move around so fast I can't catch my breath.
Today it's photography interspersed with Cherokee, music, food, tea,
wine, and beads. A few years ago it was computers interspersed with
language, music, painting, archery, and beads. Before that, it was
computers, beads, swimming, language, music, and drawing. Of course
writing was always in there but depending on how many things I'm doing
at once and such, that waxes and wanes with the tides.
Anywho, the problem is that I don't know what I truly wish to focus on
in order to learn one thing inside and out. I'll never get there with
computers because computers change all the time and are so
multi-application that they just add further problems to my
decision-making processes (which have never been great anyway). So I've
accepted that computers are simply my mainstay and outlet to further
creativity, a tool, if you will.
I have one major interest right now that was limited by experience and
knowledge. Now it is primarily limited by finances. Photography. Last
night, my mom sent me this cool website (below for your viewing
pleasure) and said, "I bet you're jealous 'cause he's better than you."
http://www.jimoreillyphoto.com/entry/portland-observatory-portland-maine
That particular shot is the one that started ME on a rampage. I don't
think he's better than me at all. I think he has far superior equipment
than I do for starters, and he has been in or found situations where
these photos were possible (such as those in Ireland and Scotland).
Some of his work, I could have composed better, some I could have done
just as well if I'd been there with him, and some I couldn't do
regardless because I don't have the equipment to do so.
I have been increasingly (and painfully) aware that my camera, as
versatile as it is, IS LIMITED. There is a REASON as to why there are
so many choices for cameras, lenses, filters, and lights where
photography is concerned. I chose my camera based on its practical use
as the most versatile, able camera available to me at the time I bought
it. But there is no camera or lens that can do it all. So, the
frustration I have been increasingly aware of the past year or two has
not been due to my inability to figure out HOW to get my camera to shoot
something like Dale does, it's due to the limitations I've been running
into. Dale's been telling me this all along but I think on some level I
wanted to believe that I could push this camera beyond its limits and
fake the images I've been seeking. (Not working too well.)
Well, Dale's ladybug on the Dew can got me quite flustered. Watching
him shoot a bumblebee that wouldn't sit still ticked me off because I
could hear his shots, wham, wham, wham, wham, while mine was going, "You
want what now? Oh, that? Uh... where'd it go?" Then, Mom sent me the
moon behind the Portland Observatory in Maine. Okay, that's the last
straw. There ain't no way in photographic he** that I could ever do
anything remotely like that with my S5. NO WAY. Further, I had an
inkling that I knew what was missing, but I wasn't sure. "Dale?!
HOW?!" I asked.
Telephoto. Well, but of course. After some reading and additional
lessons by my favourite amateur-photographer-husband, I have a basic but
stronger understanding of how optics work together with the camera to
create results. First, the focal length is important. My S5 goes from
6.0-72.0 mm. I've learned that the 6mm is the piece that permits me the
macro shots I so much adore. The 72mm permits the distance shots that
come in handy when focusing on something farther away and bringing them
up close. What I somehow failed to grasp until today is that the 12x on
my camera means absolutely nothing other than to show how versatile my
camera is. It's simply the max focal length divided by the min focal
length. Without the 12x, if I were knowledgeable enough at the time, I
would have looked at 6-72mm and thought, "Oh, cool! I can take macros
and still get some distance shots with the same lens!" It seems so
obvious to me now. But I cannot get the moon in the same detail as a
building right in front of it. Why? I don't have a lens with a high
enough focal length. Dale said 200mm would do it, but I was reading
that 300mm and higher is best. I know such lenses are longer, heavier,
and of course, far more expensive (the first 300mm Nikkor I looked at
was over 5K). What I didn't understand is why they could focus on a
building AND a very VERY far away moon and bring it right in. I was, as
usual, overcomplicating things.
It's an illusion.
The higher focal length allows you to see things as if they were right
there in front of you, rather than a ways away. It's like a telescope
that lets you see Jupiter. You're still just as far away but suddenly
there it is, clear as day. That means you can go sit atop a little hill
somewheres a half-mile away from the Observatory and still "see" it with
the camera as if it's right there. It also means you can zoom in better
on the moon and its little potholes. But why is the moon so big behind
that Observatory? It's got nothing to do with the camera at this point,
but rather, the perspective. The further from the two items you go
(moon and building), the larger the moon appears compared to the
observatory. Despite the distance between the two objects remaining
constant, the distance between you and them increasing affects how they
are perceived. I think this is all physics or something else I never
understood, but I do understand that this is why telephoto lenses allow
such shots. If you have to be far away from both to get this shot, then
a 72mm lens won't be able to get the shot because it can't make the
building large enough to be worth bothering with.
Which leaves me muttering obscenities to myself, because I can't
*afford* a lens that would permit this. This has, however, heightened
my desire for a DSLR, because I see more uses for one than merely
getting unfocused backgrounds behind my subject of choice or faster
startup and shutter speeds.
Gah. If I weren't so darned responsible, I'd be bankrupt in six months.
The reason I began this post is because it's bothering me that I don't
play more keyboard. I _want_ to play more keyboard, but just looking at
it makes me feel irritable and cranky. Why? I used to get this
sensation of awe just by touching and looking at the keys. The feeling
of wonder and elegance would wash over me like baby powder both soothing
and sticking to a baby's butt. For the past several months I've been
wondering if perhaps it's because I've outgrown my Casio to the point
where I don't want to hear its sound. Could it be? Or am I just too
impatient to learn anything new? I keep telling myself it's the latter.
But this doesn't explain why I take so little pleasure in playing the
things I've got memorized. Well, that's probably because I'm bored with
those, I've played them so many times, I tell myself. But THAT doesn't
explain why it is that I find myself playing them - with excitement - on
the baby grand where my mother works. Or why I found myself drooling as
I played something on a higher-end keyboard at a store recently,
relishing the richer, deeper sound and the responsiveness of the keys.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that it's probably the
keyboard. My ears have been fine-tuning themselves over the years and
now they dislike the aging speakers of a 14-year-old keyboard.
Indeed. If I want to play keyboard any more, I'm going to have to get
rid of the old ones and buy myself a new one. The question for myself
right now is, do I do it right away, or wait until we can have a baby
grand? And if I get a baby grand down the road, will a small one
suffice? Or will I eventually want a larger or better one? I'm so
tired of replacing things as I outgrow them. A large part of me wants
to just save and buy the best up front. But what if I didn't stick with
it? What if I got bored? I might as well just find something better
right now, and merely upgrade in the future when I feel the utter
necessity of it. This must be why people lease cars.
Anywho, I've got pictures to go through. Ciao.
~nv
No comments:
Post a Comment