this page intentionally left blank

I'm in a funk. I find myself avoiding things... nothing in particular, just things that I know will hurt me to deal with now. I know that it isn't healthy. I know that I need to keep trudging through this, but I just can't. I need a break from the intensity of the pain. I think that is why I booked up the weekend with all sorts of things to keep my mind busy. I just need a rest. I am exhausted all the time. I don't sleep well. I don't wake well. I am not well in general. I've never worn facial hair other than the occasional goatee brought on by a lazy weekend... or perhaps the "soul patch" that has a special place in my heart. I really dislike having a beard. It is high maintenance and uncomfortable. I don't like the way it looks... specifically on me. I want to shave it all off, but can't. I haven't been clean shaven since the week EL died and every time I look in the mirror, the face of the shell of a man before me is a reminder... so I don't forget to be respectful of her memory... to cherish it. It's a quirk I need to get through, but it stays for now. I just thought I'd clarify why I look wooly and ridiculous. So anyhoo, some years ago, I ran across a still life photograph on Photo.net depicting a table scene of red wine lit by candlelight and captured on infrared film. The thing that stood out in my memory of this shot was that the red wine rendered transparent in the infrared spectrum. I thought it would be a cool experiment to DIY Mythbusters that shot, so I went looking for a glass of red wine. As it turns out, the only red wine I have in the house are a couple bottles of Cabernet and Merlot that Erin bought shortly before her accident. I can't bring myself to open them, so I modified the experiment and substituted Guinness. Shooting with film sensitive to the infrared spectrum is quite different than shooting IR using a digital capture medium without special modifications. The main reason is because CCD and CMOS sensors are generally as sensitive to the infrared spectrum as they are to visible light, so in order to prevent IR exposure adding to the light gathered in what most people want to be a capture of the humanly registered spectrum, manufacturers add IR blocking glass or coatings to the sensor plate that attenuates the infrared wavelengths before they hit the sensor plane. The result of this attenuation is the requirement for much longer (ie. not hand-holdable) exposures when shooting infrared. You must use a filter that blocks visible wavelength and allows the higher frequency IR light to pass. The more popular filters allow "near infrared" as well because they are less expensive than the true IR filters (those that approach a 900 nanometer cutoff). One way around this is to have the attenuation glass replaced with regular glass inside the camera by a specialty chop-shop. This down sides are: it's expensive, it forever ruins your camera for anything but infrared photography, and not all cameras are capable of being modified (some manufactures sandwich the IR blocker on with glue or simply integrate it into the sensor build). In my case, I live with the long exposure for now as my interest in IR photography overall is sporadic at best. So I pour my pint of G-sauce and head for the yard. This is an experiment to see if Guinness is not as chocolaty black in infrared light, so think of these as documentary photos... not artistically composed and interestingly lit, etc. The verdict: Guinness is just as dark under the scrutiny of higher wavelength light! We can all sleep safely tonight.

100mm, f/2.8, ASA100, 26sec

100mm, f/16, ASA100, 221sec

I turned my back for an instant and those squirrels swooped in for the pirate's booty!! Where is Sir Henry the Peanut squirrel police when you need him!?

Noooooooooo!

I barely finished the little photo test before the sky opened up again. I suppose it is fitting that it constantly rain outside when it rains in my heart. Another interesting tidbit about IR photography is how lens manufacturing process can vary the result you get shooting infrared. Some lens elements are coated or infused with chemicals that alter the way light passes through the lens. Certain lenses have more of an effect on infrared passing through the elements than others. This aberration is usually identified by a center "hot spot" in IR imagery. A large percentage of the lenses I own are known to exhibit this issue and that fact largely contributes to my limited tinkering with IR in my landscape photography when I travel. This list is for Canon mount lenses only and not compiled by me personally, so I apologize in advance if inaccurate. The lenses listed under "Good" are alleged to not have the problem with hotspots in exposure due to lens element coating. The "Bad" list are those shown to exhibit the unflattering exposure gradient due to element coating. Good Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L Canon EF 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKI Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Canon EF 135mm f/2 L Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro MTO 500mm f/8 Sigma 400mm f/5.6 Tamron 28-300mm XR Bad Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 Canon EF 35mm f/2 Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 Tamron 17-35mm Tamron 19-35mm Tamron 70-300mm Macro Tokina 12-24mm