The Simple Layman

2012 And The Demise Of The Compact Disc

2011-12-13T07:59:00.043-05:00

The coming of the new year will signify the demise of the Compact Disc. Yes, you heard me right. The music industry plans to kill off the CD sometime in 2012. This was surprising to me as they have yet to kill off record albums which have existed since their inception and are less popular than CD's. Evidently, people are just becoming too interested in music downloads, (Mp3 and such), and cd sales have dropped off. I'ts hard to understand their thinking from my point of view. The disc, which they probably pay pennies to produce, are not that unpopular and still hold quite a market. It does however, not stand a chance against music downloads which cost almost nothing to reproduce and can be reproduced at a higher rate, can be digitally rights managed, (which cd's cannot), and have no packaging or package contents. With downloads, shipping is not a cost factor either and companies can buy cheap computers that can spit out thousands of copies of songs by the hour with almost no human envolvement. See the big picture?

Unfortunately what this usually means is lower quality and limited use from a consumer's perspective. If paying for downloads becomes the exclusive future of music, then you can expect more control over what you listen to under digital rights management and cheaper sound quality, without cd's being a competitive player. I can only lament the loss of the true audiophile who enjoyed simple yet clear stereo sound, and to my taste's, cd filled that need. Don't get me wrong. I love the wonderful quality of dvd audio and other hi-end surround sound, but already much of the music I grew up with is out of print and will probably never be in print again. With the demise of the cd the chance of getting that stuff is getting even slimmer. So with this post I want to praise the format I loved so much as well as lament it's loss by mentioning the time I first heard about CD's and my first experience with the format.

I can remember the first time I heard about compact disc. I read it in a magazine and it sounded like the answer to all of my problems with static, noise, pops, and clicks when listening to albums. Cassette tapes were ok too, if you copied it yourself, but most of the mass produced copies were still full of hiss, bad highs, lows, or midrange or just over-modulated, and few companies were taking full advantage of it's capabilities. Tapes made using the cheapest tape stock with the lowest quality plastic housings were the norm and sometimes these tapes didn't even play a week or so after buying them because they would bind and jam or the tape would deteriorate leaving oxide residue on tape heads causing constant cleaning.

Shortly after hearing about the new cd format I was in a music store in Dover Delaware in a sound room listening to a record album play on an expensive 1000.00 turntable hooked up to a Yamaha sound system. I was drooling over how great the record sounded when one of the sales people who was in the room mentioned he had a copy on compact disc of the same album I was listening to. I asked if it could sound that much different on cd? He put the disc on but all I heard was silence. Was something wrong? No, it was just the lack of turntable and record noise I was used to at the beginning of playing a record. Then the music started and it sounded like the orchestra was in the same room, only with no scratches, pops, clicks, or noise between tracks, and with much better range. When he showed me the disc I was amazed so much sound came a disc about 1/6 the size of a record. He told me it was more durable than a record too since nothing touched the disc surface when playing. He then did something you would never do with a record. He threw it on the floor, picked it up, wiped it off with his sleeve, and played it again in the cd player. It played perfectly with no skips or clicks. Needless to say, I wanted a cd player from that moment on, even though I recall there were probably only 5 cd compilations available in the U.S. at the time.

Some time later I purchased a cd player for about $80.00, (a bit of money back then), and my first disc. It was a disc from Radio Shack and cost me around $10.00. I still have that first disc and it still plays perfectly the same as the day I bought it. I read so many complaints about how the sound of a compact disc isn't as good as an album. Of course most of my discs are only 16 bit mastering instead of 24, but I will take a cd over a record album any day. I have a good turntable and a reasonably good cartridge for it. Even with the best record cleaners you still have to put the album away and go through the cleaning process over and over everytime you listen to it. No matter how careful you are you will eventually get that scratch you are trying to avoid. Besides this, the more you play it the more wear it gets. You can of course record your albums and have a really great cleaning system, (and I do), but you still have that maintenance and care and you will never get away from it.

As with records, this probably won't end the use of the cd by all companies that use it. It most likely will affect only the big hitters like Warner, Sony, and the major labels. Smaller companies will probably still use cd's until at some point it may just become a fad like the revival of LP record albums and 45's from companies like “oldies.com.” In any case, I will still buy them until I can no longer get a drive to play them in.

Tips To Stop Someone From Hacking Your Wifi (and Eventually, Your Computer)

2011-11-18T07:44:00.016-05:00

Recently someone from the outside tried to access our wifi using something that my wife downloaded. At least, that's how it appeared. My wife's computer began running really slow and funny things began happening to her desktop, (mouse began moving on it's own, icons flickered). It appeared to be that someone was trying to remotely control her computer. I quickly checked our wifi log and found this information repeated several times.

[DoS attack: STORM] attack packets in last 20 sec from ip [199.79.170.214], Saturday, Nov 12,2011 13:11:47

[LAN access from remote] from 71.93.84.50:65342 Saturday, Nov 12,2011 08:10:41

[LAN access from remote] from 71.93.84.50:65336 Saturday, Nov 12,2011 08:10:41

While I had set up some security using "WPA2," I had not set up all of it, (not understanding what I was doing). I instantly shut down the sending portion, (ie. the radio transmitter), and began working on the rest of the security. Granted, nothing will prevent the hardest wifi stealer from accessing your network if he/she really wants to, but seeing what can be done by those who try made me realize I needed to know more about how to prevent it. Below is a list of things I found and I hope will help you too. Note, none of the below steps is guaranteed to prevent someone from breaking into your network, but combined they will make it difficult and will cause most network stealers to give up. While this is not an exhaustive list or a "how-to," I hope it will give you some guidance as to what steps you can take.

1. HIDE THE NETWORK NAME- routers display the network name to others called "SIS Broadcasting." Routers usually allow you to turn it off.

2. CHOOSE WPA2 ENCRYPTION (128bit)- if at all possible instead of WEP. Most newer computers can connect using WPA2. For now, this is the most secure encryption possible.

3. CHOOSE AES TYPE OF ENCRYPTION- TKIP is more easily cracked. In most cases, WPA2 is set to AES 128 bit Encryption.

4. USE IP RANGES- Computers connect using IP addresses. In most routers you can choose specific ranges for the IP addresses. An example would be a range of 1.92.168.1.25 to 192.168.30. In this example using this range, your router will only accept a range of 5 different IP addresses between the ranges shown above. That way someone outside of that range cannot connect. If nothing else, this will kick anyone off your wifi if the computers on your network are using all of the addresses at any given time. The downside of this is someone can scan your wifi until it finds an opening and change their IP to match.

5. USE IP ADDRESS RESERVATION- Most newer routers will allow you to assign a specific address to a specific computer's "MAC" address. This is a complementary step to the above advice. If you assign a specific IP address to a specific MAC, then someone cannot connect to the router even if they have the same IP as one of your own computers because they don't also have the same MAC address as yours. The downside is someone can scan for MAC addresses, (technically speaking, that is) however difficult this may be and rare. Nevertheless, this step will add another layer of defense.

6. CHOOSE THE LONGEST PASSWORD POSSIBLE- with characters made up of letters, numbers and symbols (if the router will accept symbols), and use random characters, not words.

7. DON'T TURN ON REMOTE ACCESS IF YOU DON'T NEED IT- Remote access allows you to access your internet from another source like a coffee shop or a friends wifi. If you can do without it, don't turn on remote access, (that is, don't allow your router to be accessed by you from a remote location). Downside, someone who actually hacks your router can turn this on making it accessable from another network outside your own if you don't catch it.

8. DON'T ALLOW PORT FORWARDING IF YOU DON'T NEED IT- Again, there is a very remote chance someone can access your router through an open port, but why allow it if you don't need it? Port forwarding allows someone, either you or another, a direct route to your router through that port through the use of port scanning capabilities. In otherwords, access through that port is less protected because it is like a open door through your firewall.

9. USE PORT SCAN, DoS, AND NAT FILTERING PROTECTION- Make sure Port Scan, DoS Protection, and Nat Filtering are all turned on. These are firewall type protections built into the router and generally don't need any kind of configuration other than check box in your configuration window.

10. TURN ON LOGGING- You won't know if something is going on unless you view logs. Also, it may be helpful as proof, howbeit small, should someone tap into you wifi and do illegal activity through it and it become a legal issue, (if you find a problem you can copy and backup the log contents).

11. GIVE UNIQUE NAMES TO ALL THE COMPUTERS ON YOUR NETWORK- Your wifi will read the name given to your computers. Most people never change their computer name. Most the time it is set to some factory name like "HP Computer," or similar. I gave all of my computers on my network names like "NCP-LTP," (combination of my son's initials and abbreviation of the word "laptop"). When I look at who is connected to my network I can instantly see if he is connected by the use of that name and he is using his laptop, not a PC. You can change the computer name in windows by going to "control panel," then "system," and clicking on the "advanced" tab. If this does not work a quick search on the internet for "change computer name in windows" will help.

12. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU DOWNLOAD- With all of this security in place, nothing will stop someone from hacking if you click on a site or download a program that allows them to hack your computer from the inside for all the info they need to bypass all of it and punching through your router's firewall.

13. BACKUP UP ROUTER SETTINGS FREQUENTLY- Backup your settings to a place safe. This will make it easy if you have to reset your router settings to factory default. Along with this, make sure you save both the original password and the passwords you create so you can easily access them again.

Though not directly related to your router's secuity, these added secure measures for your computer will help protect you if someone does break into your system and try to attack your computer.

MAKE SURE ALL OF YOUR VIRUS & SPYWARE PROTECTION IS IN PLACE- If you use Windows, (as opposed to linux or BSD), then make sure your own computer's firewall and spyware, adware, and virus protection are all in place.

LEARN HOW TO USE A DIFFERENT OPERATING SYSTEM, (LINUX OR BSD). These are far more secure than windows

LEARN HOW TO USE OTHER SECURITY MEASURES- These are other security measures I would recommend and they are free.

Keepass and KeepassX- These are two secure password storage programs that are somehow related and almost identical in looks and function. You can store all of your passwords in either program using AES 256 bit encryption. I store all of my router information including MAC addresses, IP configurations, router passwords, and internet provider info in keepassX because it is easier to install on Linux. Keepass and KeepassX are available in Windows, MAC, and Linux versions. If you are simply installing on Windows use the Keepass.exe file available here. KeepassX is a little more complicated to install on Windows but if you prefer it then you can be find it here.

Truecrypt- Another free utility which creates secure containers, (similar to folders), for securely storing documents or files of any type. Truecrypt can be found here.

Add An "S" at the end of the "http-" Add an "s" to the end of http when going to a bank or other secure site. This will encrypt your personal information sent from the very beginning of your session with that site. Not all sites will allow this but almost all banks, credit cards, and other sites do. Better yet, if you use "Firefox" browser, there is a extension called "HTTPS-everywhere. It automatically checks to see which sites use secure and which don't and sets it for "https" for those that do.

Copy And Paste Your Passwords- A final measure I would recommend is to not type your passwords when going to bank accounts or other sites over the internet. Instead, copy and paste them to prevent little programs someone else can embed onto your computer called keyloggers from storing the typed password and transmitting it back to a hacker.

Given enough time and having the right tools anyone can break into a network. The best option is to make it as difficult as possible and to look out for "funny" things going on. In my case, I hope whoever it was trying to break into my internet gave up because it was too difficult. Most will give up if they are just trying to play around or just looking for a free network to use. There is always the chance someone is trying to break in because of the challenge of doing so or hoping to get some serious information. For this reason, it pays to make it as difficult as possible.

Verizon Fios Install (Deterred)

2011-10-15T07:18:00.004-04:00

I recently noticed a major slowdown inour internet service with Comcast Cable. Comcast is known forthrottling connections, (that is, slowing them down at theirdiscretion), and capping their service, (that is, shutting yourservice down after reaching an internet usage limit they determine istoo much). The problem of our internet slowing down is beginning tooccur more frequently in our service and not just during peak timesas it used to. It may be that Comcast intends to force us to anothertier level of speed hoping we will bite the bit to purchase more. More likely, Comcast may be falling on hard times and, like everyoneelse, unable or unwilling to spend money to increase it'scapabilities, and thus driving people away from it's service by usingthese techniques. Verizon is what they are driving people to and infact, if this is their policy, it will be the primary reason for anyfuture demise of it's company. It is one thing to irritate yourcustomers by poor service and high demands, but when you have such avehement and strong opposition as Verizon who has no bandwidthrestrictions or capping of their service along with a few highermegabytes per second more speed at an apparent lower cost, then howcan a customer resist the switch? Well, I recently did resist thatswitch even after them coming out twice to paint lines in my yard anddriveway to prepare for it.

