SageWorld News

Salt water and laptops don't mix. George managed to spill salt water over Gretchen's laptop. Needless to say, it now does not work. Upon investigation I discovered the computer part works but the screen, keyboard and mousepad don't work at all. Fortunately we have an identical laptop with a broken power connector. Thus I am now changing out as many parts as I can. Currently I'm facing a square drive screw and must therefore go out and purchase a square screwdriver. It's not a complete disaster but I think it's probably time for a new laptop. The trouble is I looked at waterproof, shockproof laptops and found they're hideously expensive. Mind, wristwatches weren't waterproof until somebody started doing it as a sales gimmick. Now they all are. They need to move on to make laptops water and shock proof.

Meanwhile I'm plodding on with filling the stump holes in the garden with soil and removing the remainder of the pine mulch and chippings that the people that came for the free pine mulch and chippings left behind. There's a fair quantity that they missed. I'm jolly glad as much went as did though. That was super. The 10 tons of soil is dwindling as it's going into the stump holes and that's very welcome. I suspect 10 tons was far too much but I'm pretty sure I can use it all.

I hunted in vain for a square screwdriver. Those on sale were all far too big. Even the electronics shop didn't have small enough square screwdrivers. Without this one essential tool, I cannot change the screen on the laptop. Effectively, unless I can get this tool, the laptop is garbage. I even approached some repair shops and they'd never heard of the tool. I went as far as making one but it disintegrated as the screw is so well screwed in.

Clearly the only answer is to cut the cable and solder the new screen onto the end of the old cable. Fortunately it's only a ground cable.

Today I only filled two holes and emptied both. Lots of barrowloads of soil and mulch went in opposite directions. I have another few holes to empty and fill with soil. Then I have all the lumps and bumps in the lawn to smooth out.

It amuses me greatly that when I post photos on the forums that are out of focus and grainy and underexposed of my high-speed subjects, I get virtual silence. Hardly any responses. When I post a photo that anybody else can take, it's torn apart viciously. Of course, I'm working on better presentation of my high-speed photos. I would have taken some today but I just didn't feel like a high-speed session today.

I managed to get Gretchen's laptop working. I simply charge the battery in the laptop that charges and transfer it to the laptop that works. It's annoying but it works. Meanwhile she's bidding on another laptop on ebay. Sounds good to me.

Looking at the photo I rescued from the reject pile last night, I note that I can even see the grooves on the side of the pellet caused by the rifling on the barrel of my air pistol. This has me thinking more and more of faster flashes.

I've investigated various lines of thought and it seems that the car ignition coil is the best way of producing a high voltage. Rectifying that voltage for use with a capacitor is the difficult part. The Ford Model A coil is nice and cheap though apparently noisy.

Tonights expedition into the garage and the realm of high-speed photography didn't generate anything worthwhile. I was trying to get images of balloons bursting. Those that did burst were out of focus while all the others punctured but did not burst. Very frustrating! I wasn't that bothered because the background needed to be a lot bigger. Clearly I need to set up a much bigger background than I currently have. Thus I was not too bothered about getting perfect burst results. I used the time to experiment. This is not too bad of a result but clearly the dart after popping the balloon has fallen too far. I suspect shooting the balloon with .177 is a better solution.



I popped into autozone to have a chat about coils. The cheapest is around $10 which is very welcome. I'm toying with the idea of building a microflash but at the moment while I'm enjoying the investigation, I don't really feel it's worth building until I get my high-speed photos looking good. Clearly I need a bigger, better background. That's not hard though and I'll put one together tomorrow.

Now that I'm awake and alert, I realise why my high-speed photos from yesterday didn't work out too well. I forgot to zoom the flash head. Now that wouldn't have resolved the timing problems but it would have resolved the lighting issues.

Thinking more on the lines of lighting issues, here's a circuit diagram I found online for a hefty power supply. It uses a car ignition coil to produce a high voltage. Putting a 12v transformer on the other end to provide the power would make it mains powered. I could even run it off a car battery.


Apparently the next problem will be to get a capacitor that will discharge fully in one single blast. I'm thinking therefore that a condenser from a car will do the job - especially since we're already using the coil from a car. At the moment I've costed a Ford Model A coil at $15 and a Ford Model A condenser at $11. Now this is beginning to look possible however I bet there's more to this than there appears. There already has been.

In other news, we purchased an automatic cat litter tray. Essentially it waits 10 minutes after the cat has used the tray and then sifts through the tray, pushing the clumped solids into a container for disposal. Unfortunately it worked the first two days and then failed completely to work. Thus, we went back to the old original method of using a plastic tray for the cats and manually removing the clumped solids with a filtering shovel. I had some initial doubts about the benefit of an automated system.

