Okay, let's talk about photography. (grin)

I hope to do a webpage devoted to how I take and manipulate some of the pictures, but right now I just don't have the time. So I'll do a quick run down here.

Photography is my second obsession. I used to have my own dark room (still have all the equipment) and I would love to get back into black and white work if I could. I just don't have the time, or even really the space, for something like that right now.

The pictures that show up here and on my regular journal are all digital photographs. 99% of them are taken with my Sony CD1000, a camera that is no longer made. It is only a 2.1 mega pixel, but for on-line work that's obviously enough. I can also print very nice 5X6 pictures and 8x10s of some of the better shots. The few other pictures were taken with my even older FD91, which is less than a mega pixel camera. I grab it now and then because it uses floppy disks and that makes it very easy to transfer to the computer. The CD1000 uses mini CDs, and while it has a USB connection, it turns out the firmware won't work with Windows XP, so I have to wait until I'm done with a disk (about 200 shots) before I can work with them.

I am, however, drooling over the new Sony 8 mega pixel camera. This one uses removable storage like Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, Compact Flash Type I/II, Microdrive. You can buy a 1gig microdrive and not have to worry too much about running out of space. Granted, that gig of space can cost you from $300 to $600, but if you have spent the money for the fancy camera, it might well be worth it.

The real joy of digital photography is in three parts:

1. Instant pictures. You can see what you took right away on the camera's playback mode. This can make a huge difference if you are taking pictures of something you want to be certain to get right. Instant pictures also means instant sharing. I often post a picture in chat only a couple minutes after taking it.

2. Cost. Even though my CD1000 cost me about $1500 (it is a very fancy camera for a digital), it has more than paid back that money in savings on picture processing. I take a lot of pictures -- well over 3000 on this camera alone in the last 2.5 years. When I used my 35mm Minolta cameras our vacations usually cost less than the picture processing afterwards. Going digital has saved a lot of money.

3. Reworking pictures on the computer. As much as I love doing darkroom stuff, for color pictures there is nothing more rewarding than being able to fiddle with them in a nice graphic's program. I use Corel Photo-Paint 9. I love it, and as you can tell, it does everything that I need. And I get to play with the pictures as much as I want like crop, change colors, background, blur, texturize -- whatever, and it doesn't cost me a cent in printing costs. I can then print out on my nice little HP color printer that is made for pictures if I want. Or post it on one of my sites. Or delete the reworked version and start over. (Always work with copies, not the original.)

The real question for most people is what to look for in a digital camera. Because I spent years in 35mm, I had certain wants that mean I look at the more expensive cameras. But most people are not going to want 35mm-like controls and worry about aperture and shutter speed, white balance, and various other choices. Most people just want a point-and-shoot camera. For both types, the big thing to be aware of is the mega pixel count. The higher you can afford (they are more expensive as the count goes up), the better. You will get better quality prints with the higher count. Most photo processing shops now print from digital as well, so once you choose which pictures you want printed, you can get it done. For the point and shoot cameras, I've been very impressed with the Olympus brands.

For those who want more, you'll be looking at the far more expensive SLR type digital cameras. There are a lot of them on the market. Everyone from Nikon to Kodak has gotten in to the market, with varying success and prices.

Probably the very best affordable SLR digital is the Canon 6 mega pixel Canon EOS-300D. It's basically a digital body that uses Canon lenses and runs about $1000. The problem, of course, is if you don't happen to own Canon lenses to put on it. They can be very expensive. But over all, this camera has the most flexibility because of that 'any lens' option. The pictures I've seen from this camera are exceptional, though. (Nikon, Fuji, Pentax, and several others offer body-only digital cameras as well, but I think price wise, the Canon might be the best of the group.)

For most of us, however, it's just not an option. I've stuck with Sony cameras since my first digital -- an FD7 years ago -- and I've no complaints at all, except that I hated to see them discontinue the CD1000. However, with the growing mega pixel sizes (meaning they take a LOT of space to save), the CD version just wasn't practical. The new, larger removable storage units are expensive, and I'll miss the fact that pictures aren't instantly saved, but I'm going to have to get used to the change.

The camera I am currently drooling over is the Sony DSC -F828. It is, as I mentioned, 8 mega pixel which makes it the highest one available in the $1000 range. It has all the SLR options that I love -- and a few more than I have on the CD1000 like a burst and bracketing mode. It also uses a new four color system -- red, blue, green, emerald -- rather than the usual three color systems of most cameras -- red, blue green. It does have two problems, both of which I've had in all Sony cameras. One is a somewhat blotchy black at the higher ISO ranges. The second is a tendency to get a purplish halo around things in bright contrast scenes. I had that problem big time in the icicle picture on this page, but I've long ago learned how to use Corel Photo-Paint to easily remove it in most pictures. In the end, it's not much different than correction a color shift on a print in a darkroom.

I have been won over to the digital camera revolution. I've been here for quite a while, in fact, learning the tricks while the cameras improve in quality and catch up to the film SLRs. I won't go back, although I may play with black and white film and print processing again someday. I used to love to do that on my own.

Unless the weather turns horrible, I'll be going to the zoo in Omaha tomorrow. Just me, my tripod and my CD1000. I'll likely take 200 or more pictures before I'm done.

You know, glancing back over the last few entries, I think I forgot to post a bit about my upcoming chapbook, Honor Bound. I know there are a couple people who only read this for the exciting news about my life. (grin) I might as well talk about it here, too, since I think I managed everywhere else.

At any rate, I have seen the cover art for the chapbook. I've also seen two of the blurbs.