This week I got fed up with Comcast'sgames and set the ball rolling to switch to Verizon. Over the nextfew days I canceled the request and stayed with my current phone planonly, which Verizon quite reasonably and in a very friendly manoragreed to. They of course don't really need my meager business andprobably know eventually they will have me anyway since Comcast'sservice, at least for me, is getting so bad. For now, however, I amsticking with Comcast and gritting my teeth to bare it. Here are myreasons why,

You must use their equipment- You must agree to use their crappy modem/router combination. I hadtalked to a few people who have already had Verizon's serviceinstalled and their response was “ho-hum.” Yes, they did getimprovements in speed, but compared to Comcast, overall it wasn'tthat much better. Yes, they could go with Verizon's $200.00 plan andget the bombastic speed, but they couldn't afford it just like Ican't, so low cost bit for bit compared to what they previously had,it wasn't that great. The downer is, Verizon's router is weak andbarely reached a coverage area they wanted, and they couldn't“legally” make the switch to one of their own because ofVerizon's contract.

This was the major sticking point forme and put the final nail in the coffin to decide not to useVerizon's service. I wanted my own router. I liked my router withit's high power antenna that could reach the farthest room in ourhouse and pass through walls with a “single heroic bound.” Besides this, I was planning on updating it and current routers havehard drive attachments and bluetooth capabilities the Verizon routerwould not have or allow me to implement. Besides this, their routerhas software that allows them to keep track of what passes throughit. They say they will only use this information to aid them indiagnosing a problem with your services when they are down. Who knowswhether they will cross that line whenever they want. Granted, anyinternet service can do this, but it somehow bothered me that theynot only admitted to it but demanded they have the right to do it bywaiving my rights.

Yes, there are ways that violate yourcontract with them to circumvent these things; ways I did not feelcomfortable with. Maybe you do, but until they force me to acceptthese services by default or change their policy in this regard andallow me to privately use my own router by contract, I will not beswitching.

It required an extra battery backupbe installed in our house- When you update to “fios” theymust install a battery backup for it. Unlike regular hard-wire phoneservice which is powered by the phone company, fios is not, and needsa battery backup to prevent the telephone part of the service fromfailing due to a power outage. Guess who pays for the extraelectricity to power that thing? You do.

The phone service with fios is voip(voice over internet)- That is, it is an internet phone servicelike skype. I already use voip with skype at only $36.00 a year forour long distance service. Why should I pay verizon a premium permonth for that same type of service? If the power goes out,estimates of backup time with the fios phone is 4-8 hours. What ifyou need the phone for emergencies during a natural disaster like ahurricane which could last a couple of days or more? With a hardline the phone stays on as long as the lines aren't down even if thepower goes out, (like with our last hurricane, Irene).

If you have fios installed they willwant to take away your old lines and you won't be able to convertback- Yes, you can currentlyrequest that they don't do this, and Verizon has complied, but if youare not there when the work is done, then they will do it anyway. This also removes the ability to switch to another phone companybecause Verizon has exclusive rights to it's fiber optic network anddoesn't have to allow another service provider to use it, (such assprint or some of the others). You will not be able to competedollar for dollar with Verizon's rates of service. This may not meanmuch to most people, but I somehow don't like the disadvantage ofVerizon owning the market.

If the power goes out, you lose yourinternet- Yes, that's right. All data systems shut down exceptfor your phone so as to conserve power. With standard cable, unlesstheir lines are also affected, you will still have service. In allthe instances where we lost power in our house we still had cableinternet service working. Even if the phone was out because of astorm we still had voip phone with skype so we could call out.

Yes, overall Verizon has great servicesand are basically putting everyone else out of business, but for me,the loss didn't outweigh the gain.

Taxes and fees for fios service ishigh- Last of all, the promotion package, which runs out in ayear, is highly taxed. One person stated they purchased the $99.00bundle but were paying $150.00 with taxes, fees, etc. I do not knowif this is true, but Comcast cable is not taxed, (at least not ontheir bill in our area), and the $59.00 I pay is a straight59.00 fee with not other costs. If I wanted, I could stick withusing skype for call anywhere in America which only cost me $36.00 ayear and get rid of Verizon phone all together.

Is Verizon service worth it? For me itwasn't, and maybe your experience is different. I understand VerizonTelevision is better than the promoted Comcast "Xfinity" service, but we don't have television with our cable andthat was our choice. Yours may be different.

911 AND THE DIVIDING OF TIME

2011-09-10T18:43:00.000-04:00

Few things in my life have had theeffect of what I call “the dividing of time.” What I mean is fewevents have divided my life into sense of “before and after” asmuch as the fall of the World Trade Center. My parents death,marriage, the birth of my first child all did this to some extent. The fall of the World Trade Center has perhaps had a more profoundeffect than any of those things in that it taught me the horror ofevil really exists. Before this time horrible events had taken placein history. World wars were fought, natural catastrophes existed. None of these things took place on a personal level in my lifetime. The World Trade Center destruction managed to affect me on all sortsof levels personally even though my wife and I visited there onlyonce.

For one, a few years after my wife andI visited there we were watching a special about the first worldtrade center bombing that had taken place. As the show began to endthe narrator of the TV special was talking about the chance ofanother bombing like that one taking place. As I listened I andwatched her speak with the World Trade Center in the background, Isaw a jet flying past the buildings and in the shadow it appeared todisolve into the building. I told my wife, “look at that!” “Seethose planes?” “They will probably try to fly one into thebuildings with what hijackers are capable of and with the securityso tight they could never get another bomb in the building!” Little did I know such a thing would happen and I now regret sayingsuch a thing.

The day it happened I was scared. Never had such a thing happened in my lifetime. When the secondplane hit I was in a customer's living room watching it on a 50”projection TV. I called my wife told her what had happened but wasnever able to reach her again that day, or the company I worked for. I rushed from job to job on my route trying to finish as soon as Icould and get home, not knowing what was happening, only what clientstold me as I went from house to house. Finally, I made a decision togo home. Someone told me we had gone into a state of emergency in mystate which meant all non-essential vehicles were needed off of thehighways. It still took me an hour to reach home because I wasworking out-of-state.

When my wife and I visited the WorldTrade Center in 1987 we were told by our host and guide there wereover 20 bomb threats a day. Knowing that, and being at the top ofthe building made me uneasy. I could already sense the sway of thebuilding. Being on the very top and outside where you could easilysee the North tower made me realize how small the building reallywas. Looking across the whole top and over at the other buildingmade the two seem very close together and it didn't look to be veryfar to the other side of the building we were standing on.

They hadjust opened the roof observation deck that had been closed because ofhigh winds. It was still quite windy up there and my sunglasses blewoff my face and hit the grating below, just barely missing the edgeand falling several feet, down to the roof where I would not beallowed to get them. I felt quite vulnerable in spite of how massivethe buildings were height wise.

When we first arrived we spent sometime looking at the main floor of the building. There was a spacephoto exibit going on. Then we went to find an elevator.

I hadnever seen so many elevators before. I don't remember much about howwe chose the right one, but I remember we had to change elevators toreach the top. The elevator itself was quite an adventure as itswayed back and forth reminding me of times standing in a small boatwhen a teenager when fishing and trying to get the feel of balance. I believe it took ten minutes to reach the top. Before we wereallowed on the roof observation deck we spent some time in front ofthe huge glass windows looking over at the other tower.

At times it is hard to imagine thetowers not being there. I have not been to New York since the towersfell. I am not sure what my emotions will be.

Review Of Williamsburg's Historical Movie, “The Story Of A Patriot”

2011-09-08T18:56:00.007-04:00

You may not know, as I did not, thatthe difinitive movie “The Story Of A Patriot,” a movie created in1957 for the recreated town of Williamsburg, was released on dvd in2004. I have been to Williamsburg Virginia several times, first as aboy of 11, and a few times since. The first time I went was for aschool trip. My parents and I returned the following summer as avacation. The first thing I asked my parents when we arrived was,“They have a really great movie about Williamsburg, can we go seeit?"

Several years later, my wife and Ireturned to Williamsburg for our honeymoon. As I watched the filmagain, being older, I noticed the quality wasn't really that goodtechnically. It appeared dark and had the appearance of a film shotin 16mm. I had now gone to college and taken several photographyclasses and was familiar with different film stocks and how theyappeared. This film was really showing it's age and I rememberthinking it wouldn't be around in a few years because it was deteriorating so badly. It was faded,scratched, and overall looked pretty bad.

Well, several years on and four kidslater, we returned as a family. Now the movie looked as if it weretransferred to VHS tape and shown on a projected TV, (if I recallcorrectly), and appearing as if they took the film, or what was left ofit, and transferred it because the film itself would no longer holdup to projectioning.

Recently, we found out a dvd copy wasavailable from the Williamsburg Foundation. My thoughtswere that it probably would be the worst copy available. The soundwould be almost inaudible. The picture would be dark and muddy withcolors fading, scratches passing by, splices making the film appearto jump out of the sprockets like an old unrestored black and whitesilent film. Needless to say, I was surprised. However, when it arrived, the historyof the film which I had not known, was revealed.

Apparently, the original was filmed inTechnicolor and “Vista-Vision.” This is the same format “WhiteChristmas” with Bing Crosby with all of it's beautiful hues andcolors was filmed if you have seen any restored copies of that movie. The Williamsburg Foundation had the good sense to protect theoriginal over the years and even had monochrome masters made for eachcolor separation of the original film print. Over the years, thesetoo had aged with time, but were still usable to makeHigh Definition digital copies for all future use.

The six track Sound was mixed by Todd-AO, (think“The Sound Of Music”), and is in full Dolby Stereo! I neverheard it in stereo before. All in all this is a wonderful copy and Ihope will be digitally converted to blu-ray in the future. A fulland hearty thumbs up goes to The Williamsburg Foundation on this project.

Although the film is a fictional onebased on the character John Fry, (played by Jack Lord of HawaiiFive-O fame), the film is historically accurate and filmed in theauthentically recreated town of Williamsburg. It also sports someother well known names but doesn't have the normal hollywood dramafeel to it. This was a well made movie that accurately depicts thetimes in which the character might have lived. While the movie doesnot quite meet the restoration quality of some hollywood movies onblu-ray, it certainly is well worth owning.

The movie itself is only 38 minuteslong and in wide-screen format enhanced for 16 X 9 televisions. Restoration liner notes can be viewed by clicking on the picture below.

More information on the movie is available at IMDB at this link here. The movie can be ordered at this link here.

Somehow, we received our copy for free. I think it was available through advertising paperwork we receivedas former members of Williamsburg. Our copy arrived in a cardboardsleeve. The copies available from the Williamsburg Marketplace havestandard dvd cases and artwork included.

Although we received ourcopy for free it did not influence this review in any way. My wifeordered the dvd and I was thrilled to take it upstairs and watch themovie I had remembered from my childhood years and feel it is stillworth owning if you have ever been to Williamsburg, plan to go there,or just want a good historical film for your children.

___________________________________

Easy Chai Recipe

2011-08-18T19:18:00.001-04:00

I recently purchased a great tasting Chai drink from a local store but didn't like the aftertaste it left, (made with soy milk), or the cost, ($5.00 a bottle), so I decided to create my own and do it using a raw cashew milk since I am trying to convert to raw recipes, (no, not raw meat and I don't recommend it).

Cashews make a wonderful creamy milk. I started by filling my blender with 20 ounces of water. Next I added 1/2 cup of raw cashews. Next I added one chai tea bag, (cut the end open and pour out the tea ingredients of the bag into the blender and discard the paper). I used "Celestial Seasonings Teahouse Chai," but you can use any you prefer. Add 1/2 to 3/4 cup of agave nectar, ( or equivalent honey, cane sugar, or regular table sugar, depending on your tastes and how sweet you want it). I used agave nectar because it has a lower glycemic index than sugar or honey. After initial blending, add water to bring the volume in the blender to 32 ounces.

Other options are using other types of milk; almond milk, sesame milk, etc. I do not know how these would taste but cashews do great as a milk. Also, you can use 3/4- 1 cup of cashews if you really want it creamy. It cost me aproximately $.75 per 32 ounce jar. Since I prefer to mix the milk out of the jar with fifty-percent water I get 64 ounces out of a batch, but you could drink it straight as blended for a creamier mix. I also use a commercial blender so you may have to filter the final product if you do not have a commercial blender.

be forwarned, raw cashew milk doesn't last long, even refrigerated, (about 2-3 days at the most), so drink it up! Here's a summary of what you need.

1 decent blender
1 32 ounce jar or container
1 chai teabag, cut at the end and poured into the blender
1/2 to 3/4 cup raw cashews
1/2 to 3/4 cup agave nectar, (or equivalent in honey or sugar to taste).
20 ounces of water for the initial blend, (and remainder to bring volume to 32 ounces once blended).

