Another Dadgum Stinking Blog

Update Your Bookmarks!

2008-04-28T09:18:00.003-05:00

I've decided to start the move to my new blog/website earlier than I originally planned, so for all intents and purposes, the blog you're reading now is suspended.

So, pop over to maurymccown.com and bookmark that site!

More Geek: Validation, XHTML, and More

2008-04-25T09:49:00.007-05:00

I'm getting really close to being 100% complete with my new (old) site, maurymccown.com, and I've been enjoying building everything to Standards. (If you follow the above link, be aware you may see radical changes here and there as I tweak the back end.)

I use ExpressionEngine as my content management software, and the latest releases default to XHTML 1.0 Strict, so that's what I've been coding toward. With the onset of more and more people using handheld devices for full web browsing (and loads of other reasons), getting one's site to adhere to Strict standards is a good move to make. This, however, required me to change some of my old ways — and I'm still getting used to those changes. Namely...

The "target" attribute is fully deprecated.
I always — always — used "target="_blank"" when adding links, mainly because I never wanted a reader to navigate away from my site and never return. No can do with XHTML 1.0 Strict. The reason is simple: opening a link in a new window assumes the device reading the site has a windowed interface — and that can't be guaranteed, so there's no reason to include it as a standard. Furthermore, my forcing a link to open a new window overrides the user's desire — if a user really wants a new window, they can open the link via contextual menu.

Border specifications are deprecated.
Since I'm an old dog hand coder, it's become second nature to include "border=0" around all my images, but that's no longer valid. To get around this, you simply specify a CSS class for your img tags, saying "border-style: none." Done deal.

Going back to H1, H2, etc.
Since I began migrating to CSS back in 2002, I started ignoring the long-standing heading tags like H1, H2, H3, etc. For my headings, I'd just create a style in CSS and apply it — but it really is better to use heading tags. First off, it helps those with disabilities read your site, because those specific heading tags are looked for when a page is read. Also, most indexing spiders look for content in your heading tags, so that can help with page ranking in search engines. Lastly, it's just good form to use them, so that's what I'm doing.

The death of tables as a crutch.
I'm also having to get over the ease of using tables for navigation bars and the like. Tables are meant for tabular data, and a lot of us old hats use the for all kinds of non-tabular stuff — but CSS can do anything a table can. Instead of specifying cell size to make all your button equidistant, just wrap them is a CSS style. A lot of the alignment attributes aren't allowed in tables any longer, either, so that puts the load back onto using CSS.

And the list could go on. Being the dork that I am, I must admit how nice it is to know all of my pages validate 100% with XHTML 1.0 Strict — and they look exactly the way I want them to on all browsers, in all platforms. That last bit is the kicker. Sticking with Standards sometimes requires a bit more thought and planning — and it can sometimes mean letting go of something you've been doing for years — but in the end, it's the best practice any web designer/coder can go with.

So how does your site stand up against validation? Head over to W3C's Validator page, put in your site address, and see if you, too, can get the "Passed" button:

And no, my Blogger page here does NOT validate, so don't even try...

Wednesday Ramblings, CSS, Etc.

2008-04-23T15:37:00.002-05:00

Okay, I'm officially giving Internet Explorer the finger over its handling of text size. *waves fist*

I wanted to play nice and everything, but dadgummit, Internet Explorer makes you jump through so many hurdles to make your site look consistent between it and every other bloody browser out there, and I'm tired of playing with it. So, while I had plans to go with em units for my web fonts, I'm sticking with good ol' pixels.

What does this mean to you? It means that if you think the text on my new site is too small — or too big — you can resize it in every browser available except for Internet Explorer.

Microsoft's "logic" in this is that using pixels for sizing means the pixel size is the size the item should be — therefore you shouldn't be able to scale said item up or down. I agree with this logically, but Explorer is the only browser that adheres to that thinking, and in the Democracy of Browsers, I think they need to get over it (though they kind of did with IE7's Screen Scaling).

So, I'm back to pixels. Windows users should be using Firefox or Safari, anyway.

•••••

You know you're a d0rk when you enjoy unnecessarily commenting your CSS.

•••••

I am oh so very sick of David Cook. I'm wagering the Irish gal or Brooke will be going home tonight. (I'm talking about American Idol, just in case you were wondering.)

•••••

I think I figured out how the wasps were getting into our house. The little twerps were, I think, getting into the attic via the soffit vents, then crawling their way out of the attic door — which doesn't close all the way. Methinks they saw the available light and followed it out. I have reached this determination after taping the aforementioned attic door crack, and since taping (a couple of weeks ago), nary a wasp has been found inside.

Now I just need to buy (and install) a new attic door/ladder thingie. Yay for that.

Random, Quickly

2008-04-21T10:50:00.008-05:00

I didn't have much time to work on my site over the weekend, so I'm still using Blogger for my posts — no biggie, though.

•••••

Speaking of web sites, I'm also rebuilding our company site to more modern standards, and I thought I'd take a second to once more state how much I love CSS.

This new designing has led me another crossraods, though: specifying font size. I've bounced back and forth between using point and pixels to specify size, and out of those two, point declarations are deprecated and should be avoided at all costs. Point size is fine for typography, but not for screen resolution.

This leaves pixels, which I like horribly — but they also prevent users from increasing point size if they think my text is too small. At the same time, though, I'm able to absolutely control the look of my content — but again, it's controlled at the reader's expense.

