Ploafmaster General

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4K3aM5H5KM&hl=en&fs=1&w=580&h=353]

Guy Ritchie + Robert Downey Jr. + Jude Law = HOLYCRAPIWANTTOSEETHISONOPENINGDAY.
(via trey)

Holy hand grenade, what glorious news: Monday Night Football is ditching the lamentably awful Tony Kornheiser in favor of former Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach Jon Gruden.

I think even Dennis Miller would have been a welcome substitute, but this will certainly do much better.

http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=71649

While digging through some old and neglected regions of my home office this evening I came upon some pictures from a few years ago. I decided to scan a bunch of them, and I think some of them turned out alright (or I was able to salvage them a bit).

I guess I missed this earlier in the month, but I'm glad to have the news none-the-less. AMC's Mad Men is currently in production on the third season which is expected to start up in August.

EDIT: Geez, I really need to proof-read. I've fixed the spelling in the post title. Now I get to see all the "Page Not Found" hits in my stats...

I've never been deeply in to the Trekkie world, but I just got back from a late showing of J.J. Abrams' version of Star Trek, and holy Ron Gettelfinger, was it awesome. Here are some stand-outs:

1. They freaking used Futura for the in-movie titles!
2. I've seen a lot floating around lately about the heavy doses of lens flare in this movie. My opinion on the matter is that, whatever the purpose, the flares help establish a rather unique-feeling visual style. I say unique-feeling because I've not really researched whether it's been done before. Either way, I feel that it helped the aesthetics.
3. The film score was considerably better than I expected. They smacked you in the face with it early on and it stood out as an aural guide at just the right moments. While I really dug hearing "Sabotage" in the first act, I was happier to have strong symphonic music carry throughout most of the story.
4. Okay, Heroes really just needs to die now, because Zachary Quinto is more Spock than he'll ever be Sylar.
5. Simon Pegg, I love you.
6. I feel like they hit a number of marks on the Geek Check List with the Vulcan Death Grip, Mind Meld, and countless quips from the original series.

I would see this in the theater again with any of my friends that haven't yet checked it out. Definitely a good start to my spring/summer movie season, and a great new direction to the Star Trek franchise, I hope.

4/5

Boy oh boy does this look like a cool and sweet movie:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmVQLmaA0fQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1&w=580&h=470]
(via a cup of jo)

Yeah, she's my baby styles :-)

McSweeney's, that wellspring of wit, has a new take on Yo Mama humor from Lucas Klauss. Exempli gratia:

Yo mama is so attractive she could be on the cover of Prevention.

I grabbed a new-old toy at an estate sale on Saturday, and it seems to work for the most part:

http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=71649

This camera, the Foldex 20, is a little quirky partly by design and partly by this particular example's wear and tear. The only real damage that affects the performance seems to be a bend in the lens platform that creates a mild tilt affect (the plane of focus is not parallel to the film plane) and some strange cropping where the bellows interfere with the image.

The rest of the weirdness comes from the cheap consumer nature of this machine. The focus is non-adjustable, the aperture is fixed at what I calculated to be between f/12 and f/13, the focal length is fixed at 86 mm, and the shutter speed is either 1/50 seconds, or "time" mode where you can hold it open as long as you like. The lens design also creates its own issues; it's a simple meniscus design behind the shutter with only a thin piece of glass in front. The resulting images have fairly low sharpness and contrast (though I boosted the contrast of the outdoor shots above) which, perhaps, adds to the vintage feel.

Over all it's a pretty cool camera, and I plan to shoot a roll of portraits next.

Look, I'm pretty pumped about the new Star Trek movie, but I think it's time something was settled once and for all:

http://current.com/e/90029658/en_US

I know I've covered this ground before, but the New York Times' series of audio/photo essays about various NYC citizens, One In 8 Million, is infinitely fascinating whether the subject is mundane or extraordinary.

Today's entry is about a wine taster, blinded by diabetes in the mid-90's, who continues her wine-selection work despite her loss of sight.

When you really want something and it doesn't materialize, disappointment comes easily. I experienced that, not for the first time, this morning. To be honest, I'm a little more bummed about it than I thought I'd be, and I'm trying to rest in the knowledge that what happens isn't a surprise to God, but mostly I'm just feeling gloomy to the point where I'm distracted at work.

