Wishful thinking

I’ve been thinking about something that keeps popping up, in both literature and reality.

Basically, people portray the enemy as a diminished caricature, thinking this is already half the way to victory. Portray the enemy as a caricature and that will make him weak, and you strong. Then, as you lose, your entire world falls apart.

The counter-argument is always: “but if we say good things about the enemy, that will be just spewing their own propaganda”, as if stating facts about the enemy is somehow a hostile propagandistic act. Don’t let facts and evidence stand in the way of good propaganda, right?

People weren’t always this stupid, naive and indoctrinated. I watched WW2 films made by the US military, describing German air defence. It was excellent, and I don’t think anything of the sort could be made today without the author being accused of working for Hitler. The film starts by describing the mathematical and technical methods used by the Germans; basically, they will observe your aircraft, notify the air defence battery, make the calculations of your speed and direction, speed and direction of their FLAK ammunition, and calculate for the intersection with some statistical spread. Essentially, if you allow them to do this, you die. You will absolutely die because yes, those FLAK cannons can absolutely hit your aircraft all the way up there, they don’t make mistakes and they don’t miss. The only way for you to survive is to listen to these instructions and apply them diligently. You will pass their observation posts here. Then, change your direction according to the instruction sheet you received. Absolutely follow this to the letter, because our mathematicians did the calculations to thwart their mathematicians, and both know their stuff. Then fly for as long in that direction as that sheet says, and then at the exact moment it says change the direction again. What is that for? Well, you need to allow the German observers to notify the FLAK guys about your direction, speed and altitude. Then, you need to make sure that those numbers are incorrect by the time the guns fire, and when those shells explode up there, you will be elsewhere. If you’re not elsewhere, you will be dead because the Germans are excellent mathematicians and marksmen and they don’t miss. Have a nice day now.

Imagine this today – NATO stating something factually correct about Russia and China. That will never happen. You always have stupid stereotypes, people get promoted for making fraudulent, diminished reports about the enemies’ capabilities, and so on. Then, when their strategy fails, they make a surprised Pikachu face – how is it possible that the Russia didn’t go bankrupt, that they are economically thriving, that they are making all those superweapons? They must be getting the drones from Iran because they can’t possibly make it themselves? After all, they are a gas station masquerading as a country. The fact that they are routinely flying people to space longer than America, let’s ignore that. Also, how is it possible that Iran just closed the strait of Hormuz? Yeah, it was the obvious and expected move, but the people in the CIA who reported obvious and expected moves by the enemy got fired long ago, and the still employed people know how it’s done properly. Tell the politicians what they want to hear.

I always remember that key sentence from “Salvos”, Sicar’s response to Manos’ question as to how this whole mess is possible: “We must have underestimated the power of the Enemy and the Traitor. That is why Venas is dead, Hartia is defeated, and over half the legions have been freed.”

Yes, that happens when you underestimate the enemy. The enemy doesn’t become weak and stupid because you made statements to that effect. The Germans don’t start missing your airplanes because your propagandists state that their marksmen are all slaves from concentration camps who can’t aim. The Russians don’t run out of ammunition because you dreamt about it.

