I just took yet another personality test, but this one had far more interesting questions, and I couldn't predict their intentions. For the first time ever, I tested as an INFJ--and reasonably strong on all of the letters. The J shocked me so much that I went and read a few of the INFJ descriptions that I could find, and then I compared them to the INFP description (which I've thought I am since middle school), and I'm beginning to wonder if this test has categorized me better than I've ever categorized myself.
I'm always trying to figure out who I am and why I am the way that I am (in general), and this easily fits into both types. I've always found myself different--even from other INFPs. Ultimately, no one I've ever met remotely interacts with the world the way that I do. Do you know anyone that went to state-level math competitions *and* performed in your high school musicals? Is this person a talented musician *and* a kick-ass computer programmer?
I've always been laid-back and messy, but I've never been disorganized, per se. I hate lists, but I know the personality types of everyone I know. I haven't done dishes at my own house in a year, but I hand-washed most of the dishes at my friend's house last week--because I felt like it.
Ultimately, I'm organized and decisive about things that matter to me (like concepts and people), but I'm excessively disorganized and indecisive about things that don't matter to me... like chores and getting out of bed.
I've been very surprised to find on OkCupid that the vast majority of my matches are INTJs. There are a small number of INFPs and even fewer INFJs. Note that I noticed... and remembered. Until now, it has surprised me that my best friend is an INTJ. I communicate much better with the INFPs that I know, but ultimately, my values are more aligned with my INTJ friends (her boyfriend is an INTJ too). Likewise, my organization of people tends to offend my INFP friends (a little); It's interpreted as cold-hearted or closed-minded. Okay, I'll admit: Not only do I keep up with the personality types of everyone I know, but I have a fair idea of their IQs too. Really.
Along the value lines: I know four INFPs, and three of them still live with their parent(s). Out of four INFPs, one got a college degree by 22. Two of the remaining are working on their degrees in their mid twenties and the fourth got her degree in her early thirties. None of them are atheists. Other than me, all of the NFs that I know are either Christians or believe in some sort of ephemeral spirit realm (e.g. The Secret). All of the NTs that I know are atheists (note: not all of the NFs are girls and not all of the NTs are guys).
Why am I different? I'm still working on that.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Home
I was thinking last night about a test I took a while ago.
What Word Are You?
I'm: Home.
Originally, I didn't think anything of it. I still don't think much of the test, as it's pretty clearly an advertisement for a book.
Despite this, I was thinking about the word "home." There's the cliché, "Home is where the heart is," and it's incredibly true. We've heard it so much, though, that we may only see this for its obvious interpretation. I grew up in Asheville, NC, so Asheville will always be home to me.
That isn't why I'm writing this blog entry.
I've been asked many times how I knew I was in love. Every time, I've failed to give a good answer, but the answer came to me the other night: "Home." When you're in love, Home isn't where you grew up. Home isn't where you spent most of your life. Home isn't a city, state, or your native country. Home isn't where you pay rent or where you sleep at night.
Home is a person. Wherever I am, if I'm with her, I'm home.
I've been homeless for more than a year.
What Word Are You?
I'm: Home.
Originally, I didn't think anything of it. I still don't think much of the test, as it's pretty clearly an advertisement for a book.
Despite this, I was thinking about the word "home." There's the cliché, "Home is where the heart is," and it's incredibly true. We've heard it so much, though, that we may only see this for its obvious interpretation. I grew up in Asheville, NC, so Asheville will always be home to me.
That isn't why I'm writing this blog entry.
I've been asked many times how I knew I was in love. Every time, I've failed to give a good answer, but the answer came to me the other night: "Home." When you're in love, Home isn't where you grew up. Home isn't where you spent most of your life. Home isn't a city, state, or your native country. Home isn't where you pay rent or where you sleep at night.
Home is a person. Wherever I am, if I'm with her, I'm home.
I've been homeless for more than a year.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Perfection
I am not perfect.
I am intelligent.
I am educated.
I am knowledgeable.
But I am not perfect.
I am strong.
I am emotional.
I am insightful.
I am intuitive.
But I am not perfect.
I am creative.
I am musical.
I am artistic.
I am fluid.
But I am not perfect.
I am well spoken.
I have good grammar.
I have good spelling.
I have good diction.
But I am not perfect.
You think you write better than me.
You think I can't draw.
My music is too loud for you.
