Bob Updegrove

Wittenberg University: My Alma Mater

2012-01-18T15:35:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to give a shout out to my college, Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio. This past December I watched online the Wittenberg's women volleyball team defeat Christopher Newport University for the NCAA Division III National Championship. Wittenberg has long been a football/basketball school. Their football program was the first (and only) Division III school to reach 700 wins. The basketball program, celebrating its 100th season this year, has more wins than any other Division III school. Additionally the basketball program has not had a losing season over the past 50 years, as well as appearing in the Division III tournament more times than any other school. While I attended Wittenberg, both the football team and the basketball team won a Division III national championship. Overall, the football team holds five national titles while the basketball team holds two.

The Princeton Review named Wittenberg as number 18 on their list of most beautiful campus in America. It also came in at number 19 for top professors. More Wittenberg professors have been named top professor of the year in the state of Ohio than any other school in Ohio, including Ohio State.

I enjoyed my time at Wittenberg. Last November I went by the campus for a quick visit and was impressed with how well they have improved the facilities over the years. The school makes a good first impression. Not sure I could afford the cost of today's Wittenberg though, but that is probably true with most private schools today.

The Updegroves and Bethany Beach

2012-01-10T13:34:00.001-05:00

Our family has been going to Bethany Beach, Delaware for pretty much my whole life. It is like my second home, wanting to be my first. Anyhow, I've been wanting to put together a photo book for the family, revolving largely around my brother Dave's family. This past Christmas was a good time to finally put it together. Here is a preview. Click on the large version for best viewing.

A Better Finder Rename

2012-01-09T13:38:00.000-05:00

One of my pet peeves with digital photography is the random filenames people use for their photos. Most people seem to do one of two things with their digital files: 1. they leave the filename as is from their camera (ie, dsc001), or 2. they rename the file with something like "Doug&Joanne_front_of_house". I guess for some people this all makes sense, but for me it does not. I like organization; and for me, with hundreds of thousands of photos on various hard drives, I need organization. I want my file names to make sense to me. So what do I do?

When I download images from my camera(s), the very first thing I do is batch rename all of the images. Now, I usually shoot with two cameras. That means at least two cards with photos taken trading off cameras throughout the day. When I bring all the images from all the cards onto my computer hard drive, I want to be able to organize all the photos by the time they were taken, and then rename all the files in a manner that makes sense to me for that particular photo shoot. Most people do not use two cameras, but those who do, here is the important step you need to take before shooting: be sure to sync the time clock between both cameras. You want to get them at least within maybe 3-4 seconds of each other. It does not matter if you are using two different kinds of cameras. Of course if you are shooting with only one camera, the time stamp does not matter, although I would strongly encourage you to set your camera time clock to the accurate time.

With all your images out of the camera and now on your hard drive, you want to be able to batch rename the files into a file name that makes sense. I use a very powerful program called A Better Finder Rename. To me it is the most intuitive program out there, with loads of options for all of your files, not just photos. Have 2000 images you want to change the file name . . piece of cake. Want to put all your images into chronological order AND rename them . . that is the whole idea of this program. So for something like a wedding, I will take the first initials of the bride and groom, add an underscore, then start the numbering with 0001. This will change my camera file name of "dsc6382", which means nothing to me, and changes it to "AB_0534". Or, as way of another example, photos taken on family vacation are changes from "_dsc3861" to "beach2011_0103". Like I mentioned before, there are loads of options: add text to the beginning of the file name, remove a couple digits in the middle, etc.

If you just have 3 or 4 files to rename, it is probably easier to do this manually; but if you have thousands or even hundreds to change, get A Better Finder Rename. There are other programs out there, some free, but this program is perfect at what it does. You can download a trial version that limits how many files you can batch rename, but it will give you a great experience with how well this program works.

Batman Meets Lion King

2012-01-02T22:41:00.001-05:00

This is an impressive bit of editing. Take the audio from the new Batman movie (Dark Night Rises) trailer and superimpose it over clips from The Lion King, and this is what you get:

Time To Not Get Serious About Climate Change

2012-01-02T09:52:00.000-05:00

If I was interested in being politically and socially correct, I would blindly rally behind the global warming cause, joining those who blame humans for any change of weather. I would call for government to outlaw oil and coal, and to invest billions of dollars in alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, which admittedly are much more expensive and much less effective. I really would not care that going "green" would bankrupt our country, send millions of people to the unemployment line, and raise costs for every product out there. That is a small cost for me to feel good about saving the planet, and possibly prevent the earth's temperature from raising .3 degrees over the next hundred years.

I am willing to say it: I do not believe in man made climate change. I cannot say I am skeptical about climate change itself. That would be like saying I am skeptical of air. Air exists, regardless of what I choose to believe. The same holds for climate change. The earth we live on has been changing for thousands of years. Ice ages come and go. In between those ice ages are warming periods. If the earth is capable of shifting into a definitive period of time called an "ice age", it is also capable of shifting into less definitive periods of time when the earth temperature drifts up or down by fractions of a degree. This happened before man burned carbon for energy, it will most likely happen when man relies on some other energy source. Is it possible that the real deniers are those who just don't accept this?

Those who are climate change devotees will say that those who do not buy into man made climate change are anti-science. That could not be further from the truth. We are actually anti-bad science, and there seems to be plenty of bad science out there masquerading as "truth" when it comes to climate change. Likewise there is a lot of bad policy being implemented out there, all based on bad science. Today I recommend two articles that should help you understand why I have not jumped on this green bandwagon. Please take the time to read both articles in their entirety.

F. Fred Singer, professor emeritus at UVA, writes of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project:

What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.

He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands. He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming. And that 70% of the U.S. stations are poorly situated and don't satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Weather Service. It is likely that stations elsewhere have similar problems.

And Clarice Feldman writes about the impact of biofuel farming in Africa:

The collapse of the London-based company Sun Biofuels, which grew jatropha in the district of Kasarawe for biodiesel, has left hundreds of villagers landless, jobless and in despair. In Mhaga village alone, a quarter of the land was acquired by the company in 2008, with a promise of financial compensation, 700 jobs, water wells and improved schools, health clinics and roads. But the villages have not been paid for the land, and their neighbors in Mtamba tell the same story of broken promises and unpaid compensation. Tabu Koba is one of 9 in this village who received no payment for their land.We are very angry.' He says.'My children have left school and have nowhere to farm.'

'The situation in Kisarawe is heartbreaking, but the real tragedy is that it's not unique, comments Josie Cohen of Action Aid. 'Communities across Africa are losing their land as a result of the massive biofuel targets set by [the UK] government.' Legalbrief Environmental

Another Cool Video

2011-12-13T16:19:00.000-05:00

I really like stop motion video. This is one of the better ones.
PROTEIGON from BURAYAN on Vimeo

Obama and Christmas

2011-12-13T08:20:00.000-05:00

I bash Barack Obama quite a bit, mostly because I believe he and his policies deserve it, and because it is so easy. Today's bashing comes from Andrew Schwartz, who comments on Obama's short speech at the "Christmas in Washington" television special. In his speech, Obama says: "This is the season to celebrate the story of how, more than two thousand years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among cattle and sheep. He was no ordinary child. He was the manifestation of God's love. And every year we celebrate His birth because the story of Jesus Christ changed the world. For me, and for millions of Americans, His story has filled our hearts and inspired our lives. It [the story] moves us to love one another; to help and serve those less fortunate; to forgive; to draw close to our families; to be grateful for all that has been given to us; to keep faith; and to hold on to an enduring hope in humanity." --Barack Obama, Dec 11, 2011.

Schwartz comments:
Christians do not believe that it was "the story" of Christ that changed the world. It was the actual presence of Christ -- His birth, His ministry, His death, and His resurrection -- that changed the world. Nor is it "the story" of Christ that fills the Christian heart and inspires his life. It is the actual forgiveness of our sins, and His constant intercession, which allows the absolutely abhorrent to commune with the Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the universe, that inspires worship.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/obama_misses_the_real_reason_for_the_season.html#ixzz1gQ73Ci6z

From Conception To Birth

2011-11-26T08:40:00.001-05:00

After watching this video, how could anyone not believe in God.

Cool Video

2011-11-22T13:03:00.001-05:00

OWS: Could Not Have Said It Better

2011-11-13T12:42:00.001-05:00

Chris and Carlene at The Birkby House, Leesburg, VA

2011-10-30T12:50:00.001-04:00

A few images from a small, short wedding ceremony at the Birkby House. We had a fair amount of rain and wet ground for most of the session, but all in all things worked out pretty well. Click on image to enlarge. For more images from this wedding, please click here.

Tommy & Anna at Berry Hill, South Boston, VA

2011-10-30T12:43:00.000-04:00

I photographed 6 weddings during the first 16 days of October, so I have been a bit negligent in updating the blog with photos. This October 9 wedding was at the Berry Hill Resort in South Boston, VA. Click on photo to enlarge. To see more images from this wedding, click here.

Barack, Meet Jimmy

2011-10-20T19:45:00.000-04:00

Occupying Wall Street

2011-10-18T09:22:00.000-04:00

I suppose a person should not make a judgement on something without actually being there, but I believe I have seen enough of the Occupy Wall Street to draw a couple conclusions: 1) despite the handful of "normal" people shown on conventional news programs, the majority of the people involved are socialists, Marxists and anarchists; and 2) despite these OWS people hating having other people tell them how to live their lives, these OWS people are fundamentally telling other people how to live their lives. Let me start with that.

Back in the 1980's, the Christian Coalition and the Christian right were flexing their political muscle for the first time. Most of this revolved around social issues, specifically abortion. They wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. People on the left fought back. They did not want other people, especially church people, telling them how to live their lives or not giving them the ability to make their own choices regarding their lives (who cares if we're talking about the life of an unborn child). The catch phrase of the 80's was that you cannot legislate morality. In other words, individuals, particularly in America, have an expectation of personal responsibility and freedom to make moral decisions on their own, absent of compulsion from the government or from a group of outsiders. That was something that the left and the right could seemingly agree on.

Flash forward to 2011 and Occupy Wall Street. What do these people want? Well, the best answer to that is "who knows". They are all over the place. But fundamentally what I hear most of them demanding is what other people (and specifically the "rich") should do with their money and how "the rich" should live their lives. It ranges from placing limitations on how much someone can earn to hanging these people if they don't repent from making so much money. What they ultimately want is to legislate morality. They want to strip away an individual's freedom of choice; in this case, how much money that person chooses to make or retain. I'm not "rich", but I certainly do not want some smelly 20 year old Socialist wanna be telling me how much money I can earn or what I should do with what money I have.

Make no mistake, these OWS people are mostly Socialists, Marxists and anarchists. How do I know that? Listen to them. I heard several interviews with people saying that we should abolish money. One girl lamented how messed up our system is that a person has to work so hard just to make money so they could buy food. Others talk in what I could only call "college classroom talking points". They seem to parrot what they heard someone else say in a classroom, with no substance or rational thought that would help push their argument. "We demand that all debt be forgiven" Really? I'm guessing that is because no one owes you anything, right?

The OWS people want to overthrow America . . period. They want to do away with our Constitution and form a union that more resembles their utopia: the 1960's Soviet Union. To that end they have received the blessing of the Communist Party of America, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and yes, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Ah, the company you keep. These are Barack's people: rich trust fund white kids, socialist in nature, who love a good party with plenty of weed and sex; so they could take photos with their iphone and post on their facebook page, and say "I was there. Not sure what it was all about, wasn't quite sure how to answer the reporter's questions, but I scored some good weed, shouted some good chants, learned some new hand signals, got some free food. It was really groovy man."

And in the end: absolutely nothing was accomplished.

Jeremy & Betsy at Rust Manor, Leesburg Virginia

2011-10-14T09:25:00.000-04:00

Here are a few quick picks from Jeremy and Betsy's October 8 wedding at Rust Manor. Click on image to enlarge. To see more images, go here.

2011-10-14T09:16:00.001-04:00

Loudoun County Wedding Venues, Part 3

2011-09-30T19:22:00.003-04:00

I previously posted some reviews of wedding venues in and around Loudoun County (click here and here). As with those reviews, my primary focus has to do with photography. Every venue but one I have been to has done an excellent job serving their clients (for the one exception, click here), and they have treated me well. In other words, when it comes to service and attitude and comfort, my perception is that all of these places are great. We are fortunate in this area to have so many outstanding places for weddings. Maybe the competition is what makes them that much better. Your decision on which venue to choose is probably more based on things like availability, price, size, and whether the venue fits your personality. My intent with these reviews is to give you a view from one photographer's perspective. I'm not judging the quality of the chicken served at dinner, but rather the quality of photo opportunities.

1757 Country Club - This is a relatively new venue for weddings. Photographically there are some nice spots out by the pond and along the course visible to the clubhouse. I have not had a chance to scope out the rest of the course to see if there are even better prospects for photos . . my guess is that there are a few more. Around the clubhouse/reception hall there isn't much to work with. The driving range is right up by the building in the back, the front is mostly parking, and the building, while nice inside, is not that picturesque on the outside. My guess is that most people use 1757 for the reception only and not for the ceremony. That is probably a good thing. I would hope that the ceremony would take place either in a better venue for photos, or that you could build in some time to stop somewhere else close by for photos (Claude Moore Park, Sully Park, Dulles Office Park are all possibilities). The room and facilities inside are very nice. Click here for sample photos from Leesburg and 1757 Country Club.

