I picked out the artistic photos from my coverage of Kristin's wedding (I'm sure non-family members aren't that interested in the formals and reception; if you're family and want that link, let me know). I think they turned out fairly well. Enjoy.

This is unsurprising (socio-political trends have been pretty well mapped out across the U.S.), but still discouraging. :P

Labels: annoyance

I've done this trick before.

Me: I've been practicing my telepathy and I can read minds now, Jeff.
Jeff: Sure. Okay, fine, what am I thinking?
Me: You're thinking . . . *pause* . . . that you don't really believe I can read minds and I'm making all of this up.
Jeff: *long pause* Okay, well, what am I thinking *now*?
My dad: *cracking up laughing*

Labels: amusement, family, jeff

This made me laugh (I'm allowed; I'm a photographer).

Labels: amusement, funny, photography

Kelbi's first portrait sitting. She did pretty well (she held still and smiled for an entire 5 minutes).

P.S. - Yes, that's a picture of my mother ironing my brother's shirt . . . while he's wearing it.

I feel like trying this project. Anyone need any wine bottle tiki torches?

Labels: amusement, art, cool

To Meghan, who let me help her bake her own birthday cake last night (I've never peeled a summer squash before, so it was interesting). Hope it's a good one. :)

An AP article on the new trend of protesters showing up to political rallies (in this case, a presidential appearance) visibly armed raises a number of issues, on both sides:

Bad liberals. In a rare deviance from my liberal fortress, I feel the need to criticize the pervasive use of the term "assault weapon" or "military-style assault weapon" in mainstream and left-leaning media. While I'm not a fan of firearms, I was raised in a gun culture (I had a marksmanship qualification at one point as part of an experimental father-son bonding attempt), so I have some understanding of both the actual physical items and the political agendas involved. Certain liberal groups devoted to restricting firearms are guilty in this case of manufacturing a term and assigning it negative connotations (even beyond those some people assign to the term "gun") and then using that term to incite a greater degree of fear among readers. "Assault weapon" just sounds scary; it implies a firearm designed to be more deadly, or more powerful, or more useful in killing people. While these weapons can be more intimidating visually, the descriptors in the previous sentence are, in most cases untrue.

Militaries use assault rifles (note the difference in terminology). Assault rifles are "automatic weapons" (that is, they are capable of firing more than one round for each pull of the trigger). They are also capable, because the military can set its own rules, of firing incendiary and armor-piercing rounds, and of using silencers and the like. Assault weapons, on the other hand, are political constructs. A firearm tends to be classified as an assault weapon if it looks like an assault rifle, even if it doesn't function the same way. They're not assault rifles. They are "semi-automatic weapons" (one bullet for each time you pull the trigger). Because of state and federal laws, it is illegal to buy or possess armor-piercing rounds or silencers.

Here's the fun part. An assault weapon isn't a particularly powerful firearm. It can't fire more than one round per trigger pull, which is the major advantage to assault rifles. They're chambered for very small rounds (militaries do this so soldiers can carry more ammunition, not because the bullets are more dangerous). In many states, the caliber used in most assault weapons is illegal to use in hunting for anything bigger than rabbits because it often won't kill a deer. Its only real advantage is its intimidation factor; it *looks* scary (or *cool*, depending on your point of view). But if you're serious about harming someone, any hunting-grade shotgun or high-power rifle is far more effective (not only are you just as or more likely to hit someone, but if you do hit them you're more likely to kill them, plus you can do it from farther away).

The gun-control groups know this, and in fact actively try to confuse "assault weapon" with "assault rifle," even knowing they aren't the same. They also know that banning these particular firearms would have very little impact on crime rates or murders. But it energizes their base when people read that a particularly scary weapon was used; it's a convenient "bogeyman" that resonates with their constituents. And it's a useful tactic; people are more likely to donate money or support legislation if they read that a person was killed by a "military-style assault weapon" than if the same person was killed with a "shotgun typically used for hunting pheasants." But that tactic is based on fear, not facts, and that annoys me. Equally annoying is that the media has adopted these terms as dictionary definitions instead of recognizing them as politically loaded and fabricated terms. So, media, people carrying "guns" is scary enough. No need to try to scare people further with made-up terms.

