My photography background consists of taking a few classes at the local junior college, and what I’ve read online and in books. All of these resources have helped me along my journey in photography. I’ve taken a handful of photos that I really enjoy. But I still lack the ability to take decent photos in low-light situations.

Kayla’s volleyball game.

When I shot on film, using my Nikon N90, I was always anxious when shooting in low light. I would dread that the photos I took would develop and show nothing at all. Shooting digitally I am less anxious, but I’m rarely happy with the end results I achieve.

I know part of the solution is having the right tools. If you don’t have a fast enough lens, then shooting action in low light will be a challenge. The photo above is from one of Kayla’s volleyball matches. I used the fastest lens I had, a Sigma 30mm / f 1.4. From the looks of it, the photo came out as best as it could. But the lens is wide, so close-up details are not possible. I wish I could move closer to the action. I guess I need a longer lens.

Kaleb sitting.

I used the same lens to take this photo of Kaleb in very low light. I shot this at ISO 800. You can see some blurring, as I had the aperture wide open. I didn’t take into account the depth of field I was working it. I need to pay more attention to this aspect of photography. I was simply hoping to get a photo without using a flash. I worked on the photo a bit in Photoshop, but it could have been much better if I had just a little more light.

So what do I know right now about shooting in low light?

• If you have a fast lens, use it. As I understand it, a fast lens is f 1.8 or lower. If you have a kit lens it may not be suited for this task.
• Use a higher ISO. If you use 800 or higher, you may get some grainy photos, so don't be surprised.
• If possible, use a tripod. A tripod may not work, especially when your subject is moving.

There are plenty of good tips out there. I just need to read them and keep shooting. As they say, practice makes perfect.

I’m starting a new blog. The domain name, alex-is.com, wasn’t my first choice. It wasn’t even my second or third. I wanted the domain name to be short and related to me or a hobby of mine. The name was inspired by the status updates you make on Facebook or Twitter. For example, when updating my Facebook status via the iPhone it starts with “Alex”, then you often use a verb such as “is”. Hence alex-is.com.

What to write on an iPhone?

Why start a new blog?

I have nothing against my previous blog I had at janella.com. But that domain name was a gift for my wife. Long story short - she disliked her @yahoo.com email address. I thought a personal custom email address would be a great gift. It has been and continues to be, used more for email than for web content. But I co-opted the website portion for my own purposes.

I blogged there regularly. But I have run into a little writer’s block as of late. I am uncertain of the cause, but I believe part of the problem stems from a revelation I had the other week that I’ve been unknowingly blogging for two. While the posts there were ascribed to me, I always felt I was speaking for both of us. This was not necessarily a bad thing, but my wife has never agreed to blog. As far as I know, she has no such desire to do so.

I’ve come to this realization not through anything she has said or done, but by simply reflecting on how much I enjoy writing about what I do or have done. As with many unfocused personal blogs, I’ve chosen to write on a variety of subjects, like the movie or television show I just watched, the trip we just took, or how much I hate the neighbor’s barking dog. I chose to be transparent about my daily activities. I don’t believe I ever asked her if she wished to do the same.

When I first realized this, I tried to change the style of how I blogged on janella.com. But I kept hitting a wall. It’s because that site will always be associated with both of us. I came back to the thought of creating a new separate website, under a different banner, in the hopes it would free up this writer’s block. And so, I think starting my own domain name would shrug off the impediment I feel. After all, as I’ve said before, janella.com was a gift for my wife.

Janella.com has been through many iterations over the years, pointing to various types of pages and services. Currently, it’s pointed to all the photos we have taken in recent years. I think it will remain as such.

What Will I Blog About?

Same subjects as before: news, movies, television, technology, photography, and whatever subjects I care to comment on. I’ll try to stay away from subjects involving family and friends, deciding to keep this part of my life private. But it will be difficult to stay away from that subject since it is a large and important part of my life. I’ll definitely stay away from anything concerning work - that’s one hot potato I’ll always avoid - with the exception of job searching, a subject I’ve written about previously.

I would like to steer clear from reblogging as much as possible. I’d prefer to use my tumblr for this function. But you never know. Reblogged media may creep in. If I reblog, I want to provide some of my own commentaries, as opposed to simply republishing material without thought.

Ideally, I would like to make a blog post at least once a week. This desire is a goal. Let’s see how real it turns out to be.

Dan Cook at San Jose Event Center

I’m not a big Dane Cook fan. If someone was playing his CD or DVD I would listen or watch. But watching him live in concert is a different story. I had no set expectations in seeing him in concert. Unfortunately, his concert at the HP Pavilion was fair to middling at best. He lacked any real energy or (fake) spontaneity, relying solely on his charm to push him through the night. For me, the opening acts garnered more bellyful laughs.

Timothy Finn does a good review of Dane Cook’s concert earlier this year. It sums up the experience pretty well. Would I pay to see Dane Cook again? Probably. Would I spend as much? Probably not.

(Photo via sjsharktank)

The reviews are starting to come in on the Palm Pre. Reviews from Engadget, Gizmodo, Walt Mossberg, and David Pogue.  All the reviews seem positive for the most part. I don’t think I’ll be swayed to leave my iPhone though.  I hate Sprint more than any other cellphone carrier I’ve ever had.

