I have scanned in sixty or seventy photos from Guanajuato (including the seven or eight included in my April blog entries).
Let me know what you think: I definitely need to pare down to one gallery with fifteen or so really good pictures.
Would love the feedback: I look at these so much, I stop being able to decide what’s good, and what isn’t.
My trip to Las Vegas the week of 25-MAR-06 for TheServerSide Java Symposium will be, I hope, my last for several years at least. Not my favorite place.
But I dutifully brought my camera and tripod along with me to capture a few pictures.
My first target was the skyline [click to enlarge]. I actually spotted a picture taken from some hotel or other in a travel guide, and was hoping to repeat it. The foreground had the curve of the hotel with yellow lines pointing into the Strip, which was a really nice guide. But I wasn’t sure what hotel it was. The Mandalay Bay, it turns out, has a restaurant at the top of one of their buildings, and it looked like they had those nice, directing lines.
So I went up at around 4:30 and camped out with a glass of wine, waiting for the sun to set and that beautiful, deep blue to suffuse the sky. Much to my surprise, the haze resulted in more of a deep purple than blue. And, as I looked down the Strip, I realized that the hotel I had been looking for was The Wynn. Not only did it have those directing lines, but it looked south-by-southeast, rather than north-by-northwest, meaning the cool colors would have been more pronounced from the Wynn than the spot I chose. Still, things turned out alright, I think.
My only other shot was completely unplanned. That same night, I lugged all my gear over to Caesar’s–after the pool party sponsored by Adobe, I figured I’d walk the Strip. As I walked over the pedestrian bridge between Caesar’s and the Flamingo, I couldn’t help but notice how strong the Flamingo’s neon sign reflected on the bridge’s glass walls. It was like the Flamingo was on top of the Bellagio.
As I’m setting up my tripod to take the shot, some random guy walks up to me and says "you know the problem with that shot is that you’re going to get the reflection of the neon lights in the picture."
I lifted one eyebrow and said, "yeah."
"Oh, wow, cool, that’s like a double-exposure or something!"
Hans Greimel, an Associated Press reporter, recently wrote a great article initially titled "A Farewell to Film" recapping the last 10 years in the photographic industry.
The article gives a perfect description of disruptive technology and its impact on the existing market. A disruptive technology, if you’re not familiar with the term, is a technology that is radically different from existing technology. At the outset, a disruptive technology is often more expensive and less efficient than the incumbent technology, retains some traits that are superior to the existing technology, and does not appeal to the existing market.
Digital photography is a perfect example.
Biding my time at the airport. No one’s even here so I can check-in.
I neglected to explain what I was doing in Guanajuato’s tunnels back when I was dazed and confused. For background, Guanajuato was founded in a river valley, and sometimes during the summer monsoon season, there was so much runoff that the town itself would flood.
Actually, my sister has a great description of how this developer:
"The wealth [from the silver mines] resulted in lots of mansions and other growth in Guanajuato and
the river ended up carrying a lot of sewage. So the river was diverted into tunnels and the city continued to build on top. But then a
combination of a 100-year flood that submerged the town’s main plaza,
presumably in sewage, and other issues caused the city to decide to
divert the whole river away from town. This left the old tunnels empty
and dry. They were turned over to vehicle traffic and the central area
of town was reserved for pedestrians. The town has continued to build
more tunnels to keep traffic out of town as the town has continued to
grow. Once a year in June they still open the dam above town and flood
the tunnels – to clean out the tunnels or to empty the dam before the
rainy season, I don’t know."
Anyway, I spotted a postcard of the tunnels with one shot of a turn with a bunch of arches–very nice picture and pattern (photo hint: look at postcards when you arrive in a new place for ideas). I thought I found those arches the first time, but in the taxi back from Valenciana, I saw the real thing on Calle Hidalgo. Popped out, took some pics.
La Mina de Valenciana is closed. In it can’t be closed permanently, because there are too many touristy shops at its entrance (which is big enough to accommodate more than just a few tourist buses). But it wasn’t open today. Only Boca Mina de Valencia, a much smaller, older mine a quarter-mile away near the Iglesia de San Cayetano, was open. It was underwhelming. Actually, I think any mine would be underwhelming. It’s a narrow, steeply descending hole in the ground.
