Caturday 37: Lacey and Me on a Tee

My goodness! I haven't done a Caturday for seven weeks. I didn't even plan on reviving the theme today. It just worked out that way.

I don't go wild with any online purchases (or any purchases of any kind for that matter), but every now and then, I get suckered in to buying a T-shirt. I have two that have to do with photography and my birth month. I seldom wear them. I really don't need and generally don't want billboard T-shirts, for I am happy wearing plain, solid colours. But it happened again anyway when I saw ↓ this online.

I was able to change both the person caricature and the cat image to something resembling both of us. And if you look, I was also able to input our names.  Kinda cool, and I was hooked.

Do you know why Sue doesn't care for it?

Because she claims that I am not grumpy. It's true, but I couldn't change that part, and I like the rest of it,

I would hold Lacey for the photo, but one simply does not hold Lacey.

Sue has asked me to add that she she affirms than Lacey is the grumpy one.

One More Attempt to Explain Multiple Exposures

Understandably, my description of how I do a double exposure left  PipeTobacco perplexed. I don't blame him. 

Please explain a bit more about this fancy “gizmo” setting on your camera. It is not a setting I have ever heard of before, and it sound so interesting. And, at the same time I was trying to think of a purpose for the camera folks to think of including such a thing. I would like to hear your ideas and opinions.

Making a double exposure is not difficult to do, at least at a basic level. I just have to instruct the camera to take one more exposure over top of the first exposure. Maybe the film example, coming up below, will help.

In the days of film, a photographer could do this by not advancing the film after taking a photo. Whatever s/he took with the second click would be superimposed on top of the first. Now in effect, we can also instruct a modern digital camera to not advance the frame. 

Of course, now it must be accomplished through the camera's software because there is no film to actually stop from advancing. The camera simply stores the first image, temporarily, in its memory. The photographer then composes the second, overlay image, and the camera software blends the two images together into one.

I expect that most DSLRs are able to do multiple exposures, for I am using my older camera (maybe 7 years old) in the basement where we have our primitive still-life setup. I am fairly sure that my even older DSLR also has this capability, but it is with Danica these days, so I cannot check right now. I don't imagine this feature would be found in less expensive cameras, and Sue's iPhone 13 can not do it as far as I know.

One can create a similar effect in Photoshop by taking two separate images and blending them in post. I showed these examples back in Dad's Bible, My Photos post, but I will repeat the two examples below. The first is the in-camera image; the second is my Photoshop-blended version.

To reiterate: I manually blended two images in Photoshop (second photo, above) while the camera did its own  blending in the first example after I selected the appropriate command in the menu system.

As for Mr Pipe trying to think of a purpose for the technique, it's all about art. 

Here are two sample: the first from layersmagazine.com and the second from phlearn.com. I am fairly certain that the second was done in Photoshop and, probably, the first image too.

I will never achieve those sorts of levels of artistry, and for now I am just experimenting with something that is new to me, especially the in-camera method.

As a final bit, and to, hopefully, demonstrate even more clearly, I set up one camera to take a double exposure of one of my lenses. I took a picture of the back of that camera with my other camera. It shows one lens, or I should say the lens once.

The first camera was on a tripod, so I moved the object (lens) to the left. It then appeared as though there were two lenses, but of course there weren't.

I hope this explains the concept and process better. I don't suppose that I will do much of this technique, for I think one would have to be more artistically inclined to make it work well. Besides that, I am not particularly interested in emulating the two sample head photos from earlier in this post. It has been fun to play, however, and I expect that I will do more in time.

Ivy's Stuff

It was more than two weeks ago that I posted of our attempts to photograph the deceased Ivy's smock. You may recall that to put it in context, Sue surrounded the smock with some of her own paintings and supplies. But she wanted a photo that included Ivy's Stuff.

Ivy gave most of her art away over the years, some to the local cat rescue lady for her auctions, but her son still had two pieces on hand that Sue could borrow. Before she passed away, she donated her other supplies to a local group that offers art opportunities for handicapped children. Sue contacted the lady who runs the program to see if we could set up a time to come in and use some of these in photos. 

That is what we did. It was not a studio setting you understand, and we worked in very cramped quarters with a wide angle lens. As I have recently posted, wide angle lenses can easily cause distortion. To avoid distortion as much as possible, you must hold the camera very level, but you will still tend to get some wonkyness, as I did, below.

The two featured paintings ↑ are Ivy's, and so are the easel, table and chair. The smock you already know about, of course.

From there, we moved to a very tight spot where I had to tilt the camera, and this, of course, resulted in distortion that I didn't really want. I was able to correct some of it in post, but I could not avoid making the nearest objects loom disproportionately large.

We took quite a few photos with Sue making subtle adjustments of the various props, but those two ↑ should suffice.

As a wrap, we put the clown photo on the table, eliminated everything else and took a photo.

Photographically, it is often best to simplify the scene and eliminate distractions, but the earlier photos tell the story that Sue wanted told.

Her son lives in Florida but does much of his work and business in Toronto. He got marooned here in Canada when the pandemic struck. Then he stayed with his mother as her health declined. Once Ivy's affairs have been wrapped up, he will return home and take these final two paintings with him. For her part, Sue was able to capture these photos and Stuff as part of her personal memorial and tribute.