This leaves me with the em, which is something I've never really used on my own design code. But, the em is really "where it's at" at this point in time, because it allows a relatively decent amount of control over layout while allowing the user to increase text size to suit their eyes.

So, I guess I'll be making the transition to the em like a good coder should.

•••••

Having a patch cord crap-out right before you're supposed to play one of the most emotional and personable songs during the church service really sucks. It was pretty much just me on the acoustic and the singer, but I was dead in the water. Thankfully we had our keyboard gal playing, so she was able to fill the position.

•••••

I was asked four times this weekend about why I don't have the images I have in my client portfolio online anywhere. The answer is simple: I rarely request that a person sign a model or subject release.

Since any Bob or Sally with a camera can be "A Photographer" nowadays, the market is flooded with people that just don't know the law or the rules. I'm amazed at some of the sites I visit where people are posting images of other people, using those shots in their online portfolios, posting them on Flickr, etc., all without having those people sign a release. At least in Texas, it hasn't been written into law that photographer must have a signed release — but that day is coming soon. Nevertheless, it's always better to err on the side of caution if you're not dealing with a close friends or family — or if you're taking shots of someone you asked permission to take shots of (as opposed to them asking you for pictures).

So there you go: I don't post some of my portfolio images because I didn't get the client to sign a release — and when you get bit by not having a release, you'll hold onto your pics, too. =)

•••••

Either Doc Cottle or Tom Zarek is the final, unrevealed Cylon. Just wait...

•••••

Metallica is back in the studio. Let's all cross our fingers and hope they get back to their Justice and Black album days.

Thursday Already?

2008-04-17T13:37:00.002-05:00

My wife and I are back on our Frasier kick, and we're buying the DVDs of all the seasons as we get to them. Every single episode is funny.

•••••

I fully moved maurymccown.com to the new grid server yesterday, so now I have access to all kinds of neato techie coolness and backends for my site. The first thing I did was install ExpressionEngine — the best dadgum content manager known to Mankind.

I'm now in the process of building my site pages for use with EE's template system, so for now, when you visit maurymccown.com, you're still viewing plain ol' HTML. I have most of it done, and I'm hoping to have it 100% complete this weekend.

After that, I begin the process of transitioning my weblog from here to there, so stay tuned.

I must say, also, how much I love using ExpressionEngine. It works beautifully with CSS, and the ability to assemble parts of a page with any number of code snippets is pure magic. For example, my page title, navigation, post area, background image, META, JavaScript calls — all of that info is reused on every one of my pages. So, instead of having to add that code to every page, I simply build a "header" page that stores and info, then when I build a new page, I just call "embed=site/header" and boom — all of the above is automagically inserted in the final page.

This makes it painfully simple to modify stuff like navigation bars, etc., because I only have to modify one page — and all my other pages get updated.

I love technology. =)

•••••

Something is happening Monday that I'm totally looking forward to — but I can't say what it is just yet. Anyway, it's been almost 10 years in the waiting, and I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl with anticipation.

•••••

I need to sell my Dual 2.0GHZ G5 tower. Any buyers?

•••••

I can't decide if I want to have a cigar before practice, or my pipe with some Finck's Golden Cavendish. Decisions, decisions...

Geek Talk: A Coder's Conundrum

2008-04-14T18:59:00.004-05:00

There's going to be some major geek talk in this post, so consider yourself warned. But, for those of you insistent upon reading this just for the sake of not taking out the garbage or cleaning the toilet, I'll define some terms so you'll have a cursory understanding of what I'm going on about. And hey — you may just find it interesting and learn a thing or two.

If you're reading this, you're reading it with a web browser — and looking at my site stats, 54% of you are using Safari, 27% are using FireFox, 13% are using Internet Explorer, and the rest are using other things like Opera, Camino, etc. What's happening to allow you to read this, is that your web browser is reading text files that contain all kinds of code (HTML markup, CSS, ASP, PHP, JavaScript, etc.), and that data is rendered for you to see what you see on screen.

All of those different kinds of code follow (or are supposed to follow) something commonly known as "Standards." These standards define what the various code tags are supposed mean in an attempt to create a baseline of expectations for the web browsing software. The goal is for the diligent coder to be able to create a web page that will look identical regardless of what web browser the user is using to view the web site in question. Of course, one has to hope the web browser programmers are making their software adhere to the standards, but that's not what this post is about.

With Standards comes Validation: making sure your code "validates" properly against the aforementioned web standards. Assuming the web browser is compliant, if my code validates, I can rest easier knowing that my site will look the same at home (on my Mac using Safari) as it does for someone in Brazil using the Windows build of FireFox.

So, as a web coder, it's my job to make sure what I code validates with the standards, and it's my job to get the word out about which browsers are most compliant. And just to get that out of the way, Safari and FireFox are the most standards-compliant, daily-use browsers available (especially the nightly WebKit builds of Safari).

You're still reading this, aren't you?

The problem web coders face today, though, is that all the cool bell-and-whistle goodies that make sites more animated and interactive often require the user's system to have additional software installed. Case in point, Flash. Flash lets you have animations, movies, moving text, and pretty much anything you can think of on your site — but the user has to download and install Flash Player (at the least) to see all those goodies. Without Flash installed, your visitor sees nothing — or you code a different page/site for non-Flash visitors (which means more work).