85 Dead In Norway And Our Sense Of Justice

2011-07-24T13:26:00.034-04:00

I did not want to post this on my spiritual blog because it does not necessarily deal with spiritual issues.

As of this writing, there are over 85 dead in the recent killings in Norway from a lone gunman who also blew up government buildings using a method similar to what was used in Oklahoma, here in the US.

This kind of news reminds me of why I believe in capital punishment, so called. I do not believe in capital punishment as such but I do believe in the death penalty. The question that often arises in my mind is this, is there a true and just penalty for the death of so many lives. One offender gives up his life in an electric chair or by lethal injection while 85 people have lost their lives in a horrifying way by a callous person who neither respects or cares about the lives of other. Is his death really a payment for such a crime and how do you balance that to make it fair?

The truth is, you can't. There is no fair way to balance punishment for such a heinous crime, especially if you are thinking in terms of fairness and justice, and is it really "fair" to those victims' families for such a person to be "rehabilitated" by society, if such a thing were possible, for losing their loved ones in such a way?

I read that the maximum penalty in Norway for any crime is 21 years imprisonment! I hope this is a mistake by the writer whose column I read. If such a thing is true how fair is that to those victims families? To extend the life of such a person who would do such a thing is to say to those who would do such things that there is no crime they will ever put you to death for, so go ahead and do what you want, you'll never die for it.

A recent study shows that most criminals are not stopped from committing such crimes out of fear of the death penalty. Is this a reason to not have a death penalty? This is still thinking from the rehabilitation point of view, that if we can produce enough fear in a person from the start then they will not commit murder. Such reasonings are evident of how blind we are to the real purpose of the death penalty. First, and foremost, it is to prevent that person from ever committing such a crime again and to never allow them that opportunity. After all, we can never really know their heart, or the future, as to whether they will or will not ever commit that crime again. If allowed out on the street, whether rehabilitated or not, just like the alchoholic, he may again at some point return to it. Second, to show there is a maximum penalty for such crimes and that there are crimes considered so immoral, wicked, or heinous by any lawful society that they warrant such judgement. Third, by such judgement, show there is an ultimate right and wrong while extending to it's victims some sort of repayment for their loss, though inferior a repayment as it might be. Thus, the crime committed in Norway would be such an act and would warrant such a penalty.

Living in society today in which right and wrong values are on the judgement stand in our courts and states and in which every one decides for themselves what is right and wrong, it becomes clear why the death penalty is even questioned to start with. After all, what is the ultimate penalty but whatever the ruling class decides, in such a society that throws out God and leaves the answer to the question to itself? If right and wrong as we have been taught is constantly being attacked then who decides right and wrong but the ruling class? Under those standards the man who commits such crimes is right if society decides he is because it's only the ruling class who can say he is wrong, not a ultimate right or wrong decided by God. And if we are no more than animals and should be allowed to grow naturally as some believe well then why condemn such a person. After all, nature does not condemn the animal kingdom for killing violently for food or sport? Animals do what they want or are driven to do by their very nature.

The death penalty existed for so long because man believed there was a higher power, God, who would one day bring all men into judgement and that there was a maximum crime in which the punishment was death. Man now tries to toss God out of the picture and what can only take his place will be a society that has no set standard except what it deems to be right at the time with men struggling for the right to decide who makes that decision; a society driven by the course of nature and by it's own instincts. Such a society is difficult to live in since there are not set standards of right and wrong except what those who have the power say it is. In such a society people will openly steal, kill, deceive, cheat and anything else, and those at the top see themselves above the law since they create it. If society sees their officials do such things then why shouldn't it's people, and all the more so seeing those at the top taking it all for themselves? We live in such a society now. Our officials want to make more laws even while they violate the very ones themselves. This year there has seen more corruption by those in power than any other. Never has freedom been more preached from the pulpits of government at the same time more individual rights have been taken away, all for the sake of the rights of a select few.

I suspect this man who committed the horrific crimes in Norway will never suffer the death penalty for his crimes to those 85 people or their families because of his rights to be rehabilitated for his crimes, and yet those 85 people and their families rights will mean absolutely nothing if that happens. The rights of the one will have outweighed the rights of the many for justice and freedom from fear all their lives, and the knowing they will be able to walk the streets free from fear of him 21 years from now when he gets out.

Mercury Living Presence CD's

2011-07-22T21:23:00.000-04:00

One of the things I like is music I grew up with. My dad had a couple of albums by "Mercury" that he listened to when I as a kid. They were some of the earliest "stereo" recordings at the time, and of course, listening to them on cheap record players I never really appreciated their sound with all the "pops" and scratches.

I've always liked classical music, I picked that up from my dad who also loved it. He went to a music conservatory for a year and could have been a concert pianist and was recommended to do so. I believe it was WWII that changed that for him. In any case, he loved music in general, and I can remember him listening, sometimes for hours to music.

One of my favorites

With the advent of CD I moved away from record albums to some extent. I have found a few over the years in mint condition and have committed to copying them from my turntable to a digital format to listen to. I still have a few of my dad's records but don't play them because they wore out a long time ago. Some I have replaced with newer copies on CD and some with mint recordings I have found along the way.

I believe it was five years ago when I saw my first cd copy of the old Mercury Records recordings they had begun committing to cd. They had been out for a couple of years unknown to me. It was a copy in our library that I checked out. I had remembered them sounding pretty good but was really amazed at hearing them in the digital format. It sounded more full and rich with clearer highs, full bodied bass, and cleaner sound than many of my cd's with recordings made completely digital from original recording to finished cd. I could hear distinct separations of instrments in the listening field and their placements in the orchestra.

This was the first one I purchased

Mercury Records began making stereo recordings in the early fifties using a state of the art process for them. They used only three microphones and recorded it to a three channel recorder built just for this purpose. Many of the recordings were practiced but recorded in just one take. They began using 1/2 inch magnetic tape, (1/4inch magnetic tape was used for the old 8 track, reel to reel, and 1/8 inch for cassettes). Later, they advance to 35mm film stock because of it's lower noise and more consistant recording. The use of the three strategically placed microphones produced a more realistic sound but unlike today's recordings, once the sound was committed to tape it couldn't be mixed and altered as thoroughly as today's recordings with their sixteen, twenty-four, and thirty-two track recording consoles. But their straight forward clarity and warmth keeps me listening to them. I hope to increase my library of them. On the same note, the RCA "Living Stereo" Recordings from around the same time period were done in a similar fashion and have a larger library available, (60 recordings), that have been given the same sort of quality treatment if you want to try some of those too. I particularly like the Mario Lanza recording and the Boston Pops recordings.

This one is the second one I bought

Cover art I downloaded for the purpose of showing the one I am currently listening to from our local library and will be purchasing on ebay in the next day or two-

If you want to listen to some great timeless recordings from a by-gone day, these are the ones to listen to.

My Other Blog

2011-07-16T18:59:00.000-04:00

For those who don't know or may have missed it, my blog on Biblical and spiritual things is at this address...

http://swiths.wordpress.com/

Please stop by.

Washington DC Trip & National Cathedral

2011-06-08T23:16:00.000-04:00

Here are a few pics from a recent trip to Washington DC, during which we went to see the National Cathedral. If you have never visited the National Cathedral it is worth the trip. It is the only "Gothic" type of Cathedral in the US. It is quite amazing! What I am proud of is most of these shots were hand held @ 1/30th of a second or less. The black and white of the stairs was handheld @ 1/8th of a second. Wow, even for me!

My Review Of The Canoscan 9000F-Part 2

2011-05-12T08:58:00.000-04:00

After the scanner arrived and Iunpacked it the first thing I noticed was it's bulky size. While notany bulkier than some standard flatbed scanner, it was still bulkierthan our smaller Canon Lide60 that sat on my wife's desk and hadbecome the workhorse for our family. The bulkiness did not take longto get used to and it now sits next to my computer as my newestfriend.

My intitial concern was having to putMicrosoft Windows back onto my computer to make the program work. The scanner comes with Canon's own scan program, Archsoft photo, andAdobe 8 photo elements. None of these programs are compatible withlinux. I had opted out of using windows several years ago choosingthe benefits of open source computer software over the expensivewindows software and applications you had to purchase over and overwith each newer operating system microsoft produced. While I amcurrently working on finding the necessary open source software tosupport it, it does run fairly functional on my Virtual box windowsXP Installation which I only use for some older programs that aren'tsupported anymore. I haven't bought any new windows software forabout 5 or 6 years now.

The scanner comes with three filmholders; one for negatives, one for slides, and one for 120 format. At this point of time I do not want to go into the software and howto work it. I found the software fairly intuitive andexperimentation is the only way anyone can achieve the results theydesire personally. Canon does not list a D-max value for the printerbut I found it capable, at least for me, where shadow detail isconcerned. It was even able to pick up or differenciate between theiris on an eye in a scan of a picture I took years ago of my mother. This was not visible even with dodging techniques when I printed iton photo paper.

Scan of my mom taken from the Kodak Tri-X film negative. Just "right-click" on the images to open a new window, then click on the image to see a fullsize image.

Below is a crop section showing the eye.

The scanner can scan up to a 9000 dpi,although as I understand it, acutal mechanical resolution is onlyavailable up to 4800 dpi and the rest is done through some kind ofsoftware doubling effect. I couldn't go into it more because Iwasn't really interested. The higher quality Nikon and Minoltascanners only got aroung the 4000 resolution as I recall so that wasenough for me. Dpi is only one judge of resolution. The actualsharpness of the lense is more important to me and I don't rememberany statistics for this. The best way to judge it is subjective atbest. I figured that since Nikon and Minolta both made cameras withsharp lenses, the Canon would do well too since it was a cameramanufacturer. In my opinion, this is true of the Canonscan 9000F. It's lense is within the range of sharpness I expected and it isprobably the best film scanner available within the price range whichmost people can afford.

The fact that most people aren't thatquality concious with photography and simple 4 x6 prints are whatmost people want, high tech film photography will be left strictly toprofessionals who can afford it. Expensive film scans willeventually be the only way to go for those who cling to the format. This may be the last chance to get a decent scanner that can do allof your film before the film industry totally dies off in the wake ofdigital. There is increasingly less interest for film, and partlywith good reason. Look at all the advantages for both the industryand the person.

Better detail in images
No dust
More pictures “turn out” and those that don't you just delete.
No waiting to see your pictures. Just view them at the store kiosk, on your computer, online, or in a photo frame.
No negatives to store. Store hundreds on cd or thousands on dvd and blu-ray discs.
No need to take them to store for printing at all if you keep a quality printer and don't mind the higher cost of printing yourself
Send them for printing over the internet from where ever you are. No need to drive to the store twice.
Reduced cost for the printing industry. No need to keep a film developing machine or film scanner. Now you can make money just printing the photos.
Don't have to worry about keeping film chemistry fresh of risk ruining someones negatives.

Let's face it, even the cheapest digital camera pictures look better that the old 110, 127, and 35mm prints from the cheap consumer camera of the past.

Below is a picture of the film/slidemounts. The 120 mount has a plastic piece that slide under thenegative and helps hold it up to prevent buckling of the film. Theyseem to be sturdy enough. My concern is whether they will hold upwithout breaking. Time will tell. They seem to hold the negativeflat enough except for the 35 mm strip. If you are using a 4 framenegative, (which is the way most photo stores cut them), then the oneloose end will curl at the end. To prevent this, turn the negativearound and scan the one frame separately. I would think this wouldbe a problem for most film scanners.

One of the considerations is thatflatbed scanners generally have more of a dust problem because theyare open instead of feeding the negative through soft brushes thatremove some dust when the negative enters the dedicated film typescanner. You will need to be more dust diligent. There is a programcalled “fare” that does a decent job of removing dust. Thisprogram, as other type of programs, usually cause some loss ofsharpness. Also, they cannot remove all dust and will not remove theworst cases. Whether or not you choose to use these type ofprograms, you will still need to prevent as much dust to begin with.

Overall, I found the Canoscan 9000F tobe just what I needed. For a guy who couldn't afford the moreexpensive dedicated film scanners on the market that would perhapslater just sit in a closet collecting dust, this scanner meets all ofmy needs. After all, who knows if filmeven be around in ten years? If my film cameras break will I even be able to get parts or have them fixed? Will I want to? This scanner makes great regular scans too so I will have it for that if it holds up.

Just a couple of notes. First, if the film is placed in the holders correctly, then the scan will be reversed of the way the picture will look. In other words, you will have to "flip" the photo over for it to look correct. Otherwise, the picture will be backwards and any words in the photo, (signs, printed material, etc.), will read backwards. The proper way is for the emulsion side to face down.