River Creek Country Club - I've done several receptions at River Creek and wish I had more there. Inside there is plenty of space and it is a good room for photos. Outside you have the golf course, and more importantly, the riverfront park. The park works well for the bride and groom. Not sure I would recommend taking a large wedding party down there, but that kind of depends on the lighting and the time of day. I would prefer to do larger groups up by the clubhouse. I have a full wedding at River Creek in June 2012 and can review what that was like. To me the ideal situation is to have the ceremony somewhere in Leesburg so you can do photos in downtown Leesburg, then complement that with photos down by the river at River Creek. Here too, there is not a whole lot to work with in front of the clubhouse. The back is more versatile, although still not perfect for photos. That is why having another location to use prior to the reception I think would be ideal. Click here for some sample photos taken in Leesburg and at River Creek.

Stone Manor - This Middletown Maryland venue is probably the best set up property I have seen for weddings. The reception takes place under a tent, which might not appeal to everyone; but the tent is set up and landscaped to look almost like just another building (okay, you still know it is a tent, but it is nice). The focal point of the property is the large stone manor house. Very nice inside and out. Plus there are old barns, a small bridge, gravel roadways, and lots of greenery. I was impressed with this place. A bit spread out for my taste, but all in all, lots to work with for photos. From a non-photo perspective, this place is pretty remote, with Frederick being the closest big town. Not the most convenient place for Loudoun folks, but not all that bad either. Definitely worth a look. Click here for sample photos from Stone Manor.

The Republican Debate of September 22

2011-09-23T14:40:00.001-04:00

So I only caught the last half or so of the Republican Debate on Fox (there were better things to do, like watch Community and Big Bang Theory), but I got enough of a glimpse to form a few thoughts:

Gary Johnson - Probably the only reason this guy is making the highlight reel is his dog joke regarding shovel ready jobs. I listened to Rush Limbaugh earlier that day, and Rush used the same joke (not sure if Rush "borrowed" it from someone else or what). Johnson admitted this morning that the joke came as a suggestion from a caller to a local New Mexico radio show. Who knows, maybe that caller got it from Rush. Regardless, the joke was not something Johnson came up with on the spot or even on his own, so why should he get credit or extra debate points for using it? At the very least he should have prefaced the joke by saying something like "it reminds me of a joke I heard . ."

Rick Perry - I really want to like Rick Perry, but for some reason I am still unusually suspicious of him. His debate performances have been awful, and they don't seem to be getting any better. Right now he reminds me of Fred Thompson four years ago: lots of hype coming in, but just cannot live up to it. Organizationally he is in much better shape than Thompson ever was, which might save him; but as someone who doesn't know all that much about the guy, I have not been impressed with him yet.

Mitt Romney - Romney is someone I do not want to like, but his preparation and up front skills are two things that appeal to me. With Romney, I am not convinced that he would come into office ready and willing to wipe away all the junk that Obama and his administration have managed to add to government in the past three years. He seems fickle. Either he is coming into his own over the years, learning from his past mistakes, or he is just wishy washy. Wishy washy equals moderate. Of course even just being a moderate would be a stark contrast to Obama, but I want someone with conservative convictions at their very core. Yes, Romney has some business experience in his background, something he is quick to bring up to contrast himself with those candidates (Perry in particular) who have spent their careers in politics; but as someone pointed out, Romney drifted back into his business career only because he lost a political campaign. If Romney had won all those times, he would have had a longer political career.

Michelle Bachmann - I have always liked Bachmann. She seems sharp and accomplished. She is not a lightweight. It just does not seem possible that she would get the nomination. Whether that is because she is a woman or because she comes from the House or because she sometimes says something that make your head spin . . I don't know. She does not seem to have the straight talk populace appeal that Sarah Palin had as a vice presidential candidate, but I think Bachmann would actually make a better candidate as vice president than Palin, if given the chance.

Ron Paul - This guy will always be a fringe, cult-like candidate. He says some great things and then he says some really off the wall things. He, of all the candidates, would probably come into office with the biggest agenda shift. Questionable if he could get anyone else (particularly in Congress) on board with him though.

All the other candidates I thought did a good job actually. They all seemed informed, passionate, and in many respects qualified for the job. No one candidate has wowed me though, which means that they all have their faults. It's a good process for all of us to go through, trying to determine what criteria is ultimately the most important to us individually and as a country. Do we want someone who supposedly speaks well (look what that got us today), or do we want a policy wonk? Are we comfortable with someone who has some moderate stands on some issues, or do we want a hard core conservative? This is the time to makes these considerations in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. If we don't, we get Obama. That should motivate us all.

Michael & Crystal River Creek Country Club Wedding

2011-09-23T12:27:00.002-04:00

Here are a few images from Michael & Crystal's September 17 wedding. Photos were taken in downtown Leesburg and at River Creek Country Club. Click on image to enlarge. Click here to see more images from this wedding.

Full Moon Over Washington DC

2011-09-13T11:04:00.000-04:00

Had the opportunity Monday to photograph the full moon over Washington. These were taken from the balcony of an apartment owned by a friend of a friend. Great view. The moon was covered by cloud cover and haze at first, so wasn't perfect conditions. Still, it was a great evening.

Tough Love

2011-08-27T10:04:00.000-04:00

While watching coverage of Hurricane Irene, it has stuck me how blunt officials have been in their warnings to people who might decide to stay put rather than evacuate. The warning from these officials: if you stay and get into trouble, don't bother calling us for help . . we will not risk the lives of first responders. One official went so far as to recommend that people who stay write their name, social security number, and next of kin contact on a 3x5 card and keep it in their pocket in case they don't survive the storm. Serious warnings for a serious event. The government here is basically saying that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions. If people get into trouble, too bad. You will have to live (or die) with those decisions and actions. Pretty harsh, but it is this kind of tough love that motivates people to respond.

So what would happen if the government took this same approach when it came to day to day decisions and actions by the general public? Imagine what would happen if the government said to people: you bought this house or that car . . if you cannot now pay for it, don't come to us looking for us to save you . . if you are in financial trouble, too bad. Or: if you wasted your days while we provided you with a free education, don't come to us looking for handouts because your minimum wage job doesn't cover your bills. I know, it sounds harsh; but it seems to me that our government is making it way too easy for people to live off of the government. No doubt, there are political leaders who desire to see more of that. Even as food stamps are being used at their highest level in history (surely a sign of failed government), this administration is currently seeking out more people who they can qualify for food stamps (surely the sign of a failed administration).

What would happen if, just prior to a hurricane, officials told citizens it didn't matter whether they evacuated or stayed, emergency officials would be out rescuing people throughout the hurricane? "You have nothing to worry about, we will be there as a safety net to save you, no matter what". More people would stay, putting a much bigger burden on first responders to find and save them. That is exactly where we are right now in our economy, especially when it comes to social services and the big social contract items. Over the years our government, and more specifically the politicians who promised everything for just a few more votes, have basically told the public to take advantage of the multiple safety nets government keeps adding to its arsenal. They have relaxed the rules for who qualifies for these programs. They have extended the length of time people can qualify for these programs. And they have opened the door for abuse on so many levels. So how do people respond? They relax, make stupid decisions, get themselves in trouble . . then come running to the government for a bailout.

Does the government need to offer a safety net to certain people? Absolutely. Some people have needs that are so extreme and so beyond them that the government can be helpful (although it could be argued that a private non profit could serve that person better). But that is not what I am referring to here. I am speaking here about the purposeful shift to draw even more people into that fold, if for no other reason than to make people more dependent on government. When people become more dependent on government, they will more likely vote for the people who want to expand the list of goodies that government will hand out to the people. And that cycle perpetuates itself, growing government to a point where it is nearly impossible to trim it back.

Oh to hear officials tell people: you make bad decisions in your life . . too bad . . we will not rescue you. You will bear the costs for that, we will not burden the American people.

What We Now Know About Obama That We Did Not Know In 2008

2011-08-25T23:54:00.002-04:00

During the 2007-2008 timeframe, Barack Obama was largely an unknown U.S. Senator from Illinois. His biggest claims to fame were a well received autobiography (that most likely was not written by him), and a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. That was it. No other noteworthy accomplishments . . he never ran anything . . hardly voted on anything . . and was coy about his academic background, who influenced and inspired him, and his relationships with questionable personalities. We really did not know all that much about Barack Obama in 2008, and the press was absent when it came to exploring these questions. Obama was for all practical purposes a blank slate. His hope was that the general population would get wrapped up in the facade of his persona, believe the hype that Obama and the media fed, and that he would get swept into the presidency. And it happened.

Nearly three years later there are still many questions about Obama that remain unanswered, but for the most part we now have a pretty clear picture of the man. His world view is decidedly socialist. Some may argue that Obama should not be called a card carrying socialist, but the man clearly is comfortable with socialist ideology. I certainly have never heard Obama issue an unequivocal denouncement of socialism as an ideology, contrasting it with the American concept of capitalism. And Obama was comfortable with hiring actual card carrying socialists to work within his White House. I just cannot imagine someone who rejected socialism being comfortable with socialists in their administration, but that is just me. To put it another way, a president comfortable with socialism would be comfortable having socialists in his administration.

Spiritually, Obama says he is a Christian. I am not in any position to question that, but I do believe it is okay for me to question what exactly that means to Obama. His experience with the Christian church seems to be entirely rooted in Trinity Church in Chicago, with Reverend Wright his pastor. Obama somehow sat there for 20 years listening to Reverend Wright, but not really. Somehow Obama missed the anti-America rants and the anti-white rants. It is not clear what exactly Obama did hear while at Trinity, but I am guessing that was a form of Christianity that was heavy in social justice and light in sin and grace. Some people believe Obama is a Muslim. Again, that is something I am not in any position to assess. My own personal view is that Obama is quite possibly neither Muslim or Christian, comfortably parking his belief system in a more undefined position that doesn't require him to follow anything. When appropriate, he can refer to and quote either "religion" as great, all the while never fully committing himself to one or the other.

In 2008 Obama presented himself as the person we have all been waiting for to be president. He would rise above partisanship, pull the country together, pull the world together, restore America's reputation in the world, restore the economy, be transparent, and bring us "hope and change". None of this has happened. Obama is quick to blame circumstances and other people as the reasons these promises have not been kept, but all presidents face resistance and obstacles. Obama has faced nothing that George Bush or Bill Clinton or any other president did not face. He had two years with a Democratic Senate and House. Can't blame the Republicans for whatever happened during that period of time. And if he is re-elected to a second term, undoubtedly he will face much more resistance, especially if the Republicans take the Senate.

I believe we knew enough about Obama three years ago to realize that this was a man unprepared to be president. Regrettably he still got elected, and we will be paying the price for years to come. I do believe however that when he loses in 2012, and if the right person comes in to replace him, the contrast will be so profound and so deep that our economy and the spirit of the American people will explode. It happened with Reagan after the Carter years. It can happen again.

Oh yeah, one more thing we have learned about Obama: he loves his golf. Just cannot get enough of that. Every time I hear that Obama is playing golf, I cannot help but remember that George Bush also loved to play golf early in his administration. But when Bush commanded troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, he purposely gave up golf. He just could not bring himself to play that particular game while troops were in harm's way. Funny how that has not stopped Obama.

Great Video

2011-08-24T09:40:00.000-04:00

This video is mesmerizing. As I understand it, there were 1500 photos used in this 2 minute film, with 500 people holding them. Very creative, and I'm guessing a lot of time to produce.

9/11 Motorcycle Ride in Leesburg, Virginia

2011-08-22T15:13:00.001-04:00

Roughly 1800 motorcycles made their way through downtown Leesburg August 19, all part of the 911 Foundation annual ride from Pennsylvania to Washington to New York.

Jason & Joyanna Wedding at Morven Park

2011-08-18T10:39:00.000-04:00

I know when people plan a wedding five plus months out, especially for mid-August, weather is one of the biggest concerns. I know it was for Joyanna. She wanted an outdoor wedding more than anything. Fortunately, Friday August 12 turned out to be a beautiful day for her outdoor wedding, and Morven Park was a great choice. Here are a quick images. Click on image to enlarge. For more images from this wedding, click here.

Obama Really Is Transparent!

2011-08-12T09:52:00.001-04:00

Amidst all the "hope and change" of Obama's 2008 presidential campaign was the promise for a more transparent administration. The health care debate was to be televised on C-Span, lobbyists and "special interest" (isn't everything a special interest?) groups were to be disallowed in and around the White House, and we would have an inside look at everything and every decision taking place within the White and House and Congress. Of course none of this actually happened, and many of us never expected it to ever happen. The Obama administration, it turns out, is not so transparent; but I am beginning to believe that Obama himself is becoming more and more transparent every day.