Another annoyance coders face is the use of JavaScript. JavaScript is a crazy-powerful code language — but it's also much maligned because it can be used to exploit a user's system and their data. A lot of people — especially Windows users — disable JavaScript for security purposes alone. So once again, if a coder builds a site with a lot of JavaScript and the user has javaScript disabled — the user gets nothing.

Couple that with wanting to build an "accessible" site — one that people with disabilities can easily read/hear — and it's becoming increasingly difficult to try and build a site for everyone.

Thus the coder's conundrum.

The solution many of us choose is to stick with as much strict HTML and CSS coding as possible, completely avoiding using Flash and JavaScript. The upside is that we're better assured everyone will be able to view our site, but the downside is that we don't get to take advantage of some of the newer technologies. So what should we coders do?

I think that for now, as I build my new site, I'm only going to use JavaScript when absolutely needed — and if a user had JavaScript disabled, I'll have code to handle it. For example, when a thumbnail image opens to a full size image, I typically use JavaScript have the image appear in a new window all nice and centered on-screen. If JavaScript is disabled, the image simply appears in a new window.

As for Flash, well, I have a several issues. For starters, I just don't like 99% of Flash-enabled sites out there. I do NOT want to wait for a gradient to fill, something to fade in (or out), pictures to sweep and swirl — I just want to see the dadgum content. I like "pretty" and "cool" as much as the next guy, but I don't want to wait for it. Second, I'm still such an old school purist that I just naturally want to stick with the solid foundation of HTML and CSS for my sites. Sticking with the Standards, I don't have to worry about people skipping my site because they need to "update their Flash player" and go through all the hoopla therein.

There may come a day when Adobe allows web developers to bundle their player(s) for auto-install, thus helping to make Flash and its ilk more accessible with less user interaction. But, nothing like that will ever become part of the W3C Standards, I don't believe.

So ol' Maury will stick to the pure road as much as possible, confident that what I see is what you'll see — and confident that I won't be bugging someone or losing a visitor by forcing them to enable or install some bit of software they may not want to. Will my site be less "flashy?" Yes. Will my site get viewed regardless of the user's system? Most certainly. That's a good enough start for me.

Just A Fly

2008-04-12T20:34:00.001-05:00

I was closing the blinds yesterday when I spotted this fly sitting on one of our plants outside the window. I grabbed my 40D, which had the macro lens already on it, and snapped this before he flew away. Quality isn't too hot, but it was a quick-n-dirty shot. =)

Wednesday

2008-04-09T12:57:00.005-05:00

What a slow week it's been (is?). And I have a migraine. Nice.

•••••

As I wait for Brust's new book, Jhegaala, to arrive in July, I picked up the Spiderwick Chronicles Box Set for a quick and easy read. The movie is out and getting moderately decent reviews, so I wanted to read the story. It was okay. Fairly predictable — as one would expect from a "kid's" book — but it passed the (short) time reasonably well.

While I hunt for other books, I'm spending time delving into Foundation's Dreamweaver CS3 and Flash CS3 tomes — both of which are totally awesome and highly recommended.

•••••

I've fully embraced my pipe smoking ways again. While nothing beats a great cigar, pipes tend to have more flavor and better aroma. Of course, you can't really compare the two fairly, but I find myself tending to prefer the pipe over the stogie lately. The downside to pipes is that they're fussy and you have to keep relighting them, so they're more work maintain over an hour or so.

Regardless, I cleaned up my favorite pipe — one I got back in college — and it's a wonderful piece of work. That's also part of the charm: I've had this pipe for well over a decade, and it's still going strong — and it has plenty of years left in it.

But like I said, cigars are still just as nice — and now I'm craving a Lamb's Club Robusto...

•••••

Speaking of cigars, one of my "smoke days" is Thursday evenings, right before we have band practice. I strike-up a stick and sit out in the parking lot for an hour or so, listening to loud music, then head in for rehearsal. Right across from where I position myself, there's a tattoo parlor — and me and The Guys always exchange waves when they come out for their cigarette breaks.

At some point I will use this to my advantage in a couple of ways. First off, they know I'm part of the church that sits right there because they see me every week. Second, they know I'm a cigar smoker so I must not be too "holier than thou." Third, we're all friendly to one another. Fourth, they enjoy — I'm sure — the music I'm blaring as I sit in my truck.

Now, since I'm more of an art photographer, I've been thinking how cool it would be to take shots of some inking being done — and since these guys already "know" me, I probably have a shoe-in to do just that.

Put the above together, and I'm suddenly in a position to not only get to take some cool pictures, but I may get to open the door that could allow me to talk about church (or Church) and God and salvation, etc. Obviously, that's assuming those guys need to hear such talk — they could Christ Followers already for all I know. But, we shall see at some point.

•••••

JPG Magazine is going to be publishing a few of my pictures in an upcoming issue, so that's pretty cool. I had to go through some new copyright stuff, which was a pain (I hate physical paperwork), but my PPA membership helped on that front. I don't know which issue it will be in yet, so stay tuned.

•••••

When someone walks into my office, why do they have to come right up to the edge of my desk and practically lean over me, totally getting into "my space?" Some people, I don't mind — but most people, yeah, stay back. Maybe I should get a plexiglass shield thing with little speaker holes drilled into it. Or a cattle prod. And a taser. And a lightsaber.

