soft (blurry). It would (and does) look better with sharpening applied. This is one of the few good things about this pic.
2. I do like the colors. I've read that Canon and Nikon have different processing that results in different results in the way colors are presented. Since I didn't shoot this same scene with a Canon using the same settings, I can't directly compare the different cameras. I've read from people who do use both that some prefer the Nikon colors to the Canon colors. I don't have an opinion on that, but I do know I like the colors in this picture. Another good thing.
3. The thing I've come to dislike the most about this shot and what I try to avoid now (as does my mentor Jon), is shooting a scenery shot with some of it out of focus. I don't like the way shots like this look, and especially a shot like this where most of the shot is distant but the foreground is what is in focus (or close to it).
   
   Now I try to use the smallest aperture possible on a shot like this, but backed off one or two settings from the max. For example, depending on the focal length, this lens has a minimum aperture of f/22 to f/36. I'd guess at 34mm, somewhere in the middle, I could have chosen an aperture of around f/28 instead of the f/5 I used, and then the foreground, middle, and distant subjects would have all been in focus.
4. It bothers me when, in Nikon ViewNX 2, I see that the selected focus points are where there is nothing of any interest. Here's a screen capture from ViewNX 2 showing where the auto focus point was set. Why Randy, why? What the heck was I focusing on or using for the exposure in that red rectangle? Again, I'd just had the camera less than 2 weeks but was I really that ignorant? I must have been - here's the proof!
   
5. I also am not thrilled with the composition. I like this one better that some of the others from that same time - I like how I put the tree in the lower left. But I wish I had a touch more of the rest of the hill top, maybe not quite filling up a third of the bottom, but closer to it. This shot makes me think it was an accident that any of the hill top is in the picture. Plus, with the same level of zoom, the interesting parts of the cloud formations give more room to tilt the camera down a bit. Alternatively, I am not against keeping the amount of sky above the clouds, so if the camera was tilted down I'd try zooming out just a bit.
6. I see that this is shot at ISO 400. I don't mind the noise in the sky, but I don't like it in the hill top or the tree. Note that there is no out-of-camera noise reduction applied, but I just don't like having to deal with noise. I'd rather bump this down to ISO 200 at least and try a longer exposure, especially since, as I recall, there was little or no wind that day.

The Adventure Continues

It was interesting to find this picture from less than a year ago and to note what I'd do differently now, and almost without thinking about it. It's cool realizing that there is the likelihood that in a year I may find images I'm taking now and think to myself "what the heck was I thinking?". Photography is like any other artistic adventure - there's always room for learning and improving!

Learning this exposure thing

REFTRA

Back in a previous life, when I was in the Navy aboard a ship, we underwent periodic ship-wide training. This was a normal procedure following significant ship yard level updates. It was meant to refresh the crew with ship level systems and procedures. It was referred to as "REFTRA" for Refresher Training.

I woke up early this morning at about 2:30, let the dogs out to take care of things, but couldn't get back to sleep. Instead of just laying there, I decided to read, as I often do. I had my "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson book under the bed (not my normal library location, but I guess it's been there for a while) and grabbed it.

I remember the first time I read it, perhaps 6 months ago, when I was just starting my photography adventure. As I mentioned before, I had some experience with videography, but it was still a bit of learning curve to get a grasp of the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. As I was re-reading the book this morning, it all seemed so obvious and hard to imagine someone wouldn't know what he was talking about.

I guess that means that some of the technical aspects of photograpy have become ingrained. I won't go so far as to say "second nature", because upon this second reading I was still picking things up.

ISO is my foundation

One statement Mr. Peterson makes that stuck a nerve with me is that higher ISO's result in less color saturation or contrast being recorded. I think I've noticed that but never made the connection.
I mainly use ISO 100, sometimes 200, even less do I use 400, and I've only tried any of the higher ISO's just because they're there and to see what they look like. But when I can, I use 100. I even wish I had a ISO setting of 50 available!

Because I don't do much at higher ISO's I probably haven't noticed the reduced color saturation or contrast as much. But it makes sense - and I would guess that shorter exposure times also do the same thing. It's similar to if you look at something (like a computer monitor), close your eyes, and then open and close them again as fast as you can. You'll see a quick flash of the object, and some level of color and contrast.

If you try it again but keeping your eyes open longer, you'll get more of a sense of the color and contrast. You might even see the image burned into your eyes while looking at your closed eyelids.
With less light sensitivity, that is, with a lower ISO, the sensor (film or digital) must be exposed to the subject longer, causing more saturation and contrast to be recorded proportionally.

