Facebook, the Borg

As an illustration of the "think" of Facebook...
This is the access a BBC app needs on an Android device:

And these are the areas that the Facebook app "needs" access to:

I must admit I decided I could make do with using facebook in a browser if I needed it on Android. 

Is a new Victorian age coming?

Amazon, who I had previously been so happy about not being paranoid about materials with nudity or sexuality, is apparently beginning to hide these more and more, so they don't show up in regular searches, but only via a direct link.
OMG, I really thought the Internet would the death stroke to this mentality.

Annette Kellerman promoting a woman’s right to wear a fitted, one-piece bathing suit in 1907. She was later arrested for indecency.

Dove Cameron: True Love

I like Miley Cyrus, but I think that Dove Cameron actually is a better singer, is prettier, and is a better actress (see for instance the two episodes she was featured on The Mentalist). And very funny too.

Is Photography An Art?

Is Photography An Art?

British celebs weigh in. 

(Though I live in the UK, I don't watch enough TV to know these people, except Jane Horrocks, a terrific actress.)
(Like who's the sweet blonde with the bass, and the old rocker with all the guitars?)

Sagrada Familia: Antoni Gaudi's unique vision

The video below contains more info and more pictorial details of the sculptures and architecture. (It's HD, full screen recommended.)




It is astonishing how one single man can be so so radically different from all his peers, and yet be so durn good, and even having many projects actually built! It's almost as if a musician came in and created music which was not at all based on the rules of tonal scales and rhytms we are used to, and yet became a hit (and yet never emulated).

====

When we were kids, us kids in our family would often amaze our parents with our knowledge of something or other, and they'd say: "Where did you hear about that?!"
The answer would often be "we read it in a comic book". (Usually the weekly Donald Duck. (Americans may not be aware, but Europeans (Italy and Denmark) have produced good (sometimes great) quality Disney books for over half a Century).)

I guess these days, the answer will often be: "I saw it on the Simpsons."

Griptac, where to buy? (updated again)

I have been researching for years to find the best material for improving the grip on a surface, for example a tablet, a tool, or a camera. The best I found so far is this.
But maybe it can get even better, I have heard of a material called Griptac (maybe). It is a flat material with a rubbery tacky surface, which you glue on the camera instead of the original leather.
It is supposedly amazingly good at making a grippy surface on cameras and whatnot, though the name seems to be used primarily on hockey sticks (that may in fact not be the same material used on them). In fact, the durn sticks are all I find when I search, even on eBay, trying to find a seller of Griptac. Does anybody know where I can get it?
[Note, early research point to cameraleather.com. I have written to them, but it's a bit unclear if they are still in business. There is also speculation that the word "Griptac" was made up, which would explain why it's so hard to find.]

Update: I've just gotten a mail back from CameraLeather.com, it seems they are in business. (And are rebuilding the site.) And do sell the stuff. So I consider this case solved. Thanks guys!
Update: CameraLeather will not reveal the source for the material, but from various clues I get the impression that it's basically just  strongly textured rubber, and should be available from, well I don't know, but some industrial sources. 

It is supposedly available in black or medium grey, the latter I find surprisingly attractive on the different cameras I've seen it on.

Photo: Christopher Liando

Photo: Louis Meluso

Front cameras will get better

Here's a prediction: with selfie-sticks now taking over the world, the iPhone 6s surely coming in fall will have the front camera upgraded to 5-8MP (it is a measly 1.2MP now! That's what a cheap digital camera had around 1998. Apple still calls it a "Facetime camera", it was not meant for real photography, but for video chat).

With the front camera now being used sometimes even more than the back camera, it's stupid to have it be dramatically lower quality. (No criticism of the phone makers, I don't think anybody foresaw this explosion of selfies, and their improvement by the simple selfie stick (you don't get the close-up distortion of faces, and you get much more background, making the images potentially interesting to more than just the participants).)

Photo: Martin Parr

Update:
Anon said...
In the old days you just asked someone else to take your picture.

Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...
... And hoped you could run faster than they!
(Ah well, probably not too many cameras were stolen that way, percentagewise.)

Once, dining with my sisters, my younger sister asked a waitress to take our pictures. She politely did. When she had taken two pictures, my sister who was never shy about giving orders, said to her: "Now you stand over there and take another one."
In my embarrassment, I said to the waitress: "Don't worry, we won't charge you for the photographic training."

South African canopy walkway

What an exceptional idea. And how pretty.

Roost Laptop Stand | Free yourself from laptop neck pain

Do you get stiff neck or back trouble from tilting your head to look down at your laptop?
The Roost Stand is by far the best solution I've seen to this problem. And it's a beautiful piece of engineering.
You can get one here.
(I'm sorry to sound like an ad, but I just love this gadget. And it's unique, so I want it to stay around. I have tried debilitating neck pain from wrong computer use!)

Though it takes two seconds to mount a laptop, it does not fall off. 

Three different heights. Use external keyboard. 

... Though I currently rarely use a laptop, I am getting a Roost Stand now, to make sure I have one when I have the need. - Eolake

Full Frame vs Micro 4/3 Revisited with Pro Olympus Lens

Full Frame vs Micro 4/3 Revisited with Pro Olympus Lens, article/image comparison.

You have hear me, and maybe others, sing the praises of Olympus' compact PRO zomm lenses. I am sure that many have thought: "Well, I'm sure they are very niiiiice, for the format. But it's only half the frame [and weight] linearly of Full Frame cameras. Surely to get real professional image quality, you need a 'real' professional camera and lens, like Nikon or Canon full-frame..."

This would be natural. In film days, image quality was directly tied to the size of the negative, because a film was a film, and you could not get them sharper than they could make films. But now it's years since the resolution of a milimeter of film was surpassed by a milimeter of digital sensor, so cameras and lenses can be made much smaller/lighter without downsides, excepting low-light performance (and if you need very shallow depth of field).

Well, the test linked to above was made with a current Canon full-frame camera and a Canon professional "L" type lens. And lo: not only did the Olympus lens compare well to it, it beat it handily.

So, if you need to make hand-held photos at night (I'm being literal), go for full frame. If that's not a pressing issue, pick a good camera in a size which is comfortable for you.

Farthest flight by hoverboard

[Thanks to Tommy]

I founds ol' camera

I finally felt nostalgic enough to re-purchase my very first serious camera, the Konica TC.

It feels delightful. It was a period of great spiritual/mental growth in my life.

It's also just a charming camera which "feels good" in the hand, like some things do.

It's shockingly simple, particularly compared to the million-feature cameras of today.

It also has a fully non-electronic shutter, it can shoot without a battery. It came in 1976 or so, just before the electronic camera revolution of the insanely successful Canon AE-1, the first camera with a chip. After that, it was a sign of professional ambitions if a camera had *any* non-electronic shutter speeds and did not become a door stop if you removed the battery.

The TC though was part of the trend towards compact cameras. It was not at all easy to do, it takes very skillful engineering. I think it took like six years before anybody (Pentax) replicated the ultimate small size of the Olympus OM-1 from the early seventies. The TC was not that small but was noticably smaller than previous generations.

(Yes, it really is me, and my Konica, not (yet) a viral Net object. I added the catz meme just to class up the joint.)