SanFran meetup photos February 12, 2005 8:12 AM Subscribe
DaShiv -- the linked photo is fantastic. What's the secret to such a beautiful night time shot with the blurred street lights in the back?
posted by Mid at 9:07 AM on February 12, 2005
posted by Mid at 9:07 AM on February 12, 2005
DaShiv, your meetup pictures are awesome, as usual. Photography tips? Please?
posted by bonheur at 9:16 AM on February 12, 2005
posted by bonheur at 9:16 AM on February 12, 2005
What's the secret to such a beautiful night time shot with the blurred street lights in the back?
There's no secret. To get enough light into the camera, the aperture is going to be opened all the way up, which has the side effect of reducing depth of field and throwing everything but the subject out of focus. Basically, you almost can't not do that if you're shooting at night.
This assumes you're using something like an SLR with a big sensor. Smaller sensor digicams (i.e. basically anything that you can't take the lens off) have such a large depth of field, you basically have to zoom all the way in (and move the camera back from the subject) to get any of this effect.
posted by kindall at 9:21 AM on February 12, 2005
There's no secret. To get enough light into the camera, the aperture is going to be opened all the way up, which has the side effect of reducing depth of field and throwing everything but the subject out of focus. Basically, you almost can't not do that if you're shooting at night.
This assumes you're using something like an SLR with a big sensor. Smaller sensor digicams (i.e. basically anything that you can't take the lens off) have such a large depth of field, you basically have to zoom all the way in (and move the camera back from the subject) to get any of this effect.
posted by kindall at 9:21 AM on February 12, 2005
What's the secret to such a beautiful night time shot with the blurred street lights in the back?
The key part of the equation is this:
(i.e. 1/6s at f/1.2 and ISO 3200
The f/stop represents how large the camera's iris can open, much like an eye's iris opens when lighting is poor. The larger it can open, the more light you can get, but also, the shallower the depth-of-field (a term that refers to how much of the shot is in focus). Because f-stops are actually fractions, the smaller the stop-number (the denomenator), the larger the aperature.
The opposite of this is also true: very small aperatures tend keep everything in focus. This is why pinhole cameras tend to be all-sharp shots (and also why pinhole cameras take ages to properly expose).
DaShiv, those are some nice photos. Were you shooting with a rangefinder? What lens are you using with such a big aperature?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:58 AM on February 12, 2005
The key part of the equation is this:
(i.e. 1/6s at f/1.2 and ISO 3200
The f/stop represents how large the camera's iris can open, much like an eye's iris opens when lighting is poor. The larger it can open, the more light you can get, but also, the shallower the depth-of-field (a term that refers to how much of the shot is in focus). Because f-stops are actually fractions, the smaller the stop-number (the denomenator), the larger the aperature.
The opposite of this is also true: very small aperatures tend keep everything in focus. This is why pinhole cameras tend to be all-sharp shots (and also why pinhole cameras take ages to properly expose).
DaShiv, those are some nice photos. Were you shooting with a rangefinder? What lens are you using with such a big aperature?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:58 AM on February 12, 2005
He was indeed shooting part of the night with a digital rangefinder, the only one that exists, I understand. As ever, we have the best meetup photog ever, and not least because he's cool about bringing a sweet camera (well-adjusted to the conditions) and letting everyone use it a bit.
What a fine evening it was. Small enough to converse as a group (when we weren't being serenaded at maximum volume with odes to the Magic Vagina), nothing but 100% hotness all the way around the table, an inspired shoutout medium (kudos to caitlinb) and lighting challenges galore to be overcome. As a group, we prevailed in the end over the forces of darkness (and boredom - and sobriety).
Getting some of these shots right required not only f-stop hoodoo and ISO quick-math, but riding through the boom-boom-boom! volcanic mountains of Nicaragua and burying mothers in San Mateo. She was a beautiful woman.
posted by scarabic at 11:18 AM on February 12, 2005
What a fine evening it was. Small enough to converse as a group (when we weren't being serenaded at maximum volume with odes to the Magic Vagina), nothing but 100% hotness all the way around the table, an inspired shoutout medium (kudos to caitlinb) and lighting challenges galore to be overcome. As a group, we prevailed in the end over the forces of darkness (and boredom - and sobriety).