Salon Urban Eve Shoot, Part 2

2008-04-06T18:21:00.002-05:00

Here are a few more shots from the Urban Eve shoot...

Jason

Trimming

Wares

Jenn

Foiling

Salon Urban Eve Shoot, Part 1

2008-04-05T20:25:00.004-05:00

I took some shots at a friend's hair salon today, Salon Urban Eve, and I'm slowly but surely making my way through 220 frames. My first cursory look-through yielded the following shots, which are seen here after my post-processing:

Colors

Scheduling

Chatting

Jason

Boots

Amanda

As you can see, I did my usual enhancements to pretty much every shot. The one of Jason by himself is almost untouched, though. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I totally think Redken owes me big-time for that shot of their color product — if I only had to take away one frame, that'd be it for me (though I really like the Scheduling and Amanda shots).

Unpremeditated Thursday

2008-04-03T15:05:00.004-05:00

Eyes: I read all but one character on the 20/20 line last night, which is another step forward. I'd been hit and miss, sometimes being able to read 20/15, but last night — even as late as it was — I was able to read just fine. It's that dadgum "X" that keeps tripping me up. =/

•••••

One of my old pictures was just published in an online magazine in Canada.

Thanks, my Northern Neighbors. =)

•••••

I finished the initial "got all the links working" portion of my new (old) site: maurymccown.com. Me likey. Pop over and check it out, being certain to relish in 32-bit PNG and text-shadow CSS goodness. That feels good, doesn't it? Yeah, I thought so.

•••••

I'm doing a business photo shoot this weekend that I'm really looking forward to. The locale has great natural lighting potential if the weather will just go sunny for a couple of hours, so I'm already crossing my fingers for that. I've been wanting to shoot this place for a while now, and I just never got around to doing so until recently — and I'm hoping it turns out as well as my brain is envisioning the images.

Stay tuned...

•••••

Yes, "unpremeditated" is a word. You looked it up, didn't you?

•••••

I almost got my low gain overdrive to sound just like I want it to. Almost. So, so dadgum close...

•••••

Does it bother anyone else that Obama said he didn't want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" if they make a "bad choice"? So let me get this straight, BO: if your daughter "accidentally" got pregnant (which is impossible outside of being doped, but I won't go there), your GRANDCHILD would be considered PUNISHMENT to not only your daughter, but to you as well? Wow.

How nuts is that?

If I was a woman with children — or a woman unable to have children — I'd be ready to pound you with a pillowcase full of batteries, Obama. Since I'm just a man, I'll settle for having the urge to just punch you in the throat and/or give you a swift kick in the kidneys — then hold you down while the women rip you a new one.

Couple that with his comments that "white people" are just "bred" to be afraid of black people when we see them on the streets, and I don't see how God lets Man persist. I'm waiting for the next Great Flood personally, thanks to public idiots like Obama, Hellary, Jorgé Bush, and oh so many more.

And we have SEVEN more months of this. UGH.

Too bad Palmer was just a fictional President. =(

•••••

I'm hungry.

Take Two (Made and Found)

2008-04-01T19:42:00.001-05:00

This is for the Utata Take Two diptych project, something made, something found. To the left are roses my wife made me for Valentines (and they sit in my office), to the right are some dying flowers we just can't bring ourselves to throw out.

New Site Work, New CSS Love

2008-03-31T15:04:00.012-05:00

As I've mentioned before, now that I've "closed" RAILhead Design, I'm going through the process of *finally* moving all my various stuff to the domain name I've had for I don't know how long: maurymccown.com. Right now, I'm waiting for my web host to open-up server migration again (which should happen mid-April), then I'll begin the move in earnest.

Until then, I'm tinkering with my new site's "coming soon" page, and in so doing, I've come to enjoy fiddling with some cool CSS capabilities. In particular, I'm loving the text-shadow and web font capabilities — though only a couple of browsers (Safari 3.1 and Opera) fully support both.

To show what I mean, let's look at the text-shadow attribute. For ages, those of us that love drop shadows were forced to create PNGs or JPGs to get our nice shadowing, but now this capability is getting more and more popular with front-running web browsers, so it's totally doable with CSS and "plain" HTML text. Take a look at the screen shot below, and notice the portion where I say "In the mean time..." That shadow effect is applied to the text via CSS — it's not an image. Cool, eh? One really nice thing about this is that it can reduce the page download time because there will (at some point) be no need to grab a bunch of image files to render a page.

Another really cool attribute that's in the earliest stages of propagation is the downloadable/web font. This allows your site to grab a font file to use for display purposes, rather than rely on the user's system to have the font installed. For my site, I'm using a custom font that no one else on Earth has on their computer. To make sure you see my site the way I want you to, to avoid grabbing loads of images, and to make my site more future-customizable, I can have my CSS grab the font off my server. That said, take a look at this screenshot:

What you see here is that I grabbed the custom font to change the "In the mean time..." text, applied it via CSS, and kept the link text my standard body font. Now, how freakin' cool is that? The bad thing about downloadable fonts is that most browsers don't fully support them, so it's a bad idea to use them for now. The jury is still out regarding whether or not this feature will become standardized, mainly due to font design copyright worries. We'll see.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share those cool features even though most browsers don't support them yet. And go ahead and keep your eyes on maurymmcown.com, too.

