train east

Finally got photos from my train trip out to Chicago uploaded. You can view the set here on Flickr. I've also created a set of my favorite shots.

darkroom

I have about 6 rolls of film I've been meaning to upload from a trip I took a little while ago. Finally got them developed and scanned, now to sort through them and clean them up for web use. In the meantime here's one of my favorite shots from the trip. It's at the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago. This is a scan of an 8x10 print.

It scans a little weird so I'll have to play with my scanner settings some to get it right. This was shot with my leica iiic on kodak tri-x.

developing my own film

Decided to take a dark room class. Haven't started printing yet, but did develop my very first roll. This is a large set, so click here for all the photos.

more info on this photo on flickr

more info on this photo on flickr

vehicles and performers

Some shots taken in San Francisco. Just got back from a trip and have 6 rolls I need to develop.

1/500@f/6.3
Summitar 5cm f/2

1/500@f/4.5
Summitar 5cm f/2
See this on Flickr

1/500@f/4.5
Summitar 5cm f/2

1/500@f/3.5
Summitar 5cm f/2

1/500@f/4.5
Elmar 3.5cm f/3.5

Taken with a Leica IIIc. Film is Ilford HP5+, scanned with an Epson V500 and minor edits done in Lightroom.

desolate

1/100@f/12.5
Taken along a railroad line in Sonoma County, California.

1/500@f/6.3
Taken along a railroad line in Sonoma County, California.

1/200@f/6.3
Chinatown in San Francisco on a very rainy day.

1/100@f/12.5
At the San Francisco Art Institute overlooking North Beach.

1/100@f/12.5
A bridge in Yosemite Valley

1/500@f/12.5
Forecast said it was going to be raining. No mention of snow.

1/200@f/12.5
Near Yosemite. The main road had just as much snow on it.

All photos taken on Kodak BW400CN and were scanned with an Epson V500 with minor edits done in Lightroom.

Invasion Libya

Update 1 - 3/23/11
Update 2 - 3/25/11

As I've been following what's going on in Libya closely, I thought I'd keep an ongoing post with links for those interested with some commentary. This post will be updated with new developments. Al Jazeera has great coverage including a live blog.

For some background, University of San Francisco Professor Stephen Zunes wrote this article just as US naval ships were moving into the region when fighting between rebels and Gaddafi's forces first broke out. For a perspective on Libya's role in oil production, see this piece.

Missile hits Gaddafi compound in Tripoli from Al Jazeera, 3/21/11

‎But Arab League chief Amr Moussa on Sunday condemned what he called the "bombardment of civilians" and called for an emergency meeting of the group of 22 states to discuss Libya.

He requested a report into the bombardment, which he said had "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians".

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," Egypt's state news agency quoted Moussa as saying.

[...]

However, Navy Vice Admiral William E Gortney added that any of Gaddafi's ground troops advancing on pro-democracy forces are open targets for US and allied attacks.

"If they are moving on opposition forces ... yes, we will take them under attack," he told reporters.

"There has been no new air activity by the regime and we have detected no radar emissions from any of the air defence sites targeted and there's been a significant decrease in in the use of all Libyan air surveillance radars."

The drawbacks of intervention in Libya, an opinion piece from Al Jazeera, 3/20/11

The Daily Show from 3/21/11. Great commentary on the situation in Libya.

As Gaddafi Forces Launch New Attacks, Reports on the Ground from a Divided Libya - Democracy Now reporting on the situation in Libya on 3/3/11.

No-Fly Zone Enacted as U.S. and Allied Forces Launch Air Strikes on Libya Amid Growing Concerns for Civilian Safety - Democracy Now reporting as the no-fly zone is enacted on 3/21/11.

--------------------------------

Update 1

Libyan rebels form 'interim government' from Al Jazeera on 3/23/11

Libya air force 'unable to fight' from BBC on 3/23/11. US Commanders were saying this after the first day, yet there were still strikes enforcing this so called no-fly zone.

CBS Poll: 50% Approve Of Obama's Handling Of Libya - Haven't read and watched US media on this, it comes as no surprise. I'm sure most of those opposed to Obama's handling of this say he hasn't done enough.

Debating Intervention: Is U.S.-Led Military Action the Best Solution to Libya Crisis? on Democracy Now, 3/23/11

Strikes will 'antagonise' many in Arab world, says Chomsky - from the Irish Times, 3/21/11

U.S. rescue chopper shoots six Libyan villagers as they welcome pilots of downed Air Force jet - From the Daily Mail, 3/22/11

Six Libyan villagers are recovering in hospital after being shot by American soldiers coming in to rescue the U.S. pilots whose plane crash-landed in a field.

The helicopter strafed the ground as it landed in a field outside Benghazi beside the downed U.S. Air Force F-15E Eagle which ran into trouble during bombing raid last night.

And a handful of locals who had come to greet the pilots were hit - among them a young boy who may have to have a leg amputated because of injuries caused by a bullet wound.

The imperialist scramble for Libya from Socialist Worker on 3/23/11. Includes comparisons to Kosovo.


--------------------------------

Update 2

Is Barack Obama's Libya intervention a flip-flop from what he said in 2007? from PolitiFact.

Savage asked Obama, "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

[...]

Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

White House: Libya fight is not war, it's 'kinetic military action' from The Washington Examiner on 3/23/11.

US remains military muscle in Libya campaign from Raw Story (AFP repost) on 3/25/11.

Mission Creep - Opinion piece from Al Jazeera on 3/25/11.

another roll in the leica

Ran another roll through my iiic, this time a roll of Fujifilm Neopan 400.

Heat Lamp and the Sky
1/100@f/12.5

Tree's Shadow in a Pond
1/500@f/12.5
At the Japanese Tea Garden in Golden Gate Park

Walking down the Cobblestone Path
1/100@f/9.0

Children on the loft
1/2@f/2.0
flash: EZ420@1/16 in umbrella, camera left. hand fired
my old roommates got these at a garage sale. quite creepy.

shades
1/4@f/4.0
This was taken with a NOOKY HESUM, an extension tube for the Summitar 5cm that's used for close up photography. I took a couple photos with it, but they're all underexposed. It looks like 1/4 on my iiic is really fast. Going to have to do some tests to check other speeds.

The glasses are actually centered in the frame, but because this frame and others around it were so dark, my scanner had trouble picking up the frame and it came out like this (plus some minor cropping). I kind of like it though.

Holy Smoke
1/10@f2.0

1/100@f/9.0

1/100@f/9.0

1/100@f/9.0

1/100@f/12.5

All negatives were scanned with an Epson V500 with minor edits done in Lightroom.

going retro

I recently got in my hands a Leica IIIc circa 1940. I was told it's a rare wartime model and has been in my family for four generations. I've known this camera has been sitting in a closet at my mom's house for quite a while. A few months ago, something led me to want to try shooting film and this seemed like the perfect camera. It's not in the best shape, but I'm highly impressed by the quality of the shots I've taken. There's just something great about the simplicity of this camera. No light meter, no batteries, no auto settings. It's the complete opposite of my DSLR in so many ways.

"Beyond Vietnam"

If you have never listened to a speech by Dr. Martin Luther Kind Jr. this is a must see. From Monday's Democracy Now. You can read the full text of the first speech, "Beyond Vietnam," here. From Wikipedia regarding the speech:

The speech was a reflection of King's evolving political advocacy in his later years, which paralleled the teachings of the progressive Highlander Research and Education Center, with whom King was affiliated.[96] King began to speak of the need for fundamental changes in the political and economic life of the nation. Towards the time of his murder, King more frequently expressed his opposition to the war and his desire to see a redistribution of resources to correct racial and economic injustice.[97] Though his public language was guarded, so as to avoid being linked to communism by his political enemies, in private he sometimes spoke of his support for democratic socialism. In one speech, he stated that "something is wrong with capitalism" and claimed, "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."[98]

Select portions from the speech, given exactly one year before his death. Some parts may surprise you:

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

[...]

A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

[...]

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

[...]

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives. For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam.

Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators -- our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords and refused even to discuss reunification with the north. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change -- especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy -- and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us -- not their fellow Vietnamese --the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go -- primarily women and children and the aged.

They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong"-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them -- mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

[...]

When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. Also it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva agreements concerning foreign troops, and they remind us that they did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard of the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.

[...]

There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisors" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

[...]

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

[...]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

[...]

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

Makes you think, what would have happened if Martin Luther King, Jr. had never been assassinated and had still been alive today. What would he make of the situation in the world?

around san francisco