My guide spoke only Spanish, and that right fast. I caught maybe a quarter of what he was saying.
The church itself [below] was gaudy: what you’d expect from an altar made entirely of silver and gold.
The mines of Guanajuato–and of New Spain in general–are more impressive as an economic memorial. How many empires were destroyed by their own inability to adjust to the massive inflation caused by the flood of 
silver and gold from the New World? The Ottoman Empire took five centuries to fall, but its refusal to act soon enough to counter the arbitrage opportunity provided by fixed silver-gold exchange rates shattered its finances. Or of the empires built? Northwestern Europe was forced to adapt much more quickly to the new financial regime because they had fewer economic alternatives (Spain and Portugal had mining, Italy in the Ottoman Empire trade). Anyway, interesting to see a hole the ground that proved as economically, socially and politically disruptive as the Bubonic plague in the 1300s, and industrialization in the 1700s and 1800s.
I am exhausted. I should be out taking pictures of the mariachis or something. But without a nap, I’m just dead to the world.
Got in a little shopping today. I bought at a painted devil mask, and some pottery. Apparently, Guanajuato area is famous for its pottery, called Talavera. Trish bought six boxes of tile, and has been taking them back on the plane a box at a time each trip.
Earlier, I camped out at El Jardin de la Union, taking clandestine photos of the locals. Good shooting. I think I’ll camp out there tomorrow, too. I’m actually almost out of film. I have three rolls of black & white, which I’ll push for people shots if need be. And I have two of color. Actually, I should have three of color. I swapped roles (400 to 100) this afternoon, not realizing that my camera would attempt to rewind the rest of the way with the fresh roll, destroying a perfectly good roll of film. Annoying. But another reason to go digital.
Next to El Museo de las Momias was a small exhibit on the "Culto de
los Muertos." I didn’t quite get it. For example, there was a coffin
containing, according to the sign in Spanish, of a man whose name was not
recorded. The man who "we" know was German 
likely died of exposure to
radioactive materials. OK, should I know who this guy was? I get the
impression from the Spanish that everybody knows who this was, even
though it was an unmarked grave. Why the radiation hypothesis? And why did this person have
difficulty with sunlight? Was he supposed to be a vampire or something?
Another body definitely had shaved incisors…
What ever. I wasn’t impressed. But there was one item that caught my
eye: a chastity belt [photo right] with metal teeth along an opening that would have
ringed the labia. The reason it caught my eye was what the belt implied
about the "ultimate" sexual taboo.
El Museo de las Momias was a little bit disturbing. It wasn’t the desiccated cadavers that I found alarming. It was how obsessed I became with photographing the naturally mummified corpses of people so poor their families could not afford to bury them when they died over a century ago. Children, pregnant women, the old and infirm, all preserved right down to their pubic hair. My intention had just been to finish off the role of E100VS still in my camera. But when it was done. I stuck in a roll of black and white and pushed two stops in case the flash wasn’t sufficient.
Since the bodies were all behind glass, this brings up a useful photographic trick. When shooting through glass with a flash, you have to shoot at an angle to the glass to prevent the flash from reflecting into your shot. Yes, you may still get some reflected light, but it won’t dominate your picture.
The other trick is to use your polarizing filter. Yeah, I know, the polarizer effects of range of colors, mainly by deepening the blue of the sky. It’s really supposed to be used outdoors, so why should it make a difference? Well, it also reduces reflections and glare–you can use it to take pictures of fish underwater, for example. If one were ever to spot that, which I haven’t.
Now that my initial ire has cooled, I am reminded of this awfully terribly politically incorrect picture about internet flame wars on a fark.com thread sparked by an article about some entertainment figure insulting the organizers of the special olympics. Always a bit embarassing to become part of a flame war, even if I do think it was justified. Yeah, who cares if it’s justified, or if I’m right. I was still dumb enough to participate in the flame war.
