I'm posting this a day early and I won't be posting next week at all because I'm going to be in Penticton looking at rooms and apartments.

The photo is of a grape leaf in mid-winter, shot at night with illumination provided by a motion sensing yard light.

Well the snow's been melting around here, I'd say that it's more than half gone, and the temperatures have been fairly mild over the past, well, week or so. And we're supposed to have a mix of sun and cloud just about everyday this week, so I think I've got a pretty good chance to go out and snap some pics, probably on Wednesday or Thursday.

I watched Logan's Run last night (I bought the DVD last Wednesday, along with Blade Runner), I'm a bit surprised with the PG rating given the violence, nudity, sexuality and apparent drug use, particually since Blade Runner has an R rating for the same reasons. Admittedly Blade Runner is darker, grittier and has more violent content, but both movies get a Canadian Home Movie Rating of 14A. But then the Canadian Home Video Rating System (which only applies to video rental/purchase) is a very different critter from MPAA system. The MPAA rates Benny & Joon as PG while the CHV rates the movie as R (roughly equivalent to NC-17 in meaning and intent). *sigh*

The pic is of the north face of the Penticton Law Courts, downtown, near Okanagan Lake and the casino (and City Hall, but who cares about that?). Shot 7 July 2005.

Well, I've scanned/rescanned everything I wanted from the 12 numbered rolls from 2005. That didn't take that long, of course there were only about 60 images in there that I felt were worth the disk space to begin with. The next 14 rolls I have to rescan have closer to 180 "worthwhile" images.

The only real advantage I have in all this is that I kept notes of the scan settings I used for each image. What this means is that, for the most part, I won't have to do preview scans and fiddle with settings (some of which require rescanning the preview) before I get right into the main scanning.

Having played around a bit (Nikon Scan can be used to edit post scan) I've found that the USM settings I had been using had more effect the grainier the base image was. The noisier the grain, the more the USM increased the noise. Oh well, I things go well, I should be all caught up again in a week or three (that's including all the post work that has to be redone, well most of post work that has to be redone).

This shot was taken in Penticton in June of 2005. I don't know if I'll ever make a print out of it, but I do like the play between the mural and the two vans.

Can't get the scanner through Andres in Penticton, going to have to try Kelowna, make a phone call tomorrow I guess.

It's interesting, to me anyway, that with all my concern over getting a film scanner (and a bit of desperation to have something to post) that I've gone though my 'early works,' those ones that I do have internet quality scans of, looking to find a roll that could provide two or three decent images that I haven't shared yet. There is no such roll. I'm not surprised by this, back when I was just beginning to learn, I would bracket most shots, reducing most rolls to only ten or twelve unique images. Mostly of things that I either wouldn't photograph now, or wouldn't photograph in that way. Most of the semi-precious stones have be shown before, somewhere.

So here's something that I just haven't shared here yet. Shot in the summer of '05 in Penticton

Work and a "Midnight Breeze"

I should be busy as a one legged beaver at a but kicking contest next week. We have two furnaces and one or two air-conditioners to install. So blogging might be slow next week.
Besides that, things are a bit crazy here in GF, there's some annual baseball tournament going on this weekend. I don't know exactly when it ends, I'm just glad that it doesn't interest me, or I'd probably waste lots of film on it.

I shot this last summer in Penticton (f8, 30 seconds) near the Law Courts and City Hall. Man that was a wild night, let's just say I feeling 'inspired' when I shot this ;)

Pedophilia, Patriarchy & the Conservative Agenda (Part 1)

It seems like it's time for me to do one of my transcendental Integrationist things, but first the pic. It is another one of my early shots, taken in Penticton near the Penticton Rose Garden and the S.S. Sicamous (shown previously).


Over at Feministe, Jill brought up The Sexualization of Girls, by quoting part of a Rosa Brooks Op-ed article in the L.A. Times, the gist of which is that it is all but impossible to find clothing for young girls which doesn't make them look like street walkers, and that the sale and manufacture of provocative kiddy clothing (among other things) is being used by pedophiles to somewhat justify their predatory acts. While over at Pandagon I found out that the son of an Evangelist was busted for trafficking child porn.

So, where are the connections? Well, we can talk about patriarchy and how within this system a woman is supposed to derive her own sense of worth through being an object of male desire (being sexualised a la Girls Gone Wild and that ilk), while the Conservative precept that nudity=sex, that skin=sin, has become ingrained in North American culture (I previously touched on both points here).

developmentally speaking, the earlier in life a person is indoctrinated to a way of thinking or behaving, the more difficult it is to break the habit (brand marketers rely on this to manufacture lifelong customers). From a perspective of Patriarchy, the sooner a girl gets indoctrinated into wearing makeup, and pretty (or revealing) clothing, in order to feel good about herself (having won male and, in general, societal approval for wearing such things) the more difficult it will be for her to reject these everyday trappings of patriarchy later in her life.

Now, in and of itself, the clothing and makeup and whatever else could be quite innocuous -- tank-tops, bikinis and thongs have no inherent meaning outside of a cultural context -- but, in North America, where nudity=sex, those items of clothing which show more skin become associated with sex and are imbued with sexual meaning by the culture at large.

In short, in North America, nudity=sex and (some) clothing=sex. Since children are usually either clothed or nude (and either state is considered sexual), children become sexualised objects.

Win, Lose, Draw sorta Day

Went to the Winnie tonight. The waitress I'm interested in wasn't working tonight, but I had a few beer anyway. Her and I have chatted a bit here and there over the past couple of weeks, nothing spectacular, but there is the feeling of progress. She has been working the past several Thursdays, so... Other than that, I shot a few frames, and now I'm home.

