Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Revisitation of "please comment!" article.
As I've said, I retook the Brig-Myers personality exam and I got ENTP as a result. I actually took the test multiple times at multiple sites because my Extroversion/Introversion comes out nearly the same every time, while between P/J, P comes out slightly more, and for T/F, T comes out significantly more. As far as Sensing/iNtuition goes, no test has ever told me I was sensing - I'm always iNtuitive.
Anyways, I copied and pasted the supposed traits of ENTPs and asked people if they agreed with the traits. I tallied them up, with "1" being elizabeth, "2" being stephen, and so on:
easy going 1 2 3 4
adaptable 1 2 3 4
talented at presentation 1 2 3 4
appreciates strangeness 1 2 3 4
emotionally stable 1 2 3 4
not easily offended 1 2 3 4
I'd also have to agree that I'm pretty much all of the above here. On a side note, I'm honored that everyone thought I was emotionally stable. Adaptable and talented at presentation are pretty cool traits too.
_________________________________________________________________________________
comfortable in unfamiliar situations 1 2 4
social 1 3 4
open 2 3 4
improviser 1 2 3
What is very interesting here is that majority of the people said that I was social, but only one person said that I was outgoing. This is in line with the fact that I'm not really skewed towards either extroversion or introversion. I guess what this means is, I have the ability to carry on a conversation, but can't utilize it enough due to my lack of extroversion.
oh and I'm very open. Just gimme some drinks :)
_________________________________________________________________________________
risk taker 3 4
adventurous 1 3
experience junkie 1 2 (and yes, it's junkie. I didn't write it though)
_________________________________________________________________________________
outgoing 4
rule breaker 3
thrill seeker 3
disorganized 2
messy 2
carefree 2
aggressive 4
spontaneous 3
hahaha only one person thought I'm spontaneous? I'm the most spontaneous person that I know! or at least that's how I see myself (I might be wrong). Oh and I disregard rules all the time, especially if I think they are stupid. Everything else is pretty much a toss up, except for may be carefree, and I am somewhat messy. And I can be quite aggressive if there's something I'm passionate about or something (or someone) I really like. But I guess only Kevin's seen that side of me haha.
_________________________________________________________________________________
life of the party, attention seeking, insensitive, dangerous, fearless, careless, always joking, player, wild and crazy, dominant, acts without thinking, not into organized religion, pro-weed legalization.
None of these traits got any votes. But come on, no pro-weed legalization? hahaha.
Anyways, I've copied and pasted some more characteristics of ENTP's - I've put in bold the the ones I found to be especially funny, and in red are my comments.
"Clever" is the word that perhaps describes ENTPs best. The professor who juggles half a dozen ideas for research papers and grant proposals in his mind while giving a highly entertaining lecture on an abstruse subject is a classic example of the type.
They tend to have a perverse sense of humor as well, and enjoy playing devil's advocate.
ENTPs have been known to cut corners without regard to the rules if it's expedient -- or simply in the collapse of an over-ambitious juggling act. Both at work and at home, ENTPs are very fond of "toys"--physical or intellectual, the more sophisticated the better (camera and instruments). They tend to tire of these quickly, however, and move on to new ones (explains why I play so many instruments but cannot play any of them right).
ENTPs are basically optimists, but in spite of this (perhaps because of it?), they tend to become extremely petulant about small setbacks and inconveniences. seriously! effing annoying! (Major setbacks they tend to regard as challenges, and tackle with determination. so true. I usually feel a burst of energy when I face a major setback) ENTPs have little patience with those they consider wrongheaded or unintelligent, and show little restraint in demonstrating this. However, they do tend to be extremely genial, if not charming, when not being harassed by life in general.
ENTPs are also good at acquiring friends who are as clever and entertaining as they are. True. I hate hanging out with boring people.
Anyways, I copied and pasted the supposed traits of ENTPs and asked people if they agreed with the traits. I tallied them up, with "1" being elizabeth, "2" being stephen, and so on:
easy going 1 2 3 4
adaptable 1 2 3 4
talented at presentation 1 2 3 4
appreciates strangeness 1 2 3 4
emotionally stable 1 2 3 4
not easily offended 1 2 3 4
I'd also have to agree that I'm pretty much all of the above here. On a side note, I'm honored that everyone thought I was emotionally stable. Adaptable and talented at presentation are pretty cool traits too.