I am not the same as you.
And I shouldn't need your approval.
You are not perfect.
I am intelligent.
I am educated.
I am knowledgeable.
But I am not perfect.
I am strong.
I am emotional.
I am insightful.
I am intuitive.
But I am not perfect.
I am creative.
I am musical.
I am artistic.
I am fluid.
But I am not perfect.
I am well spoken.
I have good grammar.
I have good spelling.
I have good diction.
But I am not perfect.
You think you write better than me.
You think I can't draw.
My music is too loud for you.
I am not the same as you.
And I shouldn't need your approval.
You are not perfect.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Mere Christianity
Recently, Richard Dawkins published a book called, "The God Delusion." This manifesto discussing Dawkins' atheist viewpoint made a lot of press, both good and bad. NPR's Fresh Air had him as a guest on March 28, 2007. The next day, Fresh Air had Francis Collins, a Christian scientist, on the show to discuss his belief that faith in Christianity was compatible with his scientific viewpoint.
Twenty five minutes (25:00, actually) into the podcast version of this show is where Collins begins his discussion of his initial atheism and his transformation to a Christian. At 27:38, he mentions a book written by an Oxford Scholar who was an atheist who wanted to back up his atheism, and the results had an unexpected outcome--"Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis.
This notion perplexed me. How could a reasonable atheist be converted to Christianity, especially one smart enough to be a part of the sequencing of the human genome? As a result, I picked up my copy of the book and began to read it (a Christian friend of mine gave it to me many years ago). The results might surprise you.
The foundation of Lewis' argument is morality. Lewis discusses the detail that humans tend to have a common view of what is moral and what is immoral. He states this as a fact. Lewis misses the detail that this isn't a fact and that different people and cultures do actually have different definitions of morality: e.g. abortion, capital punishment, slavery, women's rights, genocide, rape, consumption of animal flesh, etc... For each of these examples, there are (or have been) people that fall on either side of the discussion of the morality of the topic. In Christianity, Lot was considered a righteous man, though he gave his own daughters up to be gang-raped. Slavery is condoned in the new and old testaments of the bible. God *supposedly* performed a genocide of his own when he spared Noah and his family, while wiping out all the rest of humanity. Clearly, morality isn't the black-and-white issue that Lewis and Christians tend to believe it is.
For the sake of argument, though, let's disregard this difficulty in Lewis' "proof" and continue. The foundation of his argument depends on one additional claim. Given that we humans have a common notion of the moral ideal, the moral ideal must actually exist... it must have a source or an example. Unfortunately, this logical claim breaks down very, very quickly. Lewis claims that we can't call a line crooked without having a notion of what a straight line is; we would notice being wet, but a fish would not; if the universe had no light, then there would be no creatures with eyes, and we would not be able to comprehend the difference between light and dark. Each of these examples is flawed.
First of all, a blind person is capable of comprehending the difference between light and dark, specifically that one is the presence of photons within a specific frequency range and the other is the absence of them. Likewise, a deaf person is capable of understanding that sound is merely vibration of air molecules. While we have never experienced it, we are capable of comprehending that space is silent--with no matter to vibrate, there can be no sound. We are perfectly capable of imagining that a substance exists and that something travels through that substance. Take as an example ether. At the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists were looking for evidence of the "ether." As it turns out, it was rather, um, ethereal. Scientists imagined that light traveled through this "ether" and assumed that they could figure out how fast the Earth was traveling through the "ether" by measuring the speed of light in various directions. As it turns out, they were wrong. Just like imagining darkness in a universe with no light, we imagined the "ether" in a relativistic universe.
Next, implying a fish does not feel wet because it is a water creature implies that a human would not feel dry because he is not a water creature. Likewise, it implies that we are not capable of appreciating air because we have never experienced a vacuum. This is an inappropriate example, so I'm having a very difficult time coming up with an appropriate counterexample.
Most importantly, the biggest flaw in Lewis' argument is the notion of a straight line. This brings us to mathematics and geometry. I prefer the example of a circle. A circle is the collection of points on a plane that are a specific distance from another arbitrary point on the plane. We are capable of comprehending each of these logical ideas, but sadly, none of them exist. A point is a man-made concept, an infinitesimally small dot. An atom is infinitely larger than a point. No one has ever seen a point, and no one ever will. The same is true of a plane. The same is true of a circle. No one has ever seen a circle, and no one ever will. It's a concept. The fact that we are capable of imagining the concept does not prove the concept exists.