Blood, bullets, knives, explosives and a genderbender twist---with a healthy dose of heart. Works for me. Jane Fancher

As I've said elsewhere, I love Jane Fancher's work. People should go and hunt it down. And she should write more. I hate the waiting.

And the second quote:

A talented writer with a gift for worldbuilding... CJ Cherryh

Anyone who knows me for long knows that I adore CJ's books, that I have about 50 of them hardbound and signed... and having a quote like that from her means a lot of me.

The person who did the final copy editing on the little book also ordered a copy for his friend because he liked it so much.

It will be out soon, as in counting the weeks, if not the days. And I can't wait to hold the book and see what Holly said for it as well. (grin)


In other news, I'm working on Farstep Station still and getting some work done on Muse. I have slowed down in my writing. I seem, in fact, to have slowed down in a lot of things right now. But life is good. How can it not be with something as fun a Honor Bound coming out?

No, that's not how it looks now. That was last April. We're having rain right now.

I think there is something screwy here with the weather.

I'm posting to give just a quick note so that people who wonder and have not yet emailed me will know...

Yes, I knew about Robert. I knew for a couple years... hold on. October of 2002 -- that's when Seri Ember came out. I'm glad that he finally realized he can trust his friends, because that's really what his admission is about, you know. It's not about who he is -- Robert has always been Robert.

No, it had nothing at all to do with why Robert and the other people left FM. There were only two times when it was even a passing concern. The first was when Nonny announced she was moving in with Robert. Holly and I discussed it (she knew way before me), but we both decided that there was no way Robert wouldn't be up front with someone he loved, even if they hadn't met.

The only other time was when Nonny posted something on Holly's blog that Holly felt was just... not truthful. That was between the two of them, and Holly never took it any farther.

I'm glad Robert found the courage to be himself and be open with others. Being yourself, and being happy with your choices, is all that matters in the end.

So, good luck to him, and enjoy life.

And I'm going back to writing.

Finally, an understanding of why I seem to not be moving forward on my new sf novel. It came to me suddenly while I was thinking about something else entirely.

I have messed up a chronology and an event. I cannot have the people meet with an alien group at this point because it is far later in the time line that the first aliens are encountered.

Having realized that is a relief. It gives me three options: Change the nature of the people they meet, change the date (and therefore a lot of background material and circumstances) when they meet, or take the story entirely out of my IWC universe. At this point any one of those options is viable. They all three mean some serious reworking of the few thousand words I already have as well as the outline... but I am now able to look at the entire work and know why I couldn't move forward on it.

This is a relief. It was an odd way to start the year, to find the novel I'd been planning on for months had started to limp ahead by a few hundred words at a time. It's a good thing the new additional material to Muse filled the gap in my meager word counts. It's also a good thing that I decided to drop that word count down for this year.

I am tending toward changing the nature of the people they encounter, and that's not only because it would be the easiest change. I have set up in my universe a number of wildcard human groups. I've used them... twice before, I think, with a reference to the third. I believe I had ten ships of these people go out to different areas. (Need to go back and look at my notes again.) I could use one of those ships to explain these people... and, in fact... hell, I like it better than the alien question because it fills in one more serious problem I thought I would find an answer to when I got to it.

Huh. This works. I need to find my timeline, my notes on the lost ships, and work this one in.

You know, I suddenly want to work on Farstep Station again now. (grin)

For the most part, I write science fiction and fantasy. However, I also write sci-fi. I understand and enjoy the differences between the types of material, so I will continue to point out that they are not the same things -- because the writers who appreciate the differences are generally pleased to know that the universe they created from scratch is not classed in the same group as the latest media adaptation or tie-in novel.

It's not a matter of being snobbish -- it is the ability to say that a book like Tactics of Mistake by Gordon R. Dickson is not the same as Aliens: Earth Hive by Steven Perry (who is an excellent author, by the way). In the first book Dickson created the entire setting, from ships to worlds to the trouble that caused a war. In the second, Perry wrote from a set of instructions on background, aliens, what can and cannot be done within this framework. For the fans, that means that they can pick up a book and know that it will have a certain set background points which, as fans of the movies, they will understand and accept. Innovation comes only in the storyline, not in the vehicle with which the story is delivered.

On the writing side, both types of material have their own difficulties. In fact, while writing to the specifications of a game module (release is due in April, I think), I had to go through and please several different editors who knew the game better than me. It was a very interesting and difficult type of writing, and there's no guarantee that the story made the final cut -- I won't know until I see the game.

Sci-fi, by the way, is also far harder to get published than sf. In sci-fi you basically have to be approached by the people who own the copyright and offered a chance at a contract. Rarely they will do this by an open call or a contest, but most of the time they choose the people they want to do the work. It is also usually work for hire -- that is the author gets a set amount of money for the work and no claim on royalties. Sci-fi written without a chance of selling it is fanfiction.

And most of the big stores now shelve sci-fi in it's own section, another sure sign that it is [b]not[/b] the same as science fiction -- to such a degree, in fact, that they will still leave original fantasy in with science fiction, but pull media related material out. That's a pointer to the larger moods of readers, who find it convenient not to have to look through the shelves of science fiction when they want a media tie in book instead. This seems very reasonable to me since I don't consider them the same market. Of course there is a lot of crossover between them, but then there is crossover between any genres.

So I'll continue to go along with the professionals who in this case believe that these are two distinct markets and different types of writing. Not everyone agrees, but in the end I'm quite pleased to know that I can write in both types, and that if asked, I can name them.