Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Chris Hill
144 followers -
Hairy-faced, bespectacled. Professional geek, amateur photographer. Delusions of grandeur.
Hairy-faced, bespectacled. Professional geek, amateur photographer. Delusions of grandeur.

144 followers
About
Chris's posts

Post has attachment
Introducing my Yashica 24 to its (slightly) older brother, a Yashica E which I found for a real bargain price on Ebay.

Originally it had limited success and a very short production run of ~9500 units over one year - 1964. The result of it not selling especially well and being produced in such small numbers is that its become quite rare, although it's not reguarded as a particularly good camera. It has a fixed shutter speed of 1/60th and uses an unreliable selenium light meter (the sparkly ring around the lower 'taking' lens) to adjust the aperture to suit the conditions.

The E also gained a built-in flash, which I've not seen on another TLR. I intend to source an appropriate bulb for it as I think the blank socket just looks wrong! Theres a little flap which folds down to cover the flash when its not in use, but I think its a shame to hide away one of the cameras notable features.

Unfortunatly my example has a stuck shutter, so for now it will remain a display peice, but once cash allows I hope to get it serviced and working properly.
Photo

Post has attachment
Three photos I took tonight - I'd be interested in hearing which is your favourite and why (and of course any other criticisms!)
PhotoPhotoPhoto
Amaretti Biscuits (3 photos)
3 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
Amaretti Biscuits
Photo

one of the fundamental laws governing the universe is that the 5mins out of your day that you stop working to watch something on YouTube is the same 5mins the boss will be looking over your shoulder.

Wondering how google+ is working out for photographers as an alternative to Flickr? Seems to work well as a portfolio, but are the photos publicly searchable or just visible to people who have you in their circle? 

I'm going to tempt fate and public ridicule by saying that I'm not convinced Responsive Design is the way forward when delivering content to both desktop and mobile devices. I'm sure there are cases where it does the job of getting the content to fit on the screen, but making it the default way of designing websites doesn't sit right with me.

Take a look at the Argos and Comet mobile sites - I expect they share a product database with their full blown counterparts but they're not reshuffled versions of the same site, they're specifically designed to be quick and easily navigated product databases, the core of every e-commerce site. I don't see how a responsive site would improve either companies mobile offering.

Tried out the new Games tab, specifically, I had a go on 'Zombie Lane'. Quite good fun until I ran out of energy and was asked to stump up $1.50 for more (or wait 40mins for it to recharge). I know people are willing to spend (real) money on items for MMORPGs, but $1.50 for an energy top-up in a 'casual' game? I think not.

Post has attachment
Expanding on something I tweeted about earlier... (I do like the extra room to rant that G+ gives me!)

The 'Tweet' and 'Like' buttons Twitter and Facebook provide so that you can make it easier for people to share your content socially are, for the content creator, inherently broken.

Take this article on the guardian's website for example (http://goo.gl/UjFrv) put live on Sunday 17th July - just over a week ago - a reasonable amount of time for an article to be live before you'd want to measure impact. The 'Tweet' button at the top right shows 25 people have tweeted about this page... or have they? Clicking the number itself sends you over to Twitters search page which (as of today) finds 2 tweets linking to the page using a mixture of URL shorteners and the raw URL.
(link here, although I'm not sure how long it'll work correctly: http://goo.gl/Wsf9k)

So where does the figure 25 come from? It's not tracking clicks on the button, as I tried clicking then backing out of actually sending the tweet and the number stayed at 25. Then I actually tweeted the link... still 25. So where does this metric come from? How often is it updated? Why can't I find all 25 tweets?

Granted some may well be down to content from protected accounts not showing up in the search tool, but 92% of people tweeting that link having protected accounts seems like a very unlikely scenario. The issue lays in Twitter capping their search at tweets up to (by my estimates) about 7 days old.

Facebooks 'Like' button has similar issues, although on the surface appears less broken as it doesn't make any attempt to show you who Liked your page, it just shows you a flat figure - as I said on twitter, purely bragging-rights.

I get that these buttons are handy for site visitors since they allow quick social sharing of content, but they're not living up to their potential as a tool for the site owner in tracking who's sharing your content, when they did it and why. A week would seem like a reasonable amount of time for a blog post to be live before you'd want to start collecting response data - your nice little tweet button on your post says '150', yet you can only see a fraction of those tweets and have no way to gauge if the overall reaction was a good one.

Those 'tweet' buttons were welcomed with great fanfare when Twitter first launched them and they very rapidly became prevalent, almost every site with a social conciousness has them... yet they're only living up to a fraction of the potential they have. I think its about time Twitter stepped up their game and not only fixed their search, but created a more trackable, more traceable and more useful 'tweet' button.
Photo
Photo
View album

Rather than split my previous post about 3d in to two, I thought I'd share some thoughts on Cars 2 itself. (keeping spoliers to a minimum!)

I was quite disappointed to find Cars 2 inferior to the original, there are some really obvious 'we put this in so we can turn it in to a toy' moments - Maters multiple disguises being most noticeable, creating at least 5 'outfits' which I'm sure will be made in to toys, although they featured on screen for a couple of seconds at most. Obviously toy tie-ins are a huge part of kids films these days but I'm not sure I've seen anything with quite so obvious product placement as this before.

I struggled to get my head around the plot at times and I know my 5 year old was completely lost - though he still said he enjoyed it I think that was more down to there being lots of car chases and explosions rather than a simple, but immerse story like the first film had.

It wasn't a complete abomination, we both enjoyed it, but it wasn't a patch on what I'd expected to see. Bit of a shame really since Pixar usually can't put a foot wrong in my eyes and they can do good sequels (see Toy Story 2 & 3).

I took my little boy to see Cars 2 yesterday and opted for the 3d version, thinking it'd probably make good use of the technology and finally convince me that wearing two pairs of glasses to watch a film is a worthwhile undertaking - it failed.

While the effect of depth was fantastic in places it seemed to be at the detriment of image quality. I found it hard to focus on details in the image, it just seemed... blurry, for want of a better was of phrasing it. When they're advertising fully digital projection the image should be sharp as a pin - it certainly was on the non-3d version of Tangled we saw at the same cinema.

Does anyone else get this? Is it a by-product of 3d? of wearing glasses? Do I just have strange eyes?
Wait while more posts are being loaded