Post-Processing Is Fun

2008-03-29T14:54:00.007-05:00

I've been tinkering with my Soft Light Contrast Boost technique, and I've paired it with a couple of other "secrets" to help make a boring image more interesting. Here's an example using what I had for lunch today — the first shot is just the basic image, with standard balance and curve adjustments:

Not 100% technically accurate — and only mildly interesting, if that. Throw in some Photoshop tweakage, and you get the following:

This is kind of a hybrid cross-processed, soft light boosted adjustment, and one similar to the effect I used on my Bug Man self portrait:

The point is that only a couple of minor adjustments can take an image from okay and nice, to really eye-catching. Contrast is my new addiction, and if you pursue professional images, you'll see that — color or black and white — the ones that grab your attention are the ones that pop.

An obvious statement, of course, but one a lot of photographers forget, because they take the shots and only spend 10 minutes fixing an image. The truth of the matter is that most of the work is done in post-processing, and that's where most non-professionals are lacking. Don't forget: there's a reason "the industry" spends so much money in post-processing — because "the industry" knows it makes all the difference.

For non-professionals, things to always remember to look for at the most basic post-processing levels are facial blemishes (of any sort). You can have a "great" portrait, and the client will be happy — but if you smooth skin in problem areas, slightly whiten teeth, brighten the eyes, remove odd wrinkles that distract from the character rather than support the character, smooth out veins on the hands, feet, etc., your photo will — on an almost subconscious level — become an "awesome" photo to the client. It's all about making slight changes that people notice without knowing they notice. You don't want to airbrush images to death, of course, but you also don't want a client's imperfections to be showcased in print for God and country to see.

Making a lot of little changes has a great overall impact — if you make those changes correctly. And that's where non-pros need to focus their time, because there's no good reason to settle for well enough if you can make it great. So make yourself spend twice the amount of time in post-processing that you spent behind the lens, and your clients will love you all the more.

Aperture 2.1 Released

2008-03-28T14:24:00.002-05:00

SWEET. Apple just released Aperture 2.1, making some significant improvements over v2.0. Here's what's new:

Dodge & Burn Plug-in. A sample plug-in is pre-installed, taking advantage of the Edit API introduced in Aperture 2.0. The plug-in adds brush-based tools for Dodge (Lighten), Burn (Darken), Contrast, Saturation, Sharpen and Blur.
Customize Default Adjustment Set. You can now specify which adjustments appear by default in the Adjustments Inspector/HUD.
Updated Crop Tool. A simplified UI makes it easier to preserve an image's original aspect ratio, match the aspect ratio of your display, or use one of the standard preset aspect ratios.
Sorting in All Projects View. A contextual menu allows you to sort the All Projects view in ascending or descending date order.
Show on Map. A contextual menu allows you to choose the Show on Map by right-clicking (or Control-clicking) on an image that contains GPS data.
Access to Toolbar on Second Display. When using multiple displays in Full Screen mode, the Full Screen toolbar is now accessible on a second display.
"Snapshots" book theme. This additional theme includes new "photo border" frames in which to place images.
Flip Images. You can now flip images horizontally or vertically within Aperture.
Vignette. The range of gamma and exposure settings available has been expanded.
Save Books as JPEG or TIFF images. Automator actions have been added to Save as PDF pop-up menu in the Print Book window to automatically generate JPEG or TIFF images from book pages.
Update EXIF from Master. This command allows Aperture to reread EXIF from a master images after they have been imported.
Extended AppleScript support. The "Reveal" verb in the AppleScript dictionary has been extended to include containers such as projects and albums.

What a great update, Apple. I'm particularly pleased with being able to set my own Adjustment Sets — that's bugged me since day one. The change to the Crop tool is welcome, too, as I was always having to set my defaults (constrain to original aspect) every bloody time I used it — no more. It will also be great to be able to flip images within Aperture, and I think pretty much every Aperture user has always wondered why Apple didn't include this capability from the get-go. Plugin support is also greatly improved, and third-parties will be able to release tools to compliment Aperture's feature set.

You can get this powerhouse of a program from Amazon for just $189.99, and learn more about it at Apple's Aperture web page. And, if you're not sure how well you'll like it, you can always download and try the 30-day demo from Apple, too.

New Acquisitions

2008-03-28T09:34:00.004-05:00

While waiting for Crystal Reports to install, I made a quick tobacco-related order, and, well, since you don't have anything better to do than read about what I do on a near-daily basis, I thought I'd share.

As my Perdomo Lot 23 cigar supply depletes more and more, I wanted to try a couple of sticks I've never smoked before. Not wanting to buy a whole box, I went for 5-packs, and snagged a set of Finck's Resagos Sabor Nuevo Robustos. I'm a big fan of Nicaraguan filler, and these are highly rated smokes.

I'm also becoming more and more a fan of Lamb's Club cigars, so I grabbed a 5-pack of the Lamb's Club Robusto Gordos. These are Dominican, which rank right behind Nicaraguan in my book — but what I really like about them is the Cameroon wrapper.

The Resagos are 5.5 x 52 and the Robustos are 5.5 x 54, so both will provide a nice, long smoke for a lazy afternoon/evening.

