One Year of No Cable

Posted on March 17, 2010

Roughly one year ago I ditched cable and bought an Apple TV. My thought was I only watch a finite number of shows each year, and I don’t watch live news or sports. I realized that by buying every individual show I watch (in HD, even) on iTunes, I could spend less than I was on cable TV and own all of my shows forever (instead of eventually having to delete them from my DVR).

Well, the numbers are in. 12 months of Comcast HD programming would cost me about $1100. My total amount spent on iTunes over one year: $921. That’s $76.25 per month, opposed to $90/month for cable.

One thing to consider is that this also includes music and iphone app purchases, as well as movie rentals, so really the amount spent on TV is lower than that. Conservatively, I’d estimate we spent maybe $65/month on average for TV. Did we save money? Yep. A ton of money? Not really. We basically just paid for our AppleTV, but let’s face it, I would have bought one anyway. And besides, I use it for proofing so it was a business expense.

Did we ever miss not having regular TV? A couple times. Kacie misses the food network, but that’s about it. I keep up with news via the New York Times iPhone app. (In 30 minutes I can peruse dozens of stories online instead of getting only five or so on TV news.) Neither of us are sports watchers, so that hasn’t been a problem. I do like to host get-togethers, so not being able to have everyone over for a football game/party kind of sucks. I do get over-the-air HD for free, and it’s great quality, there is just no ability to pause/record, and I can only get sporting events that air on local networks (ABC, CBS, etc.).

Conclusion? Well, I won’t be signing back up for Comcast anytime soon. I like saving a little bit of money each month, and I like the simplicity of buying each show when I want it, and owning it forever (”Office” marathon, anyone?). We’ve been working on acquiring kids show DVDs and ripping them to load them on the AppleTV, but I could see getting cable again down the road for the kids (but we don’t plan on letting them watch a lot of TV, so maybe not). I also like not giving my money to The Man. Well, I guess i’m just giving it to a different Man now, but one that is decidedly less evil than Comcast.

Do you think you could ditch cable? Discuss in the comments!

Quoted in “Weddings in Houston” Magazine

Posted on December 18, 2009

About a month ago I was contacted by a writer for Weddings in Houston magazine and asked to answer some questions about trends in wedding photography, among other topics. Usually you give them a couple quotable lines and a few might end up in the article. No matter how much I got quoted, I was very excited about being published. Today a pile of magazines arrived on my door step. I found the opening article  to the photography section and started reading. I was blown away.

I was heavily quoted discussing topics such as post-processing trends, real-time slideshows, my “relational approach” to photography, setting aside time for creative wedding-day portraits, and getting “your money’s worth” by investing in quality photography.

Many thanks to the fine folks at Weddings in Houston magazine for letting me spout my opinions. Hopefully I helped somebody out a little. I’m very honored to be a part of such a great magazine which such great content. The article also quoted my personal friends and very talented photographers Clint Shuttlesworth, Joe Cogliandro, and Christine Tremoulet.

Goodbye Cable, Hello Apple TV

Posted on February 8, 2009

It started off with the simple need to easily display slideshows on my TV so I could have proofing sessions with my clients. We had just moved in to the house, got the living room set up, and were preparing for our first such proofing session (two on the same day, actually). I was experimenting with hooking up my laptop to the TV and was just not happy with the way the photos looked– no matter how much calibrating I did. Finally, the night before our proofing sessions I thought, “what a great excuse to buy an Apple TV!” I sent Kacie out to the Apple Store just before closing, as I finished some things around the house. When she got back I hooked it up, and a few clicks later it was syncing with iTunes on my mac. I selected to run a slideshow of some of my wedding photos and they looked gorgeous! No calibration necessary.

After a few weeks of playing with the Apple TV and buying episodes of Bones that the DVR missed because it wasn’t hooked up, we had a revelation. We only keep up with, at the most, 10 shows a year. If we bought the season pass on iTunes (in HD, of course) for each of these shows, assuming they all cost $70 each (which is higher than they actually would cost), that would come out to $700/year. We currently spend $90/month for digital cable, which comes out to $1080 year. That’s a savings of over 300 bucks! Plus, we can watch each show when we want with no commercials (and no fast-forwarding through commercials), the quality is better than cable or satellite, and we can get all the shows on premium channels like HBO without paying extra (which was not included in the $90/month for Comcast).

Now, we don’t watch local news or live sports, so this works out well for us since neither is available on iTunes. However, with a cheap TV antenna I can get over-the-air HD of all the local channels for free (and in better quality than Comcast, since it is not compressed), so we do have access to news and sports if we want. We found this to be a win-win situation, so….

We canceled our cable service. It was a very gratifying feeling. It’s only been a week since we went cold-turkey, but it’s going well so far! I’ll let you know how we feel 6 months from now.

