Cheerleaders

Save the Cheerleader, save the world!
Well sod that- in fact screw the world, sod (bugger) the Cheerleader - in the physical sense that is.
Yeah some strange things float my boat and Cheerleaders are one of them.
Every year my job takes me to Florida in the spring - bitch of a job, but someone has got to do it, hey?
And every spring in Florida there is a big Cheerleader competition. So I find myself in a nice hotel that is wall-to-wall with Cheerleaders and Cheerleader moms. Which for a Brit is interesting. Notwithstanding that many of the Cheerleaders are as young as my daughter so do no even make jailbait age. And that their idea of fun of an evening is riding up and down in the lifts (elevators) and thus pissing off the other guests who might actually need the lifts to go somewhere. But there are Cheerleaders of 'legal' age and it is from sharing hot tubs (!!!) from these that I now know more about Cheerleading.
Such as there are two kinds. Now I thought that Cheerleaders led the cheer at sporting events - and waved pom-poms and flashed their knickers in the process. Half right. Yep, that is one of form of cheerleading. There is another kind.

This second kind is like high intensity formation acrobatic dance; it is this form I now know more about - thanks to actually buying an entrance band from a tout I got in to see one of their competitions. Which is pretty awesome (US sic, UK sick). Imagine a three minute routine; it goes by in a blur of flashing strobes and high tempo music where bodies fling themselves in from all directions before arranging themselves into a perilous human pyramid. The smallest, lightest and most dentally refined girl gets to perch right at the top for two seconds before the whole lot collapses to the whooping and applause greeting a successful routine. There is no doubting the skill of the top teams. There is no missing the stoutness of some of the girls on the bottom layer.
My idea(l) of Cheerleaders has always been the one of the pom-pom waving bimbos. I don't know what does it -the short skirts, the tight costumes, the pert arses (asses) - err, come to think of it I know exactly what does it. Yes, I hanker after a Cheerleader. Over 15 yoa please. Which kind of points me in the direction of the US pro (American) football cheerleading squads. Where interestingly I find many of the girls are part way through degrees - so they are bonkable AND smart.
So there it is. Like so many warm blooded losers across the world I have this (not so) secret ambition to spend some quality time peeling a Cheerleader out of her* costume before doing rude things with and to her. How sad can you get?

*I know, there are male Cheerleaders - don't even go there.
P.S. I know that Hayden Panetierre is not a real cheerleader she is an actress, but she can come round my house anytime, providing she brings the costume ;)

dee three

Bokeh - an anglicized version of the Japanese word 'Boke' altered to aid correct English pronunciation. 'Boke' means fuzzy, simple, or, as an insult, senile. Boke, and laterly Bokeh, have been appropriated by photographers to refer to the out of focus elements of a photograph. See wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh for a detailed explanation.

Photographers tend to favour bokeh that mimics the appearance of out-of-focus elements in our own vision. Ironically, because of the rapid manner in which our own eyes quickly refocus it is normally only possible to 'see' human bokeh in extreme close-up, or if you are short or longsighted.

Bokeh can be used to dramatic effect to isolate the subject of a photograph from the background (and/or foreground) - so called 'selective focus'. At least it used to be, because with modern digital cameras it is harder to actually render elements of the scene out-of-focus. Two factors make this so -
1. Many, in fact most, digital cameras have imaging sensors that have smaller areas than their film predecessors.
2. Many lenses for digital cameras have smaller maximum apertures than their film lens predecessors.

Now the depth of field, that is the volume in front of the lens in which objects appear to be within acceptable focus, is dependent on three things: the range to the subject in focus, the focal length of the lens, and the lens aperture.

Range affects depth of field in a reciprocal manner - the closer the subject is to the lens the shallower the depth of field for any given aperture.

The focal length of the lens determines the angle of coverage of the lens - a long focal length covers a narrower angle than a shorter one.

Aperture is normally perceived as the photographer's tool for controlling depth of field - a small aperture yields a larger depth of field, and a large one the reverse. Beyond a certain point a decreasing aperture will actually decrease apparent sharpness, but this is because the effects of diffraction start to dominate the recorded signal.

The aperture, of course, is also one of the three primary means for governing image exposure, the others being shutter speed and film, or its electronic equivalent, sensitivity (I am neglecting filters for the moment).

Now let us say we are going to shoot a full length portrait at typical distance from the subject say 10ft/3m. We are going to use a conventional 35 mm film camera with a 50 mm lens. We want sufficient depth of field that our subject, striking a dramatic pose, is all in focus, but that the garden behind them is rendered in dramatic blur. So we chose an wide-ish aperture of f/4.0. Let us use a circle of confusion criterion, COC=1/(1300/d), where d is image diagonal in mm, to determine acceptable focus in the final print. Off to do some sums. At this distance, with these settings, our depth of field would extend from approximately 2.5m to 3.6m in front of the camera.

