Did I mention I was in Tipp last weekend?

Well, on the way home we passed through Cashel. Now those of you with an Irish bent will know it for the big castle place on top of the rock. Those of you who don't will find out more here.

I wasn't able to stop for more than a few minutes, and it was the day after some big fireworks show so the place was chaos. It did, however, seem like a good opportunity to try out my new 10-22mm wide angle lens.

I didn't have a whole lot of time to set up or take pictures as I'd my wife in the car, and this (though not great) is the best I got.

 

However, what it does show is just how wide 10mm is. Even on the APS-C* sensor in the 400D it's still pretty impressive.

I'll try to do a more formal review of the lens itself after Easter, but my first impressions are it's well worth the money.

 

 

*I'm still getting to grips with this full frame versus APS-C stuff, but here's what I know so far. Digital SLR cameras can either be full frame or reduced frame. Basically, the sensor in them is smaller than the equivalent bit in a film camera. When it comes to my Canon, it uses an APS-C sensor, a full frame sensor is 1.6 times larger(?). As a result, when I talk about a lens at 10mm on my camera, the equivalent size on a full frame camera would be 16mm (10mm * 1.6). I believe the entry level Nikons are 1.5, but don't quote me on this.

Full frame digital SLR's are available, but are expensive right now. Of course if you're a camera company and you're reading this, I'm always available for sponsorship!

Not a long update, just a quick note to say thanks to everyone who came out tonight. I hope your photos turned out as good as mine and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

I'll review the shots I took in more detail tomorrow and maybe do some playing with Gimp then, but for now...


(20secs, f/9, aperture priority, focal length - 18mm, ISO - 100, 24/10/07 18:53)

The angel of Belfast? No image manipulation, just a slight crop to make it fit 10*15. And yes, I like the flare in the picture.

Edit: I've been reliably informed that this statue is in fact called "The Beacon of Hope"... and not "The Belle with the Ball" or "Nuala with the Hula"

OK, so I mentioned last week about laying my hands on a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens, well I'd heard a lot of stuff about "quality glass" and "better than the kit lens" before I used it, so I decided to have a play and see....

Let's be honest. If you're looking for a 50mm lens and you have the full studio Monty you're going to want to buy the F/1.2 or F/1.4 variant.

So I guess the questions I wanted to ask were....

1. Is the lens any good.

2. Is it better than the kit lens under similar circumstances

 

Is it any good?

My first impression of it was probably the same as a lot of people. It feels light and plasticy. Now I'm hardly a lens guru, but I expected some sort of weight from it - it is glass after all....

That said, it doesn't feel fragile or fiddly. The focus mechanism is pretty solid and all the bits for mounting to the camera all seem pretty robust.

Shooting at F/1.8 is a blasphemy to God. I can only imagine what its big brothers are like. I found with decent house lighting you could almost get away without flash (certainly if you were willing to chuck up the ISO a bit). The test pictures I've taken have all been the right side of clear (unless I've been messing...).

Here's a decent example of this from the great globe re-shoot of 2007!

(1/60, f/1.8, aperture priority, focal length - 50mm, ISO - 200, 17/10/07 19:44)

So, when all is said and done, it's a smart little lens for 70 notes.

 

Is it any better than the kit lens?

Right, lets get realistic. It's naive to assume that the kit lens is a top of the line lens. But, Canon probably won't ship a camera with a piece of crap - it'll hardly do their business model any good. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume the kit lens is OK. Certainly, my experience of it suggests it does what it says on the tin.

Indubitably, the fact it ranges from 18mm to 55mm is a nice advantage over the fixed 50mm lens as well. It's probably safe to assume most people buying the 400D are new to dSLR or trying to manage pennies and get the most bang for their buck.

So, is the 50mm fixed any better than the kit lens?

I set up one of babas teddies for a quick test (and it was quick, she wanted it to go for bed...). I also used house lighting and a standard hot shoe mounted flash (trust me, just buy one) since anyone in the market for this lens is unlikely to use studio lighting that much!

The first image is a composite of the 50mm and the 18-55. I'll be honest, I got the setting slightly out on the 18-55 so the focal distance is 45mm not 50mm. In both cases they were taken at F/11 from a tripod. There should be little or no difference in lighting or camera position between the shots. (The only image change is a little cropping to find Eyeore)

Oh, and I used the jpegs for this...