Silly Jug, Silly AC

I am backatcha with the jug of maple syrup again today.

Some time ago, I showed you some of my attempts at double exposures with my dad's bible. But I haven't done much with this technique, and the jug seemed like a good subject for further experimentation.

There will be  a progression in these photos, but this was my first attempt.

To be clear, lest we forget, that is one bottle and one image as it came out of the camera. I have cropped and done my usual tweaks, but the double exposure effect came out of the camera. I tell the camera that I want a double exposure, so it knows what to do. I click the shutter once (the jug on the right), and then I move the camera so that the same just appears to be in a different place (on the left).

I did another one with greater separation between the two jugs – same jug but, as before, it  still looks like two.

OK. so I was sort of getting the hang of how to work a double exposure. Next, I deliberately moved the camera for part two of the photo (left). This is called ICM – Intentional Camera Movement. So, I was doing two tricks in one image – double exposure plus ICM.

I decided that I wanted to play a little more, so I told the camera that I wanted to do a triple exposure. I kept the camera steady on the first click. Then, I shifted the camera and moved it up and down for both of the other exporsures of the image. This ↓ is how it turned out.

Finally (yes, we're getting there) I set the camera up with an even longer exposure so that I could get  more crazy light effects. All of the above photos were 1.6 seconds, but the next and final one was a 2.5 second exposure. To clarify: that's three clicks at 2.5 second each, so a total of 7.5 seconds were required to create the final image..

Wild effect, eh?

Love them of hate them, I had fun.

Little Brown Jug

In this case the Little Brown Jug or Lil Brown Jug contains, not moonshine, but good ole, Lanark County, maple syrup. I purchased it when were were at Wheelers last week. Once we got it home, I thought it would make a good photo prop. 

Sue had the idea of putting a candle behind the jug (she's much smarter than I) and also to add the maple sugar candy. I don't like the candy [to eat], but she does, so we always pick up a few pieces. It is only once or twice a year after all.

I started out with a normal, 40mm, fixed lens.

I like it well enough, but if you check the label, it isn't tack sharp.

I moved a little closer with the same lens.

Using different processing, it's much brighter, and the label is also sharper.

I got out my macro lens which meant that I couldn't get the whole jug in the frame.

The label is tack sharp, but the candy isn't. Macros can yield a small depth of field, and I would have needed to use a narrower aperture to also get those in sharp focus. Alas, it was time to go and get ready for family dinner.

To conclude, I feel as though I must offer up a fiddle rendition of Maple Sugar. I have posted this tune previously, but this is a different clip.

Commenting about Commenting

I had no blog topic in mind this morning and was going to pass for a change. I mean, you certainly don't need to read my drivel on a daily basis. However, I now have a short notice to post.

Lately, I have been blog-reading in my recliner, using my iPad. It seems like a more comfy way to go about it.

But I sometimes have problems commenting from the tablet. Today, on two different blogs, I was asked to log in with Google. So, I kept trying, but the same screen would just keep popping up, time and time again. They were Peppy's blog and Patio Postcards'. I am also not sure that one or two others actually went through – Riverbend, for instance. Oddly enough, after running into problems on one blog, the next will post without a hitch. I think they are both blogger blogs too, and one was for sure. Go figure.

I have also been doing my Flickr commenting from my tablet but never experience any problems on that platform. Strange.

I may or may not remember to get back to blogs on my computer once that happens, but I thought I would mention it for general consumption. 😎

Other than that, I posted to yet another person of how I don't appreciate how some authors, usually female authors with female protagonists, must de rigueur have a frenzied violent attack in the climax, usually against their female protagonist. In the past, I actually stopped reading someone's novels for this reason, and now I am having second thoughts about this author, whom I otherwise like.

Oddly enough, both series had/have to do with forensics and buried bodies.

St Paul's in Lanark

On our way home from the sugar camp, we pulled off to visit the grounds of the little church in Lanark. Our county is called Lanark but so is a little village on the way to and from Wheelers.

The Anglican church is called St Paul's. There is a fabulous rock outcrop bursting through the ground. It's in this photo although it was not the main feature in this image. It reminds us of how close we are to bedrock almost anywhere in the county. Indeed, much of the county is underlain by the Precambrian rock of the Canadian Shield.

Another photo, peering through different headstones that I used to frame the church and also provide foreground interest. I have decided that I like it better than the first with the greater gap through which to see the subject.

As you might imagine, I did take other photos but the wide angle lens picked up too many distractions that I tended not to notice until I saw the images on the big screen. Still, it afforded me perspectives that I liked.

It was not my intention to post a church on Sunday, but here we are.

Around the Sugar Shack Grounds

Of course, I captured more photos on our lovely day at the sugar bush with Heather. On our many past excursions, I did what one normally does and employed my most normal lens. By that, I mean that it is the lens that captures medium distance photos without much distortion. Actually, I have used a wide angle lens previously but never solely, as far as I can recall.

But distortion can be interesting, and since I already had many normal photos of this place, I decided to use my wide angle lens exclusively on this occasion.