But what I'm really looking forward to are the 1.5 oz samples of Finck's pipe tobacco I ordered. SWEET! I snagged samples of the Golden Cavendish and English blends — and now I have to clean out my good ol' pipes acquired back in my college days. I've mentioned firing up the pipes several times here, so I'm looking forward to it.

•••••

I ordered a couple of new straw hats for the summer, too: the Stetson Walton and Stetson Tacoma.

Those are what you can fine looking hats, my friends.

•••••

And that, said friends, is all for now.

Erratic Thursday (Edited for Big Brother)

2008-03-27T14:20:00.005-05:00

Let's start this off with something I rarely do: complain about something. So I'm getting coffee on the way to work, and the lady a couple of cars ahead of me gets her stuff. She puts her beverage into her holder thingie, and then proceeds to get her wallet and purse and everything else all nice and straightened out — then she pulls forward.

I swear.

Like I've said before, you won't find anyone faster at an ATM than me, but come on, at least make an attempt. Get your stuff, pull forward a bit so the people behind can get to the window, THEN situate yourself. Think of it this way: if you're the fifth person in line and everyone ahead of you takes an extra 30 seconds getting their wedgies out before pulling forward, you just lost TWO minutes of your life.

Just two minutes you say? Just think about all the things you could do in two minutes. No really, think about it. See? You spent about half that long reading this post, didn't you? And now you're waiting to see if I say something funny because you know that there have been times — several of them, I'm sure — that as much as you didn't want to, you cracked a smile or giggled at something I typed. Admit it. You didn't want to give me the satisfaction of knowing I made you laugh — even though you were at home, all alone, and no one would ever know but you (and me, obviously) — but you couldn't help yourself. Now you're trying to decide if what I just said was funny, or slightly humorous — and you're wondering if there's going to be some climactic punch line to all of this — but there's not.

See? Just think of all the things you could have been doing this whole time. I rest my case.

•••••

It's a little over a month since my LASIK/ASA, and things are going great. I'm holding steady at being able to read 20/20 combined, and I'm able — on average — to read about half the 20/15 line combined. That's pretty cool. I'm hoping that this improvement will continue at the same rate it has, because if I did my math properly, I should have X-ray vision in about 4 months (give or take a week). Now THAT will be sweet.

•••••

I'm growing my Van Dyke back again. I tried the clean-shaven look, but that's for girls. I'd still like to do the full beard, but all I catch is grief from my wife and Mom when I do that. What's up with that? Something about how I don't have to look at "it" and they do. *scoffs*

•••••

THIS PORTION WAS EDITED TO REMOVE MY NOT SO SNEAKY CLUES. Man, you guys need to get off your computers more, Lee!

Here's one from left field: I was contacted by a company I'm not supposed to mention here about potentially becoming a photography apprentice. They wanted me to do some upstart shoots for them, which is cool and all — but they're not from around here. This company (see, I removed the hint) scouts for photographers and models and stuff, and they solicit a group of 40 people and whittle down those that accept, letting the ones who live through the process apprentice other established photographers in the company. Some of the people at this company (and this hint was removed, too) know of me from my RAILhead Design/internet presence (which includes Photo.net, Flickr, Lomography.com, and loads of other photo sites), and they got my name on the initial list.

How crazy jacked-up is that? I guess it pays to have been on "teh intarnet" for so long.

Needless to say, I politely thanked them for the chance and said no. If it would have been like a televised thing, I may have done it just for fun — but it wasn't really a "contest" thing per se: you just had to show you had the chops for photography and post-production. No prize, no nothing — just a chance to get work doing magazine/publishing photography (which I guess is a prize of sorts, but not the kind I'd work for). It would have been cool yes, but there's no way in Hades I would have lasted very long — and I don't like flying, anyway. And, of course, I'm not really a "real" photographer as far as doing it as a profession (and I'm not all that good).

But man, how crazy is that? Maybe if this would have happened when I was 20-something, maybe. I asked if they could mail me the request on letterhead, and they said they would — so that'll be cool for the scrapbook (if I had one).

•••••

I'm really hungry.

•••••

I'm not going to be able to see Les Claypool/Primus tomorrow. No one is brave enough to go with me. =(

•••••

I ordered a Gadsden Flag sticker for my pedalboard case last night. DON'T TREAD ON ME. w00t!

•••••

I have practice tonight and I'm already about to fall asleep. This should be interesting.

Low E

2008-03-25T18:53:00.001-05:00

I finally got around to buying a remote trigger for my Canon 40D, so I had to try it out while shooting through my 100mm Canon macro lens. This is a shot of the low E string on my acoustic.

Can you guess that I totally LOVE this macro lens? Have I mentioned that before? =)

Mac System Benchmarks

2008-03-25T07:06:00.025-05:00

Okay, I finally had a chance to run some initial benchmarks on my new system. Since Cinebench is the industry standard, that's what I focused on — but I also ran Geekbench tests in 32-bit. Here's the breakdown of my 4 test systems:

MacBook Air, 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo, GMA X3100, 2GB RAM
PowerMac, Dual 2.0GHz G5, 256MB X800 XT, 8GB RAM
MacBook Pro, 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo, 512MB 8600M GT, 4GB RAM
Mac Pro, 3.2GHz 8-Core, 512MB 8800 GT, 16GB RAM

Since charts make numbers easier to read, let's look at how each system ranked in Cinebench, Cinebench OpenGL, and Geekbench:

As you can plainly see, the 3.2GHz 8-Core Mac Pro obliterated everyone else in raw power — and it dealt a pretty hefty blow in raw video, too. Here's how it breaks down:

In raw processing power, the 3.2GHz 8-Core Mac Pro was 1,403% faster than the MacBook Air, 676% faster than the G5, and 295% faster than the MacBook Pro.