(Edit: The 50mm fixed lens is left, the kit lens is right - Thanks Geoff!)

 My initial impressions for this was that the kit lens produced better results, but looking again I've started to change my mind. The 50mm seems to be a darker colour, but there is less burn out around the nose as a result.

Zooming in on the old fellas ear....

(Edit: The 50mm fixed lens is left, the kit lens is right - Thanks Geoff!)

In this case I used the raw's because the loss in detail was a little obvious in the jpegs.

To my mind there isn't a lot of difference here. Certainly nothing I can pick up on.

 

Summary

So, I guess the question is if I had it all to do again, would I buy the 50mm instead of the kit lens?

I think the answer has to be a reserved no.

Why?

Because quite simply the kit lens has a better range of zoom and is more versatile as a result. Whilst it probably loses a little in terms of quality, as a starter lens it does its job just fine. 

So why not a definitive no?

Quite simply, two photos of Eyeore do not a professional test make. I'm new to the hobby, I can only see what I see. If someone I respected told me I was wrong, I would probably listen to them. Sure, I'd want to see their evidence now, but...

Would you kit bag it?

Oh dear sweet lord yes. for portrait shots and for low light and for family stuff and candid's and all the things I said I'd rarely post here it's just blooming lovely. It teaches you to move instead of just changing the zoom on the camera, it gives good photo, it does exactly what it says on the tin (erm cardboard box). And for £60 - £70 it's a bargain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Point to note. The images I've uploaded are tiny compared to the originals - web space and load times you know. If you want the original images to take a look yourself, drop me an email and I'll sort you out.)

I just took this as part of my experiments with that f/1.8 50mm lens I mentioned.

I set this up in a dark room with my trusty desk lamp lighting system and the hot shoe flash pointed towards the ceiling.



(1/160, f/1.8, aperture priority, focal length - 50mm, ISO - 200, 17/10/07 19:47)

To my mind, it's another one of 'those' pictures I take that is close but still just mweh. In this case I think the reflection of the flash on the top of the globe ruins it. But, having tried this a couple of times (OK 30, you know me....) I'm still not sure how to get enough light onto the subject to give it that 'live' feeling without ending up being able to see my kitchen in the reflections and a dubious great flash spot to boot.

I guess making use of a proper blacked out environment would help keep the reflections in the globe down, but how do you get direct light onto something for shadows without ending up with that sort of flash feedback effect?

You can be sure of a big surprise.

Yup, that's right. I might be hiding in the trees with a camera....

erm....

anyway....

Not so much the woods, but the local park for this shot. I remember these trees as a kid. They were young and vigorous and the path between them was neatly mowed and just pretty. I decided a few weeks back I'd go and get a snap to see how they were doing now.

Boy, what a change. I kinda like the slightly more sinister look they're going for these days.



(1/60, f/4.5, aperture priority, focal length - 18mm, ISO - 400, 05/10/07 17:49)

The only change from the original image was a slight bit of cloning to remove a set of goalposts and some bloke playing football. You'd probably need to see the original (full size) image to make him out, in the smaller (webbed up) versions it was just noise, so I deleted him. Yes, I am a cruel master.

...would be called something else.

A good weekends snapping this weekend. I took maybe 80 - 100 pictures. I have maybe 3 I'll post. Dear lord I'm glad I'm not paying for developing!

I spent Friday afternoon in the park with the nipper and got some nice shots of her and my missus on the swings (the child was on the swing, not the missus. She made me tell you that bit). These need a little post processing so expect them later in the week.

Yeah, post processing. How about that huh? Whats to say. I think it's growing on me as much as the actual photo bit. Even slight changes to an image make amazing differences to the finished product. I'm still undecided if it's cheating.

Anyway...

This rose bloomed in my back garden over the weekend, now anyone that's seen my back garden will know that it's probably as conductive to flowers as the central reactor in Chernobyl. Which just goes to prove that (to quote the guy from Jurassic Park) "Life will find a way"

The image has been cropped in to show just the flower and then I used a similar process of the dice to reduce the brightness of the background while keeping the rose bright.



