What the hell is up with this weather? I checked the weather before I left for Portland last week and it said it would be hot, but still overcast and possibly rainy the whole time.
But it wasn't overcast - no, it was hot and SUNNY. It was a blessing, really; gorgeous weather the whole time I was there (except for some brief showers Saturday morning), but since I thought it would be overcast I brought long pants, long-sleeved shirts, no sunglasses, etc. Fortunately I ALWAYS wear sunscreen, otherwise I'd probably look like a lobster right about now.
And as soon as I get back to Washington? Crapsville. Rain, rain, and more rain. I've been wanting to do a photo set of our house (remember me mentioning that, way back when we painted our guest bathroom?), but I want to do it on a sunny day, so I checked the weather again last night to see when the next sunny day would be. Last night, it said Wednesday.
Wednesday kind of sucks for a photo shoot, because at 1:30 a new Nielsen person is coming to do some maintenance on their equipment, so I wanted to scrunch all of my normal chores/activities into the morning, since their appointments can sometimes take the whole afternoon. So I figured I *might* take some photos, but that I might not have time.
Then at some point during my workout today, the sun came out. What the butt?!? Had I KNOWN it would be SUNNY *TODAY*, I wouldn't have planned a dinner that requires homemade bread (sammies made with leftover Easter ham, served on big, soft, homemade buns).
The birds are chirping, the wind is still, the sky is blue...and now that my bread is rising it's too late to take photos because the light's too long and our house will be too dark. Poo.
It's okay though; there's laundry out, a cat (Star) sleeping on the ironing board I've been ignoring, and spatters of...I think macaroni and cheese? On the kitchen counter. And my suitcase is still in the hallway. So I should probably clean up before I take pictures anyway.
Maybe the lighting wouldn't matter as much if I had a different camera, though. And then I could just take photos any old rainy day, and they'd look fine. I love my little coolpix (I LOVE it), but sometimes it's too hard to control the shutter speed, and I end up getting yellow, blurry pics in partial light because it auto-adjusts (or something - I don't know the words) and tries to make the photos brighter. Which I hate.
My mom asked me a few days ago what I wanted for my birthday, and on a whim I picked a new camera, but I'm not sure. I've never taken a photography class, and I've never had a manual camera, but I think that might be a really nice thing to have.
I think they're called digital SLR's, but I don't know what the SLR stands for. I just know that *I* control the focus and shutter speed and all that, and it just does what I tell it to do. That *seems* like it's exactly what I need, but at the same time I'm really intimidated by the thought of having to suddenly understand the technical aspects of my camera in order to use it. And I don't feel like reading any boring technical books, so please don't recommend one.
I'm also unsure about the idea of having to switch lenses - I like how on my little point-and-shoot camera I can *click* photograph the horizon, take two seconds to change the setting, and then *click* photograph an ant from about half an inch away. The convenience of not having to change lenses has come in especially handy in situations where I want to photograph the same object from like, a "normal" distance, and then super close up. Like photographing a tree, and then a leaf of the tree.
Anyway, so does anyone have any thoughts on this? I've had Nikon, Kodak and Pentax cameras in the past, and I feel like Nikon is the most intuitive for me. I've never tried Cannon or Olympus though. Or anything else, for that matter. I don't want to go too crazy expensive either; if I could get the camera and a lens or two for about $800 or so, that'd be great. Or if someone out there thinks I should stick with a camera that doesn't require lens changes, and has a good one in mind (it MUST have good macro though), that'd be even better.
For now though, I'll just eat dinner and leave my photoging for another day. :D
2 comments:
1) This dinner is completely awesome. my sammy has ham plus buttery acorn squash mash on an enormous (like 8 inch diameter) bun.
2) I'm used to you pushing the limits of what your camera can do, and sometimes tediously finding out where the balance is. what i notice about your pictures seems less technical, but more about the fact that you've captured a mood. at least with the natural environment pictures you take. anyway. i think you'll make good pictures with whatever camera you have.
Brett just told me he commented me, so I opened up the page and the first google ad listed was for "Jackson Liposuction." Because apparently even google thinks I'm fat.
And for Brett - thanks for the compliment! :) But I think a large part of the "mood" in photographs is determined by the colors/lighting/focus, and sometimes battling my camera to get it to communicate what I'm seeing is just what you said - tedious.
I just don't know if having a manual camera would make it MORE tedious, or less.
Post a Comment