In OpenGL tests, the Mac Pro was 292% faster than the MacBook Air, 191% faster than the G5, and 24% faster than the MacBook Pro.

In 32-bit Geekbench tests, the Mac Pro was 315% faster than the MacBook Air, 271% faster than the G5, and 165% faster than the MacBook Pro.

Holy crap. Yeah, that's what I said, too. A couple of really interesting things popped-out at me after running the numbers. First, I'm pleased to see my old faithful Dual G5 was around 93% faster than the MacBook Air. It's not that old of a machine, and it's always been great — so it's nice to see it can still kick some current Mac butt. Second, I wasn't expecting to see a 24% difference between the MacBook Pro's 8600M and the Mac Pro's 8800GT — I thought the gap would be much closer, more like 10% or less. Of course, this is a wonderful thing to get wrong, so I'm not complaining. Other tests (Xbench, and Xbench graphics tests) support these same ratios, but the Mac Pro tends to score 5% better in those tests.

So, as far as pure power goes, there's no debate about who runs the block with my Mac systems. Hands-down, the 3.2GHz 8-Core Mac Pro wipes the floor with the others — especially the little MacBook Air. I mean, dadgum — 1403%?!? That's a butt kicking if I've ever seen one.

Numbers aside, the main factor is whether or not you can feel and sense the power boost in your daily routine, and without a doubt, I can. Aperture runs as smooth as silk; I'm no longer having to wait for the Loupe to catch up with me while I what balance from another image in the browser, Levels are set instantly, exporting takes just fractions of a second, etc. Photoshop is running my filters faster than I've ever had them run, my actions are instant — everything is just smooth. The waiting isn't there. No spinning beachball. No pregnant pause. I click, it happens. Without question, I can plainly see a major difference in how well my system is running — and it's also running in dead silence. And when I say silence, I mean silence.

So was it worth the wait? You better dadgum believe it was!

It Has Arrived

2008-03-24T22:13:00.002-05:00

My new Mac Pro arrived, and it's fully loaded with hard drives and RAM — but I still haven't had a chance to play with it, and I won't get that chance at all tonight. Why? Because it takes a really, really long time to transfer 745.5 gigabytes of data over FireWire 800.

=(

So Close, Yet So Far...

2008-03-22T21:30:00.003-05:00

Video Card Benchmarks, Part 1

2008-03-21T13:30:00.006-05:00

Since I didn't want to put my MacBook Air's GMA X3100 through the long misery and eventual embarrassment of the Cinebench benchmark test, I decided I'd try the latest version of Xbench, which sports a quick-n-dirty Qaurtz Graphics and OpenGL test.

First off, one kind of oddball thing about Xbench is that the final "score" is relative to the developer's baseline system: a Dual 2.0GHz Power Mac with an NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra. A score of 100 would be equal to the base system, and higher would be better, etc. Regardless, this benchmark application works fine for general comparison between systems — I just wanted everyone to know what the score is based upon.

I ran just the Quartz and OpenGL tests 3 times, taking the average, and here's how my systems scored:

MacBook Pro with an NVIDIA 8600M GT (512MB): 172.4
Dual 2.0GHz G5 with an ATI X800 XT (256MB): 118.5
MacBook Air with a GMA X3100 (144MB shared): 29.1

The clear winner is the MacBook Pro's 8600M GT, which spanked the X3100 by a massive 492.4%, and beat the once high-end X800 XT by a respectable 45.5%.

Of course, the X3100 isn't much of a video card per se, as it's fully integrated and shares main memory — which is why I wasn't worried about testing it with Cinebench. Asking it to perform OpenGL like a dedicated card is pretty much outside the design intent of the X3100 — but it's interesting nonetheless. The MacBook Pro's 8600M GT also squeaks ahead of the X800 XT due to the former's much faster and higher capacity RAM.

But, as with all things in computerdom, it's more about what works best for the user. Most basic programs run fine with the X3100 — I even used CS3 and Aperture on my mini, which used the GMA 950 — but the performance difference is noticeable all-around with a higher-end, dedicated card. Like I said, I've been using Aperture for over a year on my Mac mini's GMA 950, and while it ran it "fine," it runs oh so much better on the 8600M GT.

I think this covers most benchmarks I'm interested in, and once my 3.2GHz Mac Pro arrives and I get it setup, I'll be able to add those numbers to the data. When I get that done, I'll lump it all together and see how my systems stack against one another. In the mean time, download the benchmark tools I used and see how your various systems rate against one another. The test suites are:

Cinebench: the best for testing raw processor and video power.

Geekbench: A decent all-around benchmark suite.

Xbench: good for system-to-system comparisons and the ability to pick individual tests.

Picture Friday

2008-03-21T11:48:00.007-05:00

I brought my MacBook Pro home this weekend with the hope my RAM upgrade will be delivered, and while it was here (the MacBook Pro, that is), I decided to take some shots comparing its size to that of the MacBook Air. Here you go:

Quite a size difference. Of course, the MacBook Air a 13-inch screen compared to a 15-inch screen, but you can easily see how much thinner the MBA is compared to the MBP. The extra 2.4 pounds is also quite noticeable.