I think all of that will wear off by the end of the day, because the alternatives to what I really wanted are both very good things, each with their own distinct advantages. I could just use a little Novocaine for the ego right now, preferably in the form of no more rain, time for photography, and a visit to Penny Lane pub with friends. Maybe at least some of that will be in the cards this weekend :-)

You'd think it would be difficult to make a story intriguing when the outcome is a certainty. You'd think that way until you watched All the President's Men. The visuals were decent (though not groundbreaking), but the pacing, acting, and writing easily kept me riveted through nearly 2.5 hours.

4/5

This weekend was a quiet one for me on the internet because I was camping at the White Rocks campground near Pembroke, VA.

Per'aps you'd care to see some snaps:

http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=71649

This does NOT look promising:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXklTRsLui4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1&w=580&h=470]

Why is it that a movie partially concerning one of the most important figures in America's food landscape is coming from the same abysmal writer who struck out with a trifecta of crap in her last three movies (Bewitched, Hanging Up, and You've Got Mail)?
(via kottke)

Just don't call it a retreat :-)

This past weekend I had the pleasure of joining fifteen other gentlemen out in King and Queen county for what I believe was the first Men's Weekend for City Church of Richmond. We all chilled out on the grounds of an 18th century home while enjoying the likes of a bonfire, impromptu music, and the fresh air so alien to us city-dwellers. I played the part of a Pork Roll salesman, an ATV was stuck hub-deep in some mud, and, of course, there was some mighty fellowship time.

Oh yeah, and I took some pictures:

http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=71649

Talk about a letdown:

After surviving several storms during its 10-month voyage, the junk broke in two and sank after it was rammed by a freighter just off Taiwan's coast.

I disagree, though, with the captain's proclamation of failure. I consider Taiwan easily close enough to maintain the plausibility of the historical claim, and it's not as if the ship sank because of its design. I doubt many contemporary vessels would survive that kind of collision.

You can find more information about the ship's construction and history on the project's website. The English is a little spotty but clear enough, and the details are fascinating.

Valerie and I went on a little date night last night and, at her request, watched earth at the movie theater. This G-rated US release of the 2007 BBC documentary was geared toward children, but I'd wager 75% of those in attendance were adults.

I fell asleep about two-thirds in.

It's not that I hate nature or children's films, but if you're familiar with the brilliant Planet Earth series, you'll experience deja vu. That's because much of the footage in the feature is re-cut from the television program. It's gorgeous footage, of course, but I've seen most of it before. My guess is that that show is probably a bit too gritty for little kids, so a sanitized, 90-minute version was produced for the big screen. Wrap it all up in some soothing narration from James Earl Jones (or Patrick Stewart in the UK) and you're all set...if you're a child. For me, well, I'm only glad I wasn't snoring when I dozed off in the theater.

2/5

Oh yeah, side note - I wonder whether James Earl Jones could've gotten away with narrating a kid's movie after the Star Wars movies. I could just picture some little tykes freaking out in their seats as soon as Darth Vader starts talking about cute, fuzzy animals.

I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.

Ansel Adams in his 1981 introduction to The Negative

I started reading The Negative recently and this excerpt has really stuck with me. I'd like to think that were Adams alive today he'd be happy to play with the latest methods of photography that technology has to offer. I'm encouraged that somebody so influential to the art and craft of photography seemed unafraid of the ever-changing face of his medium.

Feast your ears on this tasty new Deepspace5 track, and your eyes on this cool video:

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=2921479&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=ffffff&fullscreen=1
"Raps" from the Stuff on Vimeo.

(via Patrick, who really oughtta put this on tasty hip hip treats)

Tonight Valerie and I went to Good Shepherd Baptist Church in Church Hill to attend the Nehemiah Action for an interdenominational/interfaith group called Richmonders Involved to Strengthen our Communities, or RISC. It's called a Nehemiah Action based on the story of Jerusalem's rebuilding in the book of Nehemiah from the Old Testament of the Bible, and the focus is on bringing issues of social justice before those in the city of Richmond with the power to change policies. Last year they voted on issues to pursue and study, and tonight a committee ranging from a priest to a rabbi presented findings and requests related to three topics: drugs/crime, education, and healthcare.

The first section addressed the affects of drug addicts in the city jail and included a plan to use treatment programs to help reduce recidivism. Mayor Jones was present to face questions of commitment and gave reassuring responses. RISC's next step involves lobbying the city council to fund a pilot program that's expected to help up to 120 inmates per year.