Bad conservatives. Protesting is a time-honored tradition deeply ingrained in the concept of democracy. Protesting is a fantastic process. It expresses alternative opinions in a passionate way. It allows people to express their frustration and anger. It encourages public discourse and sparks conversation. When you bring firearms to a protest, you're abandoning those concepts and relying on intimidation instead of the validity of your opinion to make your point. You're shutting down the avenues of communication. The people who already agree with you will cheer you on, but the people you really need to convince, the people who *might* agree with you if you explained your point properly, are now afraid of you. You and I both know that the likelihood of anyone at your rally actually shooting someone is pretty small, but you're not acknowledging that, to anyone outside of your culture, guns are scary, and by physically presenting a gun you're intimidating people into being quiet. Then you're unhappy when the people afraid of you vote to limit your ability to carry your firearm. What you need is a community outreach and education program to explain your point of view, not an event to show that anger and guns do indeed go together.

Labels: politics, social commentary

A local artist collaborated with me this week by using some of my photography as the background material for a music video for a song he wrote about Omaha. Take a look and enjoy.

Labels: art, omaha, photography

To Linde, who is now old enough to be a United States senator. Hope it's a great one. :)

Labels: music

The little "electric shocks" in my palm got worse rather than better last night (mostly during my drive home, but one particularly painful jolt when I was pushing a shopping cart around at the grocery store). Hopefully I just bruised or inflamed a nerve and it will heal up. Permanent carpal tunnel is going to put a serious crimp in photography. I bought a brace at the store that has a little split that protects the palm; I'll wear that while I'm driving for awhile and see if that helps.

Labels: ouch

CliffsNotes version of my recent Internet vacancy:

- The wedding I attended went off without a hitch (or rather, with the one expected hitch). Bride and groom on their way to Hawaii (just in time for the tropical storm). Nice weather at the family pond, everyone on time, no family quarrels, etc.

- I don't have an official tally, but I took somewhere in the vicinity of 1,600 photos (enough to fill two 4GB compact flash cards). Divide that by three since I use exposure bracketing, and then divide the formals by three because I take multiple shots per pose to account for blinking and the like, and I still have at least 200 photos to narrow down before starting the long cleanup process. I told the family I'd have albums ready in two weeks. Some of the photography was quite enjoyable and some was just monotonous, but it would have been far more stressful if my mother hadn't been running the shot sheet.

- We were scheduled to finish formal portraits at 5:30 (the ceremony started at 6) and I'd given out specific deadlines for various people (e.g., bridesmaids at 3:30). Due to people running late, at 5:15 we'd covered only about a quarter of the shot sheet and I was doing my share of panicking. When I told my mother that there was no way we were going to be done on time, she looked at me and said "Are you still on Omaha time? Because I have 4:15." Yay for time zone changes.

- I injured my hand doing the photography. Apparently 10 hours is too long to hold a 3-lb. camera lens on a 2-lb. camera. At some point during the reception I developed a sharp pain in my left palm, and since then I've been feeling little "electric shocks" in the same place whenever I flex my hand, which is consistent with a repetitive stress or carpal tunnel injury. Bloody hell.

- I also did family portraits for my brother and his family. Kelbi played along for about 15 minutes before growing bored with it.

- I did most of my dancing at the reception with Kelbi. Apparently she likes loud music and flashing lights.

- The reception played an eclectic mix of music. I'd wager I was one of the only ones there who knew the full set, considering the country bulk was punctuated with Abba and Lady GaGa. On two occasions the DJ played only the first half of a song before fading into something else because the dance floor would completely empty as soon as it started (apparently western Nebraska isn't a big Michael Jackson fan).

- I learned from my dad's mother that I have a Native American ancestor if you go back far enough (something like my grandmother's grandmother's grandmother).

- I saw a dead armadillo on the side of the Interstate. That's a first for Nebraska.

- I listened to a wide assortment of religious programming during my 12 hours of driving. Amongst the highlights:

- A fire-and-brimstone preacher who encouraged his listeners to shun Muslims because Islam is a devil-worshiping religion thats only purpose is to kill Americans.
- A soft-spoken "answer man" who politely answered callers' questions about the Bible and laid out the facts that people who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, play "revival"-style "rambunctious" (his description) music in church and wear any sort of hair styles or decorations (outside of what a "plain Christian woman" should wear), including hair extensions and dyes, are going to Hell. His one clarification to all of this was that you wouldn't go to Hell if you didn't know about these rules (his example was the Biblical figures with multiple wives, who just didn't know that polygamy was wrong), but now that the listeners had heard them (and I guess by extension the fact that you've read them here), the rules were in force.
- A discussion between a radio call-in show host and (the) Stephen Baldwin that started with "Welcome to the show, Stephen in California" "Thanks, pastor. My name is Stephen Baldwin and I'm a film actor; perhaps you've heard of me or my family." "Well, Stephen, it doesn't ring any bells but I don't really watch movies. What's your question?" and then segued into a discussion on whether Christian rap music is an abomination or not, with Baldwin suggesting that if it reaches inner city kids who won't relate to more mainstream preaching it's a good thing and the host comparing it to pornography and saying it was inappropriate in all forms before hanging up and taking the next caller.