To me it is clear what the Obama strategy will be for the 2012 election. First of all, it cannot be based on his record. It is awful. Jobs, gas prices, debt, an unpopular health care program, a third war, and an unfocused foreign policy lay the groundwork for his failed presidency. He promised to broker a divided country and a partisan Congress. Here too he has failed. He said he would rise above that partisanship, yet he continuously demeans Republicans, lambasts Tea Party participants, and stokes the partisan fire by saying things like "we won, the Republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to get in the back of the bus". These are not words meant to heal a divided nation.

So what is the Obama strategy for 2012? On Thursday Obama said, "Unfortunately what we've seen in Washington in the last few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock, and that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our efforts to take the steps we need for our economy," In other words, our economic woes are all the fault of Congress, and implicitly it is all the fault of the Republican led House. Obama sees himself as above the fray . . faultless. "Don't look at me . . I had nothing to do with it". In fact, have you seen or heard anything from Obama that would even come close to accepting blame? Of course not. As The One, it simply is not in his DNA. Instead, all of the country's problems exist because we have a divided Congress, and Washington just cannot get beyond the partisanship.

There is a problem with this explanation though. For the first two years of Obama's administration the Democrats held both the House and the Senate. They could ram through pretty much anything they wanted, which is what they did with things like Obamacare. Sure there was resistance from Republicans, but that resistance could not stop much of anything. Yet, even though Democrats held both the House and the Senate, neither branch presented or voted on a budget, one of the most fundamental duties of Congress. Neither branch took any action toward creating jobs or reducing spending or reducing the debt. It wasn't because they were bickering with each other and could not get anything done. It was because they simply took no action. On the contrary they were busy adding to the debt with even more spending and with even more regulations placed on businesses and individuals. All the while, Obama was pushing for these things. This was his agenda too. In other words, Obama is full of fault.

Obama is playing a game with the American people, a game of deception. Over the past nearly three years as president, Obama has demonstrated his short fuse, his inability to accept criticism, and his need to blame everyone but himself. He is the most partisan of partisans; and yet he coyly presents himself as above it all. Amazingly, people buy what he sells. To me Obama is so transparent. A fake, a dishonest broker, a person without honor, who sees himself above the law and above a moral code. A photo op in Dover despite the wishes of the families . . no problem. Flying all over the world in his private plane while asking us to sacrifice . . I deserve it. Speaking down toward partisanship in Washington while he stokes the fire . . no one will notice. Actually, the American people do notice.

Here is a question for Obama: You keep saying you inherited the Bush economy and all the damage created by Bush. If (when) we get a new president in 2012 (after four years of your presidency), will they be inheriting the Bush economy or the Obama economy?

Random Thoughts on Debt Ceiling

2011-08-02T14:28:00.001-04:00

1. Norah O'Donnell, formerly of NBC and now the White House correspondent with CBS, seems to be pretty distraught about there being no new taxes imposed as part of the debt ceiling deal. As you watch this clip, notice two things: a) her disgust with no new tax revenue, and b) her statement that "they (WH) gave them (Republicans) everything they wanted, and we (Democrats, presumably) got nothing". Kind of a stark admission by Norah. No need to wonder exactly who "we" are. And this by a CBS White House correspondent. So much for a non-biased journalist. Do they even exist anymore?

2. In response to a question about the Tea Party, Mitch McConnell wanted to make sure that he expressed appreciation for the Tea Party and their influence, but what he said I found troubling. McConnell basically said that if it was not for the Tea Party, Congress most likely would not have addressed budget cuts in the debt ceiling deal. A compliment with an unintended meaning. In other words, if left to the established Republicans already in office (like McConnell), the debt ceiling would have passed just like every other ceiling increase in the past, with no attempts to address spending. Most of these old time Republicans have been just as addicted to spending as their Democratic counterparts, oblivious to the costs. We should be thankful for these 75+ new Republican "terrorists" who seem to be inflicting terror in all of the old guard on both sides of the aisle.

3. Matt Damon says he wants to pay more taxes. That is great. So go ahead Matt, what is keeping you from paying more? It sounds like you are waiting for the government to compel you to do something that you believe you should already be doing. Why wait? My guess is that Damon takes advantage of every tax deduction/credit/shelter available to minimize his tax burden. Why? So he can pay the least amount possible. So why not choose to decline those credits/deductions/shelters? Why not fully expose your earnings so you can pay the most taxes possible? Or why not just write a check to the government for an additional amount? Or answer this: if you had $100,000 left over to give away, would you choose to give it to the federal government, or to let's say the Red Cross, or your local food bank, or to an orphanage in Mexico? I'm guessing not the government. Why not?

4. The general American public needs to prepare itself for some pretty nasty battles and name calling over the next few years. The debt ceiling debate got testy, and the liberal left have lost all sense of peace and love and hope and change as they call any opponents "terrorists" and "racists" and "monsters". All of this provoked by what amounts to being fairly minor decreases in spending. We really have not gotten to the serious reductions yet, the ones that will have a more direct impact on our debt. These are the cuts that will affect all of the liberal institutions that have been built over the past 50 years, and just like disturbing a beehive, liberals will get angry. Like I said, get ready for some pretty nasty battles.

5. One additional thought related to the last one: most every sane person acknowledges that as a country we cannot sustain the spending that our government has taken on over the past 50 years. Their programs may have had good intentions at the beginning, but we simply cannot continue all of them; and those that we need to continue need to be seriously reformed. The Democrats don't seem to want to have anything of it. Instead they insist that we will be killing off old people and children and the poor. But they have nothing to offer about how to pay for these things, other than making those who already overwhelmingly pay the most to pay even more. Never mind that doing so falls way short of what is needed. And never mind what their beloved programs are doing to the people of this country, creating a dependent class of citizens who allow the government to provide their daily needs. This president likes to talk about sacrifice, something he has probably never done in his life. These liberals will have to sacrifice many of their beloved programs, turning them over to private and/or non-profit entities, or just eliminating them. But will they? Will they see their folly and acknowledge that there are some things that government is simply not built to do, or will they stand in the way? This is the battle line.

Scott & Jeanne's July 23 Wedding

2011-08-01T13:28:00.001-04:00

Here are a handful of images from Scott and Jeanne's Bluemont/Purcellville wedding.

Congressman McDermott (D-WA) and Debt Ceiling

2011-07-31T23:11:00.001-04:00

I heard Congressman McDermott (D-Wa) speaking on the news today about how irresponsible it is for anyone to vote against raising the debt ceiling. This clip from June mirrors much of what he had to say today, only today he spoke with much more urgency and conviction.

I knew there were debt ceiling votes back when Bush was president, so I thought I would check to see if McDermott voted "Aye" on them. The first one I checked was H.J. Res. 47/95 in 2006 increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. McDermott voted "Nay". I guess it wasn't a matter of being irresponsible back then.

Obama was the same way. I looked up his votes for debt ceiling increases during the time he was Senator. There were three opportunities for him to vote on those increases: he voted "Nay" once and "Abstained" twice. This is the same guy who voted "present" over 130 times while an Illinois state senator. I think this is what drives so many of us crazy, and unfortunately it goes both ways. Hopefully this new batch of congressmen voted into office in 2010 are different. A man can only hope.

Where Are The Democrats?

2011-07-29T14:33:00.000-04:00

Over the past several months the Republicans have drafted and voted on several budget related bills. There was the overall budget proposal (something a Democratic House failed to do and a Democratic Senate still has not done), the Ryan plan, and cut, cap and balance. Over the past couple days they have been trying to pass one more debt ceiling related bill, so far falling short because it doesn't go far enough to solve any problems. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with any of these bills, the Republican House has taken the lead, something neither the Democratic Senate or Obama has yet to do. So in this whole process, where are the Democrats?

On the House side, Democrats have been complaining about these Republican bills, but I have not heard from any of them offering their own proposals. Granted they are in the minority and have a limited voice on the House floor, but they still retain a sizable voice in media. Yet all we seem to hear are complaints, no ideas or solutions. On the Senate side we keep hearing about the Reid plan, but where and what is it, and how come it has not been put in writing and put up for a vote? Why is the Senate holding back, letting the House do all the heavy lifting? Why is the House letting the Senate sit back? At least on the Senate side there was talk about a (Republican Senator minority leader) McConnell plan. Again, on the House side, have you heard of a (Democratic House minority leader) Pelosi plan?

It seems to me that the House should make one more proposal, basically resubmitting the cut, cap and balance bill. This time I would take it in a more demanding direction. Ask for more cuts and ask that they take place sooner rather than later. And then ask the Senate to respond with their own proposal, in writing and voted on. Let the Senate actually vote for something rather than letting any more House proposals die before a vote. Put pressure on the Senate to actually do something, to put their own necks on the block.

As for the Boehner bill that is currently having problems getting the last 2-3 needed votes to pass, why not make it more attractive for those who are holding out? Reid and Obama have already said that they are not even going to consider it or bring it up for a vote, so why not draft it in a way that pulls in more Republican support? Get it passed, and then walk away. It is time for the Senate to shut up and start playing.

I'm not convinced that a balanced budget amendment is the answer. On paper it makes perfect sense, but so does a diet. Congress is tasked with passing a budget each year, yet the Democratic Senate has not done so for over two years. Congress has demonstrated over and over again that they believe they can operate above the law. Do you really believe any Congress or any president, regardless of their party, will let themselves be confined by a balanced budget requirement? To me it is just like the arguments from politicians that they are going to find savings by eliminating fraud and wasteful spending. You mean you have not already been doing that? You mean you have to pass a bill to do that, or create a new department to oversee it all? If you have not already been attacking fraud and wasteful spending, I seriously doubt that you are going to do it at some point in the future. Same goes with the budget. If they have not been mindful of spending only what is available, I doubt that they will have the willpower to be thrifty in the future. It is called loopholes, and they are pros at creating them.

Time For Obama To Move On

2011-07-26T09:14:00.001-04:00

All this debt ceiling talk over the past couple weeks has reminded me why I dislike Barack Obama, prompting me to post a few extra thoughts here on the guy who hopefully will soon be unemployed. I have thought for quite awhile now that the general American public will grow tired and disillusioned with Obama soon enough, if they have not already. His need to be front and center making speeches 5 times a day all over the world has led to overexposure. People got tired hearing about Brittany Spears every day several years ago . . how often do you hear about her now? People got tired hearing about Casey Anthony day in and day out . . where is she now? I suspect that the American public is growing tired of Obama. I cannot imagine another four years of seeing or listening to him 5 times a day. Hopefully two years from now I will be able to ask "whatever happened to that guy that was president"?

Today I recommend reading a good article that addresses the idea of Obama the bore:

"Somewhere along the way, the once-soaring speeches of The Great Orator degenerated into longwinded clichés delivered in a grating, repetitive cadence. The electric smile morphed into a frequent scowl. Inspiring messages have given way to blaming everyone else for the lack of success of his policies and scolding his subjects for not "stepping up their game." His every word seems politically calculated rather than anchored by principle. He's shown little ability to electrify, motivate, persuade or unify anyone-except his political opposition. The country seems tired of him.

How un-motivating is Obama as President? He speaks to an America at war and rouses no patriotism. He addresses a military audience without so much as mentioning victory (a word to which he has a particular aversion). He takes a major policy address on troop levels in Afghanistan and ends up droning on about "green jobs." Boring. If there is a single memorable line from his multitude of speeches, please tell me; I already stopped listening --and I doubt that I am alone."

Obama's July 22 Press Conference

2011-07-23T09:45:00.000-04:00

Late Friday afternoon, just in time to interrupt the evening news, President Obama threw a temper tantrum during a press conference. This was Obama at his most arrogant and condescending best (or worst). It was all about him being the reasonable one, and everyone else, but most especially the Republicans, as being the problem. Here we get Obama's version of the secret, non-transparent negotiations. It is a great trick: frame everything so you look great and completely without sin. For Obama, this is the only view he carries of himself. Unfortunately, it also appears to be the only view carried by many of the press who were present.

I did not get to hear the entire press conference, but I did catch it up through the first two questions asked by reporters. Question #1 went something like this: "If senior citizens do not get their social security checks, who do you blame?" To that question, here is an answer from Obama that would never take place: "I blame myself". "Who do you blame"? Really? If there was ever a softball, set up question, this was it. You would think it was someone like Biden sitting there interviewing the president. But no, it was a reporter.

Question #2: "Why did you offer [to the unreasonable Republicans] a more generous proposal than the Gang of 6 proposal?" Expected answer, which Obama happily gave, roughly goes like this: "Because I am the only reasonable one in this whole negotiation". Again, another softball question from the press. If there was ever a doubt about how the media protects this president no matter what, that doubt should be erased for good.