_________________________________________________________________________________
comfortable in unfamiliar situations 1 2 4
social 1 3 4
open 2 3 4
improviser 1 2 3
What is very interesting here is that majority of the people said that I was social, but only one person said that I was outgoing. This is in line with the fact that I'm not really skewed towards either extroversion or introversion. I guess what this means is, I have the ability to carry on a conversation, but can't utilize it enough due to my lack of extroversion.
oh and I'm very open. Just gimme some drinks :)
_________________________________________________________________________________
risk taker 3 4
adventurous 1 3
experience junkie 1 2 (and yes, it's junkie. I didn't write it though)
_________________________________________________________________________________
outgoing 4
rule breaker 3
thrill seeker 3
disorganized 2
messy 2
carefree 2
aggressive 4
spontaneous 3
hahaha only one person thought I'm spontaneous? I'm the most spontaneous person that I know! or at least that's how I see myself (I might be wrong). Oh and I disregard rules all the time, especially if I think they are stupid. Everything else is pretty much a toss up, except for may be carefree, and I am somewhat messy. And I can be quite aggressive if there's something I'm passionate about or something (or someone) I really like. But I guess only Kevin's seen that side of me haha.
_________________________________________________________________________________
life of the party, attention seeking, insensitive, dangerous, fearless, careless, always joking, player, wild and crazy, dominant, acts without thinking, not into organized religion, pro-weed legalization.
None of these traits got any votes. But come on, no pro-weed legalization? hahaha.
Anyways, I've copied and pasted some more characteristics of ENTP's - I've put in bold the the ones I found to be especially funny, and in red are my comments.
"Clever" is the word that perhaps describes ENTPs best. The professor who juggles half a dozen ideas for research papers and grant proposals in his mind while giving a highly entertaining lecture on an abstruse subject is a classic example of the type.
They tend to have a perverse sense of humor as well, and enjoy playing devil's advocate.
ENTPs have been known to cut corners without regard to the rules if it's expedient -- or simply in the collapse of an over-ambitious juggling act. Both at work and at home, ENTPs are very fond of "toys"--physical or intellectual, the more sophisticated the better (camera and instruments). They tend to tire of these quickly, however, and move on to new ones (explains why I play so many instruments but cannot play any of them right).
ENTPs are basically optimists, but in spite of this (perhaps because of it?), they tend to become extremely petulant about small setbacks and inconveniences. seriously! effing annoying! (Major setbacks they tend to regard as challenges, and tackle with determination. so true. I usually feel a burst of energy when I face a major setback) ENTPs have little patience with those they consider wrongheaded or unintelligent, and show little restraint in demonstrating this. However, they do tend to be extremely genial, if not charming, when not being harassed by life in general.
ENTPs are also good at acquiring friends who are as clever and entertaining as they are. True. I hate hanging out with boring people.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
good enough.
what I wanted to do, was to take a picture of jae and his new (?) gf with the heart filter I made yesterday - because I happened to have kept them.
But! I wanted to take some test shots beforehand, and Lillian graciously posed for me (she was sitting right in front of me). What I found out was that it was physically impossible for me to add two people into the frame, so Jae's shot will have to wait.
Lillian's picture, however, came out much better than I expected. I like it much, and I hope she does too.
But! I wanted to take some test shots beforehand, and Lillian graciously posed for me (she was sitting right in front of me). What I found out was that it was physically impossible for me to add two people into the frame, so Jae's shot will have to wait.
Lillian's picture, however, came out much better than I expected. I like it much, and I hope she does too.
Friday, February 19, 2010
How to make heart shaped lights
Whenever there's something I don't want to do, I spend more time on facebook & blogspot.
Anyways, I was looking at Elizabeth's blog to see if she wrote a response back, and I thought to myself, "oh, I'll write an entry about heart shaped lights!" since it was, after all, right there, screaming for attention. Plus, my camera is already out, and I've been taking pictures of hearts all day. This just makes sense.
__________________________________________________________________________________
How to make "Heart Shaped Lights" or Heart Bokeh
Materials:
Construction Paper. I prefer black, but other colors work too.
Scissors
Computer, printer, microsoft word (or a picture of a heart or something)
DSLR with a decent lens (I personally prefer 50mm f/1.4 but other people might have their preferences)
1. Go to word, and insert the heart symbol, or whatever it is that you want to make. Print it on the construction paper.
2. Go find a filter (or whatever. you can even use your lens) that fits the lens of your choice, draw around it, and cut it.
