New cameras, new possibilities

I have been taking pictures since 1965 and have had many cameras along the way. I still have the beat up old Minolta 101 that I used in high school, and perhaps 75 yards of the black and white film negatives that it produced. When the digital camera revolution arrived and I jumped in with a 1.3 megapixel Olympus. Today we have 24 megapixels or better and there seems to be an arms race among DSLR (digital single lens reflex) camera manufacturers like Nikon and Canon; they are adding more and better pixels. But there is a new technology that is gaining ground; mirrorless digital cameras. These have the advantage of not needing a mirror in them, which allows for a smaller and lighter camera with all of the image quality of the bigger and heavier DSLRs.

In the last year I have been experimenting with these new cameras and all of mine are made by Fuji. Wow! They are light and easy to carry and do many things that would have been thought to be miracles 40 years ago, but the bottom line is that the image quality is excellent. Back in the day (1974), my camera had two adjustments; shutter speed and aperture. Today one can alter any aspect of the four major contributors to the image; shutter speed, aperture, sensitivity to light and size and type of file created (.jpg or RAW). (The Photoshop wizards in the world like RAW files because they can make so many changes to them, but I have never learned to use Photoshop and don't really care.)

I am not ready to give up my big cameras, but I find this new world of mirrorless to be intriguing; it is the future. I took my Fujis to my local camera store and loaned them to the owner for a week. He liked them so much that he became a Fuji dealer. There is something to this mirrorless camera revolution. In the end, cameras are just tools and most of them can produce good images if the photographer does his or her part. But mirrorless cameras do it with much less size, weight and cost.

Here is a shot of my Intern building an insect trap. The shop was very dark, the light was flat and I had to push the Fuji pretty hard. I don't think my big cameras could have done any better.

Telephone Books: Time to Go

This photo was taken at the Post Office; telephone books delivered and immediately discarded by the recipients. I understand that some people still need telephone books, but why must we all get them? Why can't people who want a telephone book subscribe to one? The answers are obvious; the telephone book company sets its advertising rates according to the number of books distributed, whether or not people actually use them or leave them at the Post Office or throw them in the trash. One has to wonder whether the businesses that advertise in the telephone book have asked the sticky question of how many people actually use one. Businesses, and their fear of being unrepresented, are the only thing keeping telephone books afloat; note that the photo shows the yellow pages toward the front of the book and the personal listings toward the back. This is a reversal from years past.

Most people now use cell phones or computers to get information on local businesses. For me it is a quick question posed to Siri on an iPhone, or I can look up the business website. Each of these discarded books weighs on the order of 1.5 pounds and it would be interesting to know how many tons of paper are being wasted each year, even for my little town. Now extrapolate that for a nation of 315 million people, most of whom live in much larger cities with much heavier telephone books.

For many of us the value of a telephone book is less than the paper it is printed on. Telephone books are on their way out, and pretending they are more popular than they are won't extend their life for much longer. So perhaps it is time to push for a change in practice; those people who want a telephone book should be allowed to subscribe to one, but the rest of us should be spared this waste of resources.

Insulting the Electorate

Is it any wonder that we have no respect for politicians?

Election primary season is upon us here in West Texas, and the radio airwaves are filled with advertisements for Republican politicians. (Democrats are an endangered species, hence no advertisements.) Rather than a respectful discussion of issues, we are being subjected to a shameful display of lies and deceit wherein one politician is attempting to distort the record(s) or past actions of his opponent(s) in the hope that the voters will consider him (the liar) to be more conservative on the issues. One example is that our sitting Congressman has a radio advertisement that says his opponent has, for the last 16 years, contributed money to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (both of whom are, of course, stepchildren of Satan). This advertisement forced the opponent to create his own radio rebuttal wherein he explained that, as an eye surgeon, he contributed to his professional organization which in turn provided support for various political parties including the Democrats. The topics for which the misrepresentation is most vociferous are taxes, illegal immigration, Obama Care, Barack Obama and the Democrats.

The reality seems to be that any lie is fine so long as it helps win the primary. There is a whole industry that has been built up to create and perpetuate the lies, from the advertising agencies to the media outlets that profit from running the commercials. Yesterday I heard one rather ignorant host on one of the radio stations saying that these Republican candidates agree on 95% of the issues, so they need to draw sharp distinctions with their opponents on the 5% where they disagree, and the radio advertisements are acceptable because they do that. But they don't; they are lies and distortions that directly profit the station for which the commentator works. So I guess that is what makes it acceptable.

Truth is hard to find when candidates will twist their own records into what they think you want to hear and have no reservation about misrepresenting their opponents. So what is the truth? The only truth that I can see in any of this is that the politicians who would distort the record of their opponent(s) are showing their disrespect for the people of this state. Put the truth on the table, put your records on the table and let us decide. Lying to us is not only insulting, it shows us what you really think of us.