But let’s use the “Salvos” examples rather than the real world, lest people be too upset by the offence committed against their beloved propaganda. For instance, Salvos very early on notified the Adventurers’ Guild about Belzu – what level he is, that he uses curses and illusions, that he uses Mindreapers to amplify his magic and control hordes of monsters and the undead, and so on. It would be obvious to any rational actor that they are dealing with a very dangerous, rational strategist. Instead, everybody kept talking about a “rampaging Demon”, as if he’s another Lucerna who goes around and kills everything because he’s insane. They didn’t investigate his capabilities properly. Instead, they kept sending people to fight him, and everybody ended up dead. They kept calling him “the Primeval Demon”, as if his name and capabilities don’t matter, just his level. The problem was, his level was the least of their problems. It was his capabilities that got people killed. You approached him, and you found yourself in an illusion so convincing, you thought it was reality. It was like fighting Lord Mara from Zelazni’s “Lord of Light”. You are inside a dream, you fight fictions, don’t see actual attacks, don’t see the enemy where he is, see him where he isn’t, he fakes being injured or killed to deceive you, and then you are dead. Or, he curses you with something so strong it completely incapacitates you and you don’t know where it came from or how to fight it. People who had no business fighting Belzu got killed because they didn’t wear amulets of Greater Curse Resistance, or Aura of Greater Protection, or they fought him when he wielded the Sword of Alexander and they didn’t have a Divine weapon or shield. Or they didn’t have spatial senses or premonition to counter his illusions. Basically, they went with strength against deception and were easily defeated.

It’s not that the people who knew how it is to fight Belzu didn’t talk. It’s that the others didn’t want to listen. They didn’t ask. Edithe fought him, and nobody asked her for tactical advice; instead, they underestimated her for her levels, because a lvl. 170 must know better than a lvl. 100 even though that lvl. 100 is the only person with a Skill that’s a total antidote do Belzu’s illusions. Like, what could she possibly know that would be useful to us. Also, what would Salvos possibly know that’s useful – she just faced him multiple times in battle and lived, when higher-levelled people died. “We know everything there is to know about Demons”. Yeah, right. Also, it was constantly repeated that Belzu killed Mori Gladius – that was completely untrue. Mori Gladius and Salvos defeated Belzu in battle. He was forced to use up his best curses to fight Salvos clones, and he used up his Grand Skill to fight Mori Gladius. Mori defeated it with his own Grand Skill and was about to kill Belzu, when Levithus intervened and stabbed him behind his back. Mori and Salvos actually won, and the battle was lost when it became a completely different battle, against the general of Regnorex’s forces in the Mortal Realm. They keep misinterpreting the evidence and fighting against imaginary foes with imaginary properties, instead of just facing the facts and dealing with them properly.

Let’s return to this world. The Christians have all those ideas about fighting Satan, not being deceived by him, and so on. They read the Bible, see how he offered Christ things as temptation, and Christ refused. They see this as encouragement – they would do the same, or at least Christ would do it for them, as they live by his name. Oh, really? They would never kneel before Satan, accepting him as their God? All the while, they pray to the One God Creator of this world, who has all the power here, thinking that they are praising the Lord and giving proper credit where it is due. Somehow they manage not to see the part of the scripture where Jesus doesn’t contradict Satan when he offers him all the kingdoms of the Earth. Did Christ say “they are not yours to give, because that is the dominion of the Lord”? No, he didn’t. Instead, he called Satan the Prince of this world. So, when the Christians are praying to the Lord of this world, who are they actually praying to? In their desire not to give Satan power, they are completely misreading the battlefield.

Wishful thinking and diminishing the enemy doesn’t result in victory in a war, and it does nothing to diminish the enemy. If you want to diminish the enemy, you need to recognize where his assets are, and attack them. You need to be able to read the facts and reality correctly, and act accordingly. If the Enemy is too powerful or too well protected for Jesus and the angels of the Lord to attack him directly, then shut the fuck up about fighting him and try not to be here in the first place. If Satan is protected by the Word of God, who gave him power until his given time runs out, this means that during that given time no external force can touch him. Only his own sin can harm him. What you can do is not be a target, not be on the battlefield, not delude yourself with silly ideas about winning with power and virtue. Oh, you’ll say, but if we admit that Satan is that powerful, would that not make us afraid, and thus in his power? Of course it would make you afraid. You need to be. You could use a good dose of fear. People who are afraid of Satan and sin are less likely to foolishly do things that will make them his slaves. They will tremble in realization of their circumstances and pray to God for salvation, which happens to be the best course of action available to them. Who even told you that fear is bad? It’s the lack of fear in this place that makes you but a hapless victim. You have no basis for courage or self-confidence. Fear is your shield and prayer is your weapon. Stop acting as if you’re on a vacation in some amusement park. You’re in hell, in the dominion of Satan, and the only way out of his total control is through humble and sincere prayer to the Lord.