3. Fold the paper in half, and cut out the heart
4. You're pretty much done. Go find some lights, like this one:
5. Put the paper you made in front of the lens. (yes, you're covering your lens with the heart paper you just made).
6. make sure that your aperture is considerably open (like f/1.4), and that your camera is out of focus. Take the shot.
(shot with 50mm f/1.4)
Tada! Not to shabby huh?
Just make sure that you're not using a wide angle lens. This is NOT what you're going for:
(shot at 18mm)
...unless you want that look of course. But as far as heart shaped lights go, this is not the way to go.
you want something closer to this:
Enjoy! this works amazingly well with christmas lights and stuff ^^
Anyways, I was looking at Elizabeth's blog to see if she wrote a response back, and I thought to myself, "oh, I'll write an entry about heart shaped lights!" since it was, after all, right there, screaming for attention. Plus, my camera is already out, and I've been taking pictures of hearts all day. This just makes sense.
__________________________________________________________________________________
How to make "Heart Shaped Lights" or Heart Bokeh
Materials:
Construction Paper. I prefer black, but other colors work too.
Scissors
Computer, printer, microsoft word (or a picture of a heart or something)
DSLR with a decent lens (I personally prefer 50mm f/1.4 but other people might have their preferences)
1. Go to word, and insert the heart symbol, or whatever it is that you want to make. Print it on the construction paper.
2. Go find a filter (or whatever. you can even use your lens) that fits the lens of your choice, draw around it, and cut it.
3. Fold the paper in half, and cut out the heart
4. You're pretty much done. Go find some lights, like this one:
5. Put the paper you made in front of the lens. (yes, you're covering your lens with the heart paper you just made).
6. make sure that your aperture is considerably open (like f/1.4), and that your camera is out of focus. Take the shot.
(shot with 50mm f/1.4)
Tada! Not to shabby huh?
Just make sure that you're not using a wide angle lens. This is NOT what you're going for:
(shot at 18mm)
...unless you want that look of course. But as far as heart shaped lights go, this is not the way to go.
you want something closer to this:
Enjoy! this works amazingly well with christmas lights and stuff ^^
happy belated valentines
I forgot to say so last sunday.
and no, I did not come up with this idea. I just wanted try shooting it without showing the filter all that much, that is all.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
about elizabeth's entry
*this entry is my comments & thoughts to Elizabeth's recent posts (1 and 2), which I found them to be extremely interesting (as I almost always do as a matter of fact).
__________________________________________________________________________________
Have you ever read "Blink?" If you haven't, there's is a part where college students are asked to rank jam from best to worst. And what's interesting is, if you just ask them to rank the jam, they do quite well - ranking them in nearly the same order as the experts. But as soon as you ask them to explain their decision and then rank the jam - they start to screw up and their answers have no correlation at all. The more they think, the stupider they become!
(Knotts Jam, the best of 'em all - ranked second when asked to rank - ranked last when asked to explain & choose)
The reason, according to Gladwell, is because we all know what good jam tastes like unconsciously, but when asked to evaluate a specific quality, such as texture for instance, our brains are puzzled (unlike food experts) by the fact we have to explain our unconsciousness, and come up with a totally random answer that we believe to be logical.
So could it be - that attraction, like the taste of jam, is largely a subconscious decision and many of us might really suck at explaining them? and that our explanations have very little correlation with how we would act in real life? perhaps - I don't know for certain since I'm no expert at this matter but it is fascinating isn't it? Your friends (including me) may have answered all the questions with honesty yet may act completely different in real life! Could it be true that instead of asking them questions (even though it was yes or no), the only way we'll know for sure is through observing their behavior? Here's an excerpt from Blink:
(A women named Mary is speed dating, and I actually looked this up because I found this to be so interesting)
"...how good is Mary at predicting what she likes in a man? Fisman and Iyengar can answer that question really easily, and what they find when they compare what speed daters say they want with what they are actually attracted to in the moment is that those two things don't match. For example, if Mary said at the start of the evening that she wanted someone intelligent and sincere, that in no way means she'll be attracted only to intelligent and sincere men. It's just as likely that John, whom she likes more than anyone else, could turn out to be attractive and funny but not particularly sincere or smart at all. Second, if all the men Mary ends up liking during the speed-dating are more attractive and funny than they are smart and sincere, on the next day, when she's asked to describe her perfect man, Mary will say that she likes attractive and funny men. But that's just the next day. If you ask her again a month later, she'll be back to saying that she wants intelligent and sincere.