Furthermore, it's important to point out that the concept of a circle is a human construct, and its lack of real-world existence is not a hindrance to the furthering of mathematics or physics--not unlike how the lack of god's existence hasn't affected religious apologists.
Twenty five minutes (25:00, actually) into the podcast version of this show is where Collins begins his discussion of his initial atheism and his transformation to a Christian. At 27:38, he mentions a book written by an Oxford Scholar who was an atheist who wanted to back up his atheism, and the results had an unexpected outcome--"Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis.
This notion perplexed me. How could a reasonable atheist be converted to Christianity, especially one smart enough to be a part of the sequencing of the human genome? As a result, I picked up my copy of the book and began to read it (a Christian friend of mine gave it to me many years ago). The results might surprise you.
The foundation of Lewis' argument is morality. Lewis discusses the detail that humans tend to have a common view of what is moral and what is immoral. He states this as a fact. Lewis misses the detail that this isn't a fact and that different people and cultures do actually have different definitions of morality: e.g. abortion, capital punishment, slavery, women's rights, genocide, rape, consumption of animal flesh, etc... For each of these examples, there are (or have been) people that fall on either side of the discussion of the morality of the topic. In Christianity, Lot was considered a righteous man, though he gave his own daughters up to be gang-raped. Slavery is condoned in the new and old testaments of the bible. God *supposedly* performed a genocide of his own when he spared Noah and his family, while wiping out all the rest of humanity. Clearly, morality isn't the black-and-white issue that Lewis and Christians tend to believe it is.
For the sake of argument, though, let's disregard this difficulty in Lewis' "proof" and continue. The foundation of his argument depends on one additional claim. Given that we humans have a common notion of the moral ideal, the moral ideal must actually exist... it must have a source or an example. Unfortunately, this logical claim breaks down very, very quickly. Lewis claims that we can't call a line crooked without having a notion of what a straight line is; we would notice being wet, but a fish would not; if the universe had no light, then there would be no creatures with eyes, and we would not be able to comprehend the difference between light and dark. Each of these examples is flawed.
First of all, a blind person is capable of comprehending the difference between light and dark, specifically that one is the presence of photons within a specific frequency range and the other is the absence of them. Likewise, a deaf person is capable of understanding that sound is merely vibration of air molecules. While we have never experienced it, we are capable of comprehending that space is silent--with no matter to vibrate, there can be no sound. We are perfectly capable of imagining that a substance exists and that something travels through that substance. Take as an example ether. At the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists were looking for evidence of the "ether." As it turns out, it was rather, um, ethereal. Scientists imagined that light traveled through this "ether" and assumed that they could figure out how fast the Earth was traveling through the "ether" by measuring the speed of light in various directions. As it turns out, they were wrong. Just like imagining darkness in a universe with no light, we imagined the "ether" in a relativistic universe.
Next, implying a fish does not feel wet because it is a water creature implies that a human would not feel dry because he is not a water creature. Likewise, it implies that we are not capable of appreciating air because we have never experienced a vacuum. This is an inappropriate example, so I'm having a very difficult time coming up with an appropriate counterexample.
Most importantly, the biggest flaw in Lewis' argument is the notion of a straight line. This brings us to mathematics and geometry. I prefer the example of a circle. A circle is the collection of points on a plane that are a specific distance from another arbitrary point on the plane. We are capable of comprehending each of these logical ideas, but sadly, none of them exist. A point is a man-made concept, an infinitesimally small dot. An atom is infinitely larger than a point. No one has ever seen a point, and no one ever will. The same is true of a plane. The same is true of a circle. No one has ever seen a circle, and no one ever will. It's a concept. The fact that we are capable of imagining the concept does not prove the concept exists.
Furthermore, it's important to point out that the concept of a circle is a human construct, and its lack of real-world existence is not a hindrance to the furthering of mathematics or physics--not unlike how the lack of god's existence hasn't affected religious apologists.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Talking with a girl that has a boyfriend
The other day, I upset one of my friends. She knew I had an interest in a girl (but not which girl). When she found out, her response was "You know she has a boyfriend, right?" My response: "So?" The obvious question ensued: Would I really want to date a girl that left her boyfriend for me?