Second, if you can get used to the advance feature instead of the basic, then you can do a lot of preliminary adjustments to color and dust removal before you actually scan the photo. This is made possible because the preview feature of the scanner makes a quick pass for previewing all the photos you are scanning. I do not use the bundled Adobe & Archsoft photo processing programs although they are fine programs. I have been using Google's picassa & Gimp which are open source programs for years and am used to them and prefer them.

A few more scans from the Canoscan 9000F:

A pic of my wife, (center), and a enlargement of just her from a slide, (sorry, the complete fullsize image shown here is a low quality pic so don't try to get a full size view of it). I have manually touched it up.

An unretouched scan from a 120 black & white negative. Not sure what film type; seems to be an off brand. Sorry, the slide and the 120 are not professional shots and I did not take them.

An un-retouched scan from a color polaroid film negative I used to test a camera I repaired.

Coming up. A comparison of a couple of scans done locally compared to the scans from the Canoscan 9000F. How will it compare? Do-no at this time. Got to go cut grass and run some errands. Let you know when I get back.

My Review Of The Canoscan 9000F-Part 1

2011-05-12T08:44:00.000-04:00

For a long time I have wanted toconvert our negatives and slides to a digital format but have beenunable to do so because of money constraints and dis-satisfaction ofthe quality tranfers from local labs. For good quality transfers thecost increases dramatically. Because the cost for even the poorquality transfers I was seeing from local labs was so expensive forthe amount of tranfers I needed done I just couldn't justify it. Itseemed the only way to get the transfer quality I wanted was to sendthem to really expensive labs and also risk negatives getting lost ordamaged.

Years ago I ran a photo-lab and duringthis time was able to financially afford photography as a hobby aswell as on a semi-professional level. I also accumulated more thanthe average families share of photos. This, and my art backgroundmade me picky about quality. For the most part, even before thattime, I developed my own photos leaving the color film developmentfor a good lab. I did all of my black and white developing fromstart to finish. Digital photography slowly began to creep in and Iam glad it has. For those who don't care or unknowingly don't knowthe differences between living in a digital photo world let mebriefly explain. The sometimes hours of physically removing dust andmaking sure your darkroom is spotless so dust doesn't show onnegatives is done away with because in a digital camera there is nodust to accumulate on a negative. Every time a negative is handledit can get dust and scratches that will appear in the photo. Sure,there are contraptions on the market made to aid in dust removal. But as long as you keep your digital camera in reasonably cleancondition then dust will never be a problem for digital photography.

Another thing that is better in thedigital photography world is having to deal with highlights andshadows. In film photography there is such limitations much timemust be spent in the field trying to decide where highlight andshadow detail should be placed on a zone scale and then compensationsmade in development so the most detail on both ends of the scale arevisible in the print. Then hours may be spent burning and dodgingareas in the enlargement process to further add this detail in aprint.

One of the first things I noticed whenbuying my first digital camera was the greatly increased background,(in room shots without flash), from that of film photography. Theability of the digital camera to pick up details in darker areas of aroom during flash photography was a added side benefit. Well, thesensitivity of ccd imaging in a digital camera was boosted in thefirst place making it so hand held shots in darker rooms was possibleso you didn't even need flash in many instances where you would haveneeded it in film photography. But with film photography, thebackground would go immensely dark in comparison to the forgroundwith heavy shadows; something that happens less often with digital. The greatest difference, perhaps, is you have to treat digital morelike slide film; shooting for the highlights instead of the shadowsin outdoor sunny pictures or pictures where you want to retainhighlight detail.

Enough about the photography end ofthings. Here was my problem in short. I couldn't afford payingsomeone else to scan all of my negatives and I wasn't happy with thescans I could get. I didn't want to sink 2 to 4000 dollars into aNikon film scanner to do all of my photos and the cheaper ones didn'thave the quality. I tried some dual flatbed film scanners availablethrough photo and office stores but the quality still wasn't there. So what I did was sit on the idea and lived without until I couldfind one that would do the job. In the mean time, the two bestscanners in a semi-affordable range, (Nikon & Minolta), stoppedmaking film scanners all together. The only ones on the market noware way too expensive or just not worth it for me.

While reading about scanners again afew days ago I came across an article about the Canoscan 9000F. Itis a flatbed scanner that does both film and regular printing and Ithought, “can there be any good flatbed dual mode scanners outthere.” Upon reading the article I was impressed by the scans theywere showing, and all from a scanner costing less than $200.00dollars. The scans were within the quality range I was looking for,all because of the adjustable spherical lens developed by Canon. Oneof the main drawbacks with previous dual purpose scanners was thepreset/prefocused lenses used in all the models. I had taken twoback because they just couldn't produce sharp images. While this wasfine for low quality images on the internet, it wasn't fine for me. Now here was a scanner that answered the call. More on this scannerin my next post.

DVD Vs. Blu-ray Upgrade Decisions

2011-04-29T07:38:00.044-04:00

There is no doubt, blu-ray is better than dvd in every way except current costs. It's better sharpness, color, highlights and shadow detail win out in every category. The question is, "is it time to switch?"

Well, we switched a few months back. With our old dvd player, (13 years old and one of the first cheap models), dying on us and needing an extra television for a Wii system for my wife's excercising, we decided to take the plunge. The one thing we didn't take the plunge with, (my wife may say different), was upgrading movies to blu-ray. In that we have actually been rather conservative.

There are several reasons for this. First, we did buy some new blu-ray movies. What we bought were mostly movies that fit certain criteria. At first, we purchased blu-ray movies we absolutely loved enough to spend an extra price for since blu-ray was much higher in cost than dvd. Dvd, however, has become especially cheap now with companies packaging movies and their sequels in multi-packs, (see the Miss Congienality series online), with sometimes four movies in a pack. We saw superman series, one through four, sold for as little as $9.99 for the four-pak. Dvd could not get any cheaper. Also, ebay made buying dvd's as cheap as 99 cents, (plus $3.00 shipping), bringing our price for dvd's down to as little as $4.00 a movie. At that cost, it is cheaper to buy movies than rent and if you don't like the movie, sell it again on ebay.

This brings me to the second reasoning to stick with mainly dvd copies. With some movies it honestly did not matter whether they were on blu-ray or not simply because the difference in quality was not as apparent. I found this out when we bought the stunning remastered BBC version of Pride and Predjudice on blu-ray vs. the remastered dvd version. Well, we actually bought a couple of other BBC blu-ray also and love them, but purchasing them later on blu-ray made me wonder if it was worth it and affected my decisions for other movies too. Primary, was the fact that none of our family's computers have blu-ray drives. Being too expensive to update them too, and since most of our movie watching was done on computers. I decided that owning blu-ray needed to be constrained mostly to sci-fi movies, such as Star Trek where the digital detail was most appreciated in the special effects of the movies, with classics now released in remastered editions, or movies we didn't own yet but the blu-ray sold for the same or less than the dvd version. My wife, and I are both "chic-flick" fans. These we purchased instead as dvd's on ebay or at several Blockbuster stores that were closing in our area at a severely discounted price. Some of them I purchased for as little as 99 cents.

Another factor that has swayed my opinion to purchase dvd is the quality of dvd's has advanced in the last few years. With the switch by studios from using what is called "dvd-5" to "dvd-9" has made a difference in movie quality. For the most part, these movies will be labeled "enhanced for 6 x 9 televisions" or "anamorphic widescreen" on the backs. Sometimes it will just say "HD" or "high definition" transfer. Usually, if a disc simply has the words "letterboxed" the movie is not "dvd-9." DVD-9 is a dual layer disc that allows more storage for the movie itself by producing it in dual layer 8 GB disc, as opposed to a single layer 4 GB dvd disc. By allowing more space for the movie, quality is improved. Because of this, the appearance of the movie when played may be close or similar in quality to a blu-ray's quality. While it is not the same quality, in most cases people may not notice enough difference to justify spending the extra amount for a blu-ray version. Whether or not saving money by buying higher quality dvd over blu-ray in the long run depends on two factors. One is whether support for dvd being built into the blu-ray players, (or whatever replaces blu-ray in the future), continues for a long time, and whether or not blu-ray ever comes down in price enough to warrant simply replacing it.

A couple of other decisions have affected whether or not we replace dvd with blu-ray. Cartoons and kids movies seem to least be benefited by the upgrade. Not only do children not care one way or another whether a movie is higher definition and in blu-ray or not, but the improvement for graphics in the case of cartoons seems only slight. Exceptions would be some of the Disney cartoon movies but not all. For instance, the improvements in Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" are unmatched. Not only is the quality better, but it's in it's original widescreen version now instead of the previous fullscreen. Not only that, the stunning "Grand Canyon" feature film bonus alone makes it worth owning. But some movies, like Incredibles, were not worth the upgrade to me. Even though I received disney's $10.00 discount coupon for the upgrade, (which was only good for about 3 days once I got it; not enough time to me to consider an upgrade) I did not consider the previously purchased dvd quality enough quality difference to justify repurchase in blu-ray.

One reason to step up to newer versions on blu-ray is some of the movies have impressive remasters, such as "The Ten Commandments," with Charlton Heston. This movie, to me, has become the definitive example of what was great about Technicolor films- great filming, and masters of the camera and filming craft. Not only has blu-ray advanced film archiving and restoration for blu-ray films, but this has carried over into dvd as well. After all, if the studios are going to pour money into restoring an old film so it will show-off in blu-ray, why not sell it again as a dvd and make money there too, right? I only wish they would pour money into restoring all the old films. As a side-note here, whether or not you like the movie "The Red Shoes" remastered by Criterion, you should nevertheless watch it simply for it's technical retoration improvements. This remaster is an example of what can be acheived with state-of-the-art digital enhancements. It is absolutely flawless even in it's fullscreen original state, (not widescreen). Every dust speck, hair, spot, wrinkle, faded shot, variation in color has been removed which was quite a feat as explained in the special features. Would every older movie got the same treatment. I was impressed when in the first shot of the Moira Shearer's face one could distinquish the subtile differences in the shades and color of whites, (teeth, pearls, eyes), something that is difficult for any photographer to capture. Every shot is like a piece of fine art.

One thing to know about upgrading to blu-ray is each player must be connected via a lan line to upgrade the player. What this amounts to is the studio's want control over your viewing of their movies. With new copy guard protecitons being invented as time goes on your player will need to be "upgraded." I have two problems with this. First, I currently own a blu-ray copy of Disney's "Tangled" that we cannot watch in blu-ray. This is because Disney, from what my blu-ray player manufacturer has told me, has a new copy protection system in place and the manufacturer has not developed an upgrade for this that will allow it to play. This is adventagious for both the manufacturers of the players and the studios that make the movies. Let us hypothisise the manufactuers are not selling enough players and no longer provide updates. They can simply stop upgrading their older players to the new movies. Let's say the companies that make the movies want your movies to be obsolite. They can simply make movies that can no longer be decoded by current players. Let's say the movies studios lobby so that all manufacturers must release their knowledge of each players decoding functions so they can police how you play what you play by allowing movie companies to automatically outdate your movie if it was produced after a certain date by simply over-riding your player. Dvd's do not have the capability for this kind of control so sticking with dvd's may be the only way to go if you don't want to run lan wires from your routers or have companies make your player obsolete in the future. I want to note here this has so far not been done, I am only speculating the future of the medium.

Our blu-ray collection currently is only 10% of our total movie collection, with an average cost of less than $7.00 each including the shipping in that cost. Many of them were purchased used through auctions. I have never had a used blu-ray not play. Since blu-ray discs are more durable, and less likely to scratch, the used versions seem just as good as the new. My first two were purchased in local stores at regular retail price. A few others, probably about 5, were purchased retail at not more than half the regular retail price. There are good deals in blu-ray if you are willing to wait for a good sale or for them to arrive with shipping through ebay, or amazon, for example.

Whether you decide to upgrade to blu-ray, or just retain dvd for a while, I hope you will be better able to make the decision when it comes.

VOTING

2010-09-29T13:44:00.013-04:00

I have to confess, I didn't vote until I was married, that was when I was...er....26/27? I did not before mostly because I did not see the issues envolved as being my issues. I mean, I was not concerned about the issues and felt there was little anyone could do about them anyway. I was blinded, as most people are that don't vote, into thinking life was like a river that just kept rolling on and there was nothing I could do about it's course or character.

I was a selfish person thinking mostly of myself. When I was married things changed. I became concerned about my family, especially my children's future, and what I could do about the changes in our society that I both disagreed with and affected them.