The discussion of education was eye-opening. The focus was on reducing the rates of drop-outs and out-of-school suspensions, and some of the findings were a little shocking - particularly that a serious chunk of out-of-school suspensions were for being out of school in the first place (truancy, etc.). There was a recommendation to adopt a city-wide disciplinary program, but I got the impression this was a more recently adopted issue with earlier-stage research.

The final issue was health care, and specifically the provision of primary care for the poor and uninsured. The organization has been working with VCU's health system to improve primary care for those in need by more efficiently disseminating information about care centers and and hours for the Virginia Coordinated Care program. The requests included conducting setting real benchmarks to measure improvement in the program and follow-up meetings with RISC.

I'm a sucker for numbers so I kinda want to see the actual research they collected in their studies, but I'd say it was a pretty good night over all. It's good to see congregations joining together to help the city this way, and I intend to follow the suggestions presented tonight. I'll be praying for them as well.

The New York Times' David Carr has a pretty damning editorial concerning the three major cable news networks and their handling of the tax day tea parties. It's a little cranky, and I'm certain the NYT isn't without its own over-hyped stories, but it's reassuring to see major media outlet holding the three-ring circus of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News up to the light.

This weekend I finally got around to seeing 2008's Best Picture winner, Slumdog Millionaire. This was Valerie's Netflix selection, and while I wasn't against watching it, I wasn't exactly giddy with anticipation either. I think I was wary of the movie's near-universal plaudits, but I was none-the-less willing to give it a chance.

My conclusion? I thought it was entertaining but far undeserving of the Academy's accolades. Many of the shots were effective at eliciting feelings of wonder, revulsion, or sympathy. I also found the main story-telling device - revealing character background and life history through each game show question - to be both clever and engaging. But all of ultimately served to deliver a predictable and far-fetched love story. I think the unbelievable nature of Slumdog amplifies the warm fuzzies I find inherent in rags-to-riches stories, but it doesn't make for good cinema.

3/5

This is one of the biggest myths with the law of taking photographs,” explains Bert Krages, a Portland, OR-based copyright attorney who has written books on photographers' rights and techniques. “There is no general prohibition against photographing federal buildings. There are statutes that prohibit photographing areas of military and nuclear facilities. But there are no laws against photographing other federal facilities, other than the right of all property owners to restrict activities that take place on their property. A federal office building manager cannot restrict photography when the photographer is situated outside the federal property boundary.

from "The War on Photographers" found on PopPhoto.com (published July 19th, 2006)

On Sunday evening Jake and I went downtown to take some night photographs (as evidenced by my previous post) and had a little run-in with a Federal Reserve police officer. We were standing on a public sidewalk at the river-bank side of the footbridge to Brown's Island, and I set down my tripod with my camera pointing up 7th street. Within a minute or so, a Federal Reserve police car came out of the gate, circled the fountain, and stopped with his lights on.

He stepped out of the car and asked us (politely) what we were doing. We indicated, essentially, that we were amateur photographers just taking pictures. My reminder that we were on public property was met by a stone wall, and we were told that we couldn't take pictures that included the building. You know, the building that's visible around the entire city of Richmond. Jake offered to show the officer what he'd already photographed, and I did the same. When Jake asked for a reason why we couldn't take pictures, the officer (still polite) said, simply, "Ben Bernanke." Wow.

I tried to calm Jake and myself down after leaving the scene because I thought there might be some justification in what the officer said. After all, the Richmond branch of the Fed is pretty important, and you never know whether the chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States might be on site. But this has been nagging at me since that night.

Now I feel feeble and ashamed at giving in so easily. Jake and I were basically intimidated into taking our cameras elsewhere. Our Constitutional rights were violated by an overeager security staff that didn't understand the law. Part of me wants to go back there and take pictures directly of the building from the public sidewalk, just to make a point. Maybe I can even get pictures of the officer who comes out to politely harass and terrorize me.

And the other part of me doesn't want to cause Valerie the trouble and risk losing/damaging our new camera. But the truth is that I'm sitting here in my cubicle wanting nothing more than to go to some place where I can scream in anger at the top of my lungs.

UPDATE:
It seems a Flickr user recently wrote to the Fed and received a vindicating response.