Need more evidence? Today there is an AP article titled "White House Shifts in Unpredictable Debt Debate". The article starts out with some "flip-flops" by Obama regarding pledges he made about dealing with the debt negotiations. For example, Obama wanted a congressional vote separated from spending cuts, only to change his mind by wanting them linked. The article then makes this statement: "The White House's willingness to change course underscores efforts to cast Obama as a reasonable and flexible compromiser in the face of Republican intransigence." The definition of intransigence is refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position. So here we have Obama as the one adapting his positions in order to be reasonable, while the Republicans are the extremists. That is one interpretation for what is going on. AP fails to offer another very feasible explanation: Obama has no idea what he is doing and has not offered anything tangible in writing. In other words, he is flailing . . throwing spaghetti on the wall to see if anything will stick.

You want some loaded questions for the president, how about this:

1) Would you recommend to the House that they adopt the budget proposal from the Senate? (hint: the Democratic Senate has not produced a budget in over two years);

2) You offered a budget back in February that was defeated by the Senate 0-97. Clearly no one liked your budget. Maybe it was the additional $10 trillion in debt it added over the next ten years. Was that a serious budget proposal?

3) Has lying always come easy for you?

Reagan vs. Obama

2011-07-22T08:08:00.000-04:00

A good article contrasting the Reagan economy with the Obama economy: check it out.

Clement & Whitney July 2 Richmond Wedding

2011-07-03T19:49:00.000-04:00

It was a warm day, but actually pretty nice for early July. Clement and Whitney have lots of great friends, and they all showed up for the big wedding. Great band, great setting. A good time was had by all. Here are a few quick picks. Click on photo to enlarge.

Sonoma Valley, California

2011-05-17T09:35:00.001-04:00

I've been a bit behind in updating this blog, so I have missed posting a couple weddings. I was in Sonoma Valley a couple weeks ago doing a photo shoot with a corporate client sales incentive trip. We stayed at the Fairmont Sonoma Mission Inn and Spa. Besides the pool (the weather was perfect all week), one of my favorite features at the resort was their fire pit every evening (see photo below). Smelled like camping in luxury. The whole trip was built largely around wineries of course. While I am not into wine, most wineries are pretty cool to behold. The indoor "cave" shots below are from Benziger Winery, where we had 85 people for dinner. For photo enthusiasts, these indoor images were all hand held and shot at 6400 iso. The "living room" image was taken at the Fairmont. The only disappointment from the week in Sonoma was a cancelled hot air balloon ride over Napa. The one morning we were scheduled to go up, there was just enough wind that they decided it would be too dangerous to attempt. I was really looking forward to the experience and to the photos. Click on images to enlarge.

My Take On Donald Trump

2011-04-26T09:25:00.000-04:00

Let's face it, fill up a room with celebrities . . artists, actors, musicians, hollywood moguls, journalists . . and you basically have the Democratic National Convention. Celebrities liked Clinton. They love Obama, and that love seems to be unconditional. Obama could threaten to take away more of their money (oh wait, he has already said that is what he wants to do), he could pull the U.S. into a third war in a Muslim country (oh wait, he has), he could keep Guantanamo Bay open (oh wait, he has), he could basically do nothing in terms of improving the economy (oh wait, you get the idea); it doesn't matter, celebrities vocally express their unconditional love for the man. And they love to bash conservatives, through their movies, their music, and their words. For conservatives, it gets old . . and predictable. It is probably why alternative media outlets (blogs, radio programs, even Fox News) have become so popular. Conservatives grow tired of celebrities with an agenda, particularly when that agenda is liberal.

So here comes Donald Trump. The Donald has been around for quite awhile. It's not like he is new. In his early years, Trump made the news with his wealth, his buildings, and his marriages. These days Trump is pretty much seen by the public more as a celebrity than as a businessman. He rubs shoulders with other celebrities through his television show and his work. And Trump is not afraid to bash people. So when Trump comes out lambasting Obama, asking questions publicly that many conservatives have wondered privately, conservatives love it. How often do you hear a celebrity bash Obama? That, in my opinion, is Trump's appeal. Finally, a celebrity with fairly considerable respect, is taking it to Obama and liberals.

Trump might not be a conservative. In fact he spent a lot of time bashing George Bush while Bush was president. And Trump has changed his views on many issues. He is unpredictable. You never really know what will come out of his mouth. While that can be refreshing coming from a politician, for now Trump is not a politician, so if he ever got elected into any office, that trait would most likely be restrained. And there are other restraints as well. Right now, Trump can use his wealth to his advantage. As a president he cannot just go out and buy people out with his own money. It would be our money at his disposal. Would he spend it lavishly as he does now with his own money, or would he be frugal? Right now, Trump can make decisions without consulting a board of directors. How would he "manage" Congress? I wonder if this is a question that only a seasoned politician can really answer.

I like the idea of a president Trump type of a person. After the past two years, it would be refreshing to have someone in that office who believes in the free market and is truly a capitalist. It would be refreshing to have someone who has actually led something prior to becoming president. I have to wonder though if someone completely outside the political structure can effectively function within that structure, especially since they come into it with no political experience. Do we really want a presidential Apprentice? Isn't that what we got with Obama? Someone like Trump should probably run for governor first. Test the political waters to see if they can function in that world. It is completely different than the corporate world. Sure, leadership is leadership; but just because you are captain of your football team doesn't necessarily mean you can lead a 100,000 employee company.

Why Does Anyone Believe Anything Obama Says?

2011-04-16T16:54:00.000-04:00

Our president has demonstrated over and over again that he is more than willing to say one thing but then do the exact opposite. Many, if not most, of the promises he made on the campaign trail have not been followed. In fact he has purposely and quite eagerly gone against his own words. Now, you might be thinking that is true with most politicians; and I would agree. But wasn't Obama supposed to be different? Wasn't his whole appeal of "hope and change" built on the "hope" that he was a different kind of politician; that in fact he transcended politics, and that would be a "change"?

Hopefully you have heard the sound bites from a few years ago when then Senator Obama spoke of raising the debt ceiling as being a failure of leadership (namely George Bush). Now, as president, Obama believes anyone who votes against raising the debt ceiling is just evil.

Today, another example of how dishonest Obama really is came to light. You have to read this (click below) and see the video clip from his campaign. When you are done, please ask yourself: why would I ever believe anything Obama says?

Click here to for more.

Oscar & Michelle April 2 Wedding

2011-04-09T23:12:00.000-04:00

This Is A Pretty Good Prank

2011-04-05T21:24:00.001-04:00

Craig & Christina March 5, 2011

2011-03-11T18:10:00.001-05:00

2011-03-04T23:56:00.003-05:00

Arcade Fire with David Bowie

2011-02-15T16:00:00.000-05:00

I've been loosely following Arcade Fire for the past 3 years. I really enjoy bands that not only have a lot of energy, but ones where band members switch off on instruments from song to song. Mumford and Sons (the highlight of the Grammys in my mind) is another band like that. Anyhow, here is a clip of Arcade Fire with David Bowie. Turn up the volume and enjoy.

Ann Coulter Gets It Right

2011-01-27T09:37:00.000-05:00

Think what you will about Ann Coulter, usually in any of her writings she eventually hits the issue right on the nail. In this week's article Coulter writes:

Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."

And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now -- at this very minute -- is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.

She later finished her piece with this gem:

Actually, I was glad to hear him say that "there isn't a person here" -- which presumably included Democrats -- who would live anyplace else.

Then why are they always trying to turn us into Western Europe?

Naples Florida

2011-01-26T12:35:00.000-05:00

A few images from Naples Florida. One taken with iPhone (with Hipstomatic), and the others of the pier with the D700. Click on the image to enlarge.

A Moderate Obama?

2011-01-26T12:17:00.000-05:00

In 1992 Bill Clinton appointed his wife Hillary to chair a health care reform commission. For over a year this commission met mostly in secret with health care experts. In the end they came up with a reform proposal that called for what amounted to a huge government takeover of health care. This proposal was ultimately defeated by Congress in 1994. I remember thinking to myself at that time that this whole proposal really showed us the true Clintonian view of the role of government: the bigger the better. They seemed to ignore private industry or how health care could be reformed through a market economy. Government is the answer . . period. Clinton was forced to moderate this view, much due to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. He famously said (I believe in a State of the Union speech) that "the era of big government is over". Of course if the Republicans had not taken over Congress in 1994, big government would have continued to grow.

Here it is 2011 and we are seeing history repeat itself. With the Republican victory in November 2010, President Obama is attempting to moderate himself in the eyes of the public. By hiring moderate advisors, toning down his rhetoric, and adopting Bush era policies, Obama believes he can dupe the public in a similar way that he duped the public back in 2008. Back then he too presented himself as a moderate ("there is not a red America and a blue America . ."), and people bought it; but then Obama won. Once in office we saw the real Obama: big, big government, lots of spending, lots of government is the answer for everything, lots of put downs toward people who disagree with him, lots of advisors who seem awfully fond of socialism and marxism, and Obamacare. Just like we saw the true Clintons in their health care proposal back in early 90's, we have seen the real Obama over the past couple years. And now he wants us to see him as moderate.

Do you really believe, if Republicans had not taken over Congress in 2010, that Obama would be giving us this head fake to the right? Of course not. Obama is attempting this move for the same reason Clinton did it, to save his job. Do I believe Obama is sincere when he says he wants to listen to the other side, or that he wants to reduce regulations that hamper job growth, or even when he speaks fondly of the military? Not really. Maybe that's because I (we) really don't know Barack Obama. His upbringing still remains a mystery, as well as his collegiate years. He seemed to hang and associate with far leftist types throughout these years, and found his way to a Chicago church that seemed to specialize in hate (just what I look for in a church). Only, after 20 years in this church, he never seemed to notice the hate speech coming from the pastor, even though he seemed to be close with this pastor.

Again, do I believe this Obama makeover is real? Absolutely not. Even Obama doesn't seem to buy into it. During the State of the Union he presented more spending and talked about the same left leaning social programs. "We do big things" refers to big government, not of the innovation that comes from the big (evil) companies and corporations.

These next couple years could be fun for political junkies like me though. Just how long will this supposedly nice, civil Obama last? I have a hard time believing that during the campaign season Obama will temper his rhetoric toward Republicans in general, and toward tea party people particularly. Will he leave it up to third party people to throw his blows, or can he not resist getting dirty himself? Will the Republicans get under his skin, and if so, how will he respond? In the end the real question that matters is this: just how many people can Obama fool this time?

Photography 101, Session 08

2011-01-14T11:33:00.000-05:00

People all the time ask me for camera recommendations. It is usually a tough question to answer because there are so many variables involved: how you plan on using your camera, where you plan on using it, expectations on handling and results, how much you want to do with your photos after the capture. In this session I will try to cover some of these key points you should consider before deciding on a camera.

There are basically two types of cameras: point and shoot, and d-slr. Point and shoot cameras are noticeably smaller, usually fitting inside your pocket. And typically they are one piece, possibly with a lens that opens and protrudes out. Point and shoot cameras are designed to be simple. Their electronics can be sophisticated, and they are capable of taking very nice images; but they are not particularly versatile, and they are slow. Take a picture, count to ten, then take another picture. D-slr cameras, on the other hand, are designed for expansion and speed. Want to throw on a larger lens? No problem. Want to use an external flash or two? Go ahead. Want to take 10 photos in 10 seconds? Go ahead and take 20. But with these options comes size and bulk. So the question arises: what do you plan to do with your camera?

If you plan to use your camera mostly for travel, photographing sites, and you don't want to carry a load around with you . . get a point and shoot (or iphone 4). If you don't mind the extra weight, and you want more control and options for this once in a lifetime trip, then go with a d-slr. If you plan on photographing kids sports, particularly from the stands, then you will probably need something that can shoot longer and quicker, i.e., a d-slr. If you plan on photographing your family on the beach and just want some casual candids, then perhaps a point and shoot would be adequate.

So, are images coming from a point and shoot any different than images coming from a d-slr? Yes and no. Generally speaking, the sensor chips on point and shoot cameras are smaller than ones used on d-slr cameras. Smaller chips typically translates into more noise, but that can be greatly corrected by getting proper exposures during the capture. Also with point and shoot cameras, you don't have much control over depth of field. If you want to blur out the background for a portrait, there is nothing like using a long lens to narrow that depth of field. So taking the same photo with the two different styles of cameras will give you two different looks. When you look at an image on your camera's screen, it can look great; but put that image on your computer and zoom in and you realize that it is out of focus, or the colors are not quite right, or there is a lot of digital noise in the image. Zooming in on a computer screen is where I can see the biggest differences between many point and shoot images and their d-slr counterparts. The d-slr ones just seem to hold up better. But for many people, they never look at their images close up. Their tolerance level is pretty high. They don't mind if it is slightly out of focus or if there is some noise in the image. So picture quality is not always the biggest concern for many people.

For those who like to play with their images after the capture, having the best quality to work with is very important. It is hard to rescue an image that is in bad shape to begin with. Your best bet for starting out with optimum quality is to use high res images captured with a d-slr. Even better is to start with a raw image, as discussed in Photography 101, session 07. Generally speaking, raw images are only possible in d-slr cameras (there are exceptions to this).