Subset

One of the most absurd things I’ve heard in the context of photography recently is the fact that the most popular and effective way of scanning film is using a digital camera with a macro lens and a film holder. Essentially, instead of a linear CCD scanner they are now using a modern digital camera in order to produce a digital file from film, instead of just using the digital camera to take the picture in the first place.

However, you can’t argue with the results. My son uses this technique after attempting to resurrect some ancient Minolta SCSI scanner that produced inferior results. The “scans” produced with Sony A7RV are in fact among the best I’ve seen anywhere. Which, of course, leads to a conclusion that film is obviously a sub-set of a modern digital camera’s capability.

It’s not something that I didn’t know already, but it gives you an idea why I’m no longer tempted to play with film. Other than the nostalgic element of working with my old gear again, which is really minimal, film doesn’t actually do anything for me that I couldn’t get with my digital cameras.

Ilford Delta… sort of 🙂

Which brings us to an interesting point. I do, in fact, occasionally process my pictures in B&W, sepia or aiming for a certain look of a certain film process or a specific emulsion. That’s because those things were not merely technical limitations; sometimes they were actual artistic choices. Some things look better in black and white. Some things look better in bold, strong colours of Velvia or E100VS. Some things look better in a gentle pastel of Portra. The look of different film processes still has a place. However, since it’s all a subset of what a modern digital sensor can do, proven by the fact that the digital sensor is the best way to scan all kinds of film, it’s all a matter of a processing profile in Lightroom.

Only film can… oh.

I strongly dislike those garish, colour-faded or shifted profiles that are supposed to look like film; they look like film prints and negatives that have been left somewhere in a hot attic for 20 years, not like film as I remember it. They look like the end-result of decay of a technology that didn’t stand the test of time. I prefer to process things in ways that look like film when it’s fresh, crisp, with vivid and realistic colours, fresh from the lab and into the scanner.

Kodak EB2… not really 🙂

And the best thing about digital is that I no longer need either the lab or the scanner. I no longer need to fuss over availability or price of emulsions. I no longer have to fuss over freshness of the chemicals in a lab, or someone’s fingerprints on my slides, or dust and scratches. I’m getting a pristine, first-generation image, and then if I decide it would look better as Sensia, Velvia, T-Max or something from Ilford, it’s actually an artistic choice, not a technical necessity. However, the film isn’t dead; as long as we remember what it looked like.

Actually film; Sensia 100, MC 135mm f/2.8 Rokkor

Photography requirements

I was just talking to the AI about the photographic requirements for Plitvička Jezera, and it made me laugh when it offered suggestions about cameras and lenses. Sure, I guess that’s what it found on the Internet – people asking what camera is the best, what lens is the best. I find it completely ridiculous.

