Bin Laden May Be Dead, But He Won

He wanted to change our world for the worse — and he did.

I just finished reading a very accurate essay on the CBC Web site, “The Devil likely died happy” by Neil Macdonald. As my fellow countrymen rejoice in the streets — like Taliban members did when more than 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11, 2001 — it takes a Canadian to look at Osama bin Laden’s death with 20-20 vision. I urge you to read his essay, in its entirety. It’s a sobering look at reality.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m happy bin Laden is dead. To me, he’s the equivalent of Hitler, Stalin, or any other man who used the death of innocents to achieve his personal goals. While some people are claiming we should have captured him and put him on trial, I really don’t care that we didn’t. The news of his death gave the American people a much-needed shot in the arm. And I’m sure that on some level, it’ll bring closure to the the people who lost loved ones on 9/11.

But will it change anything? Will it bring back the pre-9/11 world that so many of us remember and miss?

What do you think?

So, as Mr. Macdonald pointed out with numerous examples in his excellent and thoughtful essay, bin Laden achieved his goals beyond his wildest dreams. He made us paranoid, he increased our hatreds, he divided us as a people. He caused our government to take away liberties and subject us to policies that were in direct conflict with our beloved Constitution. He caused us to start wars on two fronts, wars that burden the American economy and put our young service people at risk every single day.

He changed our way of life.

And isn’t that what he wanted all along?

The quote that hits home from Mr. Macdonald’s piece is this:

But bin Laden didn’t just prod Americans into disregarding their own laws and principles when dealing with their real and supposed enemies; he goaded them into turning on each other.

And so he has. And even in his death, the splits among Americans are drawn and widened. This morning, I read two essays by conservative pundits taking exception with our President’s speech last night, a speech in which they said that he took too much credit for bin Laden’s death. They can’t be satisfied that a national goal has been achieved. Instead, they need to turn it into a political argument over words in a speech announcing a true “Mission Accomplished” to the nation. As if Bush or McCain or anyone else from their side of our country would have done it differently.

One nation, indivisible? I wish.

No, I don’t think bin Laden’s death will change anything.

The TSA will still require us to get half undressed, dump our water bottles, and go without nail clippers when we fly. They’ll still subject us to unreasonable search using potentially dangerous and extremely intrusive X-ray devices or pat-downs.

The political pundits will still find fault with the other side. Conservatives and liberals will still disagree on everything. Media grabbing presidential wannabes will still go on-air spouting lies to sway public opinion.

We’ll still have thousands of troops in the middle east, fighting an enemy they can’t beat, coming home broken — mentally or physically (or both) — or in body bags. Government contractors will still be overpaid to support them while services the American public needs are cut to pay for our wars.

The hate will continue to spew out of the mouths of close-minded people who have nothing better to think about than how someone different from them has no right to be on American soil.

Nothing will change. Bin Laden may be dead, but his legacy continues to live in America.

And I cannot imagine anything sadder than that.

What Makes You Think You can Change My Political Views?

Don’t waste your time.

The other day, I got an extremely long e-mail message from someone I don’t know. I read the first paragraph and gathered that he read my blog, liked my articles about flying, but didn’t like my political views. A quick skim of the rest showed a lengthy discourse intended to correct my political viewpoint.

Although I was tempted to reply to his message, I knew it would only encourage him to try again.

So I deleted the message and got on with my day.

He likely spent at least an hour or composing his discourse on why my political views were so wrong. I spent less than 60 seconds deciding it wasn’t worth my time to read what he’d written.

The purpose of this post is to discourage other readers from similarly wasting their time. Seriously — you won’t change my mind, so why waste your time trying? Chances are, I won’t even read your message. If you get offensive, I’ll likely choose bits and pieces of it to ridicule publicly in this blog — as I’ve done in the past with other folks who get nasty with me. Is that what you want?