Let us switch to a digital camera, specifically the Nikon D200 (my digital camera). In order to match the angle of view of our film camera we must use a focal length of 33mm. This is because the DX format sensor of the D200 is smaller than a 35mm film frame. With all other conditions being the same the depth of field now extends from approximately 2.4m to 4m. In other words our depth of field has extended by 0.5m. Or, to put it another way, to match our 35mm camera in depth of field we would have to open up to f/2.8. Which is okay except that many of the DX format lenses made for the D200 and its ilk don't go as wide as f/2.8.

Now couple to this to the fact that a smaller sensor means a smaller pentaprism and a smaller viewfinder view and you can see that DX format digital cameras and similar from Canon, Olympus etc. have some drawbacks. They have some benefits also - the 'magnifier' effect on the focal length means sports and wildlife photographers are happy.

For me the D200 is a mixed bag. It has a grid in the viewfinder, but I struggle to find and maintain horizons in the titchy viewfinder. Which means I am frequently rotating and cropping post capture. Its pictures are good - very good - the colours appear true and there are plenty of options to tune them. Resolution matches all but the very, very finest 35mm film. Exposure noise (grain) at the equivalent of ISO1600 is no worse than a 1600ASA print film in the mid-1980s. Build quality is close to my old F5. And I love digital - I take more pictures and I can check them in the field.

So what would be my perfect camera? It would be digital, but with a bigger viewfinder (maybe even an electronic level?). Its high ISO performance could match late 90's film (or even better it). And build quality would equal (or better) my F5. And I'd still like to be able to use my 18-200 VR zoom when I want to travel light.

Nikon, I'm gonna cite you in the inevitable divorce papers.

Sell your photos online

Spectacle

Okay I did not see my usual ration of television on Saturday evening. Nor did I consume my usual amount of alcohol. No, I was out in the cold with a couple of thousand dollars of camera equipment pointing skyward in order to catch the lunar eclipse. Not the first lunar eclipse I have witnessed, but a very good one 'seeing' wise.

I have also been lucky enough to see a total solar eclipse (France, 1999) - an altogether more frantic affair especially if you are attempting to photo-document it. If you are lucky enough to catch a solar eclipse take a tip - either do not be the photographer or take a moment, mid-totality, to lift your eye from the viewfinder and look around - to see the sky dark above you, but light toward the horizons - see the blackness of the hole in the middle of the sun's disc like a polo mint (or lifesaver) in the sky. Witness the confused behavior of birds and other animals. Sometimes photographers can become too detached - don't get so obsessed with recording that you were there that you actually might as well not have been.

But back to Saturday's eclipse. It was decidedly more leasurely than France. Totality lasted over an hour - the image you see here is the mean of a 'stack' of four successive images taken just after the start of totality.

The moon moves quite fast, especially in the viewfinder of a camera attached to a 1m Maksutov Cassegrain. I lack the fancy electronics to track the moon automatically, and the reduction of light during totality and hence slow shutter speed, mean the actual image of the moon cannot be as sharp as the Mak could manage. A series of relatively short images means the moon does not get too smeared - however the higher sensivity required (ISO Equivalent 320 - uncooled Nikon DSLR) means noticeable noise. Averaging the images together goes someway to reducing this noise and bringing out both lunar surface features and the incredible colours easily visible to the naked eye.

So here it is - for those of unfortunate enough to live the wrong side of the world (this time) or who needed their beauty sleep. Enjoy.

A MESSAGE TO THE FUTURE ON TIME TRAVEL

So are you an electronic archeologist? Have you uncovered this message after hundreds of years of it being lost in electronic limbo. Have you succeeded in deciphering this ancient English dialect? Well done! Pleased to greet you. If mankind, or whatever replaced it, has conquered time travel I would love to say hi in person.

The Accidental Racist

Racism has been big news in the UK recently. People all over the world, but particularly the Indian sub-continent, getting upset over the perceived racist behavior of Jade Goody.

My own opinion, gleaned from the few editted low lights I have seen, is that Ms Goody's behavior was probably not, on balance, overtly racist. Not that I condone her behavior - she appeared to be an ignorant, vindictive bully. She is a member of a substrata of society these days termed 'chav' - a group of individuals perhaps best recognised by their propensity to wallow in their own ignorance - as if stupidity and foul manners are qualities in which one can take pride.

The racist slur though, is altogether more serious. One can be stupid and ignorant - in fact, barring a few world leading professors and autistic savantes, we all to some extent must be. To be a racist though is bad. At least a conscious racist.

But how many of us are unconscious racists? Accidently excluding from our lives people not in our own racial category.