...Mary has an idea about what she wants in a man, and that idea isn't wrong. It's just incomplete. The description that she starts with is her conscious ideal: what she believe she wants when she sits down and thinks about it. But what she cannot be as certain about are the criteria she uses to form her preferences in that first instant of meeting someone face-to-face. That information is behind the locked door (unconscious)."
...of course everyone who commented on the post may be an "expert," and has an ability to read the information behind the locked door, though I doubt it. We eat and analyze food multiple times everyday, but we still can't read the information behind the locked doors. Attraction? that occurs far far less than eating.
So what I'm saying is, I think there's a big chance that many of your friends will act differently (by that I mean about two of the questions they might act differently) in "real" life. Take me for example. I said that I liked younger girls, yet I just realized I've only dated girls around my age and older!!!
____________________________________________________________________________________
anyways, I'm disappointed that only four people commented on my previous entry, despite the fact that I waited a whole week, and the fact that it was the first time I ever asked anyone to participate. In fact, I'm trying to decide if there's even a point to blogging anymore since I rarely have any response. I mean, the point of blogging is to share with public - or else, we can always just write entries in our diary right?
I hope I don't sound bitter - if I do, I don't mean to.
Anyways the list of characteristics & career choices were taken from the Briggs-Myers test. I know, we've all heard about it a gazillion times, but I finally think I know what I am in the test - an ENTP (with extroversion and introversion very close), so I really wanted to see if my perception of myself matched how others perceived me. So I copied & pasted the list of characteristics for ENTP's, picked out the traits the described me, and asked others to participate as well. Sadly, we don't have large enough sample size, which means it's pointless to write an entry about it.
And to people that answered, a very big thank you. I really appreciated it.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Have you ever read "Blink?" If you haven't, there's is a part where college students are asked to rank jam from best to worst. And what's interesting is, if you just ask them to rank the jam, they do quite well - ranking them in nearly the same order as the experts. But as soon as you ask them to explain their decision and then rank the jam - they start to screw up and their answers have no correlation at all. The more they think, the stupider they become!
(Knotts Jam, the best of 'em all - ranked second when asked to rank - ranked last when asked to explain & choose)
The reason, according to Gladwell, is because we all know what good jam tastes like unconsciously, but when asked to evaluate a specific quality, such as texture for instance, our brains are puzzled (unlike food experts) by the fact we have to explain our unconsciousness, and come up with a totally random answer that we believe to be logical.
So could it be - that attraction, like the taste of jam, is largely a subconscious decision and many of us might really suck at explaining them? and that our explanations have very little correlation with how we would act in real life? perhaps - I don't know for certain since I'm no expert at this matter but it is fascinating isn't it? Your friends (including me) may have answered all the questions with honesty yet may act completely different in real life! Could it be true that instead of asking them questions (even though it was yes or no), the only way we'll know for sure is through observing their behavior? Here's an excerpt from Blink:
(A women named Mary is speed dating, and I actually looked this up because I found this to be so interesting)
"...how good is Mary at predicting what she likes in a man? Fisman and Iyengar can answer that question really easily, and what they find when they compare what speed daters say they want with what they are actually attracted to in the moment is that those two things don't match. For example, if Mary said at the start of the evening that she wanted someone intelligent and sincere, that in no way means she'll be attracted only to intelligent and sincere men. It's just as likely that John, whom she likes more than anyone else, could turn out to be attractive and funny but not particularly sincere or smart at all. Second, if all the men Mary ends up liking during the speed-dating are more attractive and funny than they are smart and sincere, on the next day, when she's asked to describe her perfect man, Mary will say that she likes attractive and funny men. But that's just the next day. If you ask her again a month later, she'll be back to saying that she wants intelligent and sincere.
...Mary has an idea about what she wants in a man, and that idea isn't wrong. It's just incomplete. The description that she starts with is her conscious ideal: what she believe she wants when she sits down and thinks about it. But what she cannot be as certain about are the criteria she uses to form her preferences in that first instant of meeting someone face-to-face. That information is behind the locked door (unconscious)."
...of course everyone who commented on the post may be an "expert," and has an ability to read the information behind the locked door, though I doubt it. We eat and analyze food multiple times everyday, but we still can't read the information behind the locked doors. Attraction? that occurs far far less than eating.
So what I'm saying is, I think there's a big chance that many of your friends will act differently (by that I mean about two of the questions they might act differently) in "real" life. Take me for example. I said that I liked younger girls, yet I just realized I've only dated girls around my age and older!!!