Apparently we've ordered some topsoil to fill the stump holes. I can also use it to level the hollows in the lawn. The problem is we had a minimum order of 10 tons. This means we probably have 9.75 tons more than we actually need!

Very late news... I looked at some of my reject photos from yesterday and found a stunner. I thought I was missing the light bulb that I'd been shooting at and I've actually hit it but too high. It's hard to get a good aim with my air pistol. The pellet is actually bouncing off the bulb and has deformed on impact!

While I'm still waiting for my protective filters for my 18-55 lens and the book which should help me to build a faster flash, I've decided to concentrate on taking high-speed photos that have little danger or mess associated with them. Thus I'm probably going to try to find some light porcelain, try to get a repeatable image of the pellet above a mark point, shoot some crayons, some cocktail sticks a playing card and so on. I'm also going to try to make a stand that I can glue targets to so they appear to be suspended in mid air.

I realise now that the 50mm f1.8 I sold ages ago, would have been great for this kind of photography. I never could get that lens to focus correctly on my XT for landscapes etc. Perhaps I should have kept it for portraits etc as well as for high-speed photography. Right now though I'm happy with my 18-55 lens. I had been considering all kinds of alternative lenses for high-speed photography, ranging from cheap to expensive. It seems to me though - as with all things - the stuff I actually own is going to work out best.

I've been reading up on high-speed photography on internet forums. Most of those forums seem to have died down which tells me an awful lot. It's the end of June so that means that the vast majority of users are seasonal. Hence they're probably students.

As luck would have it, my filters and book arrived simulteneously. The book has some interesting ideas. It's clearly very dated but it's interesting none the less. I think I see how a flash works and how an air flash would work also.

I had a go at painting the holders for my targets etc black in order that my background is perfectly black. I also made a support that I can glue targets to in order that there is no visible means of support for them.

Eventually I had a go at some photography. I was not pleased with what I produced tonight.

I'm not very pleased with these. I changed my gun mounting from the vice to a hand-made mount which meant I had to move it further down the workbench. Because I have not as yet fitted a dedicated flash mounting bracket anywhere, there was little room to put my light stand and hence the flash was too far away from the subject. Add to that my flash was going off before it should - well before and I had an interesting time. There's a lot to high-speed photography. These were the best four photos of an ultimately disappointing evening (in 90% humidity and 90 degrees Fahrenheit in my garage - sweat was dripping off me).

The block of ice photo went well but the explosion was wider than I anticipated so the spray is mostly not sharp.



The strawberry shot went well enough but I'm definitely going to have to work out a better way of aiming. It was 1/2 an inch higher than I wanted.



The crayons destroyed nicely. It would have been nice to have the pellet in the frame but with so many variables I didn't manage it.


This was the best photo of the evening. Three pencils going west. Again, the pellet would have been nice to have in the frame but there were so many variables that I didn't manage it.

Thinking about high-speed photography, I compared various lenses using an online depth of field calculator.

The closer I get, the less depth of field I get at a specific aperture.
The longer the focal length the further away the lens has to be for the depth of field to remain the same at the same specific aperture.

Thus, a longer lens which means greater magnification does not mean greater depth of field. It stays the same - it's a constant.

The only way to get greater depth of field is with a smaller aperture or by moving the lens further away. The drawback with moving the lens further away is that it diminishes the size of the subject in the frame.

There are two alternatives available if one is to get close enough to a small object to fill the frame:
1. Higher ISO (more effective light).
2. More actual light - a brighter flash.

While my standard flash is capable of producing much more light than I'm actually using from it, I have a limitation in that I need a fast flash. At 1/128th power I get 1/35,000th exposure. At 1/64th power (which would give me greater illumination) then I'd have a much longer exposure of 1/17,000th or thereabouts. The problem there is that I would get much more blurring in the image.

So... What is the solution? In the short run the higher ISO is achievable quite easily. In the long run, a more powerful, faster flash is the ultimate answer. The problem there is cost - they cost upwards of $2,000. While it's achievable I debate whether it's worth spending that much.

I've been thinking quite a lot about ways of making my photographic venture into a success. It seems to me that when I don't try to do things, they often succeed. I shall thus concentrate on taking great and unusual photos which I might then put onto some of the $6.99 cheap desktop calenders. I figure if I have 10 or so of those printed and distribute them around to useful-sounding companies then it could well be worthwhile advertising. As I found with software, selling software to Joe Public did not make money. Selling program libraries to developers did. Clearly Joe Public is not somebody I really should be marketing towards. Even in the past, when I sold photos, I sold to newspapers and made money out of it. Making money from industry is a lot easier than making it from the general public as far as my experience goes to show.

