Uganda photos: finished
I finally finished processing the Uganda photos/videos this afternoon. Hooray! It is quite the relief, not least because now they're in the cloud I can stop worrying about hard drive failures taking out my summer's work.
Much as I love Flickr, I have to admit it's easier to browse the shots on Facebook. FB's new album layout makes everything look pretty, and the refresh-less Next/Previous is very pleasant. Flickr has the edge in pretty much everything - quality, information, accessibility - but FB is hard to beat for quick browsing. The albums (of selected shots) are here if you've a login. If not: Mustard Seed School, Humanist Academy, Isaac Newton School, Elsewheres.
Everything's neater on Flickr, though, and there are far more images: the collected albums are here, with just the highlights here.
I'm pleased with how the photos turned out, and hopefully the Uganda Humanist Schools Trust will find them useful. After six weeks of editing it's easy to notice the mistakes, and the shots I didn't take, but that's just all the more incentive for next time. I was hoping to go back to Uganda before the end of the year, but I don't think that's going to happen - no money, for a start, and finding the time would be tough. But I'll make sure the schools get prints of all the shots.
The plan is to have an exhibition - with the focus on raising money for the schools - early next year. With a bit of luck I've now taken all the images for my final major project, too - I just need to sell it to my tutors.
Upcoming events
Just to say I'm photographing at quite a few secular/skepticky events over the next month, in various cities. If anyone's at / around any of these, it'd be cool to meet up. I'll nag closer to the time, but I'm currently booked for:
- Protest the Pope debate on the topic of "The Papal Visit should not be a State Visit". AC Grayling and Peter Tatchell vs. Austen Ivereigh and Christopher Jamison.
Wednesday 1st September. London. Conway Hall.
- Come along to the Department of Health and become a registered practitioner of Old Wives’ Traditional Medicine. Sense about Science are highlighting the Department of Health's proposed regulatory scheme for traditional medicine practitioners that doesn't check whether the practitioner has any medical training, nor whether the medicine works.
Wednesday 8th September. London. Department of Health, Whitehall.
- Relief-o-matic comedy show, raising money for AIDS prevention and relief projects. Robin Ince, Ed Byrne, Natalie Haynes, Ben Goldacre, plus special guests.
Monday 13th September. London. Bloomsbury Theatre.
- Nope Pope: The Party. This is going to be an interesting one. Live music, dancing, deity-free weddings from 'Pope Steve', and fancy dress prizes.
Friday 17th September. London. Conway Hall.
- The big Protest the Pope march / rally. Starts Hyde Park at 1pm, then marches through Picadilly and Trafalgar Square to Downing Street.
Saturday 18th September. London. Hyde Park.
- BHA Liberal Democrat Conference Fringe Event. Discussion on 'What role, if any, does faith have in the 'Big Society'?'.
Sunday 19th September. Liverpool. Liverpool Hilton.
- BHA Labour Party Conference 'No-prayer' breakfast. Tea. Coffee. Secular pastries.
Tuesday 28th September. Manchester. Manchester Central.
- BHA Conservative Party Conference Event. A panel discussion on faith, multiculturalism and the 'Big Society', with Q&A.
Tuesday 5th October. Birmingham. Hyatt Regency.
- BHA Holyoake Lecture. Professor John Harris speaks on 'Taking the "human" out of Humanism'.
Thursday 21st October. Manchester. St Peter's House, Precinct Centre.
How to look good on dating websites: ask a photographer
This is quite exciting: dating site OkCupid took half a million profile pictures, asked three million people to choose between two randomly chosen examples, and ran the stats on the resulting photos' EXIF data.
I know!