In addition to increasing the noise level when the ISO setting is increased, it just makes sense to try to always use the lowsest ISO setting possible. I'm glad I read Mr. Peterson's statement again - it made me think about another level of ISO factoring in the exposure equation.

So while I rarely change off of my ISO of 100, if I do, it's the first thing that gets set, followed by the shutter speed and aperture. But I always aim for the lowest ISO setting I can get.

Here's a link to an explanation of ISO from Nikon: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g9mqnyb1/understanding-iso-sensitivity.html#!

Aperture

I didn't read much this morning on aperture settings. It was mentioned how there is a sweet spot (for a particular lens), and how f/22 can give you a good front to back sharpness in your image. I know from my prior reading that he does discuss focal length in more detail.

For the pictures I seem to take more of, primarily landscapes, I seem to fluctuate between what I think is my lens "sweet spot" of f/8 to f/11, up to the smallest aperture available such as f/22, depending on the zoom or focal length chosen.

I've never really tried shooting a test photo with the different aperture settings to see if the lens was sharper at one aperture vs. a different aperture. I should do that...

I have read about my lenses and it seems that different people report different values. I tend to think my sweet spots are in the f/8 to f/11 range because that's what seems to be very typical.

I have started trying to avoid the extreme ends of the aperture range, but it's easier to do at the small aperture than the large end. I don't have a lens that's bigger than f/5.6 (I want one, but, well, they're expensive!).

There are some images, though, that you want to shoot with a specific aperture setting, especially if you want a large aperture (e.g., f/5.6 ) to limit the depth of field, but it's bright daylight. In that case, it may be necessary to "cheat" by adding filters. On the other hand, if you want a small aperture but it's dark out, it may be necessary to bump up the ISO (I get nervous doing this, at least on my camera).

Shutter Speed

The shutter speed is the last thing I set, and on my camera, it's the easiest setting to change. For ISO or aperture settings I have to push an additional button. I have a hard time hitting the aperture button without looking at it for some reason, and that means pulling my eye away from the view finder (I rarely use the LCD for taking pictures, BTW). The ISO button is even worse - I have the programmable button normally accessed with your left hand on the front of the camera set up to control ISO. This is one of the disadvantages of the entry level camera - fewer dedicated buttons or controls.

I like taking the slower shutter speed images for most of what I do. I almost always am using my good, sturdy Manfrotto tripod so I don't even really think about the impact of shutter speed. Unless it's windy anyway. It's only when I'm shooting hand held that I think much about shutter speed. And, it's where I have problems.

My hands aren't very steady and never have been as far back as I can remember (and that's back to the 1970's at least). I really have to try to get shutter speeds at least as fast as the common rule of thumb - 1 over the focal length (e.g., if your focal length is at 200 mm, you should get a shutter speed of at least 1 / 200 of a second).

If I can't get that shutter speed with the ISO and aperture I am trying to use, my choices are to change one or the other of those settings or to risk a soft (blurry) picture. Sometimes you just have to take the risk, such as when it's a picture that is fleeting and may not be around if you start futzing with other settings.

The very bottom line

Again, the last thing I want to change is to go to a higher ISO, again, on my camera. I've seen pictures other people have taken with the D3200 at higher ISO settings and they don't seem to have much noise in them. Either I'm not doing something that they are or I have a bad D3200 or who knows what. At this point, though, I understand that I have issues with noise, and often even at ISO 100. But I also know my noise issues increase at anything above ISO 400.

I have started buying into the idea that more megapixels in the sensor is not always a good thing, and that with fewer but larger cells on the sensor, especially for darker shooting conditions, might be a good thing. If nothing else, it's a reason to try a full frame camera with fewer megapixels!

I Got Everything

Go North Old Man

I took another camping and photo taking trip last weekend, staying at Cave Spring Campground in Oak Creek Canyon. The campground is on highway 89A, which runs between Sedona and Flagstaff in Arizona. It's a very beautiful area, heavily visited and photographed, including coverage by Arizona Highways Magazine.

I got up there on Thursday morning, 4/10/2014. I'd taken some time off in order to go up during the week so that I could claim a camp site. All of the sites that can be reserved are reserved, at least until into July. By then it's getting warm, even up there (roughly 5,400 feet elevation), and you might start finding some openings. Otherwise, you take your chances on the "first come, first serve" sites.

I had a mixed time up there - the place was great, it was great to get away, etc., but I have a hard time dealing with the elevation I'm sad to say. Too much time spent behind computer screens and not enough out walking. It took maybe an hour and a half to set up the camp site and I was worn out. That hampered me the whole time - do a little bit, get worn out.