You see, the camera/lens requirements there are so minimal, that as long as you have a camera with 4/3 sensor or bigger, with 12MP or more, and a standard kit zoom, you’ll do great. Sony R-1 did great when I used it there. Canon 5d and Olympus E-PL1 were also great. Olympus E-1 with 5MP had resolution that wouldn’t survive proper magnification, but with good technique, 12MP or more will give you a sharp B2 sized print. That’s 70 centimetres in width. If you want bigger magnifications, 24MP Sony A7II will give you sharp B1 print size. Everything higher than that is overkill. As far as lenses are concerned, 28-70mm is fine, 24-105mm is slightly better. Aperture doesn’t matter; f/4 is great. What matters is resistance to flare, and sharpness at f/8-f/11, because that’s where you’re going to be most of the time, or even at f/16. Yes, diffraction is slightly bad, but insufficient depth of field is much worse. You can correct for diffraction with unsharp masking. You can’t correct for insufficient depth of field, and then your ability to magnify the picture will suffer more than it would with 5MP resolution of Olympus E-1. Proper technique, meaning hyperfocal distance calculation, stopping down to f/16 or even more when necessary, tripod stability, ND filter so that you can blur the water; that’s what will actually give you sharp, good pictures. You can’t buy your way out of this one, because photographic technique is everything, and any semi-decent used camera will do. Biljana used the Canon RP with RF 24-105mm f/4 L lens there and the technical quality of her shots was absolutely top notch. What you actually need, and I mean need, not want, is a light, sturdy tripod. Not some big monstrosity; a traveller-type light carbon or aluminium tripod with a good ball head with Arca Swiss mounting plate, and you need the Arca Swiss L-bracket for your camera. When we took just the ordinary small mounting plates, they rotated on the camera body during exposure and caused issues. You need the L-bracket, or at least pinky grip with the Arca Swiss rail. Modern image stabilization that can work on a tripod is a big asset. You can survive without it, but it will enable you in getting the shots that would otherwise be lost to boardwalk vibration.

The biggest problems there are tourists – in a sense that they shake the boardwalk making it impossible to do long exposure shots. The solution to this is to get started as early in the morning as possible, before the hordes are finished with their breakfast. Get to the boats early, before they are working, and you’ll be rewarded with the ducks and cormorants messing around at the dawn, still at peace because the humans didn’t yet arrive to disturb them. When the entire continental China and most of Japan and India are in the park, the animals will hide, and honestly, I will follow along because at that point nothing is fun anymore.

Also, what’s important is the light. Once the light is lost in the canyon, the white balance will go deep blue, which means you lost most of the frequencies of light. Not great. Also, when the sun is too bright, you will have hot spots across the picture; also not good. Ideally, you would want fog in the autumn morning, and the sun catching on the mist.

However, for the most part, if you’re trying to get blurred water, cloudy weather is better than sunlight.

Circular polarizer is good to have, but a ND filter is essential. I usually prefer ND64, but it might be too strong for low light situations; ND32 or even ND16 might be more practical. With ND64 it’s easy to get seconds of exposure, but that will give you water that turned into mist. What you might want is texture in the water that indicates motion; not too much, but not completely blurred either. I got good results at 1/6s to 1/2s. Even shorter exposures like 1/25s can look good in some situations, but longer than half a second rarely does. Sure, if you want it dreamy, go ahead. I prefer it peaceful but alive.

The majority of good shots there, however, might not even require a tripod. Birds messing around on the lake require 1/500s or shorter. Lots of motives are just common forest/lake stuff, no need for blurring anything.

Lens flare, when it’s sunny, can be a pain there. It’s good to have a lens that’s resistant to it, which I usually don’t, so I lost multiple shots to flare. It’s a thing. Camera resolution and lens sharpness are non-issues there, but lens flare is a problem. Also, around noon or later, when the sun is too strong for photography, all the tourists are there, acting like they’re on Instagram and not in nature, and they disturb the peace of the place to the point where we pack our stuff and go have coffee and cheese cake, and then return to the hotel, shower and inspect our photos until dinner. The last time we were there, I caught an excellent shot of the snow caps in sunset light with a telephoto lens, so things like that might be worth looking into.

I always think I’ll set up the tripod with a wideangle and try to get a Milky Way shot, but it’s not happening. Too many street lights, too many trees obstructing the view. Not worth it. Instead, we go to bed early, wake up early in the morning, and that’s where the best light is.

You’ll be crouching and kneeling a lot, because that’s how you get good perspective. Removing your backpack beforehand might not be an option, so don’t overburden yourself with lenses you’re not going to use. Also, changing lenses with all that mist and spray in the air is a terrible idea, because that stuff will require a wet cleaning of the sensor. Whenever I took more than one lens around the lakes, I regretted it.