____________________________________________________________________________________
anyways, I'm disappointed that only four people commented on my previous entry, despite the fact that I waited a whole week, and the fact that it was the first time I ever asked anyone to participate. In fact, I'm trying to decide if there's even a point to blogging anymore since I rarely have any response. I mean, the point of blogging is to share with public - or else, we can always just write entries in our diary right?
I hope I don't sound bitter - if I do, I don't mean to.
Anyways the list of characteristics & career choices were taken from the Briggs-Myers test. I know, we've all heard about it a gazillion times, but I finally think I know what I am in the test - an ENTP (with extroversion and introversion very close), so I really wanted to see if my perception of myself matched how others perceived me. So I copied & pasted the list of characteristics for ENTP's, picked out the traits the described me, and asked others to participate as well. Sadly, we don't have large enough sample size, which means it's pointless to write an entry about it.
And to people that answered, a very big thank you. I really appreciated it.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Please comment!!!!
Everyone, can you do me a huge favor and comment on the next two questions please? If you're shy, just choose anonymous. If you don't think you know me well enough (even if you've never met me) it's still okay - either just choose anonymous or guess based on your intuition.
Question 1: do you think these characteristics describe me? if so, which ones?
risk taker, easy going, outgoing, social, open, rule breaker, thrill seeker, life of the party, comfortable in unfamiliar situations, appreciates strangeness, disorganized, adventurous, talented at presentation, aggressive, attention seeking, experience junky, insensitive, adaptable, not easily offended, messy, carefree, dangerous, fearless, careless, emotionally stable, spontaneous, improviser, always joking, player, wild and crazy, dominant, acts without thinking, not into organized religion, pro-weed legalization.
Question 2: do you think these careers match me? if so, which ones?
dictator, computer consultant, international spy, tv producer, philosopher, comedian, music performer, it consultant, figher pilot, politician, diplomat, entertainer, game designer, bar owner, freelance writer, creative director, strategist, news anchor, professional skateboarder, airline pilot, comic book artist, college professor, private detective, mechanical engineer, lecturer, ambassador, astronomer, research scientist, judge, web developer, scholar, fbi agent, cia agent, electrical engineer, assassin, photographer, journalist
Thank you! your answers would be really appreciated! Once I get answers from all the readers of my blog (what is that - five people?), then I'll try to write a neat entry about it.
Question 1: do you think these characteristics describe me? if so, which ones?
risk taker, easy going, outgoing, social, open, rule breaker, thrill seeker, life of the party, comfortable in unfamiliar situations, appreciates strangeness, disorganized, adventurous, talented at presentation, aggressive, attention seeking, experience junky, insensitive, adaptable, not easily offended, messy, carefree, dangerous, fearless, careless, emotionally stable, spontaneous, improviser, always joking, player, wild and crazy, dominant, acts without thinking, not into organized religion, pro-weed legalization.
Question 2: do you think these careers match me? if so, which ones?
dictator, computer consultant, international spy, tv producer, philosopher, comedian, music performer, it consultant, figher pilot, politician, diplomat, entertainer, game designer, bar owner, freelance writer, creative director, strategist, news anchor, professional skateboarder, airline pilot, comic book artist, college professor, private detective, mechanical engineer, lecturer, ambassador, astronomer, research scientist, judge, web developer, scholar, fbi agent, cia agent, electrical engineer, assassin, photographer, journalist
Thank you! your answers would be really appreciated! Once I get answers from all the readers of my blog (what is that - five people?), then I'll try to write a neat entry about it.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
fantasy
Fantasy is only a fantasy because you don't have it. Once you achieve it, you may be happy initially, but it won't give you a lasting satisfaction - you probably won't even realize how important it is unless you become deprived again.
Does that mean the only way to become content is to be happy with who you are right now and rid yourself of all future fantasies? I disagree, or I want to disagree.
Does that mean the only way to become content is to be happy with who you are right now and rid yourself of all future fantasies? I disagree, or I want to disagree.
Monday, February 8, 2010
magnum
Watching amazing photographs taken by Magnum makes me realize I have long ways to go before becoming a good photographer.
What is Magnum?
"Magnum is a community of thought, a shared human quality, a curiosity about what is going on in the world, a respect for what is going on and a desire to transcribe it visually."
- Henri Cartier-Bresson
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/
click on any of the pictures and click "play essay."
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StaticPage_VPage&SP=photographers_list&l1=0&XXAPXX=SubPanel10
They are all excellent, but some of my favorites are Elliott Erwitt, Alex Webb, Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Jim Goldberg, Alex Majoli, Abbas, Christopher Anderson, and Steve McCurry, just to name a few.
do i have it? sometimes I wonder.
