Update: I also posted this fix on Instructables which somehow made it to the front page as featured instructable! Go me!
For lens with wide zoom range, it’s not unusual that lens creep will happen sometime in its life. This phenomenon occurs as zoom ring loses friction and cannot hold the weight of the large front element. Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is one of those lenses that have this problem, and I just found perhaps the most basic solution.
How to avoid taking boring pictures at the most photographed place in the world? Go with unusual equipment! I really want to give Lensbaby a try at Disneyland. Result may not be crisp and pretty, but at least the trip will be more interesting, challenging and fun than usual.
In short, this theory is my own defense on why images on computer and LCD screen look better on dark background. This is where I found my images posted on Flickr and forums to look different from the same ones I posted on my photoblog.
Photography nowadays comes in 2 flavors: print and electric display (including lightbox display and slides). In the traditional form of print, the perception of imagery relies on ambient light source (such as sunlight) to reflect the image on the print to the eyes. For electronic display the need for ambient light becomes unnecessary as light of the LCD screen and slide projector substitute ambient light.
Now, how does this have to do with the choice of background color?
As light source already exists within the area of the image itself, any additional area of brightness on the screen wouldn’t be needed. This is why we always see lightbox advertisement or art display (for example, Jeff Wall) filling the whole lightbox as any white border will lessen the impact of the primary image. Seeing an electronic image on white background would be like seeing printed image while holding it up to the sun. Too much light from too many sources.
This is why dark background works. Dark area represent the edge of the lightbox that gives the image its full potential for visual impact as it helps our eyes to focus on the image.
Anyway, this is just another of my passing thoughts. I may have to revise this theory again.
Before I started my photoblog, Flickr was my photographic showcase. Whenever I wanted to show off my collection, I would point out to my Flickr site.
Well, not anymore.
This is perhaps my attempt to left my amateur self behind. After recent review of my own Flickr site, I was very disappointed to see works that don’t represent my current skills. Stuff like my Spirit Bears rampage that have no creative purpose but to be a record of my (rather embarrassing) obsession.
Apart from my own ancient collection that I dislike, there are so many other reasons to dislike Flickr.
To me, the bottom line is that Flickr is only good for casual use. It’s excellent for wide variety of communities and social connection. However, the lack of visual control and poor circle of critiques really sealed the fate for Flickr to be used professionally. I may consider Smugmug as my next move while off-loading my “epics” out of my Flickr.
Tough crowd! Yesterday I submitted my first photo from my photoblog to Onexposure, and predictably the first on got rejected without any comment.
Then I tried 2 more hopefully the miracle might happen. The second one got rejected even with a positive comment! Now, the third one passed the first phase of the screening process.
Guess what? I had to pull the best out of my portfolio material just to get that far!
So, I think I can call this a “taste test” experiment since I have no idea what kind of image people are looking for. I can see the artist-client relationship from this experience, and this scenario can definitely be used in the real world. I think I just started to love this site!
Update: All rejected! If this is compared to boxing it’d be like going from local ring to fight Mike Tyson. KO’d in 1st round.