No really. This is seriously interesting. Even taking into account my current state of mind. Because there's lots of advice in photography, particularly when it comes to portraits, and it all seems valid and reasonable and important until you show a bunch of pictures to somebody and they immediately reach for the dodgy one. The one where you had no choice but to fire the flash in someone's face. The one where you're shooting a woman from below because some dude was in the way and that was your only option. The one where the subject is blurred, but it's the only shot you have of that particular moment. And this obviously dubious photograph turns out to be someone's favourite shot, because it captures something personal to them that you couldn't possibly know. This seems to happen all the time. And you start to wonder how important all the advice really is.
I once saw a photographer's email signature that said "photographers like composition, non-photographers like smiles", and sometimes I wonder if that's the best tip I've ever heard. What's needed is some actual data. And OkCupid is the perfect place to look, as dating profiles are modern portraits' raison d'être.
I'll skip to the conclusion: it's good news for photographers. Everything that should be true about portrait photography turns out to actually be true. OkCupid have proper analysis, but I'll unashamedly yoink the headlines:
- SLRs take more attractive photos than point & shoots. Camera phones are a long way behind1.
- Direct flash sucks.
- Low apertures (which blur the background) are seriously effective.
- People look better during the golden hour - the soft, golden light just after sunrise and just before sunset.
None of which is a big surprise to portrait photographers, but this should be a big deal. The evidence up to now has always been anecdotal. Actual numbers = win. OkCupid's methodology seems reasonable, with the standard internet-survey caveats, and the numbers are enormous. It's nice when the humanities can play in grown-up world for a bit.
There's lots more you could do with such a dataset. Another classic portrait tip is never, ever to use a wide-angle lens2 as it makes people's noses look huge, amongst other distortions. This seems true, but I'd love to see the data. However, taking into account different sensor sizes would be a nightmare, and I can see why OkCupid didn't go there. Similarly the actual distance from the lens might be interesting, as would white balance (does it make a difference if men have a reddish hue?) and colour analysis generally. I'd also like to see how this gels with the previous - much more surprising - analysis which showed the much derided 'MySpace angle' (taken by holding your camera above your head and looking sultry) is the most successful style of profile shot for women by a long way, even when you control for cleavage.
Also: I wonder if single photographers are ahead of the curve. Hmmm.
Anyway - it seems that, on average, the classic rules of portraiture are valid. This obviously doesn't mean anything for the quirky outlier photos that strike an unknown chord, but it suggests confirmation bias is perhaps playing a large role in my memory - I don't remember the times when people like the photo that follows all the rules, because obviously they would. Portrait photographers can get a 'safe' shot from the old formulas - then you can start to play 
...oh, and apparently iPhone users have more sex3. The numbers don't lie, guys.
Visiting humanist schools in Uganda
I'm going on an adventure next week. Somewhat unexpectedly, I'll be travelling to Uganda to photograph three humanist schools.
The education system is Uganda is very much a work in progress. The government implemented free primary education a decade ago, and so created a follow-on demand for fee-paying secondary schools - a demand often met by religious organisations, who promptly take the opportunity to indoctrinate (because kids in a country where 35% live below the poverty line really need to be loaded up with some sin). But for plenty even this kind of education is a dream - many parents can't afford school fees at all, or are forced to skip years while they save up.
To help with these problems, three humanist schools opened in the past few years. They offer scholarships to poorer children, while providing a balanced education. They're called humanist to differentiate themselves from the religious schools, but are what we'd call secular - they're neutral on the subject of religion, and teach open-minded critical thinking. Ugandan law requires they teach Christianity, but it's presented as one of many philosophies, including humanist ideas. And of course the students study for GCSE equivalent maths, English, science, etc..
The schools have very little money, and are mainly supported by the Ugandan Humanist Schools Trust, who manage donations and fundraising from Humanist organisations worldwide. The schools are improving, but none have running water, and only one mains electricity (another has a petrol generator). New Humanist magazine has brilliantly taken a particular interest in the Mustard Seed school - portions of the proceeds from Robin Ince's Godless Concerts are donated - and as such it now has an intake of 160 students. But all the schools are very much in need of funds.