I like to think of myself as 'colour blind' - not literally, but in the metaphorical sense that race is not an issue to me. Indeed, on the face of it, my life would seem to reflect this - my best friend for 35 years and counting is a different skin tone to me. I went to university in a highly multi-cultural city. I had neighbours of Indian and Pakistani descent - I could choose to eat Indian, Chinese, or Caribbean food of an evening. I never thought anything less of the people around me because of their skin tone - in fact it rarely registered.

But these days I see young black men on the streets of London, speaking an almost unintelligible dialect, behaving in an assertive and aggressive fashion, and I resent their presence. They do not belong in my England. Maybe this is an excusable reaction - it is their behavior and their alien communication that marks them out; their skin colour is incidental to my unease although it maybe the very reason they feel the need to behave in this 'unBritish' manner as an assertion of their own identity.

But maybe more telling is my friend network in that other place. No blacks, no asians! I partly redeem myself with one Hispanic and one Irish (do Leipreachán count?). Now I did not set out with a deliberate policy - this is just the current manefestation of two and half years of churn. But maybe it is telling all the same. Not that I will be introducing positive discrimination - two wrongs do not make a right.

P.S. Appology to Ms Goody - I have made a crude attempt in the image at altering her racial origin to the Indian subcontinent. I believe in fact that she is half Afro-carribean.

Tits, Ass and Cuteness

Cute & Small Boobs Raw score: 29% Big Breasts, 54% Big Ass, and 64% Cute!

Thanks for taking the T and A and C test! Based on your selections, the results are clear: you show an attraction to smaller breasts, larger asses, and sexier composure than others who've taken the test. Note that because you scored small on breasts but large on ass size, it might appear you like girls bottom heavy. That's probably not the case. What's more likely is that you notice curvy, voluptuous butts, and you don't like big, fake boobs. Big real boobs are even worse because of the sag. Anyway, my third variable, "cuteness" is a mostly objective measure of how innocent a given model looked. It's determined by a combination of a lot of factors: lack of dark eye makeup, facial expression, posture, etc. If you scored high on that variable, you are either really nice OR you're into deflowering teens. If you scored low, you are attracted to raunchier, sexier, women. In your case, your higher than average score suggests you appreciate a cuter, nicer look. Kudos! Recommended Celebrity: Hilary Duff, because she is the ultimate in cute! Especially since she lost that baby fat!

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 10% on tit-size You scored higher than 61% on ass-size You scored higher than 72% on cuteness

Link: The Tits, Ass, and Cuteness Test written by chicken_pot_pie on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

....or does this just indicate how I would like to deflower cute teens?

Veggieburgers

make with 100% ground vegetarians

Should I say sorry to my "grass eating" friends in advance? I open my mouth, I look in the mirror, I see the teeth of an omnivore, I see no reason to fly in the face of nature. Besides, if we are not supposed to eat animals why do they taste so good?

I was a vegetarian for a while. Actually about a year before the BSE scandal broke. When my mum (RIP) tipped me off that doctors were warning there was something wrong in the food chain. Government strangely silent - sitting on the story - c*nts.

I discovered Indian food (lots of it vegetarian - and it tastes good). I still have my free Hare Krishna cook book - and it comes out from time to time; I said omnivore, not carnivore.

BUT this is an article every vegetarian should read (even if only to take vehement offence to):
http://www.hyperactive-stage.co.uk/blog/comments.asp?ref=196


Now read why I especially think you should read it (and it has nothing to do with what you choose to eat):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/

Don't like criticism of your beliefs? Lack the wit to enter into reasoned debate? Censorship - you know it makes sense.

For Trinity

If she finds it. Answering a question from elsewhere. Because the answer is more appropriate here.

Killing me softly

I do not believe in one God or several. Keeping it scientific if God wishes to make him/herself/themselves known by fiery chariot or email I am prepared to reconsider.

However, if there is a God then I imagine that in October 2004 ‘they’ needed a night out at the pub with some good company. Writer, broadcaster, and comedian Pete McCarthy (of McCarthy’s Bar) sadly departed this world. He was followed closely by John Peel – writer, broadcaster, DJ and champion of many an aspiring band who went on to be big (and many that didn’t). Both men are fondly remembered and sadly missed by many people who never met them, but who held them dear (and felt they knew them) through their public works.

I never met Pete or John, but I would have liked to. There is one person still living for whom I have a similar longing to meet: 'Mil' Millington. For those who have not come across him can I direct you to the website that has made him famous. Before I do can I also suggest that if your bladder is in anyway full that you empty it first – for your own safety, that of your clothing and furniture.

The website, about Englishman Mil and his long suffering relationship with his German girlfriend Margret, is www.thingsmygirlfriendandihavearguedabout.com. It is well known, it has been around a while – Mil has written three books on the back of its fame.