(1/200, f/3.5, aperture priority, focal length - 24mm, ISO - 400, 07/10/07 13:10)

The only other change to the natural state of the rose (apart from some leaf pruning which doesn't count, does it?) was some gratuitous effect modeling. Yup, that's right, next stop Digital Light and Magic for me.

I used my latest toy (supplied by the repository of junk known as the cupboard under the sink) to add water to the flower. It was high tech as you'd expect...



Starting out in photography? I recommend a camera, a lens, a water spray.

What?! Oh come on, you mean to tell me that you didn't see me sneaking that line in somewhere the first chance I got?

You people give me way too much credit.

At the end of my dice snapping frenzy I got to playing with the pictures in Gimp, particularly this one:



I'd intended to make the picture black and white to see if it looked pretty, but ended up playing with the 'Colour Levels' widget.  Now I'm sure there is a technical explanation for what the widget does, but to my eyes it makes dark areas darker, bright areas brighter and the bit in the middle brighter or darker as required. Hold on, a random website says this:

 'The Level tool provides features similar to the Histogram tool but can also change the intensity range of the active layer or selection'

I ended up with this:



Now I like this. I think the background feels richer the colours a little more intense.

It's still not black and white though.

So, out of desperation (where is the magic make my button black and white), I used Google and I ended up finding a tutorial to help me do this:



Now I really like this.

OK, the edging around the dice (OK die you pedant. No, not as in cease to live more as in singular of dice)  isn't as neat as it could b, but I was up against it time wise and this was less than 10 minutes work all in.

I could pretend like I spent hours working all this out in Gimp, or reproduce the tutorial and claim kudos for something I didn't do, but I'm not into that (and I might get caught), so here it is....

Selective Colorization

So, whatcha think?

OK, this was a bit quicker than I'd planned but last night saw me with some time on my hands and a sudden need to not be near my computer. So, inspired by the table lamp that I tripped over I decided to try the first of the projects I mentioned the other day.

First things first, I don't have a studio or any sort of fancy environment so I needed to do a lot of improvisation here. The background on the following shots is a black t-shirt draped over an old shower box. It kind of gave me the effect I wanted so yea me.

I think it was Stuart who wanted to see more pictures, and since last night was about learning I'm going to try and walk through the stages I went through while taking the snaps.

Oh, before we get into this. Given my history, I feel it's important to point out that none of these shots have been post processed in any way. No cropping, no contrast/brightness, no picasa. The only difference between these shots and the ones I have are to reduce the overall image size to make them more viewable on the web.

The Setup...

In one of my other lives I'm a role-player. Yes, the sort of person even nerds point at and snigger. Enough already. Get over it. Stop sniggering. No, I don't dress up as an elf or a gnome and no, I don't own a copy of the Necronomicon (anymore). What I do own is a bag of dice. Dice of many colours and shade, dice of doom some would say having seen my luck with them.

there were a bundle sitting below my monitor for a few weeks and I thought the colours looked quite nice. It was these that drove me to try this out.

So, using my improvised setup described above (this is going to be all over the place today isn't it?) I put the camera on the tripod and took this shot.



(1/60, f/4.5, aperture priority, focal length - 34mm, ISO - 400, 02/10/07 20:23)

Here the room lights were on, the camera was left on the settings I'd last used and I just pushed the button. The results are very bright, very boring and just mweh.

So, I moved on a little

The next shot I zoomed in a little on the dice and increased the aperture(probably cause the camera made me).



(1/60, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 400, 02/10/07 20:24)

Still crud. No really. No need to be nice. The background is a little better, the dice a little brighter maybe. But still crud.

I decided to try playing with the little desk light I'd found. I pointed it onto the dice from an angle of about 40 degrees to see what effect it had. I also turned off the house lights and dropped the ISO level (because I remembered it was set high) at this point



(2s, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:25)

Getting better. the gem dice were beginning to take on a life of their own and the shadows looked cool.

I adjusted the light to see if I could pull the shadows further. In the next shot the desk light is at about 10 degrees, giving light across the dice.

(Oh, this ones a little blurred for some reason)



(5s, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:27)

I played around with this position for a while, but was really uninspired by the output. the solid dice and the colours were just nothing great. I also didn't like that I was at full zoom(?) with my 18-55 lens and was still sitting quite far out. I didn't want to start moving the tripod, so...

I changed the lens.

Using my Tamron 55-200 I took the following shot.