- I upgraded my parents' computer while I was there. After some quarreling, my mother and I agreed that they didn't need to pay for it. Which is apparently mother code for "I'm just going to put the check in your suitcase when you're not looking."

- The last hour of my drive was through fairly heavy fog, which was very pretty.

Labels: amusement, family, photography

I'm not a fan of the Richard Dawkins-style, in-your-face, militant atheism. I would wager that the majority of people who know me aren't even aware I'm an atheist. Other than on my blog (my own personal soapbox), I never bring it up unless someone else brings it up first. It's just not that important to me.

Having said that, this article is still concerning, in much the same way a similar article about a local church or a minority group advertising to potential members in a non-threatening way having its ad pulled and being subsequently ignored by the agency would be concerning.

I'm curious if the public support of the open disapproval of the nonreligious is based solely on a deep-seated belief about perceived "wrongness" (as some people still feel about racial minorities and homosexuals) or if people are just more comfortable openly criticizing the nonreligous because they're one of the few groups still socially acceptable to ostracize (a case of displaced aggression).

Labels: religion and atheism, social commentary

Since I spent an outrageous amount of money on a new lens, I figured I should at least try it out before using it for a wedding this weekend.

Although I should note that the new lens was not used for the photos of the Omaha Building or the new planet. Those came from my other "L" lens.

The picture to the right is a composite built from a photo in the firm's archive (actually hanging on the wall in my boss's office; I stole it for a weekend and scanned it at home) and one I took after walking around with a copy of the original until I found roughly the place I thought it was taken. I could use a concept called "parallax" to make that determination; only certain lines of sight would see the correct amount of window surface on the second half of the building peeking around the corner of the first, and only certain other lines of sight would see the same amount of curving sidewalk at the bottom, and if you draw a line between those you can determine the original vantage point. Unfortunately I was off a little bit (it's hard to tell exactly through the viewfinder); I should have been a little farther back and possibly higher. Fortunately, Photoshop means that no one but me will ever notice the slight amount of difference.

All in all I think it turned out pretty well.

Labels: photography

Labels: funny

Signs of the Apocalypse (which is capitalized when referring to the Book of Revelation and lowercase when referring to a generic catastrophe of civilization-ending proportions, just FYI):

- I saw "2012" spray-painted on a brick wall along Dodge on my way to work today. The ethics of graffiti aside, if said defacement is tongue-in-cheek or even parody, it's actually somewhat humorous; if it was written in earnest, well, the phrase "Y2K" comes to mind.

- I bore witness yesterday to a coworker who put his money in the vending machine, waited for the item to drop and then started cursing. Not because he didn't get his item, but because apparently numerous people in the building have figured out how to cheat the machine to get two items, and it didn't work this time. Even worse, he complained out loud to the other people in the lounge that it didn't work.

- I saw "Knowing" over the weekend. It was an interesting concept, but the last third of the movie was basically a Ford truck ad used to cover up the plot holes.

- The "Birther" movement. Enough said.

On an unrelated note, if you have the opportunity to see the film "Primer" (available as a streamed movie on Netflix), do so. A little difficult to follow (and very technical in language), but very good nonetheless.

Labels: miscellany

From "7 Men We'd Like to Date":

Photographer. He sees things others just do not. He can use his eyes to experience the world in a unique way. He'll challenge you to think out of the box and urge you to embrace change and life in the now. He's a risk-taker who knows how to suck the marrow out of every day. A no-rules kind of man, he may buck any idea of routine or rules-setting, but if you're looking to charge your life with some energy, date this guy.

I am so not "a risk-taker who knows how to suck the marrow out of every day," and I definitely don't "buck any idea of routine" (I'm rather attached to my routines). Unless you're talking specifically about photography. Hrm . . .

Labels: amusement