Merry Xmas! (along with a mini-rant)

Posted on December 25, 2008

Well, Christmas day is almost over and I hope everyone had a great day with their families and loved ones. I for one am Christmas partied out (still two more to go!). But I am very thankful for all my friends and family, and even more thankful for what Christmas represents: God sending his son to die for our sins. I don’t talk about my faith to much on this blog, but I do have to say that my relationship with Jesus has changed my life (even though I don’t deserve it), and I am so extremely thankful for that.

Now for my mini-rant. It really bugs me how people (read: Christians) get bent out of shape over the use of the abbreviation “Xmas” for Christmas. The common protest is “Xmas is crossing ‘Christ’ out of ‘Christmas!’” Or some other claim that the abbreviation “xmas” is just another way modern culture is trying to turn Christmas into a secular holiday. It’s simply not true. The truth is that the abbreviation “X” for Christ has been used for hundreds of years, and originated in church writings.

From Wikipedia:

In Greek, the letter Χ (chi), is the first letter of Christ, and it, or the similar Roman letter X, has been used as an abbreviation for Christ since the mid-16th century.[8] Hence, Xmas is often used as an abbreviation for Christmas.

Another well written article hits the nail on the head, IMHO.

This misunderstanding and fear mongering about the use of “Xmas” is not a new phenomenon. I heard the same kinds of comments in sermons many years ago. It was especially prevalent among those Christians and church leaders who wanted or needed to see the world in negative and threatening terms (see The Jonah Syndrome), or who tended to see everything in society as part of some grand conspiracy of Satan or the inexorable working out of God’s own predetermined plan, without really knowing all the facts or complexities of the situation (see Christians and Urban Legends).

I have no doubt that some people write “Xmas” because they are too busy or too lazy to write out the whole word. And no doubt some secular people, who are just as uninformed as Christians, see “Xmas” as a way to avoid writing “Christ.” And certainly there are secular and commercial motives in the fact that “XMAS” appears in ads and signs because it can be larger and more attention getting in the same amount of space (more bang for the buck). But those factors do not take away the thoroughly Christian origin of the word “Xmas.” In this instance, all of the hype and hysteria over supposedly taking Christ out of Christmas by writing “Xmas” instead of spelling out “Christmas” is both uninformed and misdirected.

I think there are some issues that we Christians should be concerned about, but this (among many others) is not one of them.

Merry Xmas! And always remember the reasoning for the seasoning!

It’s rant time

Posted on October 13, 2008

I’ve ranted before about the ridiculous rules that churches impose on photographers during wedding ceremonies. Most notably how many Methodist churches, such as St. Paul’s in the museum district, confine the photographer to the balcony and won’t allow us into the sanctuary at any point. However, this past weekend I found a church that takes the cake. When I first read and signed the photography rules agreement for Christ Church Cathedral in downtown Houston, I have to admit I was very confused by them. The language was very unclear, and the terms used to describe areas of the church confused me even after looking them up on wikipedia. My best interpretation was that flash was not allowed at all, and I could only shoot from the very back of the church. The rules for the videographer were similar.

Well when I got to the church, and spoke with the coordinator, I found out that I’m not allowed to take ANY pictures inside the church during the ceremony… PERIOD. The only exception was I could take a picture of the kiss, from the very back of the church (which was almost pointless because of how far back into the altar area they were, and because of the large candle that was placed directly in front of them). To repeat, I get to the church and find out that I am not allowed to take a single picture during the ceremony. Not even a shot of the processional. Nothing. Also, despite the coordinator’s insistence, the bride was not aware of this. When I spoke to her I found out that the church has their own videographer who tapes the wedding, and the bride and groom must purchase the video from the church. They cannot bring their own videographer in to record the wedding. The coordinator claimed that this is because it is a religious ceremony and is not to be disturbed, but I put it on the same level as sports stadiums and theme parks that won’t let you bring in outside food or beverages because they want to force you to buy their overpriced goods. I could maybe understand that photography, even without the flash, might be a distraction because of the “clicking” sound, but there is absolutely no reason why a videographer could not put a completely silent video camera on top of a tripod and just let it record. Again, this is total BS. The worst part is that is not what the rules say.

From the agreement I signed:
“One or two time exposures (not requiring a flash) from a tripod in the rear aisle of the Cathedral may be taken during the service as long as there is no distraction”
Ummm…. that’s not what they said when I got there.

“After the procession, the videographer may station the camera underneath the War Memorial at the rear of the nave.”
Ummm…. again, not what happened.

Way to go Christ Church Cathedral.