(1.6s, f/5.0, aperture priority, focal length - 171mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:36)

I liked this a lot. The low depth of field on the dice and the reflections and shadows were impressive (or so I think).

So, pushing my luck...



(6s, f/10, aperture priority, focal length - 200mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:36)

Increasing the depth of field (big number = little hole (see I remembered!)) and suddenly it gets real pretty (at least to my eyes).

So, pushing my luck further....



(20s, f/18, aperture priority, focal length - 200mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:37)

I think this has gone off the boil. The background has started to get quite washed out again and the warmth of the previous image (which I pray I didn't touch up in Picasa - I'm sure of it. But I will double check tonight).

So, tell me what you think. And be gentle, I really like the penultimate image. I think it's one of the best I've taken to date.

So this weekend I discovered the joys of Auto Focus and Manual Focus.

I'd noticed a spiders web outside on my trailer* and thought it looked quite pretty with the rain droplets thing.

So out I go with the camera and start trying to get a snap...



(No idea Pinky. I seem to have lost the settings. I'll get them later)

OK, just so we're all on the same page here. No you can't see a spiders web. Seems the AF on the camera decides the spiders web isn't worth focusing on and instead picks something behind it. In my case it's the junk mound that is my back garden.

So, in an attempt to correct this I discovered MF** or "manual focus".



(yes, there should be technobabble here too. My world has deserted me...)

OK, I know there are flies on it, and so technically the title of this blog entry isn't correct. I also know the manual focus isn't "technically" in focus, but I actually think that's more to do with the Aperture I was using than my inability to see.

The AF photo hasn't been toughed in any way save getting made a little smaller in file size. The MF photo has had the usual plethora of Picasa "I'm Feeling Lucky" done to it. I really need to work out what that crap is myself.

* Yes, I own a trailer. I bought it in a moment of madness in reaction to finding out I was going to be a Daddy. I needed to invest in a "man thing". There's something manly about reversing a trailer. Something that lets you look into the eyes of those big rig drivers and share the nuances, the skill, of backing up with a load on (so to speak). Course, I've only been told this - I have problems going forwards with the trailer on...

** Last night while uploading the photos and discovering they were out of focus or the focal range was too short, I discovered MF also stands for "Mother F***er"...

I took this a while back when I was at my parents in law. The shot itself is (like most of the shots I take) nothing special and wasn't even going to get posted until I started playing with Gimp again.

Here's the original (or at least the post Picasa size reduced original)



(1/500, f/5, aperture priority, focal length - 39mm, 01/09/07 14:00, ISO - 100)

Just a picture of Sam, the wifes family dog. Nothing overly great about the picture, though I like the depth of field for the bushes in the background.

I loaded it into Gimp and was messing about with the clone tool to see if I could remove the pole (a washing line if you must know) and was quite impressed with the result. Then (because they mentioned it in a magazine) I found the burn tool and did some work on the rocks to make them a little darker.

I like the result. I'm not sure I like it more than the original (minus the pole* obviously) . What do you think?



Yes, I've noticed it too. The land seems to be sloping from left to right. Honestly I can't remember if the ground did this but I have a feeling its me still not holding the camera straight and level.

* For the record I have nothing against poles. I know some nice poles. I also like pillars, stacks and columns. In fact, you could say I'm a fan of all vertical based structural implements.

I've always had a thing for dragons. not those poncy "I can talk and I can do magic" nonsense dragons, but for the flame spouting, knight chomping, damsel distressing dragons certain patron saints got off having a go at.

So, needless to say the 20" high dragon that has prize of place on my window ledge at home was always going to get a look in here.



(1/25, f/5, metering - matrix, focal length - 171mm, 13/09/07 18:43, ISO - 400)

This picture was taken using the external flash gun thing that came with my camera kit. The flash was adjusted to bounce off the (white) ceiling and diffused slightly. The colour range of the photo was then tweaked in GIMP (I'd tell you the exact changes, but to be honest I was messing about and suddenly stopped and went "Woah!"*)

When you look at the picture you'll probably see a lot of shadow or something (Shake?) to the right side of the dragon. Not sure what caused it. To be honest only noticed it as I was putting the picture up.

I'll try to find out what I changed in GIMP. I'll also be back to take more photo's of the beast.