I cannot remember the first president I voted for. I remember the first president I conciously voted against and that was Bill Clinton. I know I voted before him, but I just don't remember when. I can tell you one thing I do remember. I remember being ashamed because I had not done such a simple thing to change evil or policy in our country as the simple thing of voting. As I stood in the box pushing the buttons I acually remember thinking that thought and wondering how my one vote might have changed the course of history before and how evil can take the upper hand by the use of such a simple thing. Imagine the course of history if Hitler had not been voted into office? How many lives might have been saved. Now I wonder what evil things my children or grandchildren might not have suffered in the loss of their freedoms if I had voted. I know you think I am dramatizing this but history has been changed by simple "one things" in the past people have been too oblivious or careless to change.

It is often said those who don't vote shouldn't complain. It struck me how true this is. This year at work a work mate was talking about how stupid everyone was who voted for candidates other than Obama. He later confessed he doesn't vote at all! Who is the stupid one? I told him don't even talk to me about it because you are the last one I would consider to be an expert!

This year we are in a clearer position in views than perhaps ever in history. We have two sides. Those who want to take away American freedom by promising more vain promises to those who value their own safety and comfort, and those who want to restore American freedom even though it costs us pain, discomfort, and suffering personally. This was the very choice our forefathers stood up for and against. Our country was founded on the sacrifice of those who were not only willing to lose everything they had, but did in the belief that freedoms were more important than personal comfort and security.

In every government program created there is a little yielding of our rights as an individual. The more programs created the more rights are removed from us as citizens. If you use a government program, then you are a debtor to the government and recognize it's rule over you as an individual. You say to the government, take care of me and I will serve you. That is not the way our government was set up. Our government was set up to serve us as Americans.

I hope you will see the need to vote. Perhaps it is too late for our govenment to conform to the Constitution again. Perhaps our Constitution now only exists as a piece of paper only and not the Ideals it represented. In any case, things won't change for the good unless we vote.

Here's a link to Men's Monday Meme, "Families Again,"

Wubi- An Easier Way To Try Ubuntu

2010-09-14T16:33:00.018-04:00

Because of problems dual-booting mywife's computer with the latest Ubuntu, along with problems setting up thewifi, I decided to give “Wubi” a try. I found Wubi to be an easyinstall, compared to dual booting. Not only was it easier to set up, italso saved me tons of time.

Wubi is a Ubuntu installation which isset up onto windows itself using a Windows .exe file. How it doesall this is explained in their website and will not be tackled by mein this post, only that it is not a true “virtualization” layeras such and that it involves non-looping, (or is that looping)operating systems? Anyway, I like Wubi and will be using it in thefuture for all of my families' laptops, and mine when I eventuallyreplace it.

Unlike using virtual machines ordual-booting, which tends to slow down every laptop I have everinstalled them on, it actually seemed to run much, much, faster.

To install Wubi you just go to theirsite here , download thefree .exe file, click on it and follow the instructions. After youclick on it, it will begin installing Ubuntu from the internet andwill ask you how large of a drive you want to install it on. I havealways installed Ubuntu on 20-24 GB of space and, since my wife'shard drive on her laptop was 250 GB, I chose 24 GB which is plentyfor what we usually do with Ubuntu. Installing to a hard drive spaceis technically incorrect because what you are really doing isinstalling Ubuntu to a simple folder in the Windows like any otherfolder. If you want to uninstall it later it is a simple processusing Windows add/ remove program. I installed it in only 10 GBspace initially but liked it so much that I uninstalled it andreinstalled it permanantly to my wife's laptop after removing herdual-booted Ubuntu install and resizing the hard drive.

The reasons I like it so much arethese,

I made a better use of her wifi. Somehow it automatically found her wifi and I did not have to install drivers as I had to with her previously dual-booted installation. Also, because it was somehow using her native wifi drivers, I had stronger wifi reception and was not suffering the “every few minutes” drop out in signal that had occurred with the dual-booted installation.

Next, everything ran faster! I was happy with that. Unfortunately, as fast as Windows 7 or Ubuntu dual-booted was, neither was as fast as Wubi. Everything seemed to open faster and work faster. I am not sure how this is so, but it seems that wubi somehow disengages many things in Windows as itboots and so uses most of the Windows drivers in a faster way. I was even able to run some of the games, like GL Tron with 3d acceleration without installing the special drivers that Ubuntu was prompting me to install. In fact, the native drivers in Windows ran better than the Ubuntu Nvidia driver I installed, (and later uninstalled), from the Wubi Ubuntu installation. Flash, Java, and Movies played too with the usual extra set of driversand steps needed for Ubuntu.

Lastly, the installation, (and later un-install), and subsequent final install of Wubi were so simple and fast. Note, in Windows XP there are a couple of extra steps needed to uninstall Wubi that are documented on their site, but even these are not oppressive in nature. For most, uninstalling will be as simple as uninstalling any other program in Windows.

In my opinion it is the easiest way toinstall Ubuntu and it worked for everything it had with thedual-booted install.

If you are thinking of using this thenhere is a list of pros and cons.

PROS-

Faster install, however, I had to delete my previous dual-booted install of Ubuntu and resize the hard drive to allow space for the Ubuntu folder added to Windows, in my case, 24GB. For my subsequent install it was much faster. How much? My final install was 15 minutes not counting reinstalling my backups.

Should work with your native Windows drivers

Easy to uninstall with only a couple extra steps for Windows XP.

It leaves more space on your drive for dual-booting other operating systems. Because it boots in Windows I am not taking up that extra space setting up a parition for Ubuntu thus freeing it to be used by another Operating system like Free-bsd, Opensolaris, or any other OS I like or want to experiment with. Normally, If you want to continue using Windows 7 along side Ubuntu, then in many cases three partions will be already taken up by Windows, the restore drive, and the boot drive leaving space for only one other partition, since there is a limit of four partitions you can place on a drive. If you are using Widows XP, this can be pared down to only one partion leaving three partitions free for other operating systems. Theorically you can have five operating systems on one drive. Also, I haven't tried running a virtual OS with virtual box or vmware inside the faster Wubi installation. Maybe I can have my cake and eat it too by not having to dual-boot any OS at all.

CONS-

It creates it's own boot menu which in itself is not a problem, but when Ubuntu installs it also installs a grub menu so you click on two menus to get into Ubuntu, (only have to click on the initial Wubi menu to get into Windows). This is just a minor annoyance because I went into the grub menu in Ubuntu and set the boot time to 1 second so it would automatically boot the grub menu and in a shorter time and I wouldn't have to touch it.

If your Windows installation fails because of a virus or you need to reload windows for any other reason, then you will lose your Wubi install also. Those who want a separate home partion so they can always only install Ubuntu retaining this information will not be able to do so. In my case the benefits outweigh the loss.

Right now they are still using Ubuntu Lucid as their Ubuntu installation. Those who want to try a newer version, or another version of Linux will have to try their own experimental install. Wubi says on their web site that it is possible to install other versions by somehow deleting the Ubuntu folder and installing another version in place of it. This was beyond what I wanted to attempt and Lucid Ubuntu is fine for me.

Because it somehow uses Windows native drivers there was at least one thing missing. It didn't sense the sound system in the same way. The sound icon was missing from the taskbar at the top. The installation did have sound, I just had to click on the sound mixer icon in the AlaCarte menu, and this was a basic mixer window. For my wife and I this wasn't really a bother since she never used the more complicated sound mixer anyway. I simply installed a shortcut to it on the taskbar to open that same window so I could control the sound. I also haven't had the time to try it with skype so I don't know if it will work with that. Guess I'll have to wait to find out.

Overall, I like Wubi and wouldrecommend it to anyone, and since it is free, there is no cost tofind out if you will too.

By the way, I was not asked to review Wubi or Ubuntu nor did I receive money,compensation, or pressure to try Wubi.

Blast From The Past

2010-07-26T13:00:00.003-04:00

A couple of weeks ago I went back to my hometown and where my wife and I once lived when we were first married.

This is a picture of the driveway of the lot where our mobile home sat. The color photo is the one I took while I was down there and the black and white is from 1989. The driveway that was once a hard sandy clay type material was almost completely covered with grass and weeds. The little girl in the black and white photo is our oldest daughter who is now 24. I wish I had thought to bring the original photos so I could position myself aproximately where I stood back then when I took the newer photos.

This is my grandmother's house now. I don't know who owns it. You can see the differences from the older photo below. There was a wooden railing on top of the roof, wood siding and trim, a tree line and hedges that stood on the other side of the house. There was also a house aproximately where the mobile home stands now. Also, I noticed there was no longer a ditch in front and on both
sides of the house. It is now filled in with dirt and grass. It also looks like the original half-moon shaped steps are gone.

Below is a picture of the house where I grew up. When I was taking pictures of my old neighborhood the man who lives in the house now was suspicious of me and came out to find out what I was doing taking a picture of his house. I explained to him I grew up there and he became friendly and we talked for a few minutes. I appreciate his friendliness in allowing me to take pictures of the house but forgot to ask his name.

The tree in front of the house looked like a tall oak tree. I remembered a small memosa tree in the spot where the oak now stands. I wasn't sure my memory was correct but later when my sister and I were talking she brought up the fact a memosa tree stood there before. There used to be a 250 gallon oil drum where the car now stands. Surprisingly, the house was not sided all the way around and if you look closely, the side by the car is still the original asphalt shingles. You can't see it in this picture, but in the back there is still a patio my dad built with poured concrete. When I was 4 or 5 years old, my mom and I were standing on the top step in front of the door and my mom was talking to a friend who was standing 4 feet from the bottom step when a bolt of lightning struck the ground between my mom and I and my mom's friend.

The neighborhood has paved roads now, but then they were all dirt.

This is a picture of the house when I was young. I am standing there with my sister. My parents bought the house new for $6,000.00. Wonder what it costs now?

New Blog Post-Finally!

2010-06-23T14:50:00.000-04:00

Hello...

I have my new blog set up for spiritual things I am writing about. You can get there by following my link here or by clicking the link on the sidebar.

I hope it will be of interest to you. This blog will be mostly for family and fun things. All of my older posts will be resubmitted on my new blog and eventually deleted from here.

Blast From The Past

2010-06-14T22:06:00.020-04:00

My wife does this every now and then and it is always fun to participate. She calls it "blast from the past." What you do is blog about your past, include a picture and a little story about the picture.

This is my blast from the past. This picture is of a tomato plant growing below our window. The story is this: It was Halloween and as we had been most every year, we went to a church event with them our church has every year during Halloween so the kids could play games, get candy, and be safe. When we came home there was a tomato smashed against our window. My wife said that she would clean it off the next day but she forgot. A couple of days later it rained and washed it off the window. We forgot about it.

Next spring, as we were getting ready to go to church, I looked down below the window and saw this strange plant. Isn't that a tomato plant, I asked my wife. How did that get there? Finally I realized it was from the tomato that someone had thrown against our window. That plant grew as tall as half way to the top of the window in the picture, (in the picture it is still a small plant), and gave us huge delicious tomatoes that year. It was a perfect example of how God turned something meant for harm into something good.

Last year, a stolen vehicle plowed through our yard, hit our car, and smashed our car against our house, directly below that same window. As I went outside in the dark to survey the damage to our car below that same window, the Lord reminded of how he turns bad things into good.

05-10-10 More Pics Of Valley Garden

2010-05-14T11:23:00.005-04:00

What a day! Almost nothing but blue skys. Only one little cloud I didn't see until after I took the picture.

Camera Information: Nikon D3000 in manual mode. All pictures shot using Nikon manual Ais lens 35-70 zoom. Apertures: various f/16-f/8@ 1/100 sec.

Valley Garden Park

2010-04-28T17:53:00.000-04:00

Just some recent pics from another park in our area.

Using Nikon 35-70mm Ais lens on D3000

2010-04-14T23:29:00.002-04:00

If you are like me, perhaps you shied away from the D3000 Nikon because you were told you cannot mount the older lenses on it. This is not true. Older Ais lenses will mount on the D3000. However, you must be careful not to mount wide angles of the extreme variety since the lens will protrude too far into the mirror box and possibly break the mirror or other mechanisms.

In fact, I prefer to use my 35-70 manual lens for almost every situation. The 35-70mm Nikon zoom lens is equivalent to a 50-105 because the ccd image sensor is 1.5 times smaller than the 35mm frame size.

I prefer the 35-70mm because of it's superior sharpness and less chromatic abberition that usually needs correction for shots taken with the 18-55mm stock zoom that comes with the D3000. Noted, the stock lens is arguably a very good lens and the chromatic abberition is hardly noticable except with enlargments. The 35-70 though has a smoothness that is appealing to me over the 18-55 stock lens.

After years of shooting with meters and grey cards I decided to just guess at my exposures, since the D3000 meter does not work with these old lenses. I was surprised to find most of my photos were properly exposed for most scenes. If you struggle with guessing at proper exposure then you can use the old handheld meter and judge the resulting exposure on the LCD screen. I have also used the 50mm "E" series lens which is slightly sharper, but it is simply easier to carry one lens, since the 35-70 is acceptable to me. I also love it's lightness and find it is the only lens I need for most shots.