Getting some of these shots right required not only f-stop hoodoo and ISO quick-math, but riding through the boom-boom-boom! volcanic mountains of Nicaragua and burying mothers in San Mateo. She was a beautiful woman.
posted by scarabic at 11:18 AM on February 12, 2005
Oh, man. . . the answer can't be "buy a really expensive camera and rangefinder," can it?
Let's say you have a good but non-SLR digicam. Can you do anything like this?
(If this is out of place on MeTa, feel free to tell me to shut up.)
posted by Mid at 11:47 AM on February 12, 2005
Let's say you have a good but non-SLR digicam. Can you do anything like this?
(If this is out of place on MeTa, feel free to tell me to shut up.)
posted by Mid at 11:47 AM on February 12, 2005
quasistoic = still hot
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 11:52 AM on February 12, 2005
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 11:52 AM on February 12, 2005
Can you do anything like this?
If you mean control aperature for depth-of-field, the answer is: probably not. Depends on how sophisticated your camera's controls are, but most non-SLRs don't offer that.
posted by scarabic at 12:05 PM on February 12, 2005
If you mean control aperature for depth-of-field, the answer is: probably not. Depends on how sophisticated your camera's controls are, but most non-SLRs don't offer that.
posted by scarabic at 12:05 PM on February 12, 2005
it's unnerving how attractive i find scarabic in that photo. ha.
posted by ifjuly at 12:06 PM on February 12, 2005
posted by ifjuly at 12:06 PM on February 12, 2005
good but non-SLR digicam
Depends. If you can go into manual mode (which isn't beyond the realm of possibility these days), or better yet, aperature priority ("Av Mode") then you can. Don't expect the auto-exposure to meter correctly, though. In dark situations like that, the camera still sees everything in middle-grey. You have to override this by setting exposure compensation (again, a lot of "good but non-SLR" cameras can do this, maybe yours!)
The limiting factor, however, is the non-SLR part. The reason SLR's are nice is just 'cause they've got a lot of lens options. For night-time shots, you need really heavy glass to capture all the little photons running around. Most consumer digicams don't come with very good lenses, (though there are some exceptions to this rule). If you have to shoot at f/3.5 of more, you're just not going to be able to get the shot without introducing a shitload of blur.
DaShiv was shooting at an obscenely large aperature and it still took 1/6th of a second at 3200 ISO. You can't push things much more then that and hope to get anything good out of it. Maybe if you bring a tripod (don't laugh, there are some pocket-sized 'pods that work in a bind) and you ask your subjects politely not to move around too much. :)
Sorry for the AskMe derail.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:38 PM on February 12, 2005
Depends. If you can go into manual mode (which isn't beyond the realm of possibility these days), or better yet, aperature priority ("Av Mode") then you can. Don't expect the auto-exposure to meter correctly, though. In dark situations like that, the camera still sees everything in middle-grey. You have to override this by setting exposure compensation (again, a lot of "good but non-SLR" cameras can do this, maybe yours!)
The limiting factor, however, is the non-SLR part. The reason SLR's are nice is just 'cause they've got a lot of lens options. For night-time shots, you need really heavy glass to capture all the little photons running around. Most consumer digicams don't come with very good lenses, (though there are some exceptions to this rule). If you have to shoot at f/3.5 of more, you're just not going to be able to get the shot without introducing a shitload of blur.
DaShiv was shooting at an obscenely large aperature and it still took 1/6th of a second at 3200 ISO. You can't push things much more then that and hope to get anything good out of it. Maybe if you bring a tripod (don't laugh, there are some pocket-sized 'pods that work in a bind) and you ask your subjects politely not to move around too much. :)
Sorry for the AskMe derail.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:38 PM on February 12, 2005
Yeah... I'm still confused as to how anything came out at 1/6th of a second shutter. Even if DaShiv were still as a post, we weren't. What's the deal there?
posted by scarabic at 12:40 PM on February 12, 2005
posted by scarabic at 12:40 PM on February 12, 2005
Oh, one more thing DaShiv: I really like your rangefinder gallery. Those cameras were just designed for street shots.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:40 PM on February 12, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:40 PM on February 12, 2005
What's the deal there?