Why this site and its author are particularly resonant with me:
a) Long ago I had a strident, vociferous and cute (in a moody sort of way) German girlfriend (she is now married and living in Australia – not that I am stalking her or anything – I am also married and not living in Australia)
b) My wife and I argue in similar ways although sadly I am probably veer closer to Margret in terms of behaviour
c) I used to work in IT
d) I used to live in Wolverhampton (Go Wolves!)

Now I shall probably never meet Mil (unless he frequents Asda at lunchtimes on Saturdays that Wolves play at home), but I would like to. Just to say how much I enjoy his humour, his observation, that is 'so' like me. But isn’t that key to every great observational comic, jounalist, travel writer? To highlight the absurd, render the real surreal. Find that essence with which we can all identify – to reflect the common idiosyncrasies that bind all humanity.

Pete, John -RIP. Mil – more power to your elbow. Margret – keep him in check.

Remiss

I am just not getting the hang of this. I started blogging in the other place and still instinctively blog there. Except that some of what I blog there is not relevant to the audience. I must come here more often. I must blog here more often. I have the recent excuse I have been away - only works for the last two weeks; more of that later.

"BYELORUSSIAN PRESIDENT"

Lukashenko - bullet in the head or shotgun blast in the face now - lot cheaper than an invasion and a lot less blood shed than a revolution.

dee too eks

I am allergic to film developer. It is something I discovered in school. I was allergic to most of the oils used in metal work as well. The latter did not matter; I never became a metal worker. I did become a professional photographer.

Part of the process was always denied to me, but I was happy with a Leitz projector and Kodachrome Professional.

I used to be a Canon fan. Then one day I sold my Canon FD system and went purist for a while. No lugging a bag of lenses around - just a rugged "compact". A Nikon compact - with a stunning 35mm lens. That and Kodachrome made me money.

Then, eventually, a long time after I got a job with far higher remuneration than your average professional photographer, I decided I missed the options of a decent 35mm SLR and lots of lenses. So I looked at the options: Leica is nice - in the same way as a Rolls Royce; love to have one, but not for everyday use. Contax - I have used professionally with loaned kit - very good, but not state of the art. Olympus - at the time had lost their way. Pentax - not for pros, not these days anyway, Yes, it was Canon or Nikon.

So I tried them out - top of the line. ASM, decent metering, mirror lock-up, depth-of-field preview. Both are good brands. Canon had a wider range of newer lenses. Nikon could use virtually anything with a Nikon mount. Nikon's MMI was more traditional - that is what swung it for me.

So I bought an F5. I have several lenses - the best are Nikon; the others are oddities not available in the Nikon range.

In the meantime I had discovered scanning and Photoshop. Kodachrome had given way to Royal Gold and Supra [negative film has a higher latitude than positive - and if you want it, you can get the slide "look" by manipulating curves]. I was finally in the "darkroom" - albeit digital.

However, something has now happened to "wet film". It is hard to get it developed well. The pros have mostly gone digital. A little while back I costed it out; a new scanner [Scan Elite 5400 II] and three years of film at my current low, amateur, usage versus a new D2x. Did not justify a D2x.

So I wait six months and Nikon annouces the D200 - at a compelling price even before it hits the streets and gets lowered. Time to go fully digital? It seems so. So courtesy of Grays [where else?] I have tried out the D200. Well it is lighter than the F5, and smaller, and almost as solid. It has a stunning imaging chip and all the on-board controls you could need [with the exception of vertical controls that you can get by adding the dual battery pack].

BUT

I don't like the viewfinder. I don't like the screen with the little AF boxes; I miss a proper eyecup; the titchy pentaprism seems too close to the lens [especially with a big, fast, "pukka" lens]. Don't believe everything you read in the press - try before you buy.

I want a D2x. I don't want to pay twice as much as a D200 for it*. I will consider a little more than the list price for a D200 with MBD200. If Nikon brings out the rumoured D3h and prices it between the D2x and the D200 I might just run to it - once the street price starts to bite. Bugger, 'cause I also want one now!

[*On this subject why does eBay continue allow so many scammers? - just ban email addresses inside postings and put these little shits out of business]

World's Shortest Personality Test

Thanks to Starlet who in turn thanked Deepblue

Your Personality Profile

You are elegant, withdrawn, and brilliant. Your mind is a weapon, able to solve any puzzle. You are also great at poking holes in arguments and common beliefs. For you, comfort and calm are very important. You tend to thrive on your own and shrug off most affection. You prefer to protect your emotions and stay strong.

The World's Shortest Personality Test

Bowing to the inevitable

Sir has moved. Now who is going to get the play on words that sound like the name he has in the other place? Am I here and not there. I don't know yet. For now I am in two places at once. But I don't like the way things are going - blogs are dividing the other place and not in a good way. So this is the blog for the rest of me. It will be silly, it will be serious, it will be unconstrained by anyone opinions but my own.