I was in a seminar about twitter a few weeks ago. One person about the safety of tweeting, such as mentioning you are at a restaurant or traveling and not at home. The answer the presenter gave was “you don’t have to share everything”.

Common sense people.  Common sense.

mashable:

Going out of town? Most of us who tweet have been known to share that little tidbit of news with our followers, especially if that out of town journey is to a conference or event where we’re…

You don’t know what I’m capable of.

Liam Neeson does his best Jason Bourne in this action movie. Neeson is an ex-Preventer who must now use his skills to save his daughter. The movie moves along in a good clip. The violence can get intense at times, but the payoff works.

Rating: Matinee

It’s Wolverine, bub!

First off, I hated the title of this film. It’s more suited as a comic book title than a film title. I think they could have gotten away with Wolverine. Non-fanboys would have known who Wolverine was, at least I think. I know he’s no Superman or Batman, but the target audience knows who Wolverine is. Well, onto the film itself.

As an origins story, it provided pretty minimal grit to understanding the man who is Wolverine in all the X-Men films. The story starts off with James / Logan as a boy and by the end of the opening credits he’s a man. The opening credits helped the film along similar to Watchmen, covering enough history to get to a fair starting point for the story. Well, what there is of a story.

I found the story weak and confusing at times. There are too many characters and story points to be compressed within the 107 minutes of the film. You can’t grasp any sense of who these characters are and why you should hate or care for them. It’s cool to see Gambit and Deadpool on the big screen, but it’d just as interesting to play them in a video game then watch them in this film again.

The fight scenes were on par with other X-Men films. But oddly the special effects seem to be worse. I would say the original X-Men film had better special effects than some of the scenes in this film. If you can wait for this film to come out on DVD, I’d say do so. It should be out by the end of the year.

Rating: Rental

The crew of the Enterprise 2009

I tried to set my expectations low for this movie, hoping it would be good. Looking back I didn’t need to do this, as the movie succeeds on many levels. This incarnation of Star Trek is accessible to both those familiar with and those new to Star Trek. The story involves time travel — of course, it does, it’s Star Trek and J.J. Abrams — Romulans, Vulcans, and everything else in between. I think the only thing that was missing was a Klingon.

The casting worked brilliantly, even having Winona Ryder as Spock’s mom worked. The special effects helped, not hindered, the story’s progression. There were two things that annoyed me: (1) the amount of lens flares in the movie, and (2) Pavel Chekov’s accent. The latter annoyed me only because of the number of lines Anton Yelchin, who plays Chekov, had to speak. I would have preferred more lines from Simon Pegg, who plays the lovable Scotty.

Rating: Full Admission

Puppies. Evil puppies.

This is another one of those feel-good movies. But if you know your dog movies, then you know what’ll happen. Yeah, it happens, but not after Marley gets a hold of your heart. Wow, did I just write that? If you’ve seen the trailer, then you’ve pretty much seen the whole movie. Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson are likable, but their characters, and the story, really don’t go anywhere. The movie won’t rot your brain, but it won’t stimulate it either.

Rating: Cable TV

Hello Red. What are you doing here?

You may have seen Redbox in your local grocery store, Wal-Mart, or even your local McDonald’s. It’s a DVD rental machine. You get a DVD for $1 dollar for one day. Not a bad deal considering your other brick-and-mortar options (e.g. Blockbuster). I went to their website to see what movies they had to offer.

The site is easy to use. After creating an account, you can access their DVD catalog. Registering only requires an email address. Search is easily done by movie title, release date, category, or even by the Redbox closest to you. I was disappointed by the number of titles offered. I wanted to watch The Reader, since it is listed as Long Wait in my Netflix queue, but Redbox doesn’t offer this movie.

When you find a movie you want to rent, you can reserve it online with a credit card. The DVD is reserved for about 24 hours. If you don’t pick up the DVD, it will be released for rental and you’ll still be charged. After reserving, go to the machine’s location (listed on the site), and swipe the credit card you used on the website. The DVD will pop out encased in a firm plastic case. It’s that simple.

It appears Redbox may start offering Blu-ray titles, but there doesn’t appear to be a start date for this. If they offer Blu-ray and a broader selection of DVD titles, it could prove to be a successful alternative to my Netflix habit. If they continue to only offer limited titles, they may not make a significant dent in my rental habits.

I think there’s something on your face.

I finally watched the Oscar-winning-feel-good-movie-of-the-year on DVD. Yes, the actors are likable. Yes, the story is predictable. Yes, I’ll watch it if it’s on cable television, but I don’t think I’ll buy the DVD or rent it again. If you have two hours to spend on a movie, this isn’t a bad choice. You won’t have to think about the plot points too much, and it’ll make you, well, feel good.

Rating: Cable TV

Oh Rick!

Casablanca is one of my favorite films. I’ve seen it on VHS, laser disc, and DVD. I anxiously wanted to see this on Blu-ray. I wasn’t disappointed with this rental. The film looks crisp and clean, and it sounds amazing. The amount of extras on this small blu-ray disc is astounding. There are deleted scenes, commentary by Roger Ebert, and documentaries galore about the making of the film.

Rating: Full Admission