One part luck, ninety-nine parts not showing you the "bad" shots he took. :)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:42 PM on February 12, 2005
One part luck, ninety-nine parts not showing you the "bad" shots he took. :)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:42 PM on February 12, 2005
In addition to DaShiv's wizardry the pictures came out so well because the hotness-all-around is a radiant hotness. And because scarabic is incandescently nice - for someone who spends so much time "imagining" how to hide bodies - plus hot. And because caitlinb lurves us because she brought us flowers and candy. And because metacupla and I thought exactly the same thing when the "missionary" showed us the "penis" in his "box". And because obloquy is the Bean Weevils' #1 fan. And because when you get DaShiv out from behind the camera he's very articulate - behind it he's all motherfucker this and motherfucker that.
/me updates mefi crush list
posted by bendy at 1:26 PM on February 12, 2005
/me updates mefi crush list
posted by bendy at 1:26 PM on February 12, 2005
Let's say you have a good but non-SLR digicam. Can you do anything like this?
You can get pretty close with Photoshop after the fact (the latest version has a "lens blur" photo that mimics the out-of-focus characteristics of real glass, called "bokeh"), but it's a lot of work to mask off the parts you don't want blurred, and if you don't already have Photoshop, it'd probably be cheaper to buy a Digital Rebel or somethin'. There is no way you will ever get anything but noise out of a regular digicam at 3200 ISO.
Depends on how sophisticated your camera's controls are, but most non-SLRs don't offer that.
Many non-SLR digicams offer manual control of aperture, it's just that it doesn't make much difference with the small sensors that are typically used. The bigger the imaging area, the more obvious effect aperture will have on DOF.
posted by kindall at 2:10 PM on February 12, 2005
You can get pretty close with Photoshop after the fact (the latest version has a "lens blur" photo that mimics the out-of-focus characteristics of real glass, called "bokeh"), but it's a lot of work to mask off the parts you don't want blurred, and if you don't already have Photoshop, it'd probably be cheaper to buy a Digital Rebel or somethin'. There is no way you will ever get anything but noise out of a regular digicam at 3200 ISO.
Depends on how sophisticated your camera's controls are, but most non-SLRs don't offer that.
Many non-SLR digicams offer manual control of aperture, it's just that it doesn't make much difference with the small sensors that are typically used. The bigger the imaging area, the more obvious effect aperture will have on DOF.
posted by kindall at 2:10 PM on February 12, 2005
me updates mefi crush list
You know I tried that today and you still can't add a "crush." It just won't show up. I've emailed Matt asking him to fix it for Valentine's Day (for crikey's sake). No reply yet. I'm fresh out of MetaTalk posts for a few more days. If anyone wants to post it to the Grey and light a fire under that boy... Monday is getting awful close!
posted by scarabic at 2:12 PM on February 12, 2005
You know I tried that today and you still can't add a "crush." It just won't show up. I've emailed Matt asking him to fix it for Valentine's Day (for crikey's sake). No reply yet. I'm fresh out of MetaTalk posts for a few more days. If anyone wants to post it to the Grey and light a fire under that boy... Monday is getting awful close!
posted by scarabic at 2:12 PM on February 12, 2005
for someone who spends so much time "imagining" how to hide bodies
You know... for the record: hiding is the thing I spend the least time imaging how to do to bodies ;)
posted by scarabic at 2:15 PM on February 12, 2005
You know... for the record: hiding is the thing I spend the least time imaging how to do to bodies ;)
posted by scarabic at 2:15 PM on February 12, 2005
I know it's been said many time, many ways, but I'm really enjoying these weekly pics of scarabic.
posted by frecklefaerie at 2:44 PM on February 12, 2005
posted by frecklefaerie at 2:44 PM on February 12, 2005
DaShiv -- the linked photo is fantastic. What's the secret to such a beautiful night time shot with the blurred street lights in the back?
Thanks, but I had made a note that it was epimorph who took that shot. While I was hunched over the Sisyphian project of penetrating the darkness inside, epimorph was smart enough to snag some shots while we were taking a smoke break under the much better ambient light outside. In photography, one follows the light.
FWIW, epimorph took that shot at 1/640s at f/1.2 and ISO 3200. It was literally a hundred times brighter under the streetlights. :)
Were you shooting with a rangefinder? What lens are you using with such a big aperature?