First of all, I don't know the guy, despite the fact that he was there. I know next to nothing about him. He's a completely random stranger. For all I know, he beats her. What I do know:
a) His name.
b) She behaves differently when he's around than she does when he's not around.
c) He gets nervous at the notion that a guy might be trying to talk to his girlfriend.
Between (b) and (c), I would say that they don't have a particularly strong relationship.
For the record, she smokes. I couldn't date anyone that smokes. Obviously, then, this blog isn't about her; it's about my position on making relationships with women that already are dating someone else.
Women and men are in very different positions when it comes to dating. A beautiful woman of any type is likely to have men lined up waiting for her to become single. Obviously, this isn't true for all women, but it's definitely not true for most guys. For those of us that aren't interested in (or capable of) dating a dozen women at once, it's difficult to ever be noticed.
All guys claim to be the caring, compassionate man that women tend to be interested in. Few of us really are. Since all guys claim to be the mythical "good guy," the only way to prove it is with time.
There are many aspects to relationships, especially relationships between the different genders. I tend to get along better with women than I do with men, and as a result, I tend to look to have females as friends instead of males. My reasons for this are different from what other people claim. I get along better with women because I have more in common with them. As Annika puts it, she thinks of me as one of the girls because I tend to think more like a girl would.
So, why would I be interested in talking with a girl that already has a boyfriend?
a) for the same reason that I would talk to a guy that already has a girlfriend: she might turn out to be a really interesting person.
b) it's good to have women that will vouch for me.
c) perhaps when she's single again, we may find that we're interested in each other.
d) friends make much better lovers than strangers.
3) meeting people and making friends is a great way to meet new people and make new friends. (duh.)
First of all, I don't know the guy, despite the fact that he was there. I know next to nothing about him. He's a completely random stranger. For all I know, he beats her. What I do know:
a) His name.
b) She behaves differently when he's around than she does when he's not around.
c) He gets nervous at the notion that a guy might be trying to talk to his girlfriend.
Between (b) and (c), I would say that they don't have a particularly strong relationship.
For the record, she smokes. I couldn't date anyone that smokes. Obviously, then, this blog isn't about her; it's about my position on making relationships with women that already are dating someone else.
Women and men are in very different positions when it comes to dating. A beautiful woman of any type is likely to have men lined up waiting for her to become single. Obviously, this isn't true for all women, but it's definitely not true for most guys. For those of us that aren't interested in (or capable of) dating a dozen women at once, it's difficult to ever be noticed.
All guys claim to be the caring, compassionate man that women tend to be interested in. Few of us really are. Since all guys claim to be the mythical "good guy," the only way to prove it is with time.
There are many aspects to relationships, especially relationships between the different genders. I tend to get along better with women than I do with men, and as a result, I tend to look to have females as friends instead of males. My reasons for this are different from what other people claim. I get along better with women because I have more in common with them. As Annika puts it, she thinks of me as one of the girls because I tend to think more like a girl would.
So, why would I be interested in talking with a girl that already has a boyfriend?
a) for the same reason that I would talk to a guy that already has a girlfriend: she might turn out to be a really interesting person.
b) it's good to have women that will vouch for me.
c) perhaps when she's single again, we may find that we're interested in each other.
d) friends make much better lovers than strangers.
3) meeting people and making friends is a great way to meet new people and make new friends. (duh.)
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Importance of God
Many people perceive atheists as being just as fanatical as religious fundamentalists. We are the evil, amoral people that remove prayer from schools, that refute the Pledge of Allegiance, that oppose the Ten Commandments, and that kill unborn babies. If God doesn't exist, why do Atheists make such a big deal about it?
As discussed in a previous blog, atheists are not amoral. We have our own definition of morality. Since atheism is not an organized religion, each of us has our own definition of morality, but this is no different from Christianity. So far as I'm aware, no living Christian follows the morality as defined in the Bible (e.g. disobedient children should be killed). Just as we atheists do, Christians also find their own moral middle ground.
Oddly, while Christians find atheists to be amoral (without morals), atheists tend to find Christians to be immoral (going against reasonable societal morals). For example: First Amendment Rights. The very first amendment to the US Constitution explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]" Conservative Christians are trying their hardest to go against this--they are trying to legislate their own interpretation of morality, according to their own religion, which is explicitly prohibited by the first amendment. The most blatant of these is the promotion of the Ten Commandments, that people explicitly believe these should be law. At least of six of these commandments reek of religion. The ones that don't: you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Arguably, the commandment "you shall not commit adultery" is a religious commandment (or sexist, based on the definition of adultery), and all remaining commandments are either explicitly religious, or are things that can't be made into law anyway (e.g. you shall not covet your neighbor's house...).
