Just to reassure you …
While I driving near the Mississippi River near downtown Saint Louis a few days ago, I spotted this sign. Perhaps it was meant to reassure people who were nervous about seeing locomotives operating themselves . . .
While I driving near the Mississippi River near downtown Saint Louis a few days ago, I spotted this sign. Perhaps it was meant to reassure people who were nervous about seeing locomotives operating themselves . . .
I love photographing the most famous monument in St. Louis, Missouri, the Gateway Arch. I've spent time at the riverfront downtown St. Louis for the past two nights. Last night, it was for a business meeting, where I shot this panorama (click the photos for a expanded views): Tonight, my wife and daughters returned to watch the sun set--the river water was high, making the river look much larger than usual. I focused on the sky, though, including this vertical panorama: It was taken by standing directly under the arch and shooting up. For a thicker version of the arch, move up to within 30 feet of one of the legs and you'll end up with this: As the sun went down, I shot this silhouette of the south leg and some of the visitors. Shortly thereafter, while walking back to our car, my 11-year old daughter JuJu was struck by the color of the river bank lit by the streetlight. That image is the somewhat eerie ending to this little gallery: None of this is difficult to do; it's all there for the taking. BTW, I used a consumer grade camera (the Canon Powershot SD1100IS). For those interested in the geometry of the arch, Wikipedia offers this:
This hyperbolic cosine function describes the shape of a catenary. A chain that supports only its own weight forms a catenary; in this configuration, the chain is strictly in tension. An inverted catenary arch that supports only its own weight is strictly in compression, with no shear. The gateway arch itself is not a catenary, but a more general curve called a flattened catenary of the form y=Acosh(Bx); a catenary is the special case when AB=1. While a catenary is the ideal shape for an arch of constant thickness, the gateway arch does not have constant thickness as it is narrower near the top.
I'd never heard of tilt-shift videos before today. It's a rather dramatic effect--using a special lens and adjusting the frames-per-second, you can make real-world large object look miniature. Here are several eye-popping examples. I kept thinking that I was looking at miniatures until I saw such realistic people enter the frame.
I've seen a lot of ordinary wedding photography, much of it from high-priced photographers. So have you. While riding in a plane from St. Louis to Los Angeles two weeks ago, I found myself sitting next to a man named Jon Abrahams. After a bit of conversation, he mentioned that he photographed weddings. I thought I knew what to expect. A few seconds later, after he showed me some of his images on his iPhone, I was a believer. I rarely find myself fully engaged when looking at wedding photos, even when the subjects are people I know, and especially when viewing the photos on a tiny screen. Jon's photos were unusual, however. He works the genre harder and more elegantly than most wedding photographers, in order to get artistic shots that nonetheless capture the mood. Jon, who often flies hundreds or thousands of miles to shoot weddings, kindly gave me permission to print the images you see at this post. His website offers a slideshow featuring many additional images. I hope you enjoy these images (including "The Last Supper" photo, below) as much as I did.
I hate to sound like a Tea-Party nutbag, but I really love the United States' Constitution. As I've mentioned before, I'm a free-speech fanatic. I love the Constitution's sharp focus on individual liberties, its emphasis on the rights of the accused, and that grade-school-civics favorite, the checks and balances of power. I despair when these ideals meet real-life sacrifices, especially glaring ones like, oh, the utter lack of Congressional declarations of war since WWII. I also don't like to sully the document's purity with excessive amendments, interpretations and adaptations. No Defense of Marriage Amendment, please, but while you're at it, no marriage at all (it violates the establishment clause, you see). But don't call me a Scalia-esque strict constructionist. If I could, I would copy-edit the otherwise brilliant Constitution and correct a centuries-old omission with no qualms: I would give the United States a monarch. It probably seems unamerican, undemocratic and all-around anti-freedom-y to propose that we foist an unquestioned figure to the crown of government. It probably sounds old-fashioned, all uppity and needlessly symbolic and European. I know it does. It's exactly my point.