I had both a DSLR and a rangefinder there, with a 24/1.4 and 85/1.2 on the DSLR and a 35/1.4 on the rangefinder. Voigtlander has a 35/1.2 for the rangefinder but it's bigger than many SLR primes out there, and I wanted to start by mastering the framing and focus throw distance/ergonomics of a single rangefinder lens before expanding my horizons. Since the 35/1.2 is too big for me to use everywhere comfortably I only have the 35/1.4 as my one rangefinder lens. You can pretty much guess which shots were with which camera/lens based on the focal length. I wasn't shooting anything at anything other max ISO (3200 on the DSLR, 1600 on the rangefinder) and aperture until the flashlights came out and until the DSLR was being passed around with its flash popped up due to my eyes being preoccupied by watching the room spin around my seat on the sofa.
Yeah... I'm still confused as to how anything came out at 1/6th of a second shutter.
They didn't, really. In addition to what C_D said about not showing the (many) bad shots as well as little things I did like bracing where I can, waiting for lulls in conversations, etc, you can still easily tell that of all the quickie portraits, aside from the two shot by epimorph outside under the streetlights, the flash one by bendy, and one very lucky tack-sharp one I took of caitlinb with the rangefinder (thanks to no SLR mirror slap), all the rest were blurry to varying degrees and none of them really "came out" at all. Same thing goes for most of the other shots that weren't lit by fire/flashlight.
What you should really wonder about is how anything came out looking anything resembling normal color-wise under that type of lightning condition. :) There was a purple glow from the TV mounted above us that pulsed in brightness depending on what was on the screen, the very orange streetlights coming in through the curtains, the red light from the bar behind us, the almost opaque yellow lampshade over the lamp in the corner, and a black light somewhere in the room that made shirts and teeth glow when people were sitting in certain places or facing a certain way. Saying the lighting was "mixed" is a dramatic understatement. I had my hands very full in Photoshop.
Maybe if you bring a tripod (don't laugh, there are some pocket-sized 'pods that work in a bind) and you ask your subjects politely not to move around too much. :)
At one point I had kindly asked everyone to stop breathing so that I can take some better pictures. epimorph retorted that there would be less blur in the photos if I stopped breathing myself. I pointed out that someone still needed to trip the shutter, but I think that fell upon deaf ears.
And because when you get DaShiv out from behind the camera he's very articulate - behind it he's all motherfucker this and motherfucker that.
Fuck you. :)
posted by DaShiv at 3:23 PM on February 12, 2005 [1 favorite]
Thanks, but I had made a note that it was epimorph who took that shot. While I was hunched over the Sisyphian project of penetrating the darkness inside, epimorph was smart enough to snag some shots while we were taking a smoke break under the much better ambient light outside. In photography, one follows the light.
FWIW, epimorph took that shot at 1/640s at f/1.2 and ISO 3200. It was literally a hundred times brighter under the streetlights. :)
Were you shooting with a rangefinder? What lens are you using with such a big aperature?
I had both a DSLR and a rangefinder there, with a 24/1.4 and 85/1.2 on the DSLR and a 35/1.4 on the rangefinder. Voigtlander has a 35/1.2 for the rangefinder but it's bigger than many SLR primes out there, and I wanted to start by mastering the framing and focus throw distance/ergonomics of a single rangefinder lens before expanding my horizons. Since the 35/1.2 is too big for me to use everywhere comfortably I only have the 35/1.4 as my one rangefinder lens. You can pretty much guess which shots were with which camera/lens based on the focal length. I wasn't shooting anything at anything other max ISO (3200 on the DSLR, 1600 on the rangefinder) and aperture until the flashlights came out and until the DSLR was being passed around with its flash popped up due to my eyes being preoccupied by watching the room spin around my seat on the sofa.
Yeah... I'm still confused as to how anything came out at 1/6th of a second shutter.
They didn't, really. In addition to what C_D said about not showing the (many) bad shots as well as little things I did like bracing where I can, waiting for lulls in conversations, etc, you can still easily tell that of all the quickie portraits, aside from the two shot by epimorph outside under the streetlights, the flash one by bendy, and one very lucky tack-sharp one I took of caitlinb with the rangefinder (thanks to no SLR mirror slap), all the rest were blurry to varying degrees and none of them really "came out" at all. Same thing goes for most of the other shots that weren't lit by fire/flashlight.
