i see the moon and the moon sees me

oh the big hoopla about the moon being closer than it has been in like 20 years or so.  so, i guess that once before in my life i've seen it like this.  and, hopefully i will see it again a couple more times.  either way, i took photographs of it to remember it and show my children.  they saw it too, as they were in the car with katelyn when it was rising.  yes, that's right.  they spent the night with katelyn and she came to pick them up.  and, they left with her.  we both almost cried when they were waving bye to us.  oddly enough, we watched a dragontales video during dinner about spending the night with friends and it was "OK to leave sleep over with your friends".  i think they need a mommy and daddy version of that!  kendal and holly spend the night with mamaw and granddaddy all the time, but they don't come get them and take them away.  guess that was the difference!

anyway, the point of this is the moon!  i had such a great time taking pictures!  we found a curve by a field on top of a hill in franklin county.  way out in the middle of no where.  no light pollution or anything.  it was so dark that when i tried to get car trail pictures, i couldn't even tell if i actually had the road in the shot until after the car went by (you'll see...)

here are my results!  i had to crop in the picture about half because the best zoom lens i have only goes to 200mm.  i played with the F stop and aperture and got interesting results.  i also converted a couple to black and white in photoshop.







here is where i slowed down the shutter speed and let in more light.  you can't see the detail in the moon but it did make for some neat shots.  it was a little cloudy as you can see.



this one isn't cropped - this is how it was shot in my camera.



i mentioned it was dark?  i couldn't even tell that i didn't have the lens pointed in the right direction to get this car driving by...



i did a little better this time, same curve but this time the car was coming towards me rather than away from me (red = taillights, white = head lights).

in-house studio

an in-house studio is something i don't have.  i wanted to take some pictures of kendal and holly so i could make their valentines for their friends at school.  i really don't have any new pictures of them that would work.  outside pictures are too busy because of the background.  so i decided to tape a sheet to the fireplace and see what they'd do for me.  unfortunately, the only plain sheet i have is blue (light blue) so you can guess how that looked.  i wish i had dressed them better but this was really for trial only.  i now know that i need to buy a neutral color sheet and buy kendal a solid color shirt.  and put holly in one that isn't so tight on her belly button.  that poor girl just can't wear jeans.

anyway, the first one here is the old one i altered to be cutesy - but i didn't like it because of the striped shirt.  which is why all this started that i needed to reshoot them.  i used the free doodles from MCP.

and now, here are our results.  it looks like they were singing in the first one but i'm pretty sure they were just yelling.

this one is absolutely precious.  what a sweet kiss!  you know it took several of tries before i could catch one, which they didn't mind repeating it over and over - by the end they were sloppy about it!  and by sloppy, i mean sloppy WET kisses that even their own mama wouldn't even want to participate in!

and after they got tired of ME shooting them, they decided they wanted to take pictures of each other and us.  kendal and holly are remarkably good at using my camera (supervised, of coarse).  they love doing it - mashing the silver button - and seeing what they get (on the screen on the back).  i'm always amazed at how interesting their shots turn out.  so these are those.  not bad for a 2 and 3 year old!  (and realize that i hate to put MY picture on here, but it isn't a bad shot even though my hair is wet.  i just love kendal's expression.  that's why i'm posting it.)

 i thought this one was funny because of the two totally different looks he had on his face.  they were taken seconds apart from trigger-happy holly.

he kept wanting us to take his picture lying down.

and after a while he ended up UNDER the sheet!  

(go ahead and say it.  theirs turned out better than mine!  more interesting, that's for sure.)

here is holly telling me to put the camera back on the tripod.  i had it lowered all the way so it was their height.  i wish i had a second camera to take a picture of them taking a picture.  it was adorable!

manual mode

i'm taking a photography class in zebulon taught by one of the local photography "celebrities", leslie privette.  she's a super nice and down to earth woman - about my age, and has 4 kids about the same ages as melissa's kids.  i met her at faith's 2nd(?) birthday party years ago when melissa lived here - one of her children was there.  anyway, that was before i knew her as a photographer. 

i've never had anything done by her nor have i had any close personal friends have anything done by her (that i know of) - but, i don't exactly live in zebulon.  she is a super instructor and has definately caused me to put myself outside my comfort zone.

last week, our homework was to learn about (through practice) aperture and shutterspeed (and ISO).  i already know how to use these functions, but, turns out that i needed the practice.  especially after my horrible photos today.  last week, the kids gave me two toys (uncle rob and thomas) and i set up a sheet outside and photographed them out of the direct sunlight (but still bright light).  if i can find the picture, i'll update this blog and post it.

this week, we learned about white balance, metering, and using the effectiveness of a flash to fill in shadows.  we had to use two different models, both wearing hats for part of the time.  no way could my kids have been my model, so mom and dad did it for me.  i got some AWESOME shots of them both. (though neither of them actually gave me permission to post a picture, i'm gonna guess that mom will say "NO" and dad will say "I DON'T CARE" - so mom if you have a different answer, let me know so i can update.)

so, yesterday we were playing with the kids in the yard and i decided to practice yet again with my camera in the manual mode.  problem #1. kids don't stand still.  when they move from left to right, the light changes so i need to meter again.  i ended up just picking an aperture and just adjusting the shutter speed depending on where they were in relation to me and the setting sun.  my shutter speed is adjustable with my thumb.  so, i could do it fairly quickly while following them.
problem#2.  i still ended up with over/under exposed pictures.  and if they weren't over or under exposed, they were blurry - motion blurry, not out-of-focus blurry.  so, that meant my shutterspeed was too slow.  HOWEVER, my aperture was as open as it could get (letting in as much light as possible), as to allow for the fastest shutter speed as possible.  or so i thought.