Anyway, to follow-up on my post from below, after I clarified my position about what bothered me about Matt’s post, Matt replied with an ad hominem attack. But in that attack, he made an interesting comment: "It’s not like National Geographic contracted you to go to a scooter rally with your crappy $200 digital camera."
So two minor points:
First, I shoot with a Canon Eos Rebel I’ve owned for eight years now, and, except for the rare roll of black & white, I shoot chrome, (for the last six years, specifically Kodak E100 VS and E200 film). I use three lenses, an 19-35mm wide-angle, a 28-80mm medium-range lens, and a 70-300mm long lens. I’d say I use the 28-80 about 60% of the time, the long lens about 30% of the time, and the wide lens the remaining 10% (it’s rarely necessary, but when you need it, you need it). And, of course, I have a bunch of other crap, including a Manfrotto tripod, some filters, an extension tube, yada yada yada. Probably $3k worth of camera junk. Not a pro rig, barely even pro-sumer, but decent for what I needed when I first got started.
Second, the post implies my photography is of poor quality. I do take pride in my work. In fact, I take my work about as seriously as the owners of some of the scooters I photographed in Las Vegas take their bikes. I will be the first to admit that I’m not a pro, especially when friends suggest my stuff is professional quality. I can tell the difference in a heartbeat. Oh, I have sold some pictures, but I can count the number on one hand.
Now the major point:
But the really interesting implication is that equipment makes the photo. I think that’s a big fallacy. Equipment gives a photographer flexibility, provides a greater range of options. Take, for example, that wide-angle lens I rarely use: For architectural pictures, or for anything where I can’t move 
far enough back for my medium-length lens to capture the entire subject, it’s invaluable. But that’s not to say I need to capture the entire subject, like clock tower and crowded staircase in Santiago de Compostella (note the slight curve of the tower–that’s distortion from the wide lens). Sometimes, focusing in on just a few details–like this bas relief on the tower, or a man sitting in the crowd, looking up at the steeple— can make just as compelling a picture, if not more so, than the broader subject. The first picture I could never have taken without special equipment. The second and third I could have taken with my cell phone, though it would have been grainy.
But let’s get even more specific, and take a look at some pictures (first and second) I took back in 1997. They look pretty good, they capture a lot of emotion, a lot of pain and distress. Any idea what kind of equipment I used?
I took them with a point-and-shoot, press-here-dummy camera that couldn’t have cost more than $100, and I shot them using low-quality consumer film.
To go in another direction, a friend from business school decided to buy an expensive digital SLR before a trip we took together to Costa Rica. When he got back, he was completely disappointed in the quality of his pictures: they tended to be out-of-focus due to camera shake. His solution was to purchase even more expensive lenses with anti-shake technology. But my pictures, taken with my old, beat-up Canon gear, were all crystal clear, and I didn’t use a tripod or expensive, anti-shake lenses. Why? Just a matter of being familiar with my equipment, and knowing my own and my equipments’ limitations. When I didn’t have sufficient light getting through the rain forest canopy, I knew exactly what shutter speed I could barehand a shot at, and at what focal length. If it was too slow, I braced myself against a tree. Or switched to faster film. Or narrowed the depth of field. Or zoomed out. All sorts of tricks that you could pull off with a thirty-year-old SLR. (OK, I also used a $35 attachment to my $500 flash gun that focused the light, throwing it 100+ feet up into the canopy. But skill had something to do with it, too!).
Anyway, give me a crappy $200 digital camera and a rookie a $20K, top-of-the-line pro kit from Canon, and my pictures will be better than the rookie’s, 99 times out of 100. Give a pro a crappy $200 digital camera and me the top-end Canon kit, and maybe, just maybe, I’ll be able to hold my own.
The only picture from The Strip that caught my interest at all was of
the volcano in front of the Mirage. I camped out at this hotel for 35 to 40 minutes, initially waiting for the "eruption" to start,
and then to snap pictures during the fairly lengthy eruption.
I think I
took a full roll attempting to capture a waterfall picture with the
interesting red lighting of the volcano. It
actually proved to be
a pretty tough shot.
Two reasons:
