From my reply to a discussion in r/photography on Reddit.
Take less. Be a partner and a parent, and above all, be present. Less is more when traveling, especially with family.
If you’re in doubt about this, remember that artistic limitations force us to get creative. Your photography will not suffer from lack of gear. Your back will suffer from the excess.
From my reply to a discussion in r/ZenHabits on Reddit.
You will not accidentally stumble into life balance. If you feel calm and focused when you’re with your child, it’s because your actions are in alignment with your priorities. When you’re doing the million other things, however, you’re likely distracted by all the things that are not done, PLUS whatever you’re doing is a distraction from your priority, which is your child.
I recommend making those other million tasks meditative. You won’t get them all done, but when you’re doing one of them, focus on that one task. If your mind slips, nudge yourself back to focus on the task at hand. Do not allow distractions like music, phones, or social media. Just like when you meditate, be mindful of your breathing and your posture.
Let’s try an example: washing the dishes. First, keep your attention to the task on hand. Pay attention to the temperature of the water, the smell of the soap, the act of scrubbing food off the dirty plates, and so on. Breathe: deeply in, deeply out. Stand with your feet planted and your spine aligned. Do not listen to podcasts, music, or even your child while doing the dishes. Do not let your consciousness drift to the other things you have to do. Stay in the moment. Stay present.
If this is challenging at first, do it for very short sessions (1 minute or less) at the outset. You won’t be able to be meditatively mindful for every task, but that’s okay. Every little bit helps you regain that balance.
From my reply to a discussion from r/fujifilm on Reddit.
I shoot both film and digital, and digital grain is certainly not the same thing as film grain. But that’s arguably the biggest mistake that people make: they aren’t meant to be the same. Consider that in film grain is unescapable: it is a byproduct of the film exposure and development process, inseparable from the taking of the photograph. There is no such thing as digital grain except as an effect applied in post. The way that film and digital grain are similar is that they both provide texture, albeit in different ways.
Texture is important to photography, because without it an image enters the uncanny valley of too-perfect realism. We see this especially in modern digital photographs using the best optics to create razor-sharp images with super high levels of fidelity. These images look “too real,” and that’s at odds with the fact that we know a photograph is not “the real thing.” It creates an unresolvable tension when viewing such images. Grain (both film and digital) gives us that by reducing the precision of the image. In this way the image aligns more with our own imperfect views of the world.
The other thing to keep in mind when thinking about grain is that it is like salt in food: you shouldn’t be able to tell that it’s there. If you can, then it’s too much. Now obviously some photographers lean into grain for artistic effect. For most images taken digitally, however, we want a little bit of grain to take away that aforementioned tension. How much is too much? It’s a subjective call. Some people like really salty food, and some people like really grainy images. I personally say that if you can perceive the grain when looking at the full image, it’s too much. If you’re pixel peeping (or magnifying) then of course the grain will be apparent. You’re too close! But if upon stepping back the grain disappears into the image, then that’s probably about right. Again, it’s a personal call and there’s no right or wrong answer.
I generally shoot raw with my Fuji cameras, so I don’t usually use grain. If the image needs any texturing, I apply it when editing later. When I do shoot jpg, however, I think at the weak setting, it usually gives just enough tonal variability to texture the image appropriately and get rid of the clinical “digitalness” of the image. YMMV.
From my reply to a discussion in r/guitarpedals on Reddit.
A preamp pedal is very simply a pedal that amplifies your signal at the start of the signal chain. Because it makes your guitar signal louder, it affects how the guitar sounds both with other pedals that come after the preamp, as well as the actual guitar amplifier. There are a lot of reasons you might want to use a preamp pedal, but ultimately it comes down to liking the way it makes your rig sound.
By way of example, you probably already know that adjusting the volume knob on your guitar will change the sound coming out of the amp. Now what if you could keep making your signal louder when your guitar volume knob was maxed out? Turns out you can, with a preamp.
You can get a sense with how this works, if you have an EQ, boost, or even a distortion pedal that stays clean at lower gain settings. Put it at the beginning of your signal chain, connected immediately into your guitar, and then see what happens when you engage it. You may notice your later distortion pedals sound more driven, or your amp is pushed further into overdrive. If you like that effect, a preamp may be for you.
Then you get to dive down the rabbit hole of what different preamps can do, because in addition to volume, they usually also have tonal controls. With that, a preamp can be very useful in getting solos that cut through a mix, or taking the mud out of your rhythm playing.
From my reply to a discussion from r/fujifilm on Reddit.
“Magic” is the word used in photography when someone wants to defend their subjectivity. So when people say the 35mm is magic, they’re just saying they like the lens in spite of (or maybe because of) its imperfections. It doesn’t actually do some Disney-style hocus pocus when attached to your camera. The real magic comes from the photographer, not the lens.
I’ve had both the XF 35mm f1.4 and XF 33mm F1.4. They’re both good. I prefer the 33mm. I love how clearly it renders my images, I love the bokeh, and the way it renders colors. I love how solidly built it is and how it just works. It is one of my favorite lenses of all time. For some it’s too big, and others, it’s too clinical. To me, it’s magical.
Buy the lens you want. Use it to take amazing pictures. It will become your magical lens.
From my reply to a discussion in r/canon on Reddit.
I’ve had both lenses. The STM delivers good image quality, excellent IS, and is relatively compact. It also costs significantly less than the L. The real downside is the variable aperture with the relatively slow f7.1 at the long end, but that doesn’t mean it’s not capable of delivering very good images. It’ll make a decent travel lens, especially if you take along a fast prime for when you need something with a wider aperture.
The L, on the other hand, has higher build quality, including weather sealing. The image quality is sharper across the frame and throughout the focal range, but the STM is pretty good in that regard. There’s also less chromatic aberration with the L. The constant F4 aperture is it’s biggest strength, though this comes at the cost of more weight and of course more cost. The wider, constant aperture gives the L lens an advantage with portraiture and in some lower light situations, or when capturing action. That being said, f4 doesn’t make it a very fast lens, and low light will quickly force a higher ISO or longer shutter speeds.
I got the STM as part of the R6 kit, and I already had the L that I had been using with my RP and R. I liked the STM a lot on the RP because the size matched it well. Both the R and R6 have a more substantial grip, so the heavier L wasn’t an issue. I ended up selling both the STM and the RP.
Look up Gordon Laing’s review of the STM lens, with comparisons to the L. Without knowing more about how you intend to use the lens and your budget, it’s hard to recommend one over the other. The L is certainly the better lens, but if you’re on a budget, the cost can be a limiting factor. In that case, the STM might just be good enough.