after about 70 blurry pictures (well, a few of them were clear, but then i had to deal with bugger nose or weird faces or back of heads or a random arm or something like that...), i decided to put it into one of the program mode. 

i'm not so happy (but sorta happy) to say that i still didn't get that many clear shots.  i guess the bottom line(s) are these:
#1 my kids move fast.
#2 i need a lens with a wider aperature (a smaller f-stop number). 
or,
#3 i am just limited to bright light conditions for photo taking.  i guess i could get a auxilary flash.  those cost more than lenses.
but none the less,
#4 my kids hate my camera (or me, i hope it is the camera though).  they will not look at me, not acknowledge me, run from me, ignore me, not participate in anything i suggest, avoid me, etc.  even the flip down see-what-i-just-took viewer doesn't even lure them in anymore.

so here are a few of the decent ones from yesterday.

Analee's Wish List

yesterday, nathaniel said "i have to get you something for mother's day" at which point i said "a new lens?" and then he said something along the lines of he wouldn't know where to start or what he was looking at/for, etc.  in case you were wondering, my power of suggestion (for gifts) typically doesn't work for him.  for example, i asked for a side-by-side double stroller for about 3 holidays before we actually got one.  and yes, nathaniel, i know you're reading this and i'm not trying to "suggest" now.  it is a list for me too, so i can keep up with what i want!

so, without further ado, a post about what i want for my camera.  not that i'll ever get any of it.  camera accessories are expensive and, well, i don't have a job.  so, the more pictures of YOU i can take, then the more money i can SAVE and thus BUY things like these.  these lenses (and accessories) will improve my photo quality.

this list is not in order.

1.  http://www.bokehmasterskit.com/

2.  i really want this fisheye lens - but i suppose in the spirit of saving money, these filters will be ok (though they are hardly a replacement).

3. 85mm lens like this one with an f/1.8.  i would prefer one with 1.4, but we're talking like almost TRIPLE the price for that tiny bit of [aperture] ratio. so, um, i guess if someone would say "hey, spend $1400 for me", i'd take this one.

4. yea, so this one is for when i make it "big."  i suppose i can always dream.  i know i have lenses that already cover this "zoom" range, but what makes this one different, again, is the f/2.8.  my lenses are f/3.5-5.6 which means i need more light.

5. a flash

6.  a high-performance card

7. a remote for the shutter...
8. a nice tripod.
9. a 35mm prime lens


oh, a girl can dream, right?  oh wait.  next i'll be wanting an updated camera.  don't worry.  my "next" camera will be compatible with all these things!  :)  i'll definitely upgrade with another nikon! 

touch and feel camera thoughts

i went to wolf camera yesterday - the ORIGINAL one in cameron village - and checked out their cameras.  i immediately ruled out all the canons for one reason or another, but the nikon stood out to me, as it did online also.  i played with the D3000, D5000, and D90 - and then the 18-55, 55-200, 35, and 18-200 mm lenses. 

Nikon D3000

 

the d3000 was ruled out quickly because it is 10.1 megapixel.

Nikon D5000

i first played with the 5000 (12.3 megapixels).  it was nice, was very light and smooth, however it seemed like i had a foreign object in my hand (i need a class or something - a book & a lot of practice - it had a lot of buttons).  it is nothing like my old (film) SLR.  i tried out the 18-55 and 55-200 lens which come with the package i was looking at getting.  both lenses were pretty short and light, which i was happy with - i was worried after looking on line that the 55-200 one would be longer thus heavy. heavy lens = heavy camera = tired hands.  they were nice, got a lot of zoom on the 55-200 lens (i aimed out the door across the parking lot).  next i tried the D5000 with the 35mm lens which is a fixed focal length lens.  that was sort of weird since i'm used to being able to zoom (fixed focal lengh is like the point-and-shoot disposable type cameras - no zoom).  it was really clear, though, and the employee told me about how it let in more light so the pictures would be more vibrant and clear.  that one is definitely on my "get soon" list - but maybe the 55mm?  the only downside to the d5000 is that the camera itself doesn't have an autofocus built in.  so, you have to buy lenses that have the motor in the lens.  not a problem if i want to buy nikon lenses... most of them have it.  also want to definitely make sure to get the VR in the 55-200 (or any longer zoom) lens if i'm not going to have a tripod.  as much as i shake, the vibration reduction option for an extra $50 will certainly be worth it.

Nikon D90

so next i tried the d90 just to compare-  it costs a couple hundred dollars more but my thought was that if it is WORTH IT then i'll wait.  it was HEAVY and LARGE and did not fit well in my hands. though, i did get to look through the 18-200 lens which was AWESOME.  combining the two other lenses was great - but, it was expensive.  $850.  (the other two lenses were $100 - $200 each.)   so, wondering if the heft of the camera was because of the lens (the 18-200 lens was a little larger, but still not "BIG" by any means), i removed the lens (on both cameras).  there was clearly a difference in weight.  that sealed the deal for me on which camera i wanted to get. 

d5000, i have an envelope with your name on it.  i'm selling cards, retired stamps, and tutus and as soon as it is fat enough for ya, you're going to join my family.  you and the generic two lenses.  THEN i'll get the 35 or 55 prime.  THEN maybe i'll save again for that 18-200 lens.  it rocked! OR, a fisheye lens.  that'll be sweet to have.  oh, DSLR camera, i have plans for you - what fun we'll have.