What you should really wonder about is how anything came out looking anything resembling normal color-wise under that type of lightning condition. :) There was a purple glow from the TV mounted above us that pulsed in brightness depending on what was on the screen, the very orange streetlights coming in through the curtains, the red light from the bar behind us, the almost opaque yellow lampshade over the lamp in the corner, and a black light somewhere in the room that made shirts and teeth glow when people were sitting in certain places or facing a certain way. Saying the lighting was "mixed" is a dramatic understatement. I had my hands very full in Photoshop.
Maybe if you bring a tripod (don't laugh, there are some pocket-sized 'pods that work in a bind) and you ask your subjects politely not to move around too much. :)
At one point I had kindly asked everyone to stop breathing so that I can take some better pictures. epimorph retorted that there would be less blur in the photos if I stopped breathing myself. I pointed out that someone still needed to trip the shutter, but I think that fell upon deaf ears.
And because when you get DaShiv out from behind the camera he's very articulate - behind it he's all motherfucker this and motherfucker that.
Fuck you. :)
posted by DaShiv at 3:23 PM on February 12, 2005 [1 favorite]
I know it's been said many time, many ways
It has, much to the warming of my highly flammable ego. Honestly, folks, I appreciate the love (really - who can get enough compliments?) but at a certain point I start to feel like the post-meetup game of "am-i-hot-or-not" gets a little awkward.
I don't mind attention - and by all means please fill my email inbox with unsubtle flattery. But if people start to feel like everyone's going to be rated on their appearance after a meetup, they're less likely to go and relax and feel comfortable and have a good time and be photographed and open up and socialize - which is what it's all about.
When I first started looking in on post-meetup threads, people only went as far as comments like "Hey - what a nice looking bunch you are!" I think that's really the most appropriate level to keep it at, at least in these threads. If you have something a little more personal to say, take it to email or your crushlist or something like that.
Cool?
posted by scarabic at 4:23 PM on February 12, 2005
It has, much to the warming of my highly flammable ego. Honestly, folks, I appreciate the love (really - who can get enough compliments?) but at a certain point I start to feel like the post-meetup game of "am-i-hot-or-not" gets a little awkward.
I don't mind attention - and by all means please fill my email inbox with unsubtle flattery. But if people start to feel like everyone's going to be rated on their appearance after a meetup, they're less likely to go and relax and feel comfortable and have a good time and be photographed and open up and socialize - which is what it's all about.
When I first started looking in on post-meetup threads, people only went as far as comments like "Hey - what a nice looking bunch you are!" I think that's really the most appropriate level to keep it at, at least in these threads. If you have something a little more personal to say, take it to email or your crushlist or something like that.
Cool?
posted by scarabic at 4:23 PM on February 12, 2005
{Sling Blade}
I reckon I'm gonna have to get used to looking at pretty people. Reckon I'm gonna have to get used to them looking at me.
{/Sling Blade}
posted by tizzie at 5:40 PM on February 12, 2005
I reckon I'm gonna have to get used to looking at pretty people. Reckon I'm gonna have to get used to them looking at me.
{/Sling Blade}
posted by tizzie at 5:40 PM on February 12, 2005
"But if people start to feel like everyone's going to be rated on their appearance after a meetup, they're less likely to go..."
Indeed.
posted by majick at 7:55 PM on February 12, 2005
Indeed.
posted by majick at 7:55 PM on February 12, 2005
Followup to scarabic's last post:
That all said, scarabic and I are taking preorders for pictures and video of a little MeFi man-on-man action. Limited copies will be distributed, so place your orders now via the email address in scarabic's profile.
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering why I wait a month before posting meetup pics: would you want to be DaShiv's followup?
posted by quasistoic at 8:16 PM on February 12, 2005
That all said, scarabic and I are taking preorders for pictures and video of a little MeFi man-on-man action. Limited copies will be distributed, so place your orders now via the email address in scarabic's profile.
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering why I wait a month before posting meetup pics: would you want to be DaShiv's followup?
posted by quasistoic at 8:16 PM on February 12, 2005
would you want to be DaShiv's followup?
Wait - so, we keep debating this, but I thought the pics of me following you up DaShiv were going to be included in the set? Is he still balking over the money shot bonus? Jeezus. I don't know how many times you can listen to someone say "Why do you think they call it the 'money shot?'" I've explained the market analysis to him repeatedly but he won't listen.
But seriously:
would you want to be DaShiv's followup?