This brings us to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1954, the "God" of Christianity was legislated into the morning ritual of children, nationwide. Based on this, George H. W. Bush has even stated publicly that atheists are not citizens because this is one nation under God. According to our First Amendment rights, though, he is the one at fault; he is the one going against our nation's founding--not me.
I have every right to practice the religion (or lack thereof) of my choosing. Congress is in the wrong by respecting any religion. Since public school is provided by the government, it is unconstitutional for public school to be used by the government as a method of pushing religion of any sort, and especially as a method of religious indoctrination (can we say intelligent design?).
Claiming the immorality of aborting a four-celled zygote is a religious claim--not one based in science or any form of logical reasoning. This is no more a person than identical twins being considered one person, or a chimera being considered two. Yet, this religious reasoning is behind why stem cell research is effectively illegal in the United States. The rest of the world is continuing in this field without us.
Why do atheists care whether other people believe in god? We only care to the extent that they push their beliefs off on other people. We care that they attempt to legislate their (by our standards) faulty morality on us. If we were not treated as less human, less American, less moral, then we wouldn't care what other people believe. If our First Amendment rights were not being stifled, we wouldn't have a problem. If religious fundamentalists were not blocking scientific research and science education, we would be fine to allow them to live in their own ignorance. We don't take issue with the religious views against premarital sex so long as it doesn't affect educating people about reality. We don't focus on people that believe the Earth is flat because they aren't trying to legislate these unfounded beliefs.
Why do I care that other people believe in God? Because they care that I don't.
As discussed in a previous blog, atheists are not amoral. We have our own definition of morality. Since atheism is not an organized religion, each of us has our own definition of morality, but this is no different from Christianity. So far as I'm aware, no living Christian follows the morality as defined in the Bible (e.g. disobedient children should be killed). Just as we atheists do, Christians also find their own moral middle ground.
Oddly, while Christians find atheists to be amoral (without morals), atheists tend to find Christians to be immoral (going against reasonable societal morals). For example: First Amendment Rights. The very first amendment to the US Constitution explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]" Conservative Christians are trying their hardest to go against this--they are trying to legislate their own interpretation of morality, according to their own religion, which is explicitly prohibited by the first amendment. The most blatant of these is the promotion of the Ten Commandments, that people explicitly believe these should be law. At least of six of these commandments reek of religion. The ones that don't: you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Arguably, the commandment "you shall not commit adultery" is a religious commandment (or sexist, based on the definition of adultery), and all remaining commandments are either explicitly religious, or are things that can't be made into law anyway (e.g. you shall not covet your neighbor's house...).
This brings us to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1954, the "God" of Christianity was legislated into the morning ritual of children, nationwide. Based on this, George H. W. Bush has even stated publicly that atheists are not citizens because this is one nation under God. According to our First Amendment rights, though, he is the one at fault; he is the one going against our nation's founding--not me.
I have every right to practice the religion (or lack thereof) of my choosing. Congress is in the wrong by respecting any religion. Since public school is provided by the government, it is unconstitutional for public school to be used by the government as a method of pushing religion of any sort, and especially as a method of religious indoctrination (can we say intelligent design?).
Claiming the immorality of aborting a four-celled zygote is a religious claim--not one based in science or any form of logical reasoning. This is no more a person than identical twins being considered one person, or a chimera being considered two. Yet, this religious reasoning is behind why stem cell research is effectively illegal in the United States. The rest of the world is continuing in this field without us.
Why do atheists care whether other people believe in god? We only care to the extent that they push their beliefs off on other people. We care that they attempt to legislate their (by our standards) faulty morality on us. If we were not treated as less human, less American, less moral, then we wouldn't care what other people believe. If our First Amendment rights were not being stifled, we wouldn't have a problem. If religious fundamentalists were not blocking scientific research and science education, we would be fine to allow them to live in their own ignorance. We don't take issue with the religious views against premarital sex so long as it doesn't affect educating people about reality. We don't focus on people that believe the Earth is flat because they aren't trying to legislate these unfounded beliefs.