I'm hoping I can take some photos to help with this, and I leave next Tuesday. I emailed the Trust 10 days ago, asking if I could come along on a November trip, and was very kindly invited to come along to International Friendship Week. This was great, and more than I was hoping for, but gave me two weeks to get ready. It's been a bit manic, but I'm almost there.
I'm pretty nervous - I've never been outside of the first world before - but excited too. We'll be travelling to the three schools, and I'll be staying at Isaac Newton High for a week. I may help teach, if I can be of use, but otherwise I'll be hovering and learning how it all works.
This will also be my Major Project for my final year of uni. I wanted to do something useful, and this seemed entirely appropriate - I just hope I can produce something helpful. It will explicitly not an art project, though - any pictures will be used solely to help raise money and awareness for the schools.
Photography Quiz
I helped run an end-of-year photo festival at uni last week, and we wanted to include a photography-based quiz. I couldn't find much online so I put one together from various bits and pieces, and I figured it was worth posting for passing Googlers looking for something similar. We had seven rounds of ten questions, which took about 90mins:
- Photography trivia - 1
- Name the photographer from the photo - 1
- General knowledge
- Name the brand / Spot the Photoshopping
- Current affairs
- Name the photographer from the photo - 2
- Photography trivia - 2
All the relevant sheets / presentations are below. It's a little UK/London-centric, and I haven't included current affairs or general knowledge. I've also highlighted a couple of questions that relate to the University of Westminster, so probably won't be much use.
- PDF (including answers) is here. Word version here.
- Powerpoint of all the photo rounds is here.
- Separate powerpoint for the Photoshop-round answers is here.
and the questions are below the 'continue reading' link (I only mention this because it's my blog and I didn't spot it for a few minutes).
Lightroom 3
Lightroom 3 is out. Hooray! I've been using the beta for months, and it's a powerhouse. My initial impression was that the quality was a huge leap from LR2, and so it's proved - the difference is night and day, and I can get away with ISO 6400 shots that were unusable in LR2. It's also the best photo manager I've used. I recommend it to RAW shooters unreservedly.
If you want to buy it from the Adobe website, though, the direct-download option is more expensive than the physical copy (not including delivery charges). This annoys me a lot more than is perhaps reasonable. Still, if you can swallow that, it's still the cheapest option I know of - unless you're a student, in which case Student/Teacher version is lots less.
Photos can mean things: discuss in words of more than three syllables
I'm meant to be writing an essay about allegory in photography, and I'm having to bite my fingers. The title is 'How can the theory of allegory help us understand a photograph?', and there's plenty of existing writing on this topic. Unfortunately, when you've gone through all the epistemological hand-wringing, dubious metaphors - allegory requires words/an image, therefore is 'parasitic'1 - and ontological angst, you basically end up with Google Dictionary's definition: an allegory is a text, painting or photo that means something else, usually a broad concept or theme.
And it's really hard not to be accidentally sarcastic. I've explained what allegory is, coming to the above conclusion. I now need to link this explanation to something practical. And all I keep ending up with is:
So, armed with the knowledge that a photograph can mean something other than its literal representation...
Which sounds like I'm making fun. It's hard to get around, though.
- only in the same way that music is 'parasitic' on the speakers. Honestly, I never know what to think about these metaphors. Another popular one is that portrait photography is just like hypochondria, because both are obsessed with the body. I can almost vaguely see that there is kind of a parallel of sorts, but I don't know what else to say - that's one of a thousand properties of the two concepts, and the rest are pretty different. I just think 'so?'. People somehow do PhDs on these topics, though. [↩]
Bungee!
My project this term is a calendar - I'm trying to get 12 images showing people demonstrating the things they're passionate about, and that bring them fulfilment. I wanted an 'adrenalin' shot, and a bungee jump seemed an obvious choice. Adrenalin-junkie volunteers were hard to get in touch with, so I figured this was a good excuse to tick off a box on the list of lifetime-ambitions and do the jump myself. I roped a friend into taking photos, and on Friday afternoon we headed down to Bray Lake, just near Windsor. The UK Bungee Club have a permanent crane there, next to the water and just off - honestly - Monkey Island Lane.