Learned something interesting today, seems humans start rudimentary tool use fairly young. By 11 months, children seem to know that if a toy is on a towel, but too far away to reach, that they can retrieve the toy by pulling the towel towards them (what were U expecting, rocket science?). By comparison, we don't show self awareness until about age two.

This is a shot of the S.S. Sicamous, in Penticton. Another one of my early shots. I only had a table-top tri-pod at the time, so I positioned it on a public litter-barrel. It was probably May or June. Warm country, but U gotta suffer for U'r art ;)

(man I can't wait to get my scanner)

35 or 50

I've been thinking a bit recently about what my next lens should be. Of course this tracks back into the question of "what type of photography do I want to do?" or more exactly what will be my 'normal' lens? When U start to think about it, just about anything between 35mm and 85mm has a close-enough-to-normal-perspective, but that's still a pretty big range. 85mm is about 7X magnification over 35mm, or to put it another way, 35mm has about 3.5 times the angle-of-view of an 85mm. Luckily my current lens is 28-80mm zoom, so I at least have an idea of what these focal lengths are like.

Over the past year-and-a-half, I've found that I generally like to get close to my subject if I have that luxury. The other night, I was goofing around a bit, just seeing how close I had to get to this big ol' chair I have in order to fill the view finder. At 80mm, I was more than half-way across the room (about 12 feet away), so if I were shooting at an intimate location with an 85mm I know that I become pretty much limited to close-ups. 50mm isn't to bad, but I really like the ability of 35mm to bring a big chunk of the room into the scene -- to provide context.

Another thing I'm looking for, is that the lens has to be fairly fast -- I want an f2. But then we get into issues of cost. Nikon makes (made) both a 50mm f1.8 and a 35mm f2. The 35mm is only about two-and-a-half time the price (I won't be buying new, but still, I can expect a similar spread). Add to that that the 50mm is a more common lens, and the choice is between the lens I can easily get and afford, and the lens I want but might have trouble getting and is going to take longer to save up for.

But I do really like that 35mm perspective.

(this shot was taken in Penticton last summer, down by Okanagan Lake)

*edit*

Another thing I'm looking for is a manual body -- something that won't drain overly expensive, non-researchable, batteries -- maybe a Nikon FM3A, or really just about anything with a cable release mount. Of course, the lens is more important, especially since my current zoom won't work on a manual body.

And I still have to find somewhere that actually has the film scanner I'm trying to get. I'll keep my fingers crossed about Andres in Penticton.

Old & New

Well, I dropped those three rolls of film I've been sitting on, off at Photo Arts yesterday, when I went to see about a scanner. Just got the prints back toady, and some of them are really good (U'll have to take my word for it, no scans until I get my scanner), others I'm going to have to wait and see with (I shot some planning on contrast masking, etc. in post). Unfortunately, the cost of developing with Photo Arts is prohibitive. The bill was $36 for three 24 exposure rolls.

This shot is one of my early works, taken last summer in Penticton at a great little bar, Voodoo's. Great spot, lots of live music and jam sessions etc, reasonably priced beer. The owner seems to be a bit of a (camera) gearhead. We didn't get too much of chance to talk, but she was encouraging of some of my early work. Next time I get to spend a few days in Pen, guess where I'm watering.

Night Photography

I just got in. Did some evening and then some night shooting, which I havent done really any of in almost a year. I also went to the Winnie. (this shot was taken last Octobre, from part of the Trans Canada Trail overlooking Penticton, I dont have the details handy)

Now for the real reason behind this post. I think I'm starting to fall in love with one of the waitresses at the pub. (I won't tell U her name, because, honestly, I don't know how to spell it). She has a stunning backside, tonight she was wearing this little pink dress that came about to the middle of her thigh and tended to cave in and under at the back, cupping her butt. I've also seen her in jeans, yum.
I know that she's older than me by, I don't know, but she's still a long way from drawing a pension or anything like that, so...

I think she might like me, but I know that she may just be being friendly, waitress and all that.
I'll have to broach the subject the philosopher I mentioned last post. He's apparently her cousin, and He and I talked a little about going hinking (and maybe having a shamanistic experience) within the next week or two. It's a full moon next week, right?

*edit* I forgot to mention that this waitress also has a wonderful personality. I meant to, but at 1am after a few beer my train of thought gets derailed more easily than a CN freight in the mountains of British Columbia.

Delays

Went to Penticton yesterday, but between my gandmother's blood tests, breakfast and going to the bank, it was almost eleven by the time we got to Wal-mart. Needless to say, the one hour photo was about four hours behind, so I couldn't my film developed.

I'm back into Penticton in about a week. So, hopefully, I'll have new stuff to show then, probably about 2 rolls worth.

Anyway, we picked up my mom and her two cats, Roxanne (11 1/2) and Buddy (3 1/2). They only howeld about halfway home... Roxanne has pretty much accepted me, but Buddy is the original scaredy-cat, he's never really been socialised to humans that much.

The photo is "22 Carat Maple," shot last Octobre on Okanagan Lake beach in Penticton. 1 minute exposure at f8, using an AF Nikkor 28-80mm 1:f3.3-5.6 G set to 28mm, using Fuji Superia ASA200 speed film. I knew that the neutrals of the sand and bark would pick up the orange of the tungsten steet lamps, and that the fall colours of the leaves would also be accentuated.