That reaction to physical exertion does have a bit of an upside, however.

Stop and smell the flowers

I'm forced to slow down. Realizing that, I spend more time just looking around and taking in the scenery. That was a good thing! It didn't lead to better pictures, necessarily, but I did enjoy more of the details in what I was seeing, hearing, and breathing.

I really enjoy getting away from work and the associated technology I use as a software engineer. When I'm camping there is very little in the way of electronic technology other than my camera and it's associated goodies. And even then, while the camera IS electronic, it's a substitute for film, and as such it doesn't seem as much of a technological gadget as it does a picture taking device that has some electronics on it. Perhaps it's by virtue of having mechanical attachments such as interchangeable lenses, filters, and a tripod. I don't know, but that's the little bit of technology I have and it's so different than my other work an home technology that I don't mind it.

Sleeping in a tent with my dog in cool air, making a fire in the morning so I can brew coffee and roast a hot dog for breakfast, while inhaling fresh clean air, is a wonderful way to get reset as a human.

Then, it's off to take a picture...

Wrapping Up

I started getting into photography last August, 8 months ago. I've taken a number of camping trips since for the purpose of getting out and taking pictures. Every trip prior to this last trip has resulted in my desire for another or a different piece of photographic equipment. But not this last trip.
I had recently added a graduated neutral density filter to my equipment and tried it out during the trip. I liked the results. The picture turned out better than similar pictures had before under similar circumstances - shooting up a hill side where the top of the hill was in bright sunlight compared to the bottom. This time I don't have any complaints about the picture.

I used my tripod to it's full advantage - I had the center column adjusted to the horizontal position in order to take an extended shutter release image looking down into the creek with the camera hanging out over a bridge railing - the picture to the right is the result. I couldn't have taken this picture without my tripod. This is using my kit VR 18-55mm lens, 5 second exposure @ f/25, ISO 100.

I used my regular ND filters and polarizers. I used my sling to try to walk around and get some bird pics. I used my LowePro fanny pack all the time. I used my GPS and cube bubble level.

I didn't wish for anything, except a mild interest to try the "hard" graduated ND filter, but that's it. I would LIKE a few more things, like a prime lens and the new Tamron 150-600mm zoom, but there's nothing more I NEED. Well, except more time camping!

Musings

Garbage In - No Garbage Out

I am still here - just haven't shot any pictures or done anything noteworthy with my camera for a couple of weeks now...

I did go to a couple of local parks over the last two weekends, I just didn't take any pictures. My wife and I took our dogs out, mainly so our Pomeranian Alvin can see some more scenery before we loose him. And with four dogs between us, I just don't have much luck taking a camera too.

Last weekend we were by Phoenix International Raceway (PIR), where the NASCAR races happen. We were at the Gila and Salt River Meridian BLM preserve. I wish I could say it was pleasant but it was at best a mixed visit. Alvin enjoyed laying down in the cool river water. But the trash is despicable. I hate how people leave their garbage around that area. That's one of the reasons (garbage) that another area near me, the Tres Rios Wetlands, is no longer open to the public.

It's such a shame that inconsiderate people have to cause the rest of the population to suffer. I have a hard time dealing with stuff like that, being a military war vet. On the one hand, at one time I swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution which, to me, meant doing my part to protect my country and it's citizens from "evil-doers". On the other hand, when I see what some of those same citizens (and that's an assumption on my part - that the people dirtying up the landscape are truly citizens), I don't feel as much pride in having protected those folks.

If I had my way all the trash would be picked up and dumped on their front lawns. The problem is, they're probably renters in some slum area where the extra trash wouldn't be noticeable anyway. Perhaps if the trash were dumped in their car or on their bed they might get offended and maybe even realize what they're doing to what could be a very nice stretch of river.

Arizona has a fragile ecology. Maybe it's not much more fragile than some other places, but with the lack of rain or humidity, stuff just doesn't get removed or buried here. And it's hot for the generous people that go out and pick up trash left behind by the dregs. I just wish there were more fines or penalties for people who get caught littering. Wishful thinking, I imagine.

That's what makes me appreciate the places that aren't right in the Phoenix area. Those same low-lifes likely can't afford to drive to the more remote parks. I don't remember seeing one piece of trash at the Chiricahua National Monument.

Next Steps

Barring any new developments from my dog Alvin, I'm hoping to get up to the Flagstaff area this next weekend. I want to visit Walnut Canyon and Waputki as well as Lowell Observatory.