hey hey, it’s tuesday, motherfucker!

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Get a Trackback link

6 Comments

1. Crissy, January 20, 2009:

   You know your driving is really scary.

   Seriously.

2. deutlich, January 20, 2009:

   It looks like you and I have similar driving styles.

3. k8, January 20, 2009:

   Charlotte through the window. She’s always my favorite. I tried to take some photos of my own Jack Frost, but they didn’t look this good.

   of course.

4. Dingo, January 21, 2009:

   The sixth photo is stunning! I also like the first photo for it’s Tom Cruise Top Gun quality. Although I’m sure Tom Cruise was never in the Navy. Probably something about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

   Crissy, where did you get those sunglasses in the last photo? I love them! I want to buy them and be just like you. Except for the whole pregnancy thing.

5. Erik, January 21, 2009:

   Very stunning pictures. Nice quality. Is picture #7 Crissy? Did you apply some filters to make it look the way it does?

6. Ken, January 22, 2009:

   crissy: charlotte likes my driving

   deutlich: i’ve mellowed considerably in the past few years

   k8: i really like that pic of charlotte too… she’s got a good expression on and the reflection in the window gives it a lot of depth. i also like the lens flare coming from the back window and shining all the way through the house.

   dingo: i was pretty stereotypical back in those days: oakleys, corvette, north face mountain jacket, navy, etc. of course that was before all those things became cliched and used up.

   erik: thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

   picture 7 is indeed crissy. it was originally shot with a 35MM FILM CAMERA on BLACK AND WHITE FILM… which is part of the reason for the ultra-fat film grain. the very low light (a single candle) required a slow shutter speed which contributed to the motion blur of her face/hands. the film was also “pushed” meaning it was deliberately underexposed in order to gain more light sensitivity in exchange for additional grain (the underexposed film has to be developed for a longer time to compensate). finally the low light condition demanded a wide aperture which has a very thin DOF (depth of field–range of distances from the camera which are in acceptably sharp focus) and i focussed on her legs, blurring things both closer and further away.

   plus she was ~21 or 22 years old and we were quite painfully in love with each other… 😉 no filters or photoshop trickery was applied other than retouching a couple of dust/debris spots from the scan.