One of the interesting niches many photographers enter is book-writing. They put some (often quite appalling) photos into a book and write with an air of great authority on some photographic subject. It is charlatanism of the highest order and I compare this to the snake oil peddlers of the 19th century for which many were tarred and feathered. I have a growing collection of books on various photographic subject areas. Some are better than others. The older books are definitely the most useful as they were written before the advent of word processors. There's a noticeable difference in the quality and quantity of books produced after the advent of word processors. Before, books were thoroughly researched and written from the heart and soul by people deeply committed to the subject. Now they're largely written by people wanting to make a name for themselves or a fast buck. As a general rule I don't now buy many books. I buy one if it leaps off the shelf at me as a good book but often I find that what looks good initially fails to fulfill expectations. I do find it entertaining that many amateur photographers on internet discussion forums seem to believe that a particular book is the only book to have. I often wonder whether such fanboys have been recruited by the authors to improve their sales. Clearly though - as the shelves of the bookshops demonstrate - there's mass production and low quality. This is obviously not the way to go to make money.

Most areas in which people have flooded the market are now deserts. All the promising careers for many have become dead ends as too many people have pursued the path until the money tree that once flourished at the end of the road has been plucked clean and its limbs sold for firewood. Quality has often been sacrificed for quantity and cheapness though I suspect there's still room for quality. People don't all buy cheap Ford cars - there's still a market for Lotus, Ferrari, Lamborghini etc.

I have just realised with my plans for a box for my high-speed photography that it's not going to be very practical. While I could get everything happening in a box, the problem is going to be depth of field. At 55mm, depth of field at 12 inches is going to be about quarter of an inch. That's not really very much! It certainly doesn't give me enough depth to blast glasses and figurines nor eggs. It seems to me that the ideal depth needs to be about six inches. Using an online depth of field calculator. With the 55mm lens this is about 5 feet. Clearly with a 55mm lens I'm not going to have the subject very large in the viewfinder so a longer lens becomes necessary. Using a 100mm lens I get 6 inches depth at 9 feet.

My plans are to wait for the lens-protecting filters I ordered, which should arrive by Tuesday. Then I shall take close-up images of breaking pencils, crayons and a card being cut in two. I might do a row of toothpicks as well, for fun. Clearly thin china will be easier to clean up than glass so I might do some thin china as well. There are many, many sources for these items locally. The thin stuff breaks with less power needed from the airgun and thus less danger from flying fragments.

Today I have added a lot of foam to the inside of my new pellet trap. That should, in theory, stop the ricochets. I had not expected ricochets from a pellet trap. Clearly I'm going to have to rethink a lot of my methodology, in view of what I've heard and experienced so far.

It seems to me that a stout plywood box is in order, in which I can contain the debris - with two clear (and replaceable) perspex/plexiglass panels - one to take photos through and the other to protect the flash. Perhaps I can even add a camera mount on one side and a flash mount on the top in order to avoid having to carry several items into the garage. Clearly, it does not have to be very big as I'm only destroying small objects. Since my camera to subject distance can be as little as 8 inches, I don't need anything much more than 2 feet wide, 12 inches high and about 3 feet long (to accommodate the gun etc. I'll need to put a baffle in, in order to protect my hand. This could be a screen with a hole in it large enough for the pellet to go through. The other end could be open or closed. If it were closed (with perhaps a door to allow access) then my pellet trap would be redundant, which is a shame. I might invest in some thick plywood with foam glued to it to try to stop the pellets. It seems to me that a few dollars spent on plexiglass and plywood is going to be a lot better than replacing lenses and cameras. It also gives the opportunity to shoot messy substances such as eggs. Further development could include a camera and flash housing that would allow me to take photos in daylight.

This is a very interesting field that I've only just begun to exploit. I will probably build a microsecond flash at some point but I haven't exhausted the possibilities with my standard camera flash yet.

In other news, we discovered the guy that seemed to be in charge of the logging team that felled our trees and then went on to fell a tree on a neighbour's house has actually spent time in jail. We even found his real name and the name of his probation officer. Apparently he's a really wild character, well known to the police. That does not surprise me since he came door to door to look for work. In fact that just about sums up my thoughts about door-to-door salesmen, canvassers and so on. If somebody is genuine then they will have an office - save for freelancers that don't advertise but who are known in the industry.

