-->

My wife recently changed her Friday blog post called "Blast From The Past" to "Think Back Thursday."  The old blog was designed to get people to think back to things of the past in their lives.  The new blog is theme oriented, which I think is much better.  Last week her theme was "water" and anyone could post events envolving water such as visits to theme parks, the ocean, or even faulcets and running water, (like kids playing in a in the yard with a hose).  This weeks theme is "visiting historical sites."

To help her out, I decided to post pictures taken with a stereo camera of our visit to Williamsburg Virgina in 2000.  The stereo camera was built in the 1940's by a company called "David White" and was a popular camera.  Many movie stars and famous people actually owned one so mine may have been owned by a famous person.   Who knows?  The camera is designed to take side by side pictures on 35mm slide film.  It is more difficult to use because it is a manual camera, (manual focus, manual f/stops and shutter speed), but I love to use it.  Slide processing is expensive however, so I have not used it for a while.   The lens does not compare to modern lenses but seems quite sharp when used for the purpose for which it is designed.  Pictures are two 1/2 frame shots, meaning they use 1/2 of the normal full 35mm frame, one for the left eye to view and one for the right eye.

I include two enlargements, (at the end of the post), of the full stereo images so you can get an idea of what I mean.  The two pictures taken side by side are then mounted into a cardboard frame and viewed in a viewer, (similar to a viewmaster set only larger).  The two side by side picture scans I included can be viewed on a computer screen by slightly crossing one's eyes, similar to those "magic stereo images" seen in books and posters.  If you have seen those and know what I am talking about you may be able to master seeing these in stereo by focusing your mind on the center image between the two when your eyes are crossed.  It is best accomplished by viewing the image smaller then enlarging it until you can view it bigger.  To reduce and enlarge the image in your browser all is necessary, (usually), is to roll your scroll button back and forth.

The first pics are crops from the original stereo slides and are not viewed in stereo.  They are only the view from one eye.  Click on the pictures for a larger view.

The Windmill at Williamsburg.

Someone was naughty and ended up in the stocks!








The Governor's Palace - front gate.  No, we weren't invited for dinner.



The glass blowing shop in Jamestown, not far from Williamsburg.



Inside of a small church that was built at the settlement.


Not out of those stocks yet?


Governor's Palace - Front gate in stereo.


I hope you have enjoyed this short trip to Williamsburg.  There are many more images but these are some of my favorites.


Visit my wife's "Think Back Thursday" post by clicking on the button below.

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.

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).

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.

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.



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.






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

• 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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