Below are some pics I took recently to show an example of how the D3000 fairs with 35-70mm manual lens mounted on it. These are large pics but I hope you enjoy them. Click on any of the photos to see an enlargement.

Puddles

2010-03-08T20:34:00.000-05:00

Ummm....

My daughter inspired me to do this post.

Puddles-

What are puddles? They are imaginary maps to new places. They are reflecting pools to memories of our past. Puddles are like stepping stones to step into or ponds to avoid. They are smoke and clouds and flashes of light. They are friends to our thoughts and feelings. They never grow old and always draw our minds to think. When there are puddles after a rain I am transported to new lands, new places, and new feelings. Puddles are always like a cup of hot chocolate on a cold day, getting a letter from a friend you miss, a hug from someone you love.

Pictures 03-07-10

2010-03-07T07:53:00.002-05:00

We went for a walk yesterday, (my family and I), and got some great pics. I adjust every one of my pictures using "gimp," because it is open-source software. I am usually not satisfied with the camera's adjustments and like to adjust them to look more like what I remember of the scene. I usually shoot in "raw" mode because it captures a wider dynamic range of light and detail than using the jpg mode.

The pics are fairly large, but if you use firefox you can hold down "ctrl" while scroll anywhere over the picture, and it will enlarge or reduce it for viewing.

Crocuses blooming. Spring is almost here!

and

This one was my favorite. This tree against the dark background amost looked like it was glowing. I had a hard time balancing it but it still came out really good and close to what I wanted.

New Blog site

2010-03-07T07:38:00.001-05:00

I recently decided to create a new blog for writings and ideas I have on scripture and life in general and separate them from other things going on in my life such as photography and family. The blog is posted here....

http://swiths.wordpress.com/

Snow Pics 02-20-10

2010-02-21T07:35:00.004-05:00

Taking pictures of snow scenes is one of the most difficult projects to tackle. Digital cameras make it a little more simple than film because there are contrast compensating features built into the camera and such to correct for extremes in lighting that occur instead of having to "push/pull" as with film. In my most recent trip I ended up using the manual controls because the extremes in lighting were under-exposing almost every shot. I also used "D-lighting" compensation in every shot on my Nikon D3000 just so pics would not be too contrasty and even then the snow was washed out in many of the shots. Shooting in "raw" mode gave me more control correcting them but it was
still a choice of having an overall flatness or washed out hightlights. In all, I thought they turned out pretty good.

This is a stalagmite that formed from water draining from the roof of a building. That's my daughter Jessica standing by it.

Click on the photo to see a larger image.

Trees with a small pavilion on the right.

Trees on a hill.

Light through some small trees.

More trees.

A bench.

A flower growing in a window in a nearby building reminding me spring is almost here.

One in black & white.

A path.

A small creek.

Another one.

Geese starting to fly home!

New Nikon D3000 Lens Test!

2010-01-15T21:45:00.001-05:00

Well, I broke down and finally went digital with a new Nikon D3000, which in spite of some bad reviews, I love. I was told that my older Nikon 50mm series E lens would not adapt but I found this not true. It adapts well, but only in manual mode, which is the mode I like for my more serious work.

I made the choice to get the camera as a family camera that all of our six family members could use and for a business we hope to have someday soon. My kids love it.

When I first put the original 18-55mm lens to the test with pics of my wife's bookshelf in our bedroom I was disappointed with the sharpness and thought, "digital doesn't really compare with a film shot for sharpness."

Last night I decided to really put the camera to a lens test by placing the camera on a tripod and taking shots with both the original 18-55 mm lens and my Nikon 50mm series E lens, (not really Nikon's sharpest older lens), from my Nikon fm. I then cropped a section of each photo which you can compare side by side. What I found was the lack of sharpness was not the fact that it was digital but because of the 18-55mm lens.

No doubt, it is a zoom lens and zoom lenses for the most part have improved much over the years, but the old lenses seem to just have an edge over the newer ones. As I said, the older series E lens isn't even Nikon's sharpest lens made in Nikon's 35mm film camera "hey-day."

The sad part is that Nikon, at least to my knowledge, isn't making single format lenses for this camera with auto-focus features. This is ok for me since the older lenses mount fine and are available on the net for less than $100.00, a small pittance compared to the cost of newer lenses.

Pic taken with original 18-55mm lens with enlarged section

Pic Taken with 50mm Series E lens and enlarged section

Hope this helps some of you who still enjoy the use of single format lenses and expecially don't want to give up the use of your old ones. By the way, I still love my old film cameras and plan to still use them.

As an added note: Since the Nikon D3000 has an image sensor 1.5 times smaller than a 35mm negative frame, you must multiply the actual lens size of the lens from your 35mm camera by 1.5 to find out what the comparable image size is with the D3000. In other words, an image taken on the D3000 using a 50mm film camera lens, when multiplied by a factor of 1.5, is the equivalent of a 75mm lens on 35mm film camera. Thus, a 50mm lens on the D3000 will have the effect of a 75mm telephoto lens.

Head Coverings-Another Follow-up

2010-01-15T20:53:00.001-05:00

It has been several months since my last post on head coverings. but this has been on my mind for a few weeks and I let it "stew" in my heart and mind for a while so I could discern how I thought about what happened.

A couple of months ago I was in a local store and crossed paths with a woman who was wearing a head covering. As we passed we both said hello and that was all. As soon as we passed I was aware of something happening in my spirit and being that I could not immediately identify. It took a few days for me to actually become aware of what I felt that day as I passed this woman.

What I realized was that I had communicated with a female and in the process had not felt the normal things that I as a man felt when in the presence of most females in our society. These are the feelings I identified.

1. Lack of feeling threatened. I did not feel that I would have to be defensive and deal with the normal feminist agenda that comes across in the clothes or attitudes of much of the world's female population.

2. Lack of sexual attraction and of being drawn with my mind or eyes to have to look at certain areas of the woman's body including the hair.

3. A feeling of overall mutual respect. I actually felt more equal with her as a person. I did not feel she was battling as a female to be better than me or for me to be better than her.

The Truth

2009-09-27T08:28:00.002-04:00

There is a simple fact today. Mainly this, most Christians are not interested in the truth. They are interested in doctrine. Doctrine is that which separates us. Truth is that which brings us closer to Christ. Doctrine can puff up because it is based on knowledge and knowledge can puff up. Truth brings us to humility because it corrects our spirits. Doctrine can be taught by men. Truth can only be taught by God to our spirits. Doctrine may mislead us. Truth, however illogical, against the grain or peer pressures of even our teachers, however against society norms and pressures, cleanses us and leads us down right paths.

Not all doctrine brings us to truth. Sometimes it can lead us to error and darkness. Sometimes it can lead us to lies. Doctrine is like a container that holds water. It can be a system of delivery for water which brings life or poison that brings death and enslavement.

Thousands go to Bible colleges each year. Do they know whether the doctrine they are taught is true? It may be logical. It may make sense spiritually comparing scripture to scripture, but, is it TRUTH, God's truth? If they were in error would they know?

Men go to seminary every year and are taught doctrines by men who hold high degrees of respect and admiration. Men who write great books. Do they know what they are taught is God's truth and not just man's?

God wants us to know the truth. Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Consider this, Satan has a great plan to hide the truth from us, and to distort what truth we do receive. If we were given great lies through the instruments of doctrine would we know it?

I once had a pastor who who disagreed with me on a subject and would not open his Bible with me. He said I knew where he stood and he wasn't going to change his mind! How does he know he was right about it? What if there was the possibility he was wrong? What about the consequences he might be creating in others lives? After all, what he believed was based on what he was taught by others. Does the Lord expect us to blindly follow pastors or teachers who are mere men and capable of error?.

Often I find these traits present in men delivering doctrine that is not true,

The person giving the doctrine feels the need to be loud because loud is perceived by others as power of God and his anointing. Along with this may use a trained speaking style similar to a radio personality using words that stir the emotions.

They often cut you off while speaking to them or questioning them about their doctrine. Sometimes this is accompanied by a "show" of credentials whether verbally ("I'll have you know I went to four years of seminary!") or implied ("When I was in seminary learning Greek and studied under so-and-so, etc."). This is opposite from one who sincerely wants to listen to what you have to say and is interested not only in your welfare spiritually but also your growth in Christ.

The perception of their message is that their doctrine is the only possible truth.

They are esteemed by others. People walk away talking about how great a teacher they are instead of quiet in their spirits and humbled by the truth of the spoken word.

There is turmoil instead of peace, guilt instead of conviction, fear instead of faith. They leave you upset and more confused, (unless you just give into the turmoil and accept it "as is" just to have peace in your spirit instead of seeking the Lord's mind in his word and through prayer).

If you are close to the Lord and living daily in his word, then you can look at the emotions the doctrine you are hearing or reading produces. Does it produce anger, hate, restlessness, bitterness, fear? If it stirs up these emotions then it is not of God.

James 3:17

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Galatians 5:19-20

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

We need to remain faithful to the word of God. The Holy Spirit will let our spirit know when things are wrong if we are remaining close to him and are more open to his leading. This happened recently when someone posted a comment on my wife's blog implying our family needed to be more involved in all kinds of worldly things to win the lost, and defended it by saying, "we need to be in the world-not of the world". As soon as I read the statement the Holy Spirit nudged my spirit of the corruption of his word. Any distorting of God's word, even for the right reasons, corrupts it. Here is the scripture referred to in her statement,

John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Christ's prayer for his disciples in the scripture above was that his father would not take them out of the world. That prayer has already been answered for the disciples and for us. We are in the world still. She had taken a prayer "request" and turned it into a "command" implying worldliness and fellowship with the lost on their terms was ok for the gospel's sake-(Note: I am not talking about going out among unbelievers found in what is called the "great command").

Compare this with,

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 and 7:1

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

2 Corinthians 7:1

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

See how easily the truth can be perverted? Let us sit at the Lord's feet to learn the word of God with a love for his truth alone.

* All verses KJV- just because I like it

The Writer.

Head Covering Follow-Up

2009-09-23T13:44:00.118-04:00

This is a quick follow-up to my last blog post. Since I have noticed there is quite a bit of confusion on several web sites concerning I Corinthians 11:10 and Paul's use of the word "angels," I thought I might tackle it's meaning. Here is the scripture, (KJV), in it's context,

I Corinthians 11:1-16

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Verse 10 seems to be an obscrure verse in meaning to us today. Let us remember that God is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33a). Not only does God not want us to not be confused but he wants us to understand his will-

Ephesians 5:17- be not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is

Romans 12:2- And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God

James 1:5- If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him

Ephesians 1:17-That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him

If we take God at his word and apply the simplest meaning then we have a starting point for understanding this verse and other seemingly obscure verses.

The word translated "angels" is #32 in Strongs Concordance in the Greek. This word is used to both represent heavenly messengers as well as earthly messingers. An example of the use as a heavenly messenger is found in Revelation 12:7 which mentions the angel Gabriel. An example of an earthly messenger is it's use in Revelation 2:1, 8, and 12 where it mentions the "angel's," or "messengers" to the various churches. The word in it's simplest form means "bringer of tidings."

One of the things I have noticed about Paul's writings is how he qualifies his statements. By this I mean that usually a statement that seems unclear to us is usually pointing to something else for it's meaning. For example,

II Corinthians 6:17- Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you

The statement above is qualified by a previous statement within the same scripture found here,

II Corinthians 6:17- Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

So then, if we were to ask, "Who" he was referring to that we should "come out from among," the answer is "unbelievers."

We then can apply this same rule to I Corinthians 11:10. Since Paul does not mention another scripture as it's reference then we know it refers back to another passage contained in the previous text. I believe in this instance it most likely refers to "the man" as being the "messenger" or angel. This would make the most common sense of the verse and the easiest to explain. The husband is the "messenger" most likely to be out of the home bringing the "tidings" of the gospel to others. This is especially true in comparison to Titus 2:5 commanding women to be keepers at home. The wife's conduct or appearance, in this case the head covering, affects his testimony and character in front of others who might be, for instance, invited to the home through a hospitality ministry. This is my own opinion of course, but see no other reasonable reference which the verse could point to. With scriptures that seem to be difficult I try to apply these rules:

God talks about the simplicity of the Gospel. I try to remember God wants me to understand it so I go for the simplest meaning. I don't try to stretch it to mean something obscure or mysterious. There is usually enough evidence in the current text and the meaning of the word I don't understand to explain it.
Ask yourself, is Paul using another scripture to verify what he is saying? If not, then the meaning is most likely already supplied in a previous portion of the text.
Pray about it. It may be a simple truth God is trying to get across. He will give the answer in his time so I don't need to be "confused," only express faith in his provision to explain it. Also, remember the tempter's ability to confuse and distort. Use your lack of understanding as an opportunity to express faith.

