Another Self Portrait

This is shot with some new lighting supplies. I picked up a snoot and an umbrella and light stands. This shot was used with that setup.

Back It Up!

I've talked about backup on many forums in the past. I thought I'd post a note about how I handle it currently, but there are changes on the horizon.

My current method of backup is using Adobe Photoshop Album. The program is pretty good. There are some things I wish it did better, but for what I use it for, it's fine. I use this app to pull photos off my memory card and store them on my system. Then I'll tag my images so I can find them later and move to Photoshop CS for processing my images.

When it's time to back them up from my system, I move back to album. I have been picking a date range in Album and then archive them to DVD-R. I make two copies, each on different manufacturer media. This way, if one manufacturing process has a fault in it, I'm less likely to suffer a total loss. It's not foolproof, but at least it's a little step toward security.

Talking with a colleague today, we wonder if optical storage is really the best way to go. We've been doing some interesting reading about RAID solutions. As the price of hard drives drops in price, these options become more viable. They may seem like a pricier investment in initial hardware, but I'm starting to step back and look at a bigger picture.

The amount of time I've been investing in archive to DVD-R is pretty large. My burn times are pretty extensive and doubling my backups adds considerable time to it. With a RAID solution, it might move a bit faster. Plus with RAID, you have instant redundancy.

The other option is a Terabyte Network Attached Storage appliance. These can be configured as a massive drive or a RAID for redundancy. They are $960, but again, the considerable time savings that would allow you to continue working on billable work could be huge in the long run.

To be fair, Tape backup is another solution as well, but I personally find it to be slow and expensive.

How do you archive and store your images? Do you work "without a safety net"?

Difference Of Opinion

Sometimes I read things that gets me in a fighting mood. My co-worker and I get into the old "PC vs. Mac" fight quite often. Today, I'm picking a fight with Best Life magazine (a division of Men's Health). That's right, I'm "calling you out".

Best Photo Printer - Canon i9900
The Best Way to Buy One.
Skip Stapes. Go directly to Canon for the i990 ($500) and a CarePak ($135), a 3-year extended service plan that includes a replacement printer if something goes wrong.

I'm not sure what bothers me most about this blurb. The fact that the company suggests that the Canon i9900 is the only way to go, or that fact that I would have said the same thing about a different printer.

I'm sure the Canon i9900 printer is a good printer. Most of the expensive ones are. I personally can't see spending $500 for a dye-based printer. I know the Epson R1800 wasn't available when the magazine went to press, but it offers the same print size, pigmented inks with 100+ fade free resistance and the best prints I've ever seen… for $550 retail. If you only need 8.5x14 and smaller, the same technology is available as the R800 for $399. Plus, Epson offers a CD tray for printing onto CDs.

There many great things to say about these two new Epson Printers that I can't begin to wrap up in this short review. Just a quick google search would find you many in depth reviews on these printers. I think they are the best prints I've seen, personally.

Quote from Review of the Epson R800 against it's competitors:

"The conclusion is easy to draw: If you're looking only for quality, the Stylus Photo R800 is the only choice. In all areas - including black and white - it is the printer with the best fidelity of reproduction."

This is why I have embraced pigmented ink printers. They have a life far superior to standard C-41 prints (normal color processing prints from film negatives). After doing research, I found that many pigment ink printers have a life superior to many other forms of printing (including many online printer services that only have a 60 year life span). The Epson Ultra-Chrome printers have lifespan upwards of 100+ years on different papers and I believe that that quality is much better.

I'm sure I'll be back to this topic. Printmaking is an art in itself.

The best pictures are ones you share

One of the greatest parts of being a photographer is decorating my surroundings with artwork. I must admit, I've been rather lax at putting much up on the barren walls of our new house. Since it's been a year and a half, I decided it's time I should do something about that. This weekend, I started with two walls and some existing pictures and started drilling and measuring.

I found a number of "empty" smaller picture frames that would be perfect for our stairway walls. I'm finding that printmaking and picture display are almost an art themselves. I've been using the traditional wood frame up on most of our walls, but I'm intrigued by new display ideas.

Garrett Dorsett of Maniacal Rage posted some flickr pics from an idea he had. He's using a metal strip and some magnetic poetry words to tie in the words with his art. Very creative, indeed. I like this concept, but I think I want something a little more "finished looking".

Lenswork Magazine publishes a great audioblog, and they had a post about using "display rails". The blog is about ready to bump into their archive so collect it quickly! They use a rail/shelf system and then display matted pictures. This allows a more finished look and quickly and easily changeable.

I did a little searching and found some display rail alternatives. Some had a corkboard strip that you could tack into. I have tried to take all these ideas and come up with something on my own. My current thought is to use a metal strip similar to Garrett's design and possibly matte prints and stick them to the back with magnetic strips.

Knowing me, I'll probably wait some local art store to go out of business and stock up. How boring. How do you share your pictures (offline).

It's Getting Hot In Here

I read a lot of internet photography forums. A common question is "will these lights work for me?" That link usually follows to a page of what are typically known as "hot lights." People are notorious for wanting to get the most they can, for as little as they can. "Hot Lights" fill that need for people. They are nice and bright for solid lighting. The trouble is, they get… well, hot.



I borrowed a set of Photoflex Starlite Lights that I've used for video and figured I'd give them a shot for photography. After all, they have softboxes on them, even if they are the "small softbox."



The lighting quality is nice. I wasn't "wowed" by them. I actually found them a little difficult to work with. My first complaint was not having any "power" adjustability. You were stuck with the wattage these lights put out. Sure, you could move them forward and back from the subject to "cut their power", but not when they are overhead, or if you still want the "soft light" of a softbox.

After about 15 minutes, "the set" started getting warm, and it's winter. While they did a good job of taking off the winter chill from the room, I can imagine what it might be like in the summer with them.

Constant lighting does have benefits. You are able to "see" the shadowing better because your light is always on. And it's fine for working with still life projects. Hammer, nails and computer mice don't care how warm it gets. The price factor is nice as well, most "hot lights" are cheaper then a monolight setup.

I'm sure that people have made great images with this style light. I've seen good results from hardware store halogens and some light modifiers. I just don't believe these lights have the versatility for me to drop the cash on a setup like this. I'll hold out for my monolight setup with a big octobox or softbox.