One other thing of note with this shot. In order to try to get more light through the camera I upped the ISO from it's default 100 to a rather sturdy 400. This helped reduce a lot of shake that I was getting (course, I could have just got out the tripod).

*Whilst many people have noted that Keanu Reeves and myself have a lot in common in terms of looks and snazzy 'Point Break' style lingo, I prefer to consider myself more in keeping with his "Ted" days. That and we look, sound and probably weigh nothing alike.

First. Sorry for the long radio silence. I took a few weeks off work, and spent them doing duck all. No, really. I demolished some stuff, I played some games I even slept a little. But the one thing I wanted to do was snap and the one thing I didn't do was snap.

Except for one day in Donegal (Nope, still not being sponsored by the Donegal Tourist Board!).

It was kind of a family weekend, so a lot of family shots, which means you won't see 'em here - sorry.

That said.....

I own a polarizing lens. So I took it out to take this shot. Here's kind of a before and after (or my attempt at one).







Ignore the digger. It was a picture I took for my mother in law as she's about to lose this view in favour of someones house. (Remember what I said about over population in Donegal?).

I don't think I was using the polarizing lens quite right. The left hand side of the sky looks great, but it fades out as you move right.  If you've an idea where I'm going wrong, let me know!

"I'm leaving,

    on a jet plane..."

Actually more like they're arriving on a jet plane, but still...



(1/320, f/11, metering - matrix, focal length - 55.0mm, 19/08/07 13:03)

This turned out much more sinister than I'd planned. I liked the sight of the plane escaping the clouds, the silhouette was just an added bonus.

I'd thrown the camera in the boot of the car because we were out with the "new shoes" and ended up at my brothers house. He's a fantastic view from his back garden and I'd snuck out to take a few shots. The airplane shot turned out much better than any of the landscape ones. :(

The original was a lot more wishy washy than this, but I felt this looked much better. Comments, as always, are welcome!

The plane is on final approach to Belfast International.

Welcome to Northern Ireland.

I'd planned to get out and about today, ideally into a local park or even into the garden to try some more of that aperture stuff I'd talked about, but the weather was so oppressive and dank I decided to stay indoors and warm instead.

That is apart from a trip to buy baba some new shoes. Her first pair actually...

So, bereft of ideas for pictures I've tried to get a bit arty with those.



(0.6s, f/4.5, metering - matrix, focal length - 28.0mm, 18/08/07 20:34)



(0.8s, f/4.5, metering - matrix, focal length - 28.0mm, 18/08/07 20:35)



(1/2, f/5, metering - matrix, focal length - 28.0mm, 18/08/07 20:37)



(1/3, f/5, metering - matrix, focal length - 33.0mm, 18/08/07 20:43)

Two things came up as I took these. Firstly light and secondly background.

Light first - These were just taken using the little flash on the 400D plus the light available in the room. Before Picasa did it's "I'm feeling lucky" thing, the pictures were very washed out with the red taking a lot of life from them. I'm not sure Picasa actually helped (I'm going to try and blog about that soon), but...

Background - Can't help but feel these would look better on a white background. I may try this again with a white sheet or something to help reduce the noise (and the reds!).

I'm not sure if I have a favorite here. Probably the third one. I think. Maybe. I know the last one has ended up looking very bright or over exposed or something. Think that ruins it (I'll go back to Picasa and see if it did something funny I guess - maybe even look at the edited image if I get brave)

For reference, the idea was to try and come up with an arty shot showing baba's shoes (a sign of independence and growing up) composed against a book about Winnie The Pooh (the classic child's adventure story).

As I've mentioned, Saturday and Sunday were pretty unsuccessful in terms of photographs and learning anything useful.

Still, I thought I'd share some of the shots this week. If you have opinions about what went wrong, or advice on how to make better use fo things, please let me know!

I could get into a diatribe on the decline of fishing within Ireland and how generations of fishing heritage are being lost because of over fishing and EU bureaucracy....

Instead, I thought I'd share a good example of how not to park your boat.



(1/100, f/5.6, metering - matrix, focal length - 18.0mm, 04/08/07 16:05)

Personally, I think the image is too dull. I'd prefer the shadows under the boat to be less black, allowing some of the detail and the rust to be visible. In retrospect I should have got lower and been looking up at the boat to make it more expressive. As usual the image has been quite heavily cropped and had minor tweaks from Picasa to make it presentable.