Aren’t there better ways to spend your time? Like perhaps educating yourself about the reality of today’s political environment? Or just spending time with your family and friends? Or maybe getting your ass off the sofa, turning off FoxNews, and going outside to breathe a little fresh air?

Don’t try to waste my time. You’ll just waste yours.

And if you don’t like what I have to say in this blog, don’t read it.

On HDR Photography

Overused as a crutch by people without real photographic skill.

I’ve written this post primarily to share some thoughts about HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography, along with three links to articles by knowledgeable photographers that echo my sentiments.

HDR?
Is this HDR?

If you’re not familiar with HDR imaging, it’s a type of photography that combines multiple exposures of the same image into one image, resulting in a greater range of luminosity in the final image. Shadow areas are brighter, bright areas are more detailed. The idea behind this is good and if done properly, the results are amazing.

The trouble is, it’s rarely done well.

Indeed, it seems that anyone with a digital camera and image processing software can spit out an HDR image. So they do.

And the result is usually crap.

Think I’m kidding? Check out I Hate Your HDR, which is a showcase of some of the junk people are showing off as great HDR photography. It’s crap.

HDR does have a purpose. When done properly, it enables the photographer to replicate an image as it might be seen by the human eye. Apparently few people know or understand this. Even fewer have the skills needed to do it right. As a result, most images created with HDR look anything but realistic.

Photographer Jim Goldstein discusses the technical aspects of HDR well in his article, “Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn.”

Photography Conquers Light

Photoshop Tools

For pete’s sake, they’re even labeled!

Think for a moment about the most important aspect in photography: light.

HDR is an attempt to artificially conquer light. The photo you want to make has bright spots that get washed out and shadowy spots that have no detail. HDR combines multiple exposures — ones where the bright spots aren’t washed out and ones where the shadows have detail. Through software manipulation, the multiple images are made into one. The result should more uniform exposure of the image so you can see all the details.

In the old days, in a darkroom — am I dating myself here? — we used dodging and burning to achieve this effect. The tools to do this are still available in Photoshop. But apparently it’s easier to let software algorithms automatically cook up something on their own, adjustable only by sliding levers in a cryptic dialog. We’ve seen the results.

A skilled photographer doesn’t need a crutch like HDR to capture images with good dynamic range. Best of all, those images are not likely to look as fake — or “cooked up” — as so many HDR images do.

Real Photographers Don’t Need HDR

HDR is Stupid and it Sucks” by photographer Lewis Collard is a great blog post because it illustrates images that look like they could be HDR, but they’re not. That tells me that HDR simply isn’t necessary.

No, it's not HDR
No, not HDR. This is the original.

And that brings me to the image at the top of this post. When I first put it online, a Twitter friend complemented me and asked me if it was HDR. The complement pleased me, but the HDR question did not. It’s not HDR. Instead, I captured the single original, untouched image you see here, brought it into Photoshop, and tweaked the Shadow/Highlight settings to bring out some of the detail in the shadows and bright sky. I then did something I don’t normally do: I punched up the saturation just a bit to bring out the colors. Having the image mistaken for HDR makes me wonder whether I went too far with my minor touchups. Why? Because most HDR looks like crap.

Interestingly, while some photographers “get it,” others so obviously don’t. The comments on this post are a perfect example, with half the group raving about all the images in the post while the other half is more critical and realistic, clearly seeing how some images have done HDR right while others completely miss the point. It’s amazing how people can be lured into thinking that high contrast and outrageous colors equals good photography.

That’s not the way it is and skilled photographers — or at least the people trying to capture reality with their cameras — know it.

A Caveat

Some people use photography as a basis for artwork. They purposely distort photographic images in an attempt to make “art.” (News Flash: Photography is art.) In my opinion, that’s the only excuse most of these people have for abusing HDR the way they do.

Don’t show me an HDR image with unrealistic results. I won’t be impressed. Hell, anyone can cook up a photo with digital editing tools. Even me.

Show me an HDR image that doesn’t look like one. Then I’ll be impressed.