Head Covering-Not So Simple An Answer

2009-09-21T10:47:00.026-04:00

It is not my intention to start a debate, cause trouble, or to confuse some who are already confused by the head covering issue. It is also not my intent to force anyone to accept my beliefs. I pretty well had my mind made up that the head covering was not for today and that a woman's hair was her covering scripturally.

It wasn't until my daughter recently approached me with the question that I reconsidered the issue and began to research it further. I know that because of my research my views have changed somewhat but I believe that this is an issue that each woman or couple must decide for themselves. The text that seems to cause controversy is I Corinthians 11:1-16 which I will not list here but you can and should look up for yourselves.

Question: Isn't it a matter of culture that existed in Paul's time. Women don't do that today do they?

Answer: What I found in my research is there are many, many cultures today who practice head covering as both a form of modesty and for religious reasons. It is least used in America, England, and other countries where fashion has become the norm.

Consider the fact that the world rules fashion. One must consider fashion in light of what the Bible says about Christian character and principles. Personally, our family tries to be like the world as little as possible. In terms of modesty, sometimes what is considered “modest” clothing sold on stores is really immodest, by Christian standards.

If it is a cultural phenomenon, then it has lasted for several thousands of years and in several cultures, not just with the nation of Israel. Historical art dating back several thousand years depicts the use of head coverings as common on women, including some societies including the Greek's and Roman's.

It has only been during the last two-hundred years or so that it has not been as widespread. There are many Jewish sects who still practice and preach head coverings, mostly for married women, based on Old Testament law along with historical writings by former Rabbi's and Jewish scholars. This discounts the fact that Paul may have only been writing about a custom of the past that was only important to the culture of the time in which he lived. All one has to do is type "head covering" in a search engine and listings of several Jewish sites will appear defending the practice of head covering.

Question: What is the purpose of head covering on women?

One problem we have in understanding the purpose of head covering is that current Christianity is so far removed from the Jewish culture and there are many things they do we don't understand. Add to this the symbol of the head covering on women becomes lost among all the forces of feminism, fashion, and peer pressures.

In those cultures past and present where head covering is mentioned it predominantly symbolizes a woman's belonging to another and his authority over her. It is similar to the symbol the wedding ring gives in our society only much more. This places current views on the subject within the bounds of and is consistent with Paul's dealing with it in scripture. This truth is also confirmed by articles found in Jewish books and Jewish sites that quote past texts as well as Old Testament scripture where they defend it. I will state here that to the best of my current knowledge there are only two scriptures that deal with head covering in the Bible. One is the Old Testament verse found in Numbers 5:18. This verse summarizes what a man should do if he believes his wife has been unfaithful. The second verse is the one in question which is I Corinthians 11:1-16.

It is difficult to separate modern feminism and it's effects on our society and Christianity. Christian women of only 100 years ago would not even wear pants as men do. How much more difficult for the modern Christian man or woman in our society to understand head covering? As I read articles it was evident there is peer pressure even in Jewish culture to conform to more modern views regarding head covering and it's supposed lack of usefulness by those who hold a more modern view against it's use.

Another fact that may be overlooked in the issue of hair is it's use in advertising, modeling, and the selling of products. Consider the seductive photos in magazines of women with shiny, flowing, soft hair. Even in only what are called “head shots” there is the seductive and appealing look. This is done on purpose to manipulate people into buying products whether in the sale of magazines and hair coloring or clothing and makeup. When considering wearing head coverings for modesty reasons one should take this into account also.

Question: Wasn't this an issue affecting only the early church?

Answer: The very fact Paul addresses the issue proves he dealt with the same misunderstanding in his society that we deal with today, that is, a lack of understanding by Christians in regard to head covering on women. The issue is not a new one nor as culture bound as one might think. Paul addresses the same issues as evident by the abundance of articles, books, and pamphlets available through sites on the internet, not only by Christians, but religious peoples in many societies including Jewish.

Question: Is it commanded for a woman to wear head coverings?

Answer: Well, yes/no. While there seems to be no direct command, Paul does state in I Corinthians 11:2 that we should follow the ordinances, meaning rules or traditions, he has delivered to us and one could take this as a command in the context of the verses following about head covering. Also, we must consider this scripture in comparison to the fact that all scripture is given to us for doctrine, reproof, and instruction but especially Paul's writings to us as gentiles should be heeded since he is the Apostle to the gentiles.

Question: Won't it make me look old or ugly?

Answer: Unfortunately this question shows how in tune we are with the world and fashion. To be honest, my first thought when my daughter approached me about the head covering issue was, “aren't you going to look unattractive,”. What I found in my search was there are many beautiful head coverings available for women. It surprised me in some of the photos on the internet how attractive women could be that wore head coverings. Head coverings come in many wonderful styles and colors. I think this question is probably more the result of what the world has determined to be beautiful and what we as a society and as Christians have accepted to be beautiful.

Statement: I just don't think I want someone to force their opinion about this on me.

Answer: I agree. I think that it is a matter of the heart. My daughter approached me because she is concerned with modesty and she wondered whether she should do it or not to be more modest. I think head covering will be a natural question that will eventually draw a woman who begins to seriously consider modesty for herself. In my opinion it is most importantly a matter of the heart.

I personally am encouraged by my daughter's concern for her modesty and the decisions for modesty that were made by her with the influence of other Godly women's writings or CD's that she has listened to. No one ever forced her, or her sister, to make the decisions they have made in these areas of their lives. Why wouldn't I agree with any area that will increase their protection and purity?

I want my daughter's to first of all want to obey God, and secondly obey me as a result of their submission to God and not the letter of the law. To me there is nothing worse than forcing practical results for what should be a result of spiritual change in the heart. There are times this is necessary in a family but as a whole it often doesn't work.

Question: Should hair be totally covered or partially covered?

Answer: Good question. I don't know. One point of view is to cover the hair completely and another that it doesn't matter. I guess a woman would have to make that decision on her own. To some extent it would matter as to why you were wearing a head covering in the first place. From the point of view of it being for modesty sake you could say that even a little hair could look enticing and there is a valid reason for covering it completely. The curves and shapes of almost any part of the female body can be enticing to a man including the softer hair around the ears or neckline. It might also appear to another man that a woman who is only partially covering her hair might be doing so because she secretly hopes to entice men. If you are considering wearing a hair covering because you want to show your submission to God and your husband then you may also consider not covering it fully may be viewed as a portion of your heart that is not submitted to him.

Question: Does a single woman have to wear a head covering?

Answer: There is nothing scripturally one way or the other. I am open to anyone who can find one. However, if you are considering wearing one, take into account that a single girl under her father's care does have someone over her, that is, her father and the Lord. Also, a single woman has the church and the Lord. You may want to consider it for modesty sake. In any case the real answer is what you are being led by the Holy Spirit to do.

My final thoughts

Head covering can be a beautiful thing as an expression by a woman for the sake of her husband and as a symbol of her submission to Christ.

It can be another step of modesty if done as a matter of personal faith and it is of the heart. There are many beautiful head coverings available and one may still be modest while showing inner beauty and outer beauty.

It was not just the culture of Paul's day as there are many cultures that still practice it including many Jewish sects in and outside of Israel and in light of so many internet sites, books, as well as historical writings, paintings and sculptures across so many centuries as infallible proofs.

Some links to other sites, certainly not an exhaustive list:

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings3.html
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/headcoveringmyths.php
http://www.thoseheadcoverings.zoomshare.com/1.shtml
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/practices/Ethics/Our_Bodies/Clothing/Hats_and_Head_Coverings.shtml

Some Clothing Links to head coverings

http://thoseheadcoverings.blogspot.com/
http://www.modestclothes.com/jewish/hats-snoods-berets-tiechel-sheitel.html

http://www.modestworld.com/

http://www.headcoverings-by-devorah.com/

http://www.tznius.com/

http://www.headcoverings.com/

http://www.prayercoverings.com/
http://www.coveryourhair.com/

KeyPassX...Cross-platform Security Key Program

2009-09-18T21:23:00.012-04:00

I have been using KeePassX for a year or so and it has become one of my favorite programs. KeePassX is simply a program that keeps all of your passwords in one place using one strong encrypted password. If you are using several if not hundreds of passwords like me this will be of value to you. KeePassX is available as a Ubuntu install through synaptic or the homepage here, or for Windows here (known as just Keepass).

As I said previously, it is one of my favorite programs. Before using it I was using a simple text file (very insecure) to store all of my passwords. I was not happy with most of the password storage utilities I had tried for many reasons but mostly their difficulty of use and what I considered a poor graphical interface. I also wanted something that was cross-platform. In other words, something I could use in Linux, BSD, and Windows so that I could access the passwords no matter what operating system I was in. By the way, this is a good reason for choosing a particular program if you use more than one operating system. There are many such cross-platform type programs, (Gimp, Open Office, Truecrypt, etc.).

KeePassX is easy to install and it's Windows version, "Keepass," even has a portable version that installs on a USB drive so you can access your files even from a library or friends computer.

It is simple to use. The first time you run KeePassX a window will open asking you to enter a password. Enter it and click OK and reconfirm the password. There is no need to enter a keyfile unless you want to. I will not cover that here.

Next, store the one password in a safe place. If you lose it you will never be able to access it again). If the window doesn't open, or another window opens that doesn't give you this option no problem, simply click "close" to close the window and then click on "file" and "New Database" to create a storage file. The database is where you will store your passwords and you can have one for each person in your family or one for work stuff and home stuff. It will look like this:

Once you have created your database your next step is to create groups and icons for the groups. Create groups by clicking on "Edit" and "Add New Group." You can have separate groups for internet passwords, shopping sites, bank account, emails, etc. here is a picture of my groups:

Next, to create icons for each group just "right-click" on the group you want to add an icon to and choose "edit." A window will open and you can choose by clicking on the Icon for a drop down list or the "greater than" symbol for a window list (sorry, the symbol won't show because of html limits).
See below.

You can add several listings to your groups by clicking the "gold key" on the toolbar or clicking "edit" and "Add New Entry." You can see some of my items in a group listed above.

To add an icon for each entry in your groups right-click and choose "edit" and click on the "gold key" in the top right corner of the window that appears. I hope this program will make it easier for you to save password keys in the future.

Ubuntu ".deb" Program Install Simplified

2009-09-17T20:13:00.018-04:00

Those of you who use Ubuntu and like to install .deb files such as the ones located at "http://www.getdeb.net/" probably already know how to download a file, use a terminal to "cd" to the file location and tell ubuntu to install it, or by just double-clicking on it with your mouse. There is a simpler way however. When you click to save the file using Firefox, instead of downloading the file, in the pop-up window choose "Open with GDebi package installer."

In a few seconds the "GDebi" package installer window will appear and you can click install to install the program and all of it's available dependencies. Once it installs it will be deleted from your temp directory where it was stored. Hope this makes installing some programs easier for you since you don't even have to close firefox. You will notice the program in the picture is "keepassx" which is quickly becoming one of my favorite backup programs and I will have a review of it in my next blog.

Self Cleansing

2009-06-28T08:23:00.025-04:00

2 Corinthians 6:1-Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleasnse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Probably what is lacking more than anything else in Christianity today is what I call "self purification." It is the process of eliminating worldliness in our lives and making a wall between us and the world in every area that God has revealed to us in his word and will reveal to us through prayer. If we talk about separation many people will quickly associate legalism with the word. I too have been in legalistic churches that imposed restrictions upon it's people. However, if we are to walk with God then we must separate from the world. This is a personal process and not one a church can impose on us. If it is imposed by church standards then we will become legalistic pointing the finger at others instead of ourselves. God does not want us to point the finger at others and there are plenty of scriptures for that. This is also not an issue of looking inside at our sin for which Christ has already died and only he can cleanse us from. Rather, this is a process of making a definite wall of separation between ourselves and how the world's acts, thinks, and philosophizes.

It was not until the last year or so that I really began to understand this principle. I had bounced back and forth between how to actually put this in practice. For instance, when someone says something a thought process now goes on inside that instantly compares it to God's word and what it says. This is why it is important to be in a loving relationship with God and his word. If you do not love his word you will not be interested in comparing it. When someone says something the spirit brings God's word to mind and God's word will either approve or condemn the philosophy in the statement heard. It is brought to mind not necessarily for the purpose of openly saying something about what is heard and to correct the person, but maybe just to teach me that the thing said was wrong thinking, that it came from the world's way of thinking or even from satanic origin.