It was hot. What was a warm day in Stratford was positively baking further south, so everyone was wearing shorts and t-shirts - except me, who was in jeans and a shirt. They were all about 18, too, but feeling out-of-place and vaguely intimidated was a good distraction from the impending jump. Here's how it looked:
The crane lifts you up to 91m/300ft, you immediately jump, and when you finish bouncing you're lowered to the ground. Simple! It actually takes very little time - they had quite the throughput. So we watched this while queueing, and took a few photos:
and before too long we were strapped into the harnesses, and on our way up.
The cage reached the top and we aligned ourselves correctly over the lake. I kept getting flashes of utter fear. I managed to deal with it, and the closest analogy I have is the moments before asking someone out on a date. You're nervous as hell, but you can shove away the terror by force of will. You know this won't work for long, and if you hesitate you'll be lost, but it should get you through the next ninety seconds. I explained to the guy that I needed a photo of me doing something exciting, and he said:
Are you feeling brave?
I can't remember what I said, but apparently it wasn't enough to stop him carrying on:
If you are, you could go off backwards. It's scarier, but it makes for a great photo.
I figured the extra fright was a tiny percentage difference over total tonnage, so why not? So, before I know it, I'm on the edge of the cage, hanging onto the bars, and leaning out over a 91m drop. @nodster is ready with the camera (which has its own safety strap), and the guy tells me that when he says 'bungee!' I should let go, bend my knees and throw my arms over my head.
I don't remember making that expression. Hard to deny it, though.
The guy says: 1...2...bungee!
And I don't move. And then I do.
By far the worst part was letting go. It was a moment of complete terror, followed by something much better - it was fun! I was suddenly upside down and hurtling towards the ground, which was perfectly fine. I was almost calm at this point. I had total confidence that the bungee cord would catch me, so I just enjoyed the feeling. It was oddly quiet, and I looked back up at the cage as I bounced1 (this is a pretty weird sight). I was particularly happy as I'd heard Nod firing the shutter as I launched myself backwards, so I knew there should be a photo of some kind. Hooray!
Then came the only unpleasant moment: hanging upside down while I was lowered. I didn't like that much - my head pounded as the blood properly rushed to it, and I was very glad to be grabbed and made horizontal again. We grabbed a photo from the Bungee Club - they had someone with a 40D and an L-series telephoto lens photographing each jump - and they were happy to put the full-quality digital version onto a memory stick, too. And that was that.
It was quite the feeling of satisfaction afterwards, and I'd happily to do it again. Here would be good.
Thanks to Nodster for taking the photos. Finding someone willing to go up there was harder than you might think, and he did a great job! Photography info: I set the camera to shutter priority, 1/500th second, servo autofocus and auto ISO, and the lens was at "10mm" - actually 16mm with the crop factor. We got lucky with the lighting: the 17:20 sun was directly behind the cage, so my primary worry - that the landscape would be far, far brighter than me - wasn't a problem. I'm glad I had the wide-angle - the cage isn't big, and the photos on Flickr aren't cropped at all. My usual 28mm wouldn't have cut it.
- Oddly, I don't remember the equilibrium points at the top of the bounces. I'd assumed this would be quite an interesting experience, but I have no memory of them at all. [↩]
mcanvasprints.co.uk review
A few weeks ago I was contacted by mcanvasprints.co.uk, who asked if I'd like a free canvas print in return for a review. I was happy to go ahead, with the obvious proviso that it would be an honest appraisal, but this meant deciding on a photo. In the end, after much agonising, I chose this:
The shot has some good memories for me, and it's a decent review image as there's plenty of fine detail, plus a large contrast range. I had the option of a free small-ish print or a hefty discount on something larger, so I went for 107cm x 71cm (old-speak: 42" x 28"). I've been after something large and dramatic for my wall, so I figured I'd take a chance.