Last of last weekends shots (and just in time too since I'm off to Donegal again this weekend)

A few posts back I mentioned taking photos when the tide was coming in? Well, yeah. this was that shot.

Camera was still on "world of automatic" and as I've posted these images this week it's the one thing that has frustrated me. I need to start stepping up and seeing what these other buttons do.

If anyone can recommend a decent "Idiot" book or can advise on a course in the Belfast/Northern Ireland area please do so...

 

(1/250, f/87.1, metering - matrix, focal length - 85.0mm, 04/08/07 16:05)

(Yes, the ocean is at a funny angle. I just noticed that too.)

Another shot from last weekend.

To be honest there will be a lot of shots of Donegal appearing on this blog. I've family up there and I tend to spend a lot of time there.

Have camera, will snap

No real deep insights or comments about this for you. If you know Donegal, this is on the road between Dungloe and Doochary. The continued urbanisation of Donegal is a growing problem.



(1/200, f/8.0, metering - matrix, focal length - 18.0mm, 05/08/07 19:05)

I like this shot, but it suffers from a mistake I make a lot. If I'd stepped maybe two steps to the right it I think it would have been much better. Aside from the 47 billion options and widgets and doofers and stuff that you can do between picking the camera up and setting it down, there seems to be a whole bit about what you look at as well.

I read a good article on this in Digital SLR Photography last month and, assuming the opportunity presents itself, I'm going to try and play with this at the weekend.

Oh, and as you can see. Saturdays grey skies turned out just peachy on Sunday.

Learning To Snap

Since it's lunch time and I've got five minutes, I thought I'd post another from last weekend in Donegal.

Again, it was taken on the dull overcast Saturday but strangely it doesn't seem to hurt this one too much.

This was the first time I used the Tamron 55 - 200 lens that came with my camera kit. The picture was taken at full zoom and then cropped and tweaked using Picasa to make it a little less mweh and a little more hmmm....

It was still taken using one of the vast range of automatic settings on the 400D.



(1/500, f/10.0, metering - matrix, focal length - 161.0mm, 04/08/07 12:32)

Learning To Snap

I think I mentioned the other day that I ended up in Donegal at the weekend. Well, it was my first real opportunity to get out for an hour with my shiny new camera and see if I could point it at things and make it work.

To my mind, the aim of the day was to get out and point the camera at objects, to get comfortable with it in my hands and using viewfinders and things again. I didn't intend to make use of the manual settings on the camera (I'll start looking at Aperture and Shutter priorities soon I guess).

Anyway, I went back to Cloughglass Beach since it's close and I'd visited it a lot.

The August summer weather was what you expect, dull grey, rainy.

The sky was an almost solid grey, but it had a moody feel to it - I have no idea how to get that into a picture. Maybe someone with more experience will happen in here and tell me the secret? My own overriding impression of the day was that if the sky is like that again I'm not going to expect to get much from it.

Other lessons I learned...

1. The tide is coming in means THE TIDE IS COMING IN. Thou shalt get wet feet if you stand there too long


2. Carrying a tripod is not fun. Using it may be, but carrying the bugger is a pain in the bum


3. Think about what you need in your camera bag before you go - AKA- There probably isn't a plug on the beach, so you didn't need to bring your battery charger

As this blog grows I'll probably post more turkey giblets than turkey dinners on this site. Here's one (you can decide which) from Cloughglass Beach.



(1/800, f/4.0, metering - matrix, focal length - 18.0mm, 04/08/07 15:56)

Learning To Snap

When I first started shopping for a digital camera and ended up buying my E550, there were two sites I found invaluable.

DPReview gave fantastic information about all the cameras in the market, ranging from my little point and click through to the market leading pro DSLR's of the day. I used this site again when buying my 400D and was glad its only got better with age.

If you've ended up here and are thinking about buying a camera, then go there next.

I first came across Chromasia via an article in the Financial Times I think. the daily pictures are amazing. Of all the sites on the web, of all the pictures out there, David Nightingale is the person who drove me to do this. I've never spoken tot he man, never exchanged an email, never posted comments on his site, but I think his work is fantastic and if I ever get to be half as good I'll be happy. 

Learning To Snap