Yeah, actually, as much as I admire your shots, DaShiv, I. personally, am willing to stoop to consumer quality measures like flash for the sake of capturing a moment between friends. It's ugly, photographically, but for the sake of the record, it helps. I wouldn't presume to tell you to change what you're doing at all, but yes: in addition to the stuff you've got, I'd very much like to see Danny's shots and any others.
(except that one where you can see my gluteal cellulite - I told you to delete it, did you?)
posted by scarabic at 8:38 PM on February 12, 2005
Wait - so, we keep debating this, but I thought the pics of me following you up DaShiv were going to be included in the set? Is he still balking over the money shot bonus? Jeezus. I don't know how many times you can listen to someone say "Why do you think they call it the 'money shot?'" I've explained the market analysis to him repeatedly but he won't listen.
But seriously:
would you want to be DaShiv's followup?
Yeah, actually, as much as I admire your shots, DaShiv, I. personally, am willing to stoop to consumer quality measures like flash for the sake of capturing a moment between friends. It's ugly, photographically, but for the sake of the record, it helps. I wouldn't presume to tell you to change what you're doing at all, but yes: in addition to the stuff you've got, I'd very much like to see Danny's shots and any others.
(except that one where you can see my gluteal cellulite - I told you to delete it, did you?)
posted by scarabic at 8:38 PM on February 12, 2005
Actually scarabic and I clashed over this exact issue in a recent thread in the blue, where he pointed out how in actuality it's a social faux pas and is entirely missing the point to, in his example, treat the production of a local Christmas pageant like a Broadway play. I think an appropriate response from you in this instance, quasistoic, is to ask, "What kind of pretentous poseur is DaShiv trying to be by acting all fancy-schmancy with his photos at a meetup where we're just there to drink and having fun?" and then spit in my general direction before posting your pictures to spite me. See? :) Plus there's nothing inherently wrong with flash and most sane photogs (especially pros) actually use them instead of doing the whacky blurry stuff I do--one reason I shoot available light is because I'm simply not good at shooting with flash. Moreover, why in the world would you be worried about posting great shots like these?
Besides, isn't what you're saying a bit like, for example, if I (or someone else) didn't want to attend meetups anymore just because you pretty boys are getting all the swoons? I think that would be rather missing the point, especially since I obviously would have been wearing a dress that matched my complexion better if this were a beauty pageant. Obviously.
And anyway, so long as I can get in on a piece of the hot MeFi man-on-man action to make the ladies jealous, it's all good with me!
posted by DaShiv at 10:58 PM on February 12, 2005
Besides, isn't what you're saying a bit like, for example, if I (or someone else) didn't want to attend meetups anymore just because you pretty boys are getting all the swoons? I think that would be rather missing the point, especially since I obviously would have been wearing a dress that matched my complexion better if this were a beauty pageant. Obviously.
And anyway, so long as I can get in on a piece of the hot MeFi man-on-man action to make the ladies jealous, it's all good with me!
posted by DaShiv at 10:58 PM on February 12, 2005
"What kind of pretentous poseur is DaShiv trying to be by acting all fancy-schmancy with his photos at a meetup where we're just there to drink and having fun?"
I'm sorry, but I admire excellence and people who, like DaShiv, bring excellence to everyday things. To critique a school Christmas play as if it were on Broadway is inappropriate; but to attempt to stage a school Christmas play as if it were on Broadway is admirable. (Within reason. That is, as long as one recognizes that the purposes of a school Christmas play and a Broadway play are not identical. But DaShiv is photographing the proceedings on his own initiative; his "purpose" is his own. If he were hired to document the event, then things would be different.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:13 PM on February 12, 2005
I'm sorry, but I admire excellence and people who, like DaShiv, bring excellence to everyday things. To critique a school Christmas play as if it were on Broadway is inappropriate; but to attempt to stage a school Christmas play as if it were on Broadway is admirable. (Within reason. That is, as long as one recognizes that the purposes of a school Christmas play and a Broadway play are not identical. But DaShiv is photographing the proceedings on his own initiative; his "purpose" is his own. If he were hired to document the event, then things would be different.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:13 PM on February 12, 2005
It's a matter of context, EB, not excellence. I think you'll agree with me that meetup attendance and meetup photos fall into the inclusive "the more the merrier" category rather than the competitive "feuding over art grants" or "am I hot or not" categories. Therefore, within a casual social setting like this, whatever my personal (and unorthodox) aesthetic preoccupations might be for my own photos should not interfere with or dissuade others in the group from sharing and enjoying the event, both for us as the participants and for the entire MeFi audience at large.