And here's the MacBook Pro all by its lonesome:

I really like the smooth curves on this design, as well as the finish. The last pro-portable I had anything to do with was the old 667MHz PowerBook G4, and I haven't seen any of Apple's new pro-portables in person since then. So, I'm quite impressed with the look — and I'm probably the only person who hasn't seen one in person until now.

•••••

In preparation for my new Mac Pro tower, I've been going through old data on my hard drives (so that I'm not wasting time copying files I don't want/need), and I found a couple of archived site designs from back in 2000. This first one was for my first domain, maurym.com. This was back when everyone did the horrific image background thing. Ugh. But like most fads, it was popular for a while and then petered-out — thankfully. You will also notice the use of drop shadows, which were also popular back then, mainly because the Mac OS was just in the early beginnings of allowing 32-bit image masks.

And this is a shot of RAILhead Design's first layout. If you followed the Mac Community back then, this was back when Kaleidoscope changed everything for the platform's interface — and this design was an extension of the site's first official Kaleidoscope scheme. So, if you loaded this scheme and browsed my site, it was like everything on my page was part of the OS interface.

You can also see some of my more popular interface schemes in this shot, but notice the first one: AquaX II. Some of us had our hands on the unreleased early alphas and betas of the upcoming Aqua Interface, and we made Kaleidoscope schemes to match it. Back in the day, my scheme was the best reproduction of the interface out there — and even people that worked at Apple were using it. But eventually, I got my first (of many) Cease and Desist orders from Apple, demanding that I remove the scheme for copyright infringement. Ahh, those were the days...

I really wish I would have kept all the different versions of my sites, just to back and laugh. Oh well.

Because Once A Day Isn't Enough

2008-03-20T15:20:00.005-05:00

There's nothing worse than waiting for all of WIndows XP SP2's updates to download before being able to dive into using your brand new MacBook Pro. =/

Oh, and here's a shot I took the other day. While this shot looks I played with the depth of field, everything you see here is 100% natural, thanks my trusty Tamron 28-75mm.

Totally unrelated, but 9 people found my site today when searching for "floor urinal." How awesome is that? I can only assume that they found my wonderful post from January 30, 2006, titled Let's Talk About.... =)

MacBook Pro, LASIK, Etc.

2008-03-20T09:43:00.007-05:00

Let's start with my new MacBook Pro. Dadgum, this sucker is nice. I had originally planned on getting the MacBook, but after pricing the upgrades I'd do, the accessories I'd need to handle all my hardware, etc., the gap narrowed to a little over $500, so I opted to get the larger screen and more video-powerful MacBook Pro. In particular, I went with the 2.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with a 7200 RPM 250GB hard drive, and the 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT. I'm still waiting for my 4GB of RM to arrive, so I'm running with the stock 2GB. Nevertheless, I ran some benchmarks, and here's the breakdown:

Cinebench gave my 2GB configuration an average (average of 3 test runs) score of 5465 with an Open-GL score of 5128. Geekbench gave this system an average score of 3245. Let's compare that to my soon-to-be replaced Dual 2.0GHz G5, which got scores of 2784, 2317, and 1733.

Against my G5, the MacBook Pro gains 96% in Cinebench's processor test, a whopping 121% in the Open-GL test, and 87% in the Geekbench test — and this is with the stock 2GB of RAM. I expect to see another 5%-10% increase once the RAM is maxed-out.

When I got my MacBook Air, I opted to not do the Cinebench test since the GMA X3100 isn't really much a video card, but Geekbench gave it a score of 2070. The MacBook Pro, then, benchmarks 56% higher, as one would expect.

That said, my 3.2GHz 8-core system will be a whopping 290% higher in Cinebench, and 219% higher in Geekbench — so the Tower will still leave the rest of the Mac lineup in shambles.

As for the MacBook Pro itself, I really like the look and feel of it. After using the MacBook Air's glossy screen, I fell in love, so I got the glossy on the MacBook Pro. They keyboard is nice and smooth with great action, and the ports are setup perfectly for my desk's layout. Here it is on my desk (crummy camera phone pic, but you get the idea):

•••••

According to FedEx, my new Mac Pro system will be delivered Monday, so that will be SWEET. Actually, it's going to totally stink to wait the hours it will take to transfer the gigabytes of data from my current system over to the new one, but good things come to those who wait. Or so they say.

•••••

I decided to give the ol' eyes another vision test last night, and even after a full day of use, at 10:05pm, I was amazed that I was actually reading 3/4 of the letters on the 20/15 line! My left and right eyes are now hovering around 20/20 each, so for whatever reason, that seems to make 20/15. THAT is totally cool — and totally good news. I can now see (no pun intended) that my vision really will getter better in another month or so, and I can believe that I'll eventually be able to see "perfectly" like the Doc said I would.

•••••

I listen to Pay Gray and Edd Hindee in the morning, and I was surprised by the bumper music they played while going to a commercial. It was music by a band named Salt, way back from the late 90s, and I totally loved the group. They only had 1 album, but it was totally awesome — and hardly anyone I know has ever heard of them. So, it was quite surprising to hear their tune used in the bumper.

Wow, that was a lame story.