What is Magnum?
"Magnum is a community of thought, a shared human quality, a curiosity about what is going on in the world, a respect for what is going on and a desire to transcribe it visually."
- Henri Cartier-Bresson
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/
click on any of the pictures and click "play essay."
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StaticPage_VPage&SP=photographers_list&l1=0&XXAPXX=SubPanel10
They are all excellent, but some of my favorites are Elliott Erwitt, Alex Webb, Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Jim Goldberg, Alex Majoli, Abbas, Christopher Anderson, and Steve McCurry, just to name a few.
do i have it? sometimes I wonder.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
olympus PEN
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE NEW OLYMPUS PEN E-PL1 IS ONLY(?) 600 DOLLARS!!!! YES THAT'S ONLY 600 DOLLARS, AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH GOT EVERYTHING!!!!!!
OMG OMG OMG OMGOM GOMGSDMOSMGOGMOMGOMGOMGOWMOGMOGMGOG
I'll write more about OLYMPUS E-PL1 and why I'm so excited. But for now,
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGMOG @#$%#@^@^
THE NEW OLYMPUS PEN E-PL1 IS ONLY(?) 600 DOLLARS!!!! YES THAT'S ONLY 600 DOLLARS, AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH GOT EVERYTHING!!!!!!
OMG OMG OMG OMGOM GOMGSDMOSMGOGMOMGOMGOMGOWMOGMOGMGOG
I'll write more about OLYMPUS E-PL1 and why I'm so excited. But for now,
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGMOG @#$%#@^@^
Friday, February 5, 2010
Dear Stephen Bae - DSLR vs. Point and Shoots
well, you asked me what kind of camera I had, and the simple answer is "Nikon D40x with kit lens and 55-200mm lens." But I think what you really want to know is whether it would be worth it to get a DSLR or not no? and what the difference is? so I'll try to explain the differences (only the major ones, 'cause there's about gazillion), to the best of my ability.
I'll probably separate this into two separate entries - one I'll talk about general stuff, two I'll talk about technical stuff.
1. Should you get a DSLR?
Well, ask yourself how passionate you are about photography. If you're really aspiring to become a good photographer, then yeah, you should definitely get a DSLR. NOT necessarily because DSLR always brings better results, but because you'll learn so much about photography when you learn about the mechanics of the DSLR - such as shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus, white balance, metering, etc etc.
Many point and shoot users don't really think much when they take pictures - and why should they? All you have to do is... well, point and shoot! If you get a DSLR, I can almost guarantee you that your pictures will look much worse than your point and shoot, especially if you put everything in manual mode. But as you learn, one by one, what the functions & limitations are and how an advanced camera actually operates, you'll have much better understanding of photography in general because if forces you to think much more.
Therefore, most people who shoot well with DSLRs can shoot well with almost any camera - it does not matter whether it's a point and shoot or DSLR. Many people actually actually prefer to shoot with a point and shoot - even professionals. But if you want to learn because you're serious about photography, definitely get a DSLR to learn - if not, then point and shoot will do.
2. What you can do with DSLR that you cannot do with a point and shoot: Controlling Depth of Field
First of all, DSLRs generally has the ability to create a "shallow depth of field." Let me illustrate:
See how the bee and the flower are clear but the background is blown out? I'll give you another example:
See how the background and the foreground is "blown away" and out of focus while the rotten apple is clear? That means that this picture has a very shallow depth of field - only very little area in the picture is in focus. DSLRs have the ability to control the depth of field, while it's generally much more difficult with point and shoots.
Picture taken with a point and shoot. It looks nice, but whatever you do, pretty much everything seems to be in focus - meaning everything is super clear whatever you do! This can be either good or bad, but the fact that you can't really control it well with point and shoots puts them at a disadvantage.
3. Ability to control time:
Can you take pictures like this with a point and shoot? probably not. Why? because you need the ability to control the shutter speed for pictures like this, but most point and shoots lack that function. If you took this with a point and shoot, the roller coaster will probably come out very clear & frozen in time, not smudged in motion like this.
4. Low light performance
You know how P&S shake a lot indoors or when it's dark and stuff? Well, DSLRs do the same thing (haha), but as the camera & lens gets better, it won't shake as much. But DSLRs in generally will look much better in low light situations due to the larger image sensors and pixel size.