It is important that we separate from everything that is worldly but it is a choice only we can make. God can even chasten us but it is our decision. If we really have a close loving relationship with him and his son then we will want to purify ourselves. If we don't we will constantly have troubles and be snared by those things that will bring us down which will destroy our spiritual and physical health in ways we cannot even determine.

A person that does not separate in the areas that God points out to him will have his mind clouded to the leading of God in his life. This brings darkness into our lives. We cannot then make proper decisions about things and we will live in fear thinking God has forsaken us. Remember what darkness causes? Ever try to get up in the middle of the night in almost total darkness? Did you hit anything with your foot and hurt it because you didn't see the thing in front of you? Did you stumble and almost fall over? Did you kind of grope or feel along the edge of the wall or furniture to find your way? This is why the Bible uses physical darkness as an example of those who are in spiritual darkness. For instance, one example of walking in darkness used in the Bible is hating our Christian brother-

1 John 2:11- But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

The process of purifying ourselves is not just of God alone. Paul, in the opening scripture makes it clear it is also our responsibility.

Let us choose personal cleansing in God's word and through prayer, supplication and giving of thanks so that we may have a clear path before our feet to walk and for strength of spirit in him.

Other verses that talk about purifying ourselves-

1 John 3:3- And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he is pure.

James 1:27- Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 1:21- Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

Old Chemistry-Part 2

2009-04-26T12:07:00.012-04:00

Ok, I promised it. Here are pictures developed in old film chemistry. Not too bad. Scans done at local pharmacy with techs that don't really have control over outcome so I tried to adjust them in gimp as best I could. My old zone skills are the pits and I was trying to over expose and underdevelop the negatives. What I got was a bit too much contrast but the shadow details were good for the most part. The developer was T-max 1:6 underdeveloped by 2 minutes. Still, not too bad. I was using my daughter's Nikon FM which has a broken meter so I was doing all of my shots using a hand-held meter and shooting for the shadows.

The lens was a 35-70mm f3.5 Nikon AIs zoom. sharpness is great compared to my Canon FD lenses. You can't tell that by these low resolution scans but through the magnifying loupe I can read all of the words on the sign in front of the building in the one scan of the short wall in front of the windows in the above picture. Not bad for a zoom lens.

Here are some daffodils taken with the same.

I thought the scene below was cool. I was looking under the trees in a small opening behind a wall and saw this small tree. The flowers under it looked like snow in the bright sun. I knew it was a perfect scene for extreme contrast lighting that would test the old film. It didn't turn out bad at all. Can't wait to get in the darkroom and see how much better they look hand-done on some good B & W paper.

Old Film Chemistry

2009-04-26T00:58:00.003-04:00

Well, if you read my past blog you know I started photography again after a long (maybe 10 year) rest from it. Today my son and I took photographs with some old Kodak T-Max 400 film that sat in the freezer for 4 years and on a shelf for another two or so. We developed the film tonight with chemistry that was at least 8 years- maybe 10 years old. Guess what! Except for a slight film fog the film and chemistry did fine. As soon as I can get a couple of scans at a local lab I will be posting them. Hooray!

Blast From The Past- Oil painted photos of the past.

2009-04-21T17:50:00.012-04:00

Well, I'm helping my wife with her blast from the past again and I must say I'm actually enjoying doing this. My wife was posting a photo of herself for her "blast of the past" item and it was a "colored" photo. She thought it was just done on color film so I had to explain to her the difference. Back in the late 50's and early 60's color film was still in it's infancy. Most pictures taken with color film often faded very quickly-sometimes in as little as a couple of years. For this reason many photographers and labs would offer "hand-colored" black and white photos for weddings or school pictures that were considered to last a lifetime. Color prints made on color photo paper is for the most part still quite unstable and photos I have done just a few years ago are now fading (and I processed them myself washing the fixer out of some of them for an hour or more). While you can still buy paints for hand-coloring it is rare to find a photo shop or photographer who will do this. It has truly become a lost art.

Here is my blast from the past "hand-colored" photo taken during my graduation year. You can tell it is hand colored by the colors overlapping in the border area (of course you can tell when it is shown at full size too by clicking on the photo).

Blast From The Past-Rivoli Theatre

2009-04-17T16:43:00.010-04:00

Ok. My wife asked me to do this. She is my sweetheart and I want to make her happy. Here is a picture that I found sitting on top of some old boxes someone was throwing out way back in 1975 or so. I asked the woman whose house they were in front of if I could have it and asked the history behind it. She said her husband had been a photographer and had done some pictures for this theatre but he had passed away several years before and she didn't think anyone would want this photo (along with some others that were with it) so she threw it out. I have kept it over the years. I think historical photos are neat. They often tell a story in a way few modern pictures aren't able to tell.

This one is of the "Rivoli Theatre" back entrance. Click on this link to go to a page that tells a little more about the theatre.

If you want to see more "Blast From The Past Posts" click on the Blast From The Past button at the top of this post.

A Big Thanks!!!

2009-04-14T18:37:00.004-04:00

A big thanks to my daughters Rachel & Jessica without whom my blog would look boring if not stupid! See their blogs (Young Homemakers & Literary Pursuits) in the right column of this page.

Photo Image Software For Linux

2009-04-12T08:44:00.011-04:00

The one thing I love about linux is all of the open source software. For imaging software in windows you can use software costing up to thousands. In linux there is gimp, cinipaint, xnview, irfanview and others. I have been using mostly gimp and irfanview but am going to experiment with xnview which is similar to irfanview.

I use ubuntu 8.10. For ubuntu there is no deb program to install xnview. I converted xnview rpm to deb. For those who want to try it there is a link to a download file that is already converted for you. Gimp already comes with Ubuntu 8.10 and doesn't need to be installed. For irfanview I recommend using wine-doors, a program that installs wine (name stands for "Wine Is Not an Emulator") onto the computer. After the installation or wine-doors you will see a list of already created programs you can download. You can click on the irfanview file (a standard.exe installation file for windows) that wine-doors has adjusted to work with wine. You will go through the standard windows installation procedures you are familiar with. Wine will be listed in your taskbar menu and you will see it in the list of programs there.

Download Wine-doors here (choose ubuntu debian at top of list)
Download Xnview.deb here at "sharecow.com"

Digital And Film Differences-Part 1

2009-04-09T06:31:00.014-04:00

I love digital photography but one of the problems I noticed when using a digital camera is the lack of control of latitude, or the ability to capture extremes of light and dark, that you get with a film stock. When I was using black and white (and to some degree color) with the zone system there was greater ability to control contrast and highlights in scenes. What I noticed happening with digital photography was this, when you photographed scenes with bright highlights (a white scarf, snow, flower petals) the sunlit portions of the photo would be all washed out and lacking detail. Once the highlights fell out of the range of the cameras ability to record them they were lost forever and could not be brought back. If, for instance, I was photographing a picture of a light colored flower and part of the petals fell into bright sunlight and part in the shade, the area in the bright sunlight would photograph as one solid color instead of just being lighter with detail.

With film you could compensate for this by over-exposing the film to capture the shadow detail, and then under-develop the film to compensate so the highlights would not get blocked up. Later, in the darkroom you could burn (allow more light to reach light portions of the print), and dodge (prevent too much light from reaching the dark areas of the print). Contrast could be controlled by using multigrade papers and contrast filters or using two-part developers on a single contrast paper.

With digital some compensation can be made by decreasing the contrast in the control menu of the camera and adjusting the exposure to not overexpose the highlight (which to some degree will make it lose shadow detail). Sometimes the shadows get lost completely when adjusting this and become one solid mass of dark in the image. Obviously, with more expensive cameras come better control of this but since this is geared towards learners and I do not consider myself an expert-I am just passing on some advice I have come to know is true that may help others.

Below are two examples of this. The first is a photograph my daughter took with my wife's digital nikon where the light was coming through the window. You can see the bright areas have no detail. This detail is lost and cannot be regained. The second one was taken by my son with his nikon EM. It shows what I was thinking at the time. Film has greater latitude and didn't even lose detail in the light areas of the flowers.

Picture taken by my daughter with my wifes nikon digital camera. Notice the loss of detail and "flattening" of color in the bright (highlight areas of the print) in the enlarged section.
Click on the photos to see a larger image.

Picture taken by my son on film in full daylight. Even in the poor quality scan done by our local pharmacy you can see details in the highlight areas and with the limitations of the scanning equipment and the technician there is still shadow detail. Believe me when I say the scan does not do justice to the quality of the image on the negative.

With digital there are at least a couple of ways to help. First, photograph subjects in the shade. For subjects like flowers you can photograph them on an overcast or cloudy day. This will produce even lighting in the shadows while not throwing sun on portions of the subject. Colors too will stand out without so many light areas standing out. There may be some color correction needed because the picture may take on a blue cast from being in the shade. If you must photograph in the sun be conscious of the effects and use a fill flash or use a trick which they use in studio lighting. Carry a white cardstock with you and bounce sunlight onto the shady portions of the subject. This works best with smaller subjects like flowers or getting light to the darker side of ones sunlit face.

Example of digital photo adjusted -2 in my wife's digital camera to allow for highlights (notice the dew on the petals when enlarged by clicking on the photo)

Example of digital photo taken in shade with no camera correction (notice that even though this flower has mostly white petals it still retains some detail though many shadow details are lost)

If all this seems like a foreign language to you just remember when photographing subjects in bright sunlight to photograph them in the shade and for subjects like flowers that can't be moved to the shade photograph them on cloudy days. If you are using a film camera compensate for the blue cast by using a skylight 1A or 2A filter or getting the photos scanned and adjusting them in gimp or some other type of photoshop program. This will help.

Photography Renewed

2009-04-05T16:43:00.019-04:00

I fell in love with photography when I was in college. Over the years that love began to grow and at one time ran a quality photo lab until it went out of business due to finances and competition in the area. When the company went out of business so did my resources. I was never well off and the photo lab gave me access to cheap processing of my pictures and a place to do my thing so to speak. With that well run dry photography took a second seat to my other work skills that I had to use to support my family. That was in 1994 when my oldest son was born. The camera pretty much sat in the closet collecting dust. Well, I did take it out once in a while to take a family photo or two but for the most part I didn't touch it.

Sometime along the way since then my wife got a small 3 megapixel camera to take photos of the kids since I hadn't been and she wanted to catalog their growing years. I did pick up an old 3D David White realist camera a few years back that I lovingly restored and took some 3D slides with but over a few months time this too went to the back of the closet.

It wasn't until this year that my cameras came out of the closet. My youngest daughter became interested in photography and began asking me questions and so I had to pick my brain for the answers. My daughter needed to understand what went on behind the pictures she was taking and how the camera saw things differently than her eyes did. She began asking me all sorts of questions related to photography. I realized she wanted more than to just point and shoot. She wanted to control what went into the camera and what came out as a print. While explaining to her on a couple of photo expeditions together I would see in my mind all the details of the scenes and the camera controls for shots she was taking. When I did a desire began again to pick up the old cameras and this began my fascination all over again.

As I began to investigate what was needed to restore my cameras I noticed something had changed along the way. Photography had changed. What was the beginnings of digital photography (you know, the 1 megapixal cameras of the 90's) was now in full bloom. Digital had taken over the world. Film as it seemed from a consumer point had become dead. Everything now was done with memory cards or by sending it directly over the internet. I was pleased to find in searching that almost all of the stuff like chemistry, enlargers, papers, film, darkroom supplies was still available (surprise! it even had the same labeling as back then). It just wasn't available in my local photo shops anymore but there was still a healthy following and I could still show her how to do black & white printing if she wants. The downside was there were now only two companies that had a 35mm SLR camera with changible lenses available. I ended looking on ebay and finding two nikons with 50mm lenses almost "dirt" cheap for my daughter to play around with so I could teach her about aperatures, f/stops, shutter speeds, and depth of field.

Digital photography had come of age and was the big player now. Everything was digital from a commercial point of view which isn't a bad thing. It's just that I didn't think just snapping a photo digitally and sending it to a photo lab would give her an understanding of light and how it affects the scene in the final print. I wasn't suprised that she took to the totally manual camera. There is something about a mechanical camera and the way it feels to focus it and crank the film advance. She fell in love with the Nikon so much that when I purchased a manual Minolta SRT 101 in a thrift shop for $24.00 she didn't want to part with the Nikon.

Picture taken by my daughter Jessica with Minolta SRT101... f8 @ 1/125 Sec. with 55mm lens on Kodak 200 Gold

Portrait of my daughter Rachel I took around 1994 (this is a poor scan of a photo. I am praying for a Nikon film scanner to scan the negatives). Don't remember all the details but it was ilford XP1 (c41 b&w film)

P.S. My son wants me to tell you he too is interested in photography and is learning with the same cameras.