So post yours already, quasistoic!
posted by DaShiv at 12:43 AM on February 13, 2005
So post yours already, quasistoic!
posted by DaShiv at 12:43 AM on February 13, 2005
Jeez, I want to leave Los Angeles and go back home to San Francisco, where the blues are poignant and the tones are warm and the meet-ups are a brief bus ride (or walk!) away.
I left two years ago, when no-one could get work but the apartments were still 2k a fucking month. Are there jobs yet?
posted by goofyfoot at 1:49 AM on February 13, 2005
I left two years ago, when no-one could get work but the apartments were still 2k a fucking month. Are there jobs yet?
posted by goofyfoot at 1:49 AM on February 13, 2005
Are there jobs yet?
That depends on whether you use the Bush method of counting only new jobs created and ignoring all jobs lost. I'm quite sure the BA created jobs in the last 2 years :)
posted by scarabic at 10:14 AM on February 13, 2005
That depends on whether you use the Bush method of counting only new jobs created and ignoring all jobs lost. I'm quite sure the BA created jobs in the last 2 years :)
posted by scarabic at 10:14 AM on February 13, 2005
don't worry scarabic. i have taken a laser to my brain to zap those unwanted compliments. i've been crushing out on mefites and mofites for ages now...remember mathowie's "oh my god, at mofi meetups there are real girls!!!!!" post? and i remember a midwestern meetup somewhere where everyone looked smiley and warm and rosycheeked. but i will rescind my comment about you, if having it out in the open is weird. dunna worry. :I
the only people i really have a crush on are rj amberglow and mathowie anyway. and i'm pretty sure they know already.
posted by ifjuly at 5:46 PM on February 13, 2005
the only people i really have a crush on are rj amberglow and mathowie anyway. and i'm pretty sure they know already.
posted by ifjuly at 5:46 PM on February 13, 2005
I did finally get around to it.
Not that anyone is watching this thread any longer...
posted by quasistoic at 8:11 PM on February 13, 2005
Not that anyone is watching this thread any longer...
posted by quasistoic at 8:11 PM on February 13, 2005
Shh, we won't tell anyone...
I particularly liked these two.
posted by DaShiv at 10:58 PM on February 13, 2005
I particularly liked these two.
posted by DaShiv at 10:58 PM on February 13, 2005
Rock & roll!
Bendy, I may be the Bean Weevil's only fan, but you came through with remembering their name! What did you do, write it in tiny handwriting on a candy heart for safekeeping?
posted by obloquy at 2:30 AM on February 14, 2005
Bendy, I may be the Bean Weevil's only fan, but you came through with remembering their name! What did you do, write it in tiny handwriting on a candy heart for safekeeping?
posted by obloquy at 2:30 AM on February 14, 2005
Yep. And then I ate it, so I'd remember it forever. "I take my lapTOP to the coffee SHOP..."
posted by bendy at 3:00 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by bendy at 3:00 PM on February 14, 2005
Yep. And then I ate it, so I'd remember it forever. "I take my lapTOP to the coffee SHOP..." Thanks for all the great pics, DaShiv and quasi.
posted by bendy at 3:00 PM on February 14, 2005
posted by bendy at 3:00 PM on February 14, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Because the lighting inside the Odeon was so wretched (i.e. 1/6s at f/1.2 and ISO 3200), some pictures had some unavoidable subject/camera motion blur and thus there are some rough edges in the linked gallery above. In fact, it was much brighter under the street lamps outside (where the best photo of the night was taken), and when I complained about the lighting, obloquy promised that the next meetup would be during a moonless night on a beach far away from any city lights. There's no sympathy left in this world.
Despite my grousing, much Valentine's fun was had and hijinks were caused (though we failed to burn the place down despite our best attempts to do so under the guise of conjuring up some illumination). There were no new faces this time around, but we hope to see you at the next meetup in March (details forthcoming via caitlinb). Until then, give Cupid a wedgie for me. Hard.
posted by DaShiv at 8:13 AM on February 12, 2005