So what do I recommend? For point and shoot, you have two options: the very basic vs. ones that have a d-slr look and feel, but still basically function like a point and shoot. As of January 2011, for the basic, I have heard some great things about he Canon s95. If you want a point and shoot with more options, look at the Canon g12. I have the Canon g9 and it does very well (and it shoots raw images). For d-slr, I would say get the most you can afford. The Canon Rebel line have gotten great revues, and the Nikon D7000 likewise has been well received. I use the Nikon D700 and have been very happy with it. Within the major lines (like Canon and Nikon), they have consumer level cameras and then their pro line. As expected, the consumer line will produce better quality images than point and shoot cameras, but not necessarily as good as the pro line. Again, this is largely due to the kind of sensor chip used. Oftentimes though, what separates the consumer line from the pro line, beyond a few more bells and whistles, is the material used in construction of the body. The pro line is built to hold up longer and under more strenuous conditions.

Of course with d-slr cameras, it is not just the camera body. You have lenses and flash units to purchase as well, and particularly with lenses, they can be expensive. I will say that glass is important, so you want to buy the best lens that you can afford.

Bottom line: you need to decide what you will use your camera for before deciding on which camera to buy. I bought the Canon g9 several years ago so I would have something that I could carry with me on trips or take down to the beach without worrying about carrying it around or being exposed to the elements. For that purpose it works very well. There are times when I have both cameras (using the g9's great video mode while shooting stills with my Nikon D700). I'll shoot some stills with the g9 just to compare them with the D700. There is no comparison. Of course you are comparing a $500 camera with a $2700 camera with a $1500 lens on it, so sure, there better be a difference. But I don't want to always carry around the big stuff, so having the g9 fills the bill well in those situations. I would never photograph a wedding with it though.

San Francisco and McDonalds

2011-01-06T09:11:00.000-05:00

This video is great, especially toward the end.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

San Francisco's Happy Meal Ban

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

The Daily Show on Facebook

Great Marketing

2011-01-05T15:21:00.002-05:00

Spanair pulled off one of the best marketing events I've seen in awhile. This could not have cost them that much to do, but for the people there, and of course for the people all over the internet who have since watched this, it was money well spent.

You Have To Love Digital

2010-12-16T13:59:00.002-05:00

This may only be of interest to my photo enthusiast friends, but you have to love what digital can do. This image was taken at this past Saturday's wedding. It is a nice photo, but what you need to appreciate is that the lighting was really poor when this was taken. It was late afternoon and there was a pretty heavy overcast. In film days I would have said "forget about it". Even Saturday I was lamenting the poor quality of light. I cranked up the ISO to 3200 and just hoped all would be well. I knew my camera (Nikon d700) was capable of good clean photos at 6400 ISO, but still get nervous with it, especially when photographing people. Anyhow, I'm impressed with how well this photo held up under the conditions. You would think this was taken under much better lighting conditions than what was really the case. No flash used. Digital rocks.

Mitch & Lindsay December 11 Wedding

2010-12-16T13:51:00.000-05:00

Here are a few quick picks from Mitch and Lindsay's wedding Saturday. Always fun to work with a couple Park View grads. Some of these images were shot at Claude Moore Park. It was a bit cool, but the mid 40's temp was definitely better than the low 20's this week and the week before. Click on image to enlarge.

Defining Life

2010-12-03T13:32:00.000-05:00

So this week NASA announced the discovery of a microorganism that is able to thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic. Presumably this raises the possibility of the existence of life beyond Earth. Says Ed Weller, NASA's associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate: "The definition of life has just expanded. As we pursue our efforts to seek signs of life in the solar system, we have to think more broadly, more diversely and consider life as we do not know it." This excitement by scientists reminds me of back several years ago when what I believe was a meteor was discovered in someone's backyard. While dissecting this meteor's remnants, scientists came to believe that there was evidence within the meteor for the possibility of the existence of life (again, I believe) on Mars. Because of this finding, scientists went to great lengths to protect this meteor.

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but whenever I hear people talk about the possible existence of life or signs of life on another planet, I cannot help but think of the abortion issue. Here we have NASA scientists going all crazy about a microorganism as being a "life", something to be valued, protected, and looked upon in awe; and yet every day hundreds of actual human lives are aborted with little if any consideration. No value, no protection, no awe. Imagine an alien scientist from outer space, not understanding human reproductivity, seeing for the first time a baby in the womb of a human. Would they be as amazed of this "life" as our scientists seem to be about life beyond Earth?

Wittenberg University

2010-11-26T13:23:00.000-05:00

I took a recent trip to Ohio to visit friends and family and was able to make a stop at my alma mater Wittenberg University. Wittenberg was included in the Princeton Review's list of the 20 most beautiful college campuses in the country. My pictures here don't do it justice . . I was mostly taking pedestrian shots of some of the changes around campus. I really wish I could have been there about two weeks earlier for full fall foliage. At any rate I enjoyed walking the campus, seeing my old house, and seeing all the changes that have occurred over the years.

FlashMob Feel Good Video

2010-11-22T10:57:00.000-05:00

Ethan & Megan at Stone Manor, Maryland

2010-11-04T08:48:00.000-04:00

Here are a few images from Ethan and Megan's October 29 wedding at Stone Manor in Middletown, Maryland. This was the first wedding at Stone Manor that I have photographed. There is a lot to like about Stone Manor, even more to like about Ethan and Megan. They were great to work with, and all went well on their wedding day. Click on image to enlarge.

Punish Your Enemies

2010-11-02T10:43:00.001-04:00

You may have heard President Obama's comment a week or so ago that hispanics should "punish their enemies" at the voting booth. Much has been made about such a divisive comment coming from a president, particularly one who campaigned for president as a uniter. Here is the quote:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2."

Now Obama is trying to walk back his comment:

In Monday's radio interview with Michael Baisden, Obama said: "I had a conversation with a Hispanic radio outlet, Univision, and during the course of that conversation, one of the things that I had to say to the Latino community, which is frustrated that we haven't seen progress on immigration reform, was that they can't sit out of this election. There were arguments being made that because Democrats hadn't gotten this done, that Latinos should vote against Democrats or just sit out the election.

"And I said, well, you can't punish your friends when - the folks who've been supporting it. Now, I did also say if you're going to punish somebody, punish your enemies, and I probably should have used the word ‘opponents' instead of ‘enemies.' Now the Republicans are saying that I'm calling them enemies. What I'm saying is you're an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different.

Can anybody interpret these additional comments from Obama? Is he apologizing? I don't think so. Is he saying that Republicans are falsely accusing him of using the word "enemies"? He did use the word, right? Or is he saying that he was not referring to Republicans but rather to people who oppose immigration reform? Really? This from the same guy who told Republicans that they can come along for the ride, but they have to sit in the back? No, don't fall for this spin. Even in his spin Obama refers to the Democrats as the "friends" of hispanics. If, in Obama's mind, Democrats are the friends, who then are the enemies?

Obama was telling us how he really thinks by first using the word "enemies". For Obama, anyone who disagrees with him is the enemy . . not an opponent, but the enemy. And who are his enemies? Not Islamic terrorists, not people who want to see the United States destroyed, not even those who want to see our Constitution torn apart. No, Obama's enemies are those who don't buy into his policies or his politics . . namely Republicans and those people who identify with the Tea Party movement. Well Mr. President, right back at you.

Obama Hope and Change Not Selling Anymore

2010-11-01T08:37:00.000-04:00

If you look through my posts over the past two plus years, it is clear that I was one of many who never bought into the Obama hysteria. I knew he had no experience, I was skeptical of his still largely unknown background and associations with dubious socialists, and I did not not buy into his undefined "hope and change".

Today an article in American Thinker gives a good big picture overview of how Obama got to where he is today.

"Perhaps, as he opined himself in The Audacity of Hope, the throngs loved him in '08 because he was a "blank slate" upon whom voters cast their own pictures. Now that he has an actual record of governance, his audiences are no longer fodder for easy bamboozling. In '08, the people saw what they wanted to see; reality bites back in 2010.

So when he took his deceptive oratory on the campaign trail as a political blank slate and offered up the "hope" and "change" that would make all our problems go away, the American community bought his lines faster than you can say "snake oil." In '08, Obama looked like Al Gore at a global warming tent revival, smiling, passing the hat, basking in the glow of ethereal hope, and laughing all the way to the bank.

But the community organizer is and always has been nothing but a used-car-salesman-type middleman. The community organizer's job is not getting things done, not improving conditions for real people, but talking a good game and somehow forcing government money out of the hands of the haves and putting it into the hands of the have-nots. He is a middleman sent in to make the sale and take a handsome cut from the pilfered money. "

Call Me Senator

2010-10-25T17:59:00.000-04:00

2010-10-22T23:13:00.002-04:00

Josh & Natasha at Rock Hill Plantation, Stafford, VA

2010-10-18T14:24:00.000-04:00

Here are a few images from Josh and Natasha's October 17 wedding at Rock Hill Plantation. Click to enlarge.

Bill O'Reilly and The View

2010-10-15T09:47:00.001-04:00

So Bill O'Reilly says that we were attacked by Muslims on 9/11, and that was enough to send the tolerant ones (Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar) walking off the set. This episode is humorous for its transparent lack of open mindedness and the inability of Goldberg and Behar to dialog with someone they don't agree with; but to me there is a deeper message taking place here. We are seeing a growing inappropriate sensitivity toward Islam in our culture. By inappropriate sensitivity I mean that there appears to be less and less room for criticism of Islam and Muslims, at least not the same afforded to those who freely criticize other religions, namely Christianity, by namely Joy Behar. Behar has a rich history of calling Christians and Catholics some pretty derogatory names, which in her mind is fine; but criticize the Muslims and I am out of here.

What is disturbing about all of this is where this mindset will eventually lead our free speech country. Right now in the Netherlands a trial is taking place with a man named Geert Wilders. Wilders is on trial for "insulting" Muslims through some speeches he has made. For a bit more detailed overview of what this means, at least for the Netherlands, go here. What bothers me is that this kind of trial could very soon take place here in America. In a Sharia compliant country, what Bill O'Reilly expressed on The View would put him in jail, or at least put him on trial. You might be thinking to yourself, that would never happen in America. Did you think that just by saying that we were attacked by Muslims on 9/11 would be enough to send Whoopi and Joy off the set? Would an equal accusation about Christians be enough to equally send them off the set? Probably not, which goes to the point that they see Islam as carrying some special protections not afforded to other faiths. Or that they are afraid to be seen as Islamophobic.

O'Reilly is correct when he says that there is a problem within the Muslim world. He is also technically correct when he says that we were attacked by Muslims; after all, these attackers (and all the others) carried off their 9/11 attack in the name of Islam. We gain nothing by burying our heads in the sand and denying this connection. Muslim moderates, whatever that means, unfortunately get tarred because of the acts of Muslim extremists. It is clear however that the ultimate goal of Muslim extremists and the countries that they come from is to "conquer" the world in the name of Islam. They will not rest until they control the entire world, or wipe it out of existence. This is what we are ultimately up against. While it is difficult to clearly identify all of our enemies, we clearly have an enemy. Walking off the set of The View is putting their "tolerant" heads in the sand.

Brian & Ali at Merriweather Manor, Leesburg

2010-10-10T21:07:00.000-04:00

A handful of images from Brian and Ali's October 9 wedding at St. Johns, followed by their reception at Merriweather Manor in Leesburg. Click on image to enlarge.

Mark & Linsey at Belmont Country Club

2010-10-10T14:11:00.000-04:00

A few images from Mark and Linsey's October 2 wedding at St. James in Leesburg, followed by their reception at the Belmont Country Club. Click on image to enlarge. For more sample images, go here.

Obama: 20 Months in 2 Minutes

2010-10-08T11:45:00.002-04:00

Historic Jordan Springs, Winchester Virginia - STAY AWAY

2010-09-27T09:15:00.002-04:00

For those of you considering having your wedding at the Historic Jordan Springs in Winchester: DON'T. I just photographed a wedding there for the first time and the owner of this property has some serious issues in regards to respecting people. This had nothing to do with me. It was how she treated her (my) clients. Without going into details, this woman locked the entire wedding party and parents out of the building prior to the ceremony, drawing up additional contractual papers for the clients to sign before allowing them access. The contract initially gave my clients access starting at 1:30 with the ceremony to start at 3:30. By 2:30, with everyone still waiting on the front porch and guests already arriving, the doors remained locked with the owner and her staff inside.

This one hour plus delay did affect me since we were to start with photos roughly around 1:45; so yes, I was a bit perturbed with this idiot of a woman. I don't care if this was the greatest property in the area (it is not), no one should treat their clients in this manner. For me as a third party observer, this owner was totally in the wrong here and placed undue stress and distress on all involved. Whatever issues she had at this point she could have resolved weeks in advance; but she didn't, choosing instead to keep her (my) clients in the dark until the very end. My clients were caught completely off guard.

On their website, the Historic Jordan Springs has this to say about their service: "Your event experience with Historic Jordan Springs is sure to be one of excellence. We promise to closely guide you through each step of the process, helping to make your vision a reality." This could not be further from what we experienced this past weekend. The owner's behavior was completely out of bounds and unexpected, not something you want to confront on your wedding day. So do yourself a favor: RUN, DON'T WALK away from Historic Jordan Springs. There are much better venues who treat their clients with respect and decency. If you want to be treated like dirt and if you love aggravation, the Historic Jordan Springs is the place for you.