Ordering threw up one issue that turned out not to matter: they don't supply printing information for the geeky amongst us. Specifically, they don't mention the printer DPIs/recommended pixel dimensions for the different print sizes, and instead simply ask for the highest quality image available. This means they'll resize the jpeg at their end. With lossy compression like jpeg it's always best to resize the image as few times as possible, and in my case I knew I could skip the resize at their end by exporting a correctly sized jpeg from the original RAW file (admittedly, the average consumer would have a jpeg from the camera, so this point is moot) - but I didn't have the necessary information. That said, canvas prints in general aren't particularly high resolution. Canvas won't show up the the fine details, and it's these that suffer over multiple resamplings (as long as you're using a competent graphics program, anyway). So I sent over a full-quality RAW conversion and hoped for the best. And it turned out very well.
I requested a wrap-around print, meaning the photo is stretched around the edges of the frame, and mcanvasprints promptly sent over a diagram showing - approximately - how this would affect the photo:
The green shows the flat primary-image area. This turned out to be about correct - certainly within the error bars for slightly rounded edges.
The red, though, is the area that gets trimmed. This is because of ratio changes when enlarging. My canvas is 42" x 28"1, which is a ratio of 3:2 - the same as the original photo. But a wrap-around print adds approx 2" to each side, meaning they have to enlarge the image to 46" x 32" - which isn't 3:2. So the right/left edges of the photo are trimmed to meet the new ratio. They told me this would happen, and in this particular picture it's no big deal, but it's worth bearing in mind when dealing with wrap-around prints.
The alterations were all fine with me, so I put in an order. A few days later (fewer than their 5-7 working-day estimates) I received an enormous parcel, and eagerly opened it. And was quite impressed. The print was well wrapped - I had trouble getting into it, not wanting to put my knife anywhere near the thing - and it came with a sheet of maintenance instructions (don't put it in direct sunlight, don't wash it with liquids) plus two hanging kits. We used to latter to put it on the wall this weekend, and it's cool. I like it.
Here's an in-situ photo, but bear in mind it's difficult to provide an accurate representation. By the time the photo has gone through camera/RAW processing, with all of the relevant contrast and colour biases and decisions, the result isn't a fair depiction:
The detail is great: I can make out the number of the bus up and to the right of centre, as well as all the faces visible in the original (it's quite fun, and very vain, to hunt for people looking at me). The colour is fine, and not oversaturated - it's just right, in my view. Highlight detail is excellent - the white of the steel-band marquee isn't too glaring, and the Waterstone's building has kept all its detail. The shadows have been compressed a little: the facing-us panel of Nelson's column is pretty much devoid of detail above the highlights - but it's pretty dark in the original, too, and I suspect anything other than photographic paper is going to struggle with that kind of tonal range.
The canvas is securely attached to the wooden frame, which is itself firmly held-together and very light (the whole thing weighs surprisingly little). We were able to drill into the wood to attach the hanging-brackets without any worries.
Overall: I'm very happy with it. I try not to be too anal, but if I notice an annoyance it'll always niggle, and I have no niggles. I can't claim any particular expertise on canvas prints, but this print is certainly amongst the equal of anything I've seen, and I'm happy to recommend mcanvasprints.
The only annoying thing about it? I want some more now. I notice they do panoramic prints, too...
Brian Cox photos
I've just uploaded the photos from the Brian Cox lecture (higher quality Flickr set here), and I'm happy they turned out ok. It was the first big gig I covered with the 7D, and I needed it - five minutes in they turned down the lights to make the projected image brighter, and the rest of the stage plunged into darkness. It was...challenging! My old 400D would have imploded, I think. I concentrated on photographing him framed by the projector light, but for the wider shots I was saved by very high ISOs and the Lightroom 3 beta. I love technology.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