5. Sharper pictures, faster. Better Auto focus
DSLR pictures are sharper (it's more clear) and better looking in general, but really, not by too much margin if you have an entry level camera & lens. But they do have much more faster and accurate auto focus function, which does matter.
6. Why point and shoots are better:
They're not as bulky. They cost less. You won't look like an idiot carrying a big DSLR to your friend's birthday party. you don't really need a separate bag full of lenses and stuff. You don't look like a crazy stalker. Did I mention they're not bulky? Well, they don't weigh as much either. You can shoot them at a weirder angle due to their size. You'll end up using them more. They're easier to use. You don't have to spend hours learning about photography (if you don't want to). They're more portable. You can take pictures of your own face with it. You have an excuse if you shoot bad pictures.
And honestly, you can take such great pictures with point and shoots - some of my favorite pictures were taken with it. If you don't like the quality, you can just photoshop it a little and it'll give you amazing results - look:
This is the original - kind of bland huh?
edited:
I actually screwed up a little with the edited version (look at the sky). But if I actually spent time on this, it probably would've been very difficult to tell whether it was taken with a DSLR or a Point and Shoot.
This one is unedited:
It's really vibrant and nice despite it was taken with a point and shoot.
I mean, look at the next two pictures. I think very few people will say, "psh, this was definitely taken with a P&S and that's why they have such horrible quality."
(the above picture was not edited - the turtle one was heavily edited).
So my conclusion: I think it's a waste of money to buy a DSLR unless people are genuinely interested in photography and are willing to invest time learning about it. DO NOT expect better pictures just because you're getting a DSLR. Expect worse pictures in the beginning.
Oh, and Nikon D40x is an outdated and old camera, don't buy it.
I'll probably separate this into two separate entries - one I'll talk about general stuff, two I'll talk about technical stuff.
1. Should you get a DSLR?
Well, ask yourself how passionate you are about photography. If you're really aspiring to become a good photographer, then yeah, you should definitely get a DSLR. NOT necessarily because DSLR always brings better results, but because you'll learn so much about photography when you learn about the mechanics of the DSLR - such as shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus, white balance, metering, etc etc.
Many point and shoot users don't really think much when they take pictures - and why should they? All you have to do is... well, point and shoot! If you get a DSLR, I can almost guarantee you that your pictures will look much worse than your point and shoot, especially if you put everything in manual mode. But as you learn, one by one, what the functions & limitations are and how an advanced camera actually operates, you'll have much better understanding of photography in general because if forces you to think much more.
Therefore, most people who shoot well with DSLRs can shoot well with almost any camera - it does not matter whether it's a point and shoot or DSLR. Many people actually actually prefer to shoot with a point and shoot - even professionals. But if you want to learn because you're serious about photography, definitely get a DSLR to learn - if not, then point and shoot will do.
2. What you can do with DSLR that you cannot do with a point and shoot: Controlling Depth of Field
First of all, DSLRs generally has the ability to create a "shallow depth of field." Let me illustrate:
See how the bee and the flower are clear but the background is blown out? I'll give you another example:
See how the background and the foreground is "blown away" and out of focus while the rotten apple is clear? That means that this picture has a very shallow depth of field - only very little area in the picture is in focus. DSLRs have the ability to control the depth of field, while it's generally much more difficult with point and shoots.
Picture taken with a point and shoot. It looks nice, but whatever you do, pretty much everything seems to be in focus - meaning everything is super clear whatever you do! This can be either good or bad, but the fact that you can't really control it well with point and shoots puts them at a disadvantage.
3. Ability to control time:
Can you take pictures like this with a point and shoot? probably not. Why? because you need the ability to control the shutter speed for pictures like this, but most point and shoots lack that function. If you took this with a point and shoot, the roller coaster will probably come out very clear & frozen in time, not smudged in motion like this.
4. Low light performance
You know how P&S shake a lot indoors or when it's dark and stuff? Well, DSLRs do the same thing (haha), but as the camera & lens gets better, it won't shake as much. But DSLRs in generally will look much better in low light situations due to the larger image sensors and pixel size.
5. Sharper pictures, faster. Better Auto focus
DSLR pictures are sharper (it's more clear) and better looking in general, but really, not by too much margin if you have an entry level camera & lens. But they do have much more faster and accurate auto focus function, which does matter.