Just about any church will restrict the use of flash from the moment the bride reaches the altar to the moment the couple leaves the altar. This I can deal with. A lot of churches will not allow me to go past the last row of guests. That I can deal with as well. I understand that a wedding ceremony is of religious and spiritual significance, and is very special to the bride and groom. That is why the churches set rules, and that is why I follow them. I always try to minimize my presence while shooting a wedding, and my goal is to never be a distraction. Even when some churches give me total free reign, I treat that freedom respectfully and get the best images I can while not being a distraction. This is what the bride and groom pay me (a lot) to do. Capture incredible images of real emotions and moments during their wedding. Not in fake re-creations afterwards.

I think a lot of the administrators of these churches are totally out of touch with the kind of photography people want these days. It’s not about stuffy posed portraits in big stuffy albums. It’s about capturing real moments and real emotions as they happen, and some people just don’t get that.

The moral of the story here is KNOW THE CHURCH’S RULES BEFORE YOU BOOK IT. I understand that photography is not that important to everyone, so to them this might not be a big deal. However, to my clients photography is a big deal, and chances are since you’re reading my blog, it is to you too.

Finally, since nobody likes a post without pictures, here’s a shot of an AMAZING 300 lb. Batman cake from the Cake Wrecks blog. Click on the picture to see the whole post and see more pictures.

D**N you, Amazon 1-Click!!!!

Posted on December 24, 2007

Ok, I have to admit that I am an Apple fan boy, and I love iTunes, but I never felt right paying $.99 for a DRM’d 128kbps song. Now that Amazon has released it’s mp3 store, with quite an impressive selection of non-DRM mp3s at a much more palatable bitrate of 256kbps, I’m hooked. And I find myself in the middle of these late night music-buying binges where I just keep clicking that little “Buy with 1-click!” button.

Oh man, new “Killers” album! *click*

Oh, someone who bought Sawdust also bought Jimmy Eat World.  Preview a few songs. *click*

And what was that Fergie song I liked (the only one I like…)? Oh yeah, Glamorous. *click*

Sweet! Re-mixed hip-hop-style Christmas music. *click*

Before I know It I’ve just blown like $50.

Thank you, brilliant Amazon marketing person. I hope you get a big fat Christmas bonus. Should I just send you a check directly?

John Nack on the “Death of Photography”

Posted on December 14, 2007

John Nack is the Senior Product Manager for Adobe Photoshop, and he has a blog in which he discusses all things photography, especially as it relates to processing in Photoshop or Lightroom.

In a post this week he tackles the idea that many people believe in a world of digital photography, “true” photography is dead. Old-schoolers claim that digital photography and manipulation steals the art away from photography. I of course couldn’t disagree more, and neither can John. He says:

… much of this “is photography dead” discussion strikes me as sterile and pointless–and maybe a strawman that’s not worth beating up. Yet I wonder whether it’s driven by veteran photogs feeling threatened–comercially and aesthetically–by so many affordable tools that make competent image-making so much more attainable.

As a relative new-comer to the business (compared to guys who have been shooting longer than I have been alive) I can say that the game now is obviously very different than it was for those veterans who started 30 years ago. And it’s true– they are afraid. They’re afraid of losing business, and they’re afraid of losing what I call creative credibility. Meaning, what they used to get paid big bucks for, any soccer mom with a DSLR can pull off. Their work no longer carries the weight it once did. It no longer is the standard of creative expression. Sure there are masters like Ansel Adams and Anne Lebowitz whose work will forever remain classic, but for most photographers who refuse to take advantage of the new tools available to them, their work has simply become average.

You can say that digital makes us lazy, and there’s some truth there; and yet it also fosters free experimentation & instant review of the results. That quicker learning cycle, plus autofocus, good software, etc. helps get people “good enough” (technically, anyway) without years of slow and costly apprenticeship.

Because it is so easy for the average person to take great photos, the bar has been raised. Because it is so easy for a creative person to create artistic photographs without years of training, the bar has been raised. We professionals have to do something to make ourselves stand out. We have to push the envelope of creativity, use technology to its maximum potential, set a new standard of creative vision and technical mastery. We have to give people a reason to pay us their hard-earned money

Life, art, and expression move on. If “photography” is something so brittle & exclusionary that it can’t bear evolution, then goodbye and good riddance. (Don’t let the film door hit your ass on the way out…) It isn’t, of course, so maybe we can just bury the is-photography-dead schtick. But I’m not holding my breath.

Photography has absolutely changed. It has drastically changed, and with major shifts in technology it will continue to change again and again. But it is not dead, and it never will be.

What is the point of nose hair?

Posted on November 16, 2007

Just thought I’d throw that one out there.

Life in Iraq

Posted on June 22, 2007

I have mixed opinions about our war efforts in Iraq, which is why you’ve never heard me comment about the war here, but I came across this Q&A session in the blog of a New York Times embedded reporter in Iraq. The questions are centered around day-to-day life in Iraq for soldiers, reporters, and normal citizens. Check it out here.

Next Page »

© Copyright Adam Nyholt, Photographer • Powered by Nikon, Starbucks, and gummy bears.