I own a point-and-shoot, Canon SD750. It doesn't shoot RAW. It doesn't do bracketing. I always figured HDR was out of my reach. And although I thought it might be fun to play around with, most HDR photos I've seen have a particular "hyper-real" look that doesn't particularly appeal to me.

Then I discovered CHDK. This is a set of files you put on your memory card which allow you to "flash" the camera's internal software to allow some advanced features that aren't available on the camera normally. It's not going to turn your 5 megapixel, 2.0 optical zoom point and shoot into a 12 megapixel DSLR with a telephoto lens or anything, but it's fun to play around with. And it lets you shoot RAW. And bracket automatically*.

So, awesome, I think to myself. Now I can play around with some HDR.

It was annoying. And complicated. And I didn't enjoy the results. The bracketing didn't always work correctly. And if it did, I then had RAW files, which weren't really RAW files and needed to be "developed" on the computer, which took a not insignificant amount of time (and the correct program, which I had to hunt down). Then I had to finagle with Photoshop to align the images correctly and tone map them. So, I came away with two conclusions: 1) Although I still didn't really like the results, I had a newfound respect for how much work it took to get even a semi-attractive image to work right with HDR. And 2) I certainly wasn't going to fiddle with it anymore.

Then I read a tutorial on natural-looking HDR images (which I can't find, at the moment). It got me to thinking maybe there was a little more to it than the ridiculously oversaturated images I've always seen as examples. So, one day last week I decided to go looking again.

I found a program, qtpfsgui. It's free, it works with jpgs (as well as RAW), and it does image alignment automatically (with manual adjustments allowed if necessary). So I got to shooting.

I couldn't automatically bracket, and I didn't have a tripod. Yes, there's a slight camera reflection, and a car that was only in one frame. Yes, it's oversaturated and doesn't quite look "real". Frankly, this is pushing the camera beyond its limits. But loading up those exposures and seeing them align, then playing with the tonemapping to make the details pop...well, I can see why it is overdone. It's fun to do. It's easy to make things look interesting. It turns a scene into art. Because of those things, it's tempting to want to apply to everything. I was even contemplating shooting my bookshelf, "just to see how it would look" in HDR. Crazy.

I'm happy with the image I created, and I'm happy I now have the ability to play around with the technique when I feel like it. I still think it's overdone. I think my goal will be to, when I use it, make the images better without making them look unnatural.

*CHDK includes userscripting that lets you do all sorts of things -- motion detection, time-lapse shooting, auto bracketing, all kinds of stuff. It's quite fun to play around with.

Good stuff, though the photo makes it look smaller than it was. The U., a hot sandwich place (that delivers until 3 a.m.!) in Midtown St. Louis, is trying out breakfast. This is their take on a slinger. It was very good: giant hamburger patty, round-sliced potatoes (not home fries) not too overdone, enough (but not too much) chili, shredded cheese, and I opted to forgo the onions.

Friendly staff. I'd forgotten to ask for no onions, and walked back up to the register after putting my order in. Fortunately it hadn't been assembled yet, and they were happy to make the change. The cook asked how it was after I'd gotten a chance to try it, and if everything was ok when I was leaving. Sadly, the place was dead when I was in there – maybe students sleep in Fridays. I don't know if breakfast is a regular part of The U's menu now or if it's just an experiment to see how it goes, but I'm glad to have another option within walking distance.

The U's Web site is http://theustl.com/

This year, I thought it would be fun to break it down a bit. And yes, those are 356 half-rolls of Pez (in the flat photo, the quarter is for scale).

Overview
I bought nine different varieties of candy -- Reese's Cups, Snickers, Three Musketeers, Milky Way, Butterfinger, Baby Ruth, Pez, Payday and KitKat. I decided to run a cost analysis to see how much candy I received in cost per piece and cost per oz terms, as well as how much I actually received in ounces versus what the packages said I should have received.