Shall we amble around the grounds together?

There is a little museum paying homage to the sugar bush of days past.

A workshop mockup lies behind the rail. The wide angle lens stretches everything into the distance.

When I got near the far corner of the corridor above, I took this photo. Colour or mono? As usual, I like them both, but I converted all of the rest of the photos, so I thought that I should also show one in colour.

Henry's Garage houses an ancient Model T, and that is all that it houses. I really needed my wide angle lens to get the interior photo, for there is precious little room between the fence and the car. As before, this lens stretches the distance. 

The signage, just above the garage. 

I think my photo of the old boiler shack ↓ (I assume that’s what it is) is my favourite of this visit. 

Or maybe I like the car better. Hmmm.

Point of View

Where are we, and what is Sue looking at?

Long time readers should soon be able to answer correctly: if not the name of the place, at least what it is.  You may already see enough in the background to inform you. If you are a newer reader, since the pandemic anyway, you likely don't know although I have posted about it once, just last fall.

Now you see more of the background, but you are looking away from what my lady is looking at. Perhaps my lumberjacket-style coat helps although that thought just comes to me now.

Heather is being a card and holding up an orange slice

Now, take a gander at our plates.

Yes, we are at the sugar shack – Wheelers Pancake House and Sugar Camp. It's located deep in the hinterland, about 45 minutes from home.

Although the maple syrup season is all but done for the year, they keep the restaurant going all year, and this was our traditional spring pilgrimage. We often make the excursion twice a year — once in spring and once in autumn — often, but not always.

We put off our spring trip until Heather was visiting because we have visited several times with her, and it's an experience that we all enjoy. After the snowfall of the library talk, the day was sunny and also warm – in a modest Canadian-April way if you understand.

So, what had Sue been staring at in the first photo? It is behind her in this photo.

Yes, it was the grand fireplace that caught her attention, especially since her photo theme this week is Point of View. So she got her phone to the base of the fireplace and took a picture looking up, which is a grand point of view, don't you think?

And . . . we made a selfie with Sue's phone. I held it, and Sue triggered it from her watch.

Nice trip, good food, great company: what an enjoyable and satisfying few hours

Book Talk in a Snowstorm

I'm pretty sure that it happens every April – s snowstorm, I mean. They're not all truly storms, but whatever they deserved to be called, they are not wanted in April.

I have told you that Heather is here this week to travel hither, thither and yon to discuss Cracked Pots. Tuesday was her day to be at our local library, and that was the snowy day. If any day had to be snowy, and apparently one day did, it's a good thing that it was for Heather's most local gig.

When we got to the library, I took some photos through their windows and must remind myself that this is a pretty good vantage point – much better than from our abode, for sure.

By the next day, it was gone, and it we were to enjoy some pretty nice weather, which I expect will be the subject of tomorrow's post. Meanwhile, Heather's talk was brilliant. here are a few photos: some Sue's, ssome mine.

Danica Celebrates Her 15th

The baby girl celebrated the end of her 15th trip around the sun yesterday. They came over for dinner, which they brought and an ice cream cake that I had purchased from DQ but not picked up yet. They spelled it Danika on the cake. That's the way it goes. I think I told them with a C but that didn't get heard or sink in.

This was the card that I made for her, first the front because the inside makes more sense if you read that first: Don't Worry ... But Be Happy on Your Birthday.

Of course, I have a few from our little get-together, which I guess you can't really call a party. I mean, how can you say that a 15-year-old being with her grandparents is a party?

After two consecutive COVID birthdays in the cold garage, it was a good thing to be sitting in the inside comfort of our home. Life is getting back to a semblance of normality.

Heather and Hair and Smock

Heather, Sue's sister, is here this week,  doing various book talks, dealing with her Cracked Pots, that was released last fall. I think she has four or five talks scheduled this week. I am planning to attend the one in this town to take a few photos. Otherwise, I will try to stay out of trouble, but I hope to post something about her visit before the week is over. Other posting may be lighter than usual. We shall see.

Poor Sue. She had planned to have her hair done as a prelude for the visit so that she could look her best for the meetings. Only her second hairdo since COVID was scheduled for Friday. Disappointingly, she got a call from her stylist early in the morning informing her that he found that he couldn't open on Good Friday because he would face the risk of a big fine. Oh dear!

She looks fine, of course, but, as you can imagine, it was quite a letdown.

I am pre-posting this to publish on Tuesday. All I have to add, at the moment, is two photos, below, that I took last week.

Sue's friend, Ivy, passed away recently. Ivy enjoyed making art, and Sue spied her smock at the wake. She took a photo there but missed the top. She later asked Ivy's son, if she could take it home to try to get a better photo.

Since Sue didn't have any of Ivy's paintings (maybe we will still get some), she surrounded the smock with some of her own artwork and supplies from days past.

I wasn't sure that I liked the photo on a black background, so I did some more editing. I changed the background to try to pick up the colours in the painting by the hat. Then, I added the framing.

Whatever the merits of each edition (and even the black was a challenge), I did accomplish, more or less, what I set out to do – in both versions.