Why do I care that other people believe in God? Because they care that I don't.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Annika's New Place
Friday evening, shortly after officially moving in, Annika called me up excited about her new place. She wanted to show it off. So, I called and apologized to the guys I had just agreed to meet for dinner (Montie from Veto! plus a friend), went home to get my camera, and promptly drove out to see what all of the fuss was about.Oh. I see. Yes, it's beautiful. Technically, the Grey Goose Vodka bottles belong to a roommate that doesn't drink any more. Yes, I'm an *amateur* photographer. Any serious photographer would have noticed and MOVED the freaking camera case that was in the way of the nice photo.
There was a basket of candy on the island in the kitchen, and I kept telling myself that if I started in on the Life Savers, that I would never stop. I tried. I really tried. I tried for a really long time. Then I gave in and took a photo of the first.Prior to arriving at the house, I went with Annika to Ikea (the mother ship) so that she could buy some new dishes and traditional Swedish food. I have no idea if I like the food she kept showing me, since I had to ask her what it was. Of course, I've never had smoked roe before. I've had caviar on sushi, but never simply as caviar. I don't know how to tell you if I like it or not.
The Pool Boy was waiting for us back at the house. He had the chicken wings. None of us knew how to properly cook buffalo wings. They had already been marinaded in buffalo sauce. So, Annika puts them in the oven. Not a bad idea if I do say so myself.We had no idea what temperature to set the oven to or how long to let the wings cook. Since Annika didn't have a candy thermometer, I left the meat-cooking to her. The only way I know to cook meat well is with a thermometer. It involves a bunch of elbow grease and heat from friction. Are you up to the task?
Do the wings look done to you? Just kidding... this was just a gratuitous photo.
Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the room, Annika's manfriend has had a long, hard day working on blueprints. Errr, I mean, The Pool Boy has had a long, hard day of cleaning pools and keeping women happy. Yes, that's the ticket!
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.Seriously, though. What the fuck is up with the low-carb barbecue sauce? BBQ is supposed to be high in sugar. It's not BBQ without the brown sugar. There is something seriously wrong with any diet that tells you it's okay to drink a glass of lard, but it's not okay to eat an apple or an orange.
It seems he really was working on a blueprint.For those of you that are sickeningly curious, this is what the comforter looks like up close. The texture! Oh, the texture! And for the record, I didn't get to see what it was really like under the covers. The Pool Boy had too much work to do. ;)
Somewhere along the line, Annika got a hold of my camera and went crazy taking photos of her bookshelves. She's really proud of her book shelves. Here are the few photos that looked good:
Anyway... Queen Annika had to log onto MySpace to check up on her loyal subjects. She went through all of her photos and showed me what all of her minions/slaves do in order to praise her.
Hey, he's asleep! Now we can have some real fun with the camera... Well, not really. We didn't do anything we wouldn't have done with him awake and in the room.I was on my way out, and I saw something that I thought would make a really cool photo. So, I asked Annika to go back to where she was just standing, and I took a photo.
Crap... It's out of focus. That's not going to work. Well, maybe it will work as a small image.
The flash is a very bad thing. Very bad. Very, very bad. I'll say this as many times as necessary to get the point across. I don't like using the flash unless absolutely necessary.So, I took a few more shots without the flash before heading out the door. I think these are a bit better. By the way, it was Annika's idea to climb up on the counter top. I had nothing at all to do with this. I just took the photos. O:-)
To Annika's credit, the above photo was a five second exposure, and the next photo is eight seconds. She did a fabulous job of staying still for the camera.
For the next shot, I tried to add a little bit of light with my flashlight, but the LEDs were way too blue, so it looks like Annika is watching TV. The original was much bluer. This is the best I could do without making it not look like a real photo.
While I may bitch about her breathing causing her left hand to blur, this was still a 3.2 second exposure with a two second lead-in. I didn't expect her to hold her breath for the photo. The lighting in the room made the original exceptionally yellow. This photo has been adjusted to reflect the actual color of the room, as seen in the close-up of the comforter (there was more light available at that time).Looking at this last photo's time-stamp, I've realized that I didn't adjust the time on the camera when I came back to California from North Carolina. The time stamp is 3:48AM. You do the math. I didn't overstay my welcome that much.
Lastly, the larger photos that blogger shows you when you click on the images are still a quarter the size of the originals. See this version of the last photo for comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)