6. Why point and shoots are better:
They're not as bulky. They cost less. You won't look like an idiot carrying a big DSLR to your friend's birthday party. you don't really need a separate bag full of lenses and stuff. You don't look like a crazy stalker. Did I mention they're not bulky? Well, they don't weigh as much either. You can shoot them at a weirder angle due to their size. You'll end up using them more. They're easier to use. You don't have to spend hours learning about photography (if you don't want to). They're more portable. You can take pictures of your own face with it. You have an excuse if you shoot bad pictures.
And honestly, you can take such great pictures with point and shoots - some of my favorite pictures were taken with it. If you don't like the quality, you can just photoshop it a little and it'll give you amazing results - look:
This is the original - kind of bland huh?
edited:
I actually screwed up a little with the edited version (look at the sky). But if I actually spent time on this, it probably would've been very difficult to tell whether it was taken with a DSLR or a Point and Shoot.
This one is unedited:
It's really vibrant and nice despite it was taken with a point and shoot.
I mean, look at the next two pictures. I think very few people will say, "psh, this was definitely taken with a P&S and that's why they have such horrible quality."
(the above picture was not edited - the turtle one was heavily edited).
So my conclusion: I think it's a waste of money to buy a DSLR unless people are genuinely interested in photography and are willing to invest time learning about it. DO NOT expect better pictures just because you're getting a DSLR. Expect worse pictures in the beginning.
Oh, and Nikon D40x is an outdated and old camera, don't buy it.
in honor of Huburt, and the doppelganger week
I know we shouldn't joke around about things we can't change, but sometimes, I just can't help it.
When Kevin Han was little, his parents told him that Huburt's skin became dark because he drank too much coffee and coke. And when I saw this picture taken in Mongolia... it was just asking for it. hahahaha
Associated Press (AP) Cambodian Man Arrested in Mongolia.
Last June, the Mongolian Authorities arrested a Cambodian man identified as Huburt Kang for charges of drinking too much coke. The officials are also expected to add additional charges of drinking and smuggling coffee within jurisdiction of Bagnor district, Mongolia.
Though the suspect declined the request for interview, his attorney stated, "...there is undeniable proof that my client only drank pepsi instead of coke. We also have photographs of my client even drinking sprite and milk." ...
The FDA (Fred dining association) experts, however, argued against the claims. In an annonymous interview, one official stated, "it is scientifically impossible for a man to have such skin colors while drinking milk and sprite." An interview with the Han family confirmed the official's remarks.
Eye witnesses report that the suspect repeatedly said, "sain bai no. Ochilale," at the time of the arrest.
ah, memories.
And two more classic drawings, just for the heck of it:
Huburt knows I love him though :)
When Kevin Han was little, his parents told him that Huburt's skin became dark because he drank too much coffee and coke. And when I saw this picture taken in Mongolia... it was just asking for it. hahahaha
Associated Press (AP) Cambodian Man Arrested in Mongolia.
Last June, the Mongolian Authorities arrested a Cambodian man identified as Huburt Kang for charges of drinking too much coke. The officials are also expected to add additional charges of drinking and smuggling coffee within jurisdiction of Bagnor district, Mongolia.
Though the suspect declined the request for interview, his attorney stated, "...there is undeniable proof that my client only drank pepsi instead of coke. We also have photographs of my client even drinking sprite and milk." ...
The FDA (Fred dining association) experts, however, argued against the claims. In an annonymous interview, one official stated, "it is scientifically impossible for a man to have such skin colors while drinking milk and sprite." An interview with the Han family confirmed the official's remarks.
Eye witnesses report that the suspect repeatedly said, "sain bai no. Ochilale," at the time of the arrest.
ah, memories.
And two more classic drawings, just for the heck of it:
Huburt knows I love him though :)
to paint with light
Photo- means light, and -graphy means to write, or to draw, which is where I got the new name of my blog.
Bellagio @ Las Vegas, Nevada
I cannot say that this is one of my better works, but it definitely does look cool. I am usually not attracted to pictures like this but this one is an exception; I don't know why. All I know is, it goes well with the title.
Bellagio @ Las Vegas, Nevada
I cannot say that this is one of my better works, but it definitely does look cool. I am usually not attracted to pictures like this but this one is an exception; I don't know why. All I know is, it goes well with the title.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Search for Expressions
Kim Ki Hwan, @ Death Valley National Park, CA
Thank you, you have served me well. I always thought the title "search for expressions," was kind of tacky, but the picture was brilliant. Well, I have decided to move on with more elegant title, and I decided to choose new wine skin to go with the new wine. It does not mean I don't love you - you will always remain as one my best works ever. Thanks.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