Today I put the final touches to my pistol holder. I also created some target holders. I shall concentrate on one type of target each time. It's better to spend the time getting it right and having success than rushing and having a string of disappointments. I spent quite a while testing. One problem was that the whole device wobbled on the bench. That was easily fixed though with the aid of three screws and three nuts. They made 3 very nice feet. As everybody knows - a three legged object always sits stable - even on uneven ground - hence most milking stools were always 3-legged. Now it's steady and I even have the base for my target stands in place. I made three target holders also - one for playing cards, one for crayons and one for pencils. After some test runs I discovered that my air pistol had not got enough power to do more than demolish one pencil or two crayons. Having said that, it's useful information that I would not have gained without practice and experimentation.

It was suggested to me that ice would be a great target on the basis that I could shoot it without worrying about broken glass about the place. Anything I didn't clear up would melt and evaporate. The trick would be taking the photos quickly enough that the ice didn't melt everywhere. Another trick would be molding the ice into the right shapes.

Other than that, no real news. The old lady diagonally opposite us died the other day. That was the lady whose mailbox I replaced as our redneck loggers smashed it - twice.

Thinking about safety for my camera and lens, I might build a little housing to protect my camera from flying fragments. In fact, it need not be more than a piece of foamboard. I've just ordered some cheap UV filters from ebay. If I put two on the front of the lens then I doubt anything bad will happen to the lens. One of the other high-speed photographers said he used a sheet of glass between camera and subject and had that smashed several times by fragments. He also said that the book I've just bought has plans for a microflash that might use valves. Fortunately I found several valve suppliers so even if it does use valves, I'm not stuck.

I'll be happy to get better high-speed photos. For the moment my ordinary flash will do. The other guy uses his kit lens also and shoots from 10 inches away from the subject. Clearly that's something I'm going to head towards too. It does make for better photos. Adequate camera protection is very important though.

What is it about technology? When you want it to work or need it to work, it resolutely will not.

Take my printers this morning. I wanted to print on 6x4 card. They will take 6x4 card. I've printed on it before. This morning no matter what I do, they take the 6x4 and print as though I was printing on a much bigger size. I check the print preview and it looks fine. I check the settings and they're all fine. I restart the computer and that doesn't help either. Tomorrow, I'll bet my boots it'll work just fine but not today when I need it to work.

What was I trying to do? Only run off a few dozen 6x4 postcard prints of the Ace of Spades so that I could shoot it for my high-speed photography tomorrow night. I figured it'd be cheaper to do that than to buy a pack of cards to shoot. Clearly (having wasted 15-20 notecards) I was wrong - it would have been cheaper just to buy the bloody pack of cards! As it so happened, the dollar shop had two packs for a dollar. I now have two packs of extremely cheap-looking cards. They're as thin as can be - which is really helpful and probably just as flimsy as can be which is rather helpful again. I have no qualms about shooting my way through the entire of two packs to get a really good photo.

They're still talking about the transvestite that came into the shop the other day. The comment I heard that I really like is that the guy didn't just come in dressed as a woman, he came in dressed as a prostitute. It's true - 6 inch heels, very short black dress and making passes at all the men in the shop. When the transvestite entered together with his boyfriend (who was dressed as a pimp), I wondered whether they were going to try to rustle up business in the bookshop. Then I realised the "prostitute" was a man. Then they headed off to the fiction section to get Dean Koontz and Stephen King novels. Not very feminine reading - assuming the one guy really wanted to be a girl! Meanwhile the manager was laughing his socks off at them and just about every other member of staff and customer was keeping them under mirthful observation. I dare say that if an armed robber had entered the store, he'd have been told "just a minute... we're watching the spectacle".

I didn't do any high-speed photography today. Instead I built a more sturdy mount for my air gun so that I could shoot and be spot on target every time. I then tried shooting a row of 3 pencils with no success. I could hit the first but the 2nd and 3rd weren't damaged. I'm guessing that the first was deflecting the pellet or that perhaps 3 pencils is too much for a .177 airgun. I also tried cutting postcards with my airgun and was successful though I didn't use the mount. Clearly I can't cut through too much paper which means I'll probably have to cheat a little (what's new in photography) by printing my own playing cards on thin card stock. That's actually going to be cheaper anyway. I don't want to destroy too much more glass because it gets everywhere. Gretchen was suggesting I made a box for high-speed photography to ensure fragments don't go too far. I think she's right. I'll have to start thinking about how to design and build it now. I rather suspect hardboard and dexian may be the way to go.