Tim & Laura at Whitehall Manor, Bluemont, Virginia

2010-09-22T19:53:00.002-04:00

Tim and Laura enjoyed a beautiful day on their September 17 wedding. Great crowd . . great food . . and a great couple to photograph. Click on images to enlarge. To see more, go here.

Obama As His Own God

2010-09-19T12:13:00.000-04:00

Another good article in The American Thinker about Obama and his faith. Referring to a 2004 interview with Obama, the writer makes this observation when the subject of faith came up:

"Yet Obama also told Falsani that he had "deep faith." This might cause some to wonder, "In what?" And this brings us to the part of the interview in which he was asked "What is sin?" Here was his answer:

"Being out of alignment with my values."

Perhaps this question was also above Obama's pay grade, or maybe he studied divinity with Al Gore. Whatever the case, this is not the definition of sin. Rather, sin is when you violate God's laws, or, to put it in more modernistic terms, it's being out of alignment with God's values (which are the Truth). So it was an interesting answer. Some might conclude that if you define sin as being out of alignment with your values, you believe you are God.

An even stranger answer came earlier in the interview. In response to Falsani's query about whether he prayed often, Obama said, "Uh, yeah, I guess I do. It's not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it [emphasis mine]."

Did everyone catch that? If I pray to God, I may ask Him questions. I won't say that I have "an ongoing conversation with God" and then reflexively follow up with "I'm constantly asking myself questions."

This is a worthy article to read in regards to the differences between values and virtues. The author makes this point:

"Understand that "values" itself is a term of relativism. Mother Teresa had values, but so did Adolf Hitler. Values aren't good by definition -- virtues are. This is why the latter term is hardly uttered in today's if-it-feels-good-do-it culture; instead, people may boast about how they have values, which is much like a street pusher defending his trade by saying that he provides drugs (which can cure or kill). A value can be sinful as well as sublime."

Bill & Kristy - Whitehall Manor, Bluemont, Virginia

2010-09-16T14:38:00.001-04:00

A few images from Bill & Kristy's wedding at Whitehall on September 11, 2010. Click on image to enlarge. More images can be seen on my website Sample Galleries.

Dropbox - Use It

2010-09-16T14:22:00.001-04:00

I've been using Dropbox for about a year and a half now. It is one of those computer add ons that just works, and what it does is great. If you are not familiar with Dropbox, it is basically an online backup tool, but it is much more than that. On the free side, you start out with 2 gb of online storage space. With referrals you can increase that up to 8 gb. If you need more space, they offer more storage for a fee.

So how does Dropbox work? When you open an account with Dropbox and download the application, a Dropbox folder is placed on your hard drive. Any folders or files that you place in that folder will automatically upload to your Dropbox storage space, assuming you are online (if not online, it will automatically upload when you do go online). So now you have that file in two places, on your hard drive and also off site in your Dropbox online space. If something happens to your hard drive, no worry, those Dropbox files are safely stored off site. It is all seamless. You do not need to do a thing. If you are away from your computer, but have access to another, you can access those files by logging on to your Dropbox account.

Now the good part. Let's say you have a second computer. On that computer you would log in to Dropbox and download Dropbox, which creates a Dropbox folder on that hard drive. Now whatever files/folders that were in your online storage will automatically download to that Dropbox folder on that second computer. In other words, whatever you do on one computer will automatically sync with the other computer (again, assuming they are all online). Every time you open a file to do some work, and then save that file, that updated file will upload to your online account. If your second computer is on and open (or the next time it is on and opened), that file will automatically download and replace the older one on the second computer. If this sounds confusing or too cool to be possible, just try it.

Now some more good stuff. Dropbox gives you the option to put files in your private space, or in a public space. With public spaces, your file is given a url address. If you have a large file, let's say a 50 mb movie file, that you want to share with someone, or have them download; put it in your public space, get the url address, and send that link to someone via email. In other words, Dropbox works great for sharing files too large to email. Or if you have a folder of images, you can put that in your private space and then invite someone to share that folder. Dropbox becomes an easy way for sharing files and folders.

There are other ways that I use Dropbox, but the basics cover a lot of ground and make Dropbox well worth using. I have not found one thing to dislike about the program. So give it a try. If you do sign up, please use my email (bobupdegrove@verizon.net) as a referral so I can get some extra space.

Please Read This Interview

2010-09-12T12:52:00.000-04:00

I am highly recommending that you take a few moments are read through this interview with David Brog, author of "In Defense of Faith; The Judeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity". Brog, a Jew, does a fantastic job in laying out the moral and ethical foundation for not only our country, but for all people. It is a bit long, but a very good read.

2010-09-04T17:30:00.000-04:00

Restoring Honor - A Few Thoughts

2010-08-29T11:12:00.002-04:00

I made it down to DC for the Restoring Honor rally Saturday. I spent my time down there mostly walking around, never did commit myself to sitting down anywhere. Any reports of "tens of thousands" of people would be akin to saying Bill Gates has "tens of thousands" of dollars. Technically true, but "hundreds of thousands" would be a better way of stating the obvious. I think the 500,000 figure is much more accurate than "tens of thousands". At any rate, there were a lot of people there. And it was mostly a white crowd, which is disappointing, but in the end, so what? I suspect that Al Sharpton's rally was mostly black, but you probably won't hear that as the media describes the Restoring Honor rally as mostly white. As I walked the crowd though, I kept wondering if these were the same people the Dems believe are extremists, haters, bigots, and astroturf. Can Obama and the Dems actually look into these people's eyes and say they are not representative of a large section of America, or that their beliefs are no longer welcome in America?

As for the tone and message of the event, I am a bit conflicted. I give Glenn Beck a great deal of credit for putting on this event. He laid a lot on the line both financially and personally. My question going into Saturday though was how much of this event was going to be about Beck. If I had my way, Beck would have gotten up and spoken for about 5-6 minutes at the beginning, laying the framework for the reason for the event. For the next 2 hours, 45 minutes, the people he selected would speak and perform, all building the case for restoring honor. Beck would then get up at the end and speak for 10 minutes, challenging the crowd to respond. With this kind of format, in the end Beck could effectively say that this event was not about him, but instead about restoring honor in America. It would have spoken volumes to the crowd and to the critics.

I don't think the event became a full blown "we love you Glenn" event. Thematically everything seemed to stay on course. But there were multiple times when speakers heaped praised on Beck for his efforts, and in the end Beck's voice was heard during more than one third of the program. With 20 hours of on air time during the week, do we really need to hear more from him?

Time will tell whether this event will have any lasting affect. In the immediate aftermath, it seems much of the analysis revolves around the personality and celebrity of Glenn Beck rather than about the message. Where the message is discussed, specifically the importance of God in our culture, it inevitably ends back with whether Beck is the right person delivering that message. All of this makes it difficult for Beck to ever effectively claim that it is not about him. When Obama says it is not about him, how many of us actually believe him? I want to believe that Beck is sincere and really is a humble man. I just think a more humble man would not have taken such a large role on stage. As he stood there among the giants, Beck could have stepped aside and let the people speak.

Photography 101: Session 07

2010-08-27T11:23:00.000-04:00

One of the great things about digital photography is the Menu on your camera. Most point and shoot photographers don't want to mess with details. They just want to point and shoot. So the menu is more of a menace than a help. But inside the menu is a host of settings and preferences that can enhance your photo shooting experience. I'll try to cover some of more important items that you should pay attention to within your camera's menu, starting today with Image Quality. Your camera manufacturer might have a different name for this, but basically it is where you choose the compression level of jpg: usually something like Fine, Normal, and Basic; as well as whether you want to shoot jpg vs raw.

Most people have a familiarity with jpg files. Jpg is what we usually use for getting prints, posting photos online, or emailing to each other. A jpg file is a compressed file. In other words, you take a photo with your camera, your camera takes all the information associated with that image: the exposure, white balance, sharpness settings, saturations settings, etc; and then the camera's built in computer interprets that information, determining which information should be saved and which should be discarded. In the end you have a processed image. Now depending on what setting you had for image quality, your final image will either be lightly compressed (Fine) to heavily compressed (Basic). The primary difference between these settings is the physical size of the file. Depending on your camera, a Fine image file might be 3-5 mb in size, while a Basic might just be around 250-500 kb in size. These settings came in handy when memory cards were only 250 mb in size; but today with cards of 8-32 gb in size, there is no excuse for shooting anything less than Fine.

The "Fine" setting retains the most information your camera can give you with a jpg file. The more information you have (the less compression) translates into an image that you can than print larger. If you plan on bringing the image into Photoshop or some other image program to play with, you definitely want to use an image with the highest resolution, that being a Fine quality file. I always recommend that people set their image quality to the highest resolution possible. You can always resize an image downward if you need to, but if you shoot with the image quality of Basic, you end up with an image that has been severely compressed and degraded right out of the camera. There is very little you can do with this kind of image, other than email it or look at it on your iphone. If your photos ultimately don't mean anything to you, then set it at whatever image quality you want. But if you are shooting images with the intent to save and archive and possibly do something with them, then by all means shoot at the Fine image quality.

Now all the previous info had to do with jpg files. On most serious cameras you will also have the option to shoot a Raw file. A raw file is a data file. In a sense all images start as a raw file. When you have your camera set for jpg, you are telling your camera to take all the information, interpret it on its own, then spit out a compressed jpg file. With a raw file, you are asking the camera to just save all the captured data and not to process it. With a raw file you will end up with a great deal more information. In fact a raw file will end up being several times larger than a fine jpg file. Personally I like having all that information. If I am going to spend time composing important shots, I don't want to randomly lose important information from each image. Raw files not only keep all the information, but it keeps that information separate. A jpg file, when it gets compressed, basically mixes the exposure information with the white balance information and all the other information. So when you open the image in Photoshop to tweak it, when you change the exposure, you are also affecting the white balance. With raw, when you change the exposure, that is all you are affecting.

So what do you do with a raw file, and why would I want to shoot raw files over jpg? I guess I should first of all say that there are many professional photographers who shoot only jpg, and they are fine with that, and that is fine with me. It seems though that there are more and more photographers who are shooting raw files. I think beyond having more information to work with, the main reasons people shoot raw is because it gives them more control in the processing decisions of an image, and they feel they can sort through and edit images quicker with a raw software program than they can with jpg files. Of course if your idea of shooting again is simply point and shoot, you probably don't want to mess with your photos after they have been captured. So jpg would make more sense. But if you want more control and plan on going through your images to edit anyway, then raw might make more sense.

There are several raw software programs on the market today. Probably the most widely used are either Adobe Camera Raw (found in Photoshop), Adobe Photoshop Lightroom or Apple Aperture. Adobe Camera Raw and Adobe Lightroom are essentially the same engine. Lightroom is specifically geared for photographers, is raw specific, and is not just a raw processor but also good for managing your images, composing slideshows, and printing. Aperture likewise is a full featured program. I personally use Lightroom. I find it the more intuitive program, with more flexibility to fine tune your images. There are plenty of places online where you can learn more about these programs. You can also download a 30 day demo to try it out.

I am a big fan of raw files. Raw processing has been the focus for many photographers today. Some are able to do all their image work within a raw program and never need to open it up in Photoshop. If your camera has the ability to save your image files as raw, give it a try. Most higher end cameras give you the ability to save your images as both raw and some form of jpg, so you can have both worlds. Don't be afraid of raw. Give it a try.

Slow Website

2010-08-25T09:22:00.000-04:00

If you notice my website responding slow in loading pages, you are not alone. The people behind it say they are working on fixing it. Apparently it is a system wide problem. Thanks for your patience.

Some Thoughts on Faith and Prayer

2010-08-22T13:13:00.002-04:00

Awhile ago I wrote some rambling thoughts I had about the word "faith". My basic premise was that people often throw out for general consumption the word "faith", with no mention or depth as to what they mean with that word. In other words, faith in what, or who? Is faith enough, or does it matter what (or who) is the object of my faith? I believe it does matter. If I say I am a man of faith, but by that I mean I believe in unicorns and unicorns are where I place my faith; okay, yeah, I am a man of faith . . but you could rightly contend that my faith in unicorns is baseless and largely useless. Certainly there is a big difference between faith in unicorns and faith in let's say God. Some would argue that their faith is in science and science alone, and that there is a big difference in their mind between faith in science and faith in God. And actually there is quite possibly a big difference between faith in who you believe God is and who I believe God is. All of this to get back to my main point: just saying you have faith, or that all you need is faith, is not saying enough. Faith might be enough, but it depends on where that faith is placed. Most people leave that part out whenever they talk about their faith.