So, that’s my take on it. I mean, sure, you can geek out over lenses and cameras all you want if it makes you happy, but out there the tripod mounting plate and filters will matter far more.

 

Observations

I took the tiny FE 50mm f/2.5 G to a walk this evening, and I have to admit, I love the combination of small size, excellent mechanical quality and stellar optics. I thought the f/2.5 aperture would be insufficient for what I normally use a lens of this type for, but it turned out not to be an issue. It’s crisp, with modern image aesthetics and incredibly high resolution for something so small.

Assimilated

Nothingness

Fire of gold

Parched land

I listened to something on YouTube; comments about someone highly praising a lens he barely uses, and then people are asking why did he buy it in the first place. Well, not so fast. You don’t have to use a lens daily to have a need of it, or to appreciate it, or for it to earn a place in your toolkit. I have a huge list of my favourite photos that were made with lenses I rarely use. However, when I use them, the results usually tend to be my best work. If something is your favourite dish, it doesn’t mean you have to eat it every day. Frequency of use isn’t really tightly correlated with need. I need a lens if it enables me to make a particular type of photography. If that’s something I do once every five years, that’s quite a good reason for me to own such a lens. A fisheye is a good example. Do I need it? Absolutely. Some of my best work is with a fisheye. However, it’s a dozen photos over two decades.

Decomposing

Frequency of use means nothing to me. Quality of work, in those cases when use happens, means everything. The fact that a lens gathers dust for years on my shelf doesn’t mean anything to me. I need it there, when the right situation arises. A frequently used lens is merely a lens I take for a walk, and I will produce most of worthless and generic pictures with it. That also doesn’t mean that the lens is not good; it just means that I use it when probability of success is negligible. Either I don’t feel like taking pictures, or I think there are no motives, no light, but I still take the camera, just in case. However, a “just in case” lens will occasionally also take my best pictures, when I’m wrong, and I do find something worth photographing.

Film point-and-shoot

Phone

Because “case” occasionally happens when you don’t expect anything.

But where to draw the line? When is something rarely used because it’s useless? Well, that happens. I had lenses that turned out to overlap so much with other lenses, that I gave up on them and sold them. There are cameras and camera systems that I find good and useful, but something else was better. I don’t actually have to own everything I ever used to make a favourite picture. I had multiple standard zooms. They were all good. However, I only need one, and they all overlap in functionality and the results they produce. I already wrote that I have sentimentality for the pictures, not the equipment, and this sentimentality usually makes me like a lens type, rather than tying itself to a specific lens. Sometimes, sentimentality is tied to the specific time of day, with the light of specific colour, or the time of year when I felt something and captured it with photography. I don’t care that I no longer own a Minolta or an Olympus that captured it, if I have a Canon or a Sony with similar capabilities. Somehow, the sentimentality transcends specific hardware and translates across platforms. I’m weird that way. 🙂

Island Brač is on fire

We saw the fire on Brač on the horizon so we went as close as we could to get a better view. It’s pretty bad, and apparently on inaccessible terrain so the firemen can’t do anything about it. Also, strong Bura wind is spreading it like crazy.

From Kabal peninsula, Hvar

From Stari Grad ferry port, Hvar

We got a warning when we got close.

I love it when equipment just works. I took the camera and the 85mm f/1.4 Sigma out at midnight in the middle of nowhere and total darkness, focused at the wildfire and got excellent shots at ISO 12800 f/1.4 1/50s. I was thinking, what would be a professional lens choice for this? Probably a 70-200mm f/2.8. It’s like two stops slower than what I took. Sure, you’d have more flexibility in framing, but two stops slower means 1/15s hand-held, which means smoke not being well defined, flames not being sharp, and so on. I saw the pictures in the news today, I thought, why are they all darker, fuzzier and more red? And then it was, oh, they were exposed shorter because that’s the best they could hand-hold.