Summary and Highlights
Overall, I purchased $36.27 worth of candy, which totaled 719 individual pieces and 266.55 oz. That works out to, rounded, a nickel per piece and fourteen cents an ounce. Based on the contents weight printed on the large outer bags, I should have received 268.46 oz., but based on the weight of individual pieces derived from the nutrition info (or, in two cases, printed on the individual pieces), I actually received 266.55 oz., a discrepancy of -1.91 oz. The average number of calories per piece is just over 75, and the total number of calories in the haul is 34,715.2, or more than 17 days' worth.

Cost/piece

1. Pez - $0.02
2. Payday - $0.05
3. KitKat - $0.06
4. 3 Musketeers - $0.07
5. Butterfingter - $0.08
6. Milky Way - $0.08
7. Baby Ruth - $0.09
8. Snickers - $0.10
9. Reese's Cups - $0.12

1. Payday - $0.07
2. KitKat - $0.11
3. Butterfinger - $0.12
4. Baby Ruth - $0.14
5. Milky Way - $0.14
6. 3 Musketeers - $0.14
7. Snickers - $0.16
8. Pez - $0.16
9. Reese's Cups - $0.17

1. Snickers - 1.04
2. KitKat - 0.98
3. Milky Way - 0.89
4. 3 Musketeers - 0.83
5. Butterfinger - 0.05
6. Reese's Cups - 0
7. Pez - (1.6)
8. Baby Ruth - (1.9)
9. Payday - (2.2)

Methodology
Each candy was purchased in the largest-quantity-bag possible (to maximize value). Except for the Pez and the KitKat, I bought either one large bag or two small bags of the candy (e.g. because Snickers were only available in small bags, I bought two). "Piece" means one piece of individually wrapped candy, except for Pez, which are wrapped in 6-piece rolls. All other candies are "fun size", except for Reese's Cups, which are individually-wrapped full size cups. Reese's Cups and Pez had oz. printed on each individual pieces. To determine oz. of individual pieces of other candies, the nutritional info provided grams per serving and pieces per serving, from which oz. per piece were calculated.

     

On my own, I'll listen to whatever music and watch whatever movies I feel like, whenever I feel like listening or watching them, thank you very much. I usually don't switch into full-on holiday mode until December, but I'll listen to an album here or there and watch "A Christmas Story" once or twice throughout the year. It's always struck me as a little unfortunate that there's an extensive body of incredible music surrounding the holidays (all the winter holidays, actually, not only Christmas), but we feel constrained to enjoying it for just a month each year.

On the other hand, I roll my eyes when I see that department store du jour is putting out the trees with the Halloween decorations, or when I hear the first badly-rendered pop version of a holiday classic in mid-November. It doesn't, though, bother me to the point of not shopping there or complaining about it. I shrug and go on about my business.

My family has its share of traditions surrounding both holidays. Christmas is more comprehensive, while Thanksgiving consists mainly of a couple family dinners, but they're both something I look forward to each year. No longjumping over the turkey to get to the tree, in other words.

But this year seems to be shaping up a bit differently: I find myself overlooking Thanksgiving (and Halloween!) completely, and thinking about December and snow and Christmas. Watching the movies. Listening to the music.

A couple reasons for this: The weather here in St. Louis changed pretty quickly from a nice long summer to cold and wet. No gradual descent, but a crash landing. Also, elsewhere. I tuned into the New England Patriots' game last Sunday and my jaw dropped when I saw the field covered with snow. It's the middle of October! The biggest reason though is probably the madrigal group I joined. A couple months of singing Christmas songs for a few hours every week will do that to you, I guess.

Anyhow, there you have it. Christmas before Thanksgiving? This year, for me, it can't come too soon.

If you're really impatient, you might do the switchout and hold your mug under the filter basket, then put the pot back. Do you ever wonder if you're getting the same cup of coffee that way as you do when you let the pot fill?

I don't think you are, but I don't know how different it would be. Take as a given that the first bit of water that passes through the filter is a bit different from the next, and by the end (a full pot), it's completely different. So, when you let the pot fill, you're getting a mix of everything, beginning to end. When you get a cup directly from the filter, you're only getting that bit, without the full mix.

I think the first bit might be really weak, then spike up to quite a bit stronger, then trail off to the end of the pot to be really weak again. But yeah, I really have no idea.

This would make an excellent science fair experiment.