This same dynamic holds true with prayer. This past week a White House spokesman said that president Obama was a Christian because he prays every day. My response to this was that praying is not something that distinguishes a Christian from any other religious faith. Muslims, for example, are known to pray five times a day. But just like the word "faith", to just throw out the word "pray" or "prayer" tells us nothing. There are people who pray to rocks or statues. People pray to the dead. And then there is what people pray about. Some people pray for good health or safety or for a new job; others pray that the infidels would be destroyed. How many times have you heard someone say "I'll pray for you" or "You are in our prayers", and despite the nice sentiment, you know they are not and will not pray for you? It is all so casual . . our use of this word "pray". Shouldn't it matter who (or what) we are praying to, or what we are praying about?

In the case of Obama, maybe he does pray every day, and maybe he is praying to the same God that I pray to. The cynical side of me believes Obama is neither really a Christian or a Muslim; that in fact the only god in Obama's life is himself. He is not unique in this position. Most people who have not come to grips with their own sinfulness and position with God live their lives with themselves at the center. Obama's youthful upbringing as a Muslim must certainly be in conflict though with his desire to be seen as a Christian today, whatever that might mean to him. Obama apparently did not become interested in Christian things until his mid-20's, and that was at the Trinity Church where we are told he joined more for his own potential political credibility among blacks than for Christian spiritual growth. Under Jeremiah Wright, talk of Jesus apparently was in limited supply. So it is hard to tell just what Obama knows or believes when it comes to his Christian faith, or whether his Muslim upbringing is still a part of his faith. It just seems strange that at this point in his presidency, we the people don't have a clue where he really stands in these matters.

Obama a Christian?

2010-08-19T15:40:00.000-04:00

A lot is being written this week about whether Barack Obama is a Christian. Roughly one out of every five Americans believe Obama is Muslim. Thomas Lifson has a brief overview of why people are now asking the question. The White House must be feeling the heat. Today, Bill Burton, WH spokesman, had this to say, explaining why Obama should be seen as a Christian and not as a Muslim:

"The president is obviously a Christian. He prays everyday."

He prays everyday? I thought Muslims were required to pray five times a day. Read the Bible . . sure. Go to church regularly . . okay. Profess that Jesus is his Lord and Savior . . yeah. But pray everyday? Not the most assuring words to distinguish a Christian from a Muslim.

I have no idea where Obama stands spiritually, so I am not about to make that kind of call. You would think though that the WH would either not take issue with the questions people are raising, or that they would offer a better defense.

2010-08-09T23:11:00.000-04:00

Brian & Laura at Bluemont Vineyard

2010-08-08T14:48:00.000-04:00

One of the things I enjoy about many of the weddings I photograph is that they are like mini-reunions. The August 7 wedding of Brian and Laura, two Loudoun Valley grads, was a reunion on steroids. First, it was fun working with Brian and Laura and their families. They were all very gracious. Pretty much everyone at the wedding, beyond extended family, had LVHS roots. That included the Bluemont staff as well as the entertainment provided by Acoustic Burgoo, who were all great. Here are a few quick shots before I dive into the whole batch of images. Click on the image to enlarge.

Paul & Jessica at The Birkby House, Leesburg, VA

2010-08-05T11:04:00.002-04:00

I meant to post a few of these images several weeks ago, but got sidetracked. The Birkby House is one of my favorite wedding venues. Paul and Jessica were great to work with throughout the day. Click on image to enlarge. To see more images, click here.

Loudoun County Wedding Venues, Part 2

2010-08-05T10:54:00.003-04:00

Awhile back I posted some thoughts about a few wedding venues around Loudoun County. If you have not read that post yet, you might pay it a visit after reading this one. Anyhow, I figured it was time for me to update that list. The first three listed here I like very much, not only for what they have to offer, but because they are all within a mile or so from my home. Let me say right up front that my reviews here are primarily from a photographic point of view. I might stray here or there beyond this photographic perspective, but my intent is not to talk about the overall wedding experience. I will say that in all cases the owners and staff of these venues treated me very well and seemed to have a good relationship with their clients. So here it goes.

* Murray Hill (Leesburg) Murray Hill is a private residence with a fantastic hillside view of the Potomac River. There is so much to like about this place. First of all, and this has become one of my chief judging points for any location I shoot: there are all kinds of spots on the property that can give you a wide variety of images and looks. Some venues have only one or two good spots for photos. It can be a challenge to make picture number 50 look different from picture number 25. Murray Hill has a lot of variety if you know how to scout out the good spots. You want rustic? No problem. You want gardens? No problem. You want a classy estate? Yeah, no problem. I get the impression that since it is a private residence, they purposely do not book a lot of events at Murray Hill. I really like this place though. Here is a link to some sample images from a wedding I shot at Murray Hill.

* Rust Manor House (Leesburg) The main house at the Rust Manor House is very nice, especially inside. And generally speaking the grounds are pretty nice too. Not much in the way of flowers and color, but the gardens have a nice feel to them. I have only shot one wedding at Rust, and it was really, really hot that day, so I suspect that with nicer temperatures Rust would be very nice. I actually liked the place though better than I thought I would. Personally I would like to see them dress up the grounds a bit more and improve on the walkway out from the house to the ceremony site. The walkway is really uneven . . ripe for someone to trip and fall . . not something you want as you are processing down the aisle. Photographically, as people are walking down the aisle, they are looking down, concerned about not tripping. Makes it hard to get good shots (unless they do trip and fall!). But beyond that, the location is nice and the tent worked out well despite the heat that one day. Here is a link to some sample images from a wedding I shot at the Rust Manor House.

* Morven Park (Leesburg) Morven Park is a beautiful property. Everything is very well kept. No problems here with trash or cars or building debris in the background of photos. The mansion has a "wow" factor to it, and the outbuildings have character to them that make them different than the mansion. And the gardens are very nice as well. For photos sake I wish they had more flowers, but I guess that is not the style of these kind of gardens. Although I have done other kinds of photo shoots at Morven Park, I have only done one wedding there (they just started hosting weddings there). That day was very bright out, which always makes it difficult to photograph in some areas at certain times of the day. In these kind of situations it is always nice to build in some extra time for photos when the lighting might be more forgiving. Morven Park is a large property with several great spots for photos. Here is a link to some sample images from a wedding I shot at Morven Park.

* Sunset Hills Vineyard (Purcellville) Sunset Hills is a very popular winery. It is packed on weekends. But Sunset Hills suffers from what many other Loudoun wineries suffer from: they are usually young and still a work in progress, so the grounds can be kind of rough. By rough I mean that they are still building out the property, and it is a working farm, so there is often debris around. The inside of the barn is nice (for a small wedding), but photographically there is nothing on the outside of the barn to work with, other than from a distance as a backdrop. There are cars and other eyesores right around the barn. Plus it is a too small a venue to overlap their winery visitors with the arrival and set up of their weddings. I believe Sunset Hills would be well served to build a completely separate building for weddings, away from the barn. The day I shot a wedding there, it was also very bright and very, very hot out. The options for group shots were almost nil. I can't imagine what it would be like if it rained. Having said all of this, the guests at the wedding seemed to be enjoying themselves quite a bit. Again, my review here is primarily from the photographic perspective. On that particular very bright and sunny day, this was one of the most difficult locations I have ever shot. Perhaps on a more favorable day my experience would have been different. Sunset Hills definitely has a lot of potential. Here is a link to some sample images from a wedding I shot at Sunset Hills Vineyard.

* Hillsborough Vineyard (Hillsboro) Since I am on the vineyard mindset, let me do a quick review of Hillsborough Vineyard. Hillsborough has some very nice spots for photos around the main building. They have done some pleasant landscaping, and the vineyards are right there by the terrace. Like many of these places, there are not many trees, so the best lighting for photos is much later in the day. But there are several spots that provide a good photographic backdrop for both individual and group photos. The terrace where they have the outdoor ceremony is also very nice, with a good backdrop. Apart from photography, having a wedding at Hillsborough is kind of like having a wedding at a someone's home. The outdoor, dancing area is in a different spot from the dinner area. It can work though, and if the weather is good, moving everyone outdoors is kind of nice. I would recommend not overpacking the dinner area. It was hard for me to move around to photograph people during the dinner, toasts, cake cutting. If you do a wedding at Hillsborough, I think you would be smart to not try and cram as many people in there as you can. This would become even more important if you had to move the ceremony inside there due to weather. Here is a link to some sample images from a wedding I shot at Hillsborough Vineyard.

* Briar Patch Bed & Breakfast (Aldie/Middleburg) I like Briar Patch. They did a great job with the inside of their new main building. The outside could still use a bit of work (photographically), but you do have the original house to work with for those kind of shots. There are two primary spots for the ceremony. Both work well for photos. And the way the house is situated with surrounding trees, you have some good shade to resort to for group photos. It is also nice to be able to separate yourselves at the house while your guests are over at the reception hall. I would love to see Briar Patch somehow "restore" the barn area behind the guest house, because that could be another spot for more rustic images. All in all though, Briar Patch is a good venue for photos. Here is a link to some sample images from a wedding reception (ceremony was in a church) I shot at Briar Patch.

My Liberal Friends

2010-08-01T14:22:00.000-04:00

I had to laugh when I saw these two posts on my Facebook page.

Separating God From Our Lives

2010-07-25T09:00:00.000-04:00

A compelling article by Cindy Simpson in today's American Thinker. I recommend reading the entire piece. Here is an excerpt:

Many Christians have bought into the dichotomy of faith and reason, both in the personal or professional activity of their daily lives and in their own minds. G. K Chesterton, in his bookOrthodoxy, makes this brilliant observation:

If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.[i]

Substitute Chesterton's cat with the divisive topic of abortion, and it becomes evident how even a supposedly "Christian" society has resolved the dilemma by simply denying the sin. The act has been renamed over time, evolving from murder to abortion, then to pro-choice, and on to the more positive-sounding idea of women's reproductive rights. When a baby is wanted, available scientific technology helps ensure its survival; when not, it's merely seen as a clump of cells and the same technology is used to destroy it. Not only does this solution of pro-choice deny the cat, it affirms society's imagining that it, and not God, created the life in the first place.

Jeff & Melanie Wedding - July 3, 2010

2010-07-08T17:53:00.000-04:00

Family Beach Trip

2010-07-08T17:51:00.000-04:00

Been awhile since I posted some images. That's because things have been busy. Anyhow, here are a few from our family trip to Bethany Beach. Click image to enlarge.

Some Belated Obama Rants

2010-06-29T23:43:00.000-04:00

Been awhile since my last Obama rant, so here it goes. Actually I have a few thoughts and a few questions for the man.

Question #1: Mr. President, when you were a senator and a presidential candidate you were very critical of George Bush's response to Katrina. You told us that if you had been president, things would have been handled much differently. Now that we are into the third month of the oil spill in the Gulf, how has your response to this crisis been handled different than the Bush administration's handling of Katrina? Or to put it in a different way, if you were a senator right now and it was a President McCain handling the oil spill in the manner that you have handled it, how critical would you be of his response?

Question #2: I never understood why Obama refuses to this day not to release his college transcripts. Most people routinely release their transcripts whenever they apply for a serious job. Why the American public hired this guy without seeing his college records I just don't get. Where are the presidential historians and the media? Aren't they curious? Don't they see this as something of importance to enter into our nation's history books? My theory is that Obama's scores on national tests and GPA fall short of George W's, perhaps well short. Wouldn't that be an embarrassment? Some speculate that his records might reveal that he was given opportunities and advancement, not based on his academic record, but because of his race. Or I suppose his records might show just what kind of classes he was taking while at Columbia, possibly very left wing classes. But why keep it a secret? Keeping it a secret just makes it look like there is something to hide. Something not good.

Thought #1: There is no doubt that the general public has lost confidence in Obama, yet polls seem to indicate that people generally still like him. Why? Three years ago if you asked me if I liked Obama I would have said at that point that I didn't know much about him, but he seems like an okay guy. I wanted to like him. But now what I see in Obama is someone who is self-absorbed, conceited, vindictive, arrogant, aloof, indecisive, blames others for his problems, cannot speak without a teleprompter, throws friends under the bus, and throws America under the bus. So what is there to like? If I was picking friends, these are not qualities that I would want to be around. So why do people say they like him? My impression is that people still like him in the same manner that they liked him as a candidate . . they liked the illusion of Obama. He was cool, smart, and not Bush; or at least people thought he was cool and smart and not Bush. Actually his coolness was just Obama being aloof, his being smart was actually just being a good talker with a teleprompter. And in matters of war and handling crisis situations, Obama was not all that different than Bush. People are still holding onto the illusion, the promise, of Obama. Eventually they'll realize what many of us saw quite some time ago: it is just an illusion.

Lee & Megan at Smith Mountain Lake

2010-06-06T21:49:00.001-04:00

Here are a few images from Lee and Megan's June 5 wedding at Smith Mountain Lake. Click on image to enlarge.

Politics

2010-06-05T08:47:00.001-04:00

As government takes on a bigger and bigger role in our daily lives, politics tags along. Mind you, neither government nor politics should take top priority in our personal or communal lives. There are much better things we should be focused on, like work, family, play, and charity. But we are currently in an ideological battle: allow government to seep into every crevice of our lives, denying us the freedom to pursue our own happiness; or to hold back and even cut off that black oil know as big government from ruining our American way of life.

There are two articles I would highly recommend that your read:

Homo Politicus

The Danger Of Government With Unlimited Power

Steve & Lauren at Whitehall Manor

2010-06-03T14:08:00.002-04:00

Shaun & Megan at Sunset Hills Vineyard

2010-06-03T14:08:00.000-04:00

2010-05-27T20:44:00.000-04:00

Thoughts On Immigration

2010-05-14T23:39:00.001-04:00

I have never been particularly passionate about immigration. I believe in it. I believe our country is what it is because of its long history of not only immigration, but integration of those immigrants into the American ideal. If anything, I lament that we have gotten away from that, but like I said, immigration has never been my thing. Still, I am perplexed by the whole debate and the boycotts that have sprung up due to the Arizona law recently passed. So here are the things that I don't quite understand:

1) Doesn't it make sense that as a country we should have a structured, orderly process for people to come into this country, not only as tourists, but as long term workers and future citizens? If that is the case (which I believe it currently is), shouldn't that process and its laws be honored by both citizens and by foreigners? If foreigners circumvent that process and its laws to gain access to our country, they should be deported. We should not make it next to impossible for those in authority to make that happen.

2) Roughly 80% of illegal immigrants come from Mexico and other Latin American countries. Any law or attempt to stem that tide of illegals would necessarily affect Hispanic people. There is no way around it. If 80% of illegals were coming from China, any attempt to stop that flow would affect people of Asian descent. I don't understand the automatic, knee jerk mantra being thrown about by people of racism. If you are tasked with stopping illegal immigration for the sake of preserving and protecting our immigration laws and process, and 80% of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, then a large number of Hispanics will be affected. That is just common sense reasoning. I realize that for some people, race is a factor, but for most Americans (including the people of Arizona), race has nothing to do with it.

3) My understanding of the Arizona law is that it basically mirrors federal law, only Arizona has decided to do something the federal government has decided not to do, get serious about enforcing the law. For that people from other states are now planning boycotts of Arizona. If the Arizona law is basically the same as the federal law, shouldn't people also be boycotting the federal government?

4) Speaking of boycotts, it sounds like the main problem people have with the Arizona law is the presumed use of profiling. Profiling, at its core, is forming a stereotype or "profile" of a group of people and then assigning that stereotype or "profile" to an individual. So what do you call it when a city council like the one in L.A. boycotts an entire state, randomly affecting individuals throughout that state? Are they not profiling each and every person in Arizona as being responsible for their new law?

5) What exactly do the naysayers really want? I heard one congressman on the news say that we should fine illegals and tax them. No mention about how we identify them in the first place without being accused of being racist, no mention about sending them back to their home country, no mention about how difficult it is to track most of these people to make sure they are paying their fines or taxes. Besides, paying taxes is no different than what ordinary citizens do, which I would guess is the whole point. Embrace illegal immigrants as though they are already citizens.

This might be one of those things where I can't understand the latino angst because I am not latino. When they demonstrate in the streets though, what exactly are they asking for? If it is amnesty, or for Americans to welcome illegal immigrants with open arms, well that's just crazy.

Photography 101: Session 06

2010-05-12T10:58:00.000-04:00

I feel like I am constantly learning information that is new to me when it comes to photography. That is to be expected because, for one thing, I have never taken a photography course, so all of my photography knowledge has come from trial and error and reading. But I am also learning new things because modern cameras are able to do things today that they were not able to do years ago. Sure, the basics are all still there: shutter speeds, f-stops, exposure; but today's cameras are essentially very sophisticated dedicated computers. What they can capture, how they can capture it, and how you can pull and craft the image after capture is just amazing. So I am constantly learning how to best make all of that happen with my camera, and with my flash.

As I mentioned in Session 05, flash photography is probably one of the most frustrating aspects for photographers, and that includes me. Inconsistent and unsatisfactory results are my two biggest problems. Much of the reason for these problems is that locations and conditions change. What worked in one area of the room may not work in another area that is just 15 feet away. Or what I am shooting in one area may be different than what I am shooting 15 feet away. So it is difficult to give tips for shooting flash that will work in all circumstances. Below I will offer some techniques that I use when shooting flash. I would encourage you to try these out, shooting multiple times with different settings and flash position, all in an effort to see what works and what doesn't.

If you have not read Session 05 yet, or it has been awhile, I would encourage you to read it now and then come back to this. For now, I would recommend staying in TTL mode with your flash. If you only have a pop up or built in flash, you will be limited in what you can shoot with that flash, and might consider getting a good external flash. Some pop up flash units do have some flexibility in them. You can't move them, but you might be able to adjust how much flash power is coming out of the flash. Check your camera manual for more info on that. If you are limited to a pop up or built in flash, you will need to be no further than maybe 12-15 feet from your subject for that flash to have any affect. And because the flash is so close to the camera, you have a greater chance for redeye. Bottom line, don't expect super results from a pop up flash. I find them helpful for outdoor photography though when you need a bit of fill in flash (more on that in a later post). The tips below are geared for external flash units.

Probably the least flattering light you can use comes from placing the external flash on the camera and pointing the flash head straight toward your subject, so you want to find ways to provide additional light to the subject without pointing the flash directly toward the subject from the camera. One way to do that is to use a flash bracket. A bracket will elevate your flash a short distance above the camera. This separation gives a better result than having the flash directly on the camera, simply by putting the light on a different plane than the camera. But there are two problems with using a bracket: 1) they are cumbersome to carry around, and 2) they can still produce a shadow, depending on how far your subject is to a wall or other object behind them. I used to use a bracket all the time when shooting film. I just don't see the need for most cases anymore.

Probably the best way to modify your flash is to bounce it. There are basically two ways to bounce a flash that is attached to the flash shoe on your camera: 1) using some kind of flash modifier, or 2) aiming the flash toward a wall, ceiling, or some other kind of object. A flash modifier is a piece of equipment that attaches to your flash head. It could be as simple as a piece of paper, or a translucent molded plastic, or some kind of fabric. If you are not using a plastic "dome" of some kind, you usually want to use something that is white. Some people will use a white card, attached to the flash with a rubber band. The flash is pointed up toward the ceiling, with the card on one side of the flash (away from your subject). When the flash goes off, the light bounces off the ceiling and then back down toward your subject. Some of that light is also bounced off the white card and toward the subject. That is basically the whole concept of bounced flash: the light from the flash is bounced off a larger area and then back toward the subject, wrapping the subject with a softer light.

If I am in a room with a low white ceiling, I will usually bounce the flash toward the ceiling. If I am close to a white wall I might choose to bounce the flash off of that wall. Sometimes I might be in a room with pillars in the room, so I will stand near that pillar and try to bounce the flash off of it. If I am in a room with high ceilings or a dark ceiling, I will rely on some kind of modifier on the flash, usually a small plastic modifier.

Keep this in mind, anytime you use a modifier or bounce your flash you are diffusing the light; or in other words, you are throwing less light onto your subject. With TTL your camera and flash will try to throw out more light in order to illuminate your subject. This will potentially drain your flash batteries quicker or take longer for the batteries to bounce back between images. Or you might need to play around with your shutter speed and f-stop in order to pull in more ambient light so the flash is not carrying the full load. Or you can adjust the flash exposure compensation (see flash manual).

The whole point of this tutorial is not to give a full blown instruction manual on flash photography. My main objective to get you thinking about how to use your camera and your flash in ways that you maybe have not tried before. Most people throw a flash on their camera, point it straight ahead, and go at it. Others point their flash in all kinds of directions because they see other people doing it, but they have no idea where or why they are pointing the flash in that direction. To me it is amazing how much light gets transmitted toward the subject when you bounce the flash correctly. The best thing you can do is think it through, visualizing how the light will behave if you point it in one direction versus another direction.

I would recommend googling "flash modifiers" and looking through some of the other articles and products that are out there. One word of caution: I have a bag full of modifiers that I have bought over the years, thinking each one was THE one. In the end I end up not using any of them all that often, usually going back to the plastic dome that came with my flash (Nikon sb900). Generally speaking though, I like the Lumiquest products.

Nathan & Ashley at Whitehall Manor, Bluemont Virginia

2010-05-08T13:59:00.000-04:00

Here are a few initial images from Nathan and Ashley's May 7 wedding at Whitehall Manor. The weather was spectacular and it was great reconnecting with some grads from Loudoun County High School. Click on image to enlarge.

This Is Just Scary

2010-05-07T12:44:00.003-04:00

Sam & Kerry At Murray Hill in Leesburg

2010-05-02T13:25:00.001-04:00

Saturday May 1 was a great day for a wedding, that is if you were Sam and Kerry. The weather was nice, the lighting great, and Murray Hill was the perfect location. From a photographic perspective, I have recently concluded that the best sites are ones with a variety of natural backdrops and locations for photos. This was my first experience at Murray Hill and really enjoyed discovering spots around the property that made for great shots. I probably wore Sam and Kerry out. Fortunately they were more than game. Here are a few images I grabbed from the batch. Many, many more to come. Click on image to enlarge.

Progressives

2010-05-02T08:43:00.001-04:00

Paul Kengor of Grove City College is one of my favorite writers. This article on progressives is must reading.

"Here is the essence of the problem with progressives and their movement, which is a gigantic problem for all of America: One of the only things we really know about progressives, and that they know about themselves and their ideology, is that they favor constant "change," "reform," an ever-shifting, ongoing "evolution," or, yes, progression. And therein is an inherent, significant difficulty: progressivism offers no clear, definable end. The goal-post is always moving, forever pushed further away. Ends are never ends; they always "progress," with culture and society -- all along relying on the ludicrous assumption that the changes are always (or largely) good."

Obama: The Alien American

2010-04-29T09:27:00.000-04:00

This article about Obama raises a lot of points that have been going through my mind over the past few months. It is a good read.

"This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama's odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright's anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background -- an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions."

Bermuda Trip

2010-04-27T18:10:00.000-04:00

I just got back from spending a week in Bermuda on a photo shoot with long time client Cort Furniture. This is a fun trip for their top sales people. I've been fortunate to be included in all 18 of their trips over the years. Bermuda is beautiful. It was pretty windy while we were there, but it never rained.

Ben & Courtney at Whitehall Manor

2010-04-18T13:59:00.001-04:00

I had the honor of photographing Ben and Courtney's wedding at Whitehall Manor in Bluemont, Virginia on Friday, April 16. One of the side benefits of shooting weddings in Loudoun is the chance to run into people I have gotten to know over the years. This wedding in particular seemed to pull together a lot of familiar faces. It started to rain right as the 6:00 pm outdoor ceremony began. Fortunately Ben and Courtney had decided to do all the images of the two of them together prior to the ceremony. Not only did it seem to relax both of them doing it this way, but it turned out that decision saved the photos as well. No way we could have done anything outdoor after the ceremony. By 6:30 it was too dark and too wet. These are a few initial images. Many more to come. Double click on the image to enlarge it.

Taxing The Rich

2010-04-17T22:11:00.001-04:00

On the news the other day, there was a report about the 50% of Americans who do not pay any federal income tax. One of the "experts" in the report remarked that he was less concerned about the 50% who do not pay any tax and more worried about the people who are making twice what they made a few years ago, but are paying taxes at a lower rate than they were a few years ago. I took that thought and plugged in some numbers. Say you made $500,000 a year three years ago and paid federal taxes at a rate of 40%. That would be $200,000 in taxes. Three years later you are now making $1 million a year, twice as much as 3 years before. Today let's say you are paying at a rate of 35%, totaling $350,000 in taxes. So three years ago you paid $200,000 and today you are paying $350,000. Yes, you are paying at a lower rate, but you are paying $150,000 more in taxes. That is a substantial increase of revenue for the federal government. In the words of Barack Obama, you would think they would be thankful; after all, they did not have to do anything. You did all the hard work, you were the one who doubled your income.

This is the slight of hand that pundits and experts use to shift the discussion in their favor. This is how they demonize the rich. And this is the same game that Obama plays. He can only save us if there is monster hiding behind a tree, so he spends his days inventing new monsters: big business, lobbyists, tea party supporters, George Bush, special interests, good tasting food, financial institutions, insurance companies, doctors, and yes . . the rich. The great unifier? Hardly. Obama, seeing himself as both savior and great leader, believes he is unifying the country against these monsters. He alone can slay them, cut them down in size, bringing equity to all. Is it possible that Obama will ultimately destroy the foundation of our country in his quest for this victory? Let's hope the will of the people, which in most cases opposes the Obama agenda, will ultimately be heard. Otherwise we are in big trouble.

Austen and Jessica's Wedding: Capitol Hill and Indigo Landing

2010-04-14T10:46:00.001-04:00

I photographed Austen and Jessica's wedding on April 10. The wedding took place at St. Peter's on Capitol Hill and the reception was at Indigo Landing on the Potomac River. We had lots of variety in the kinds of photos: around the church, over by the Capitol, along the water. It was a beautiful day, although the sun was very, very bright, making some images difficult to shoot. All in all, a great day. Double click on images to enlarge. More images are in the Sample Wedding Gallery 2010 on my website.