RodriguePhoto

Too Tiny To Be a Dog?

September 2, 2010 | No comments

Behold Chucky, the Pomeranian in the family. Oh sure, he’s cute and excessively fuzzy. He certainly seems innocent. He may even be well meaning. But there is something slightly wrong with this picture. Frankly, I have considerable trouble calling this ball of fur a dog.

Let’s analyze this conundrum of biological specification. First of all, consider those that would be its relatives within family Canidae. Take the wolf, one of the traditional methods of determining whether two species belong in the same family is the possibility of mixed offspring between the two. Forget about asking what a Pomeranian/wolf crossbreed would look like, I’m not sure the actual act would be possible without a certain kind of very embarrassing intervention.

Next, lets get into some basic comparative anatomy. Go to extremes and compare fair Chucky’s cranium with the average St. Bernard’s. A Saint Bernard evokes affection and respect with the slow solemn gaze of a large head feature a wide open soggy grin. Chucky’s head is tiny and features large sympathy evoking eyes. I have trouble thinking a St Bernard belongs in the same family as an animal whose skull is 50 per cent ocular cavity.

We need a new name for this tiny beasts of affection. Toy poodles, tiny chihuahuas, Pomeranians and other dogs smaller than cats can have there own family order. No longer will they have to feel worse for comparison with their larger bodied cousins. They will only ever have to be compared with dogs of their own size. So, please welcome Minimae, small they are and small they are named. That is, until some numb-nuts goes and breeds an even smaller version. Maybe we’ll call that one Nanae.

The Tower Cometh

August 27, 2010 | No comments

I frequently pass by this construction site while running various errands. Every time I drive by I can’t help but give it a few moments consideration. That tower is impressive, that’s a given. But there are other reasons why I find it kind of facsinating. It’s partly because the Epcor Tower is the first non-condo related tall building to be built downtown in quite some time.

Don’t get me wrong; people need places to live. But there is an equal need to provide those people with good job opportunities and a strong local economy in which to do business. Edmonton has enjoyed that kind of economy for years, but we haven’t been showing it off like we should. Now we have this tower. I mean, look at it; there is nothing self-deprecating or under-stated about it. If that tower were to articulate a statement of Edmonton’s approach to economic growth it would say, “Yes, we are that good. Now get the frick out of our way.”

The Big Smoke – Prairie Style

August 19, 2010 | No comments

Today the prairie burg of Edmonton woke to a heavy shroud of smoke. It choked out our blue sky and replaced it with this sickly yellow and grey haze. The city smells of campfire. The only problem is, this time the cherished and pungent smell of burning wood is not leaving me nostalgic for roasted weenies and smores.

Yep, thanks to forest fires a thousand kilometres away in British Columbia, Edmonton is enjoying the byproduct of a million burning trees. I have great sympathy for those people who live closer to the fires that have created this monstrous blanket of smelly awfulness. I am merely annoyed. They must be feeling equal parts of anger and despair.

Too bad it’s a natural phenomenon. I would really like to be pissed off at some corporation or government body over this. Damn you mother nature, my most implacable foe.

Last Photos Standing

August 19, 2010 | No comments

One thing that can be said for digital photography is its reduced chance of catastrophic mistakes. For better or for worse, a digital camera doesn’t have the same potential for disaster as film does. Make a mistake in digital and you might be cursed with some poorly exposed or focused photos. With film you have those possibilities for error, plus issues with accidental exposure to light. You can’t accidentally expose a memory card.

For this reason, when I shoot film it feels more like a precious commodity. I have warm feelings for each roll, knowing—even after the many thousands I have shot—that I have once again successfully made a hard and physical representation of what was previously merely an idea of an image. Digital doesn’t leave me with a physical copy to hold onto; it’s a practical application of mathematical abstraction. It’s nothing so much as many bits and bytes.

The images become even more precious when recorded with a pinhole camera. It takes a bigger commitment to lug around a wooden box on a tripod. Further still, investing a couple minutes into each exposure adds a certain level of expectation to each shot. Which is why I was so damned pissed off when I accidentally exposed an entire roll of pinhole shots to sunlight back in July.

I swore. A lot.

I lugged that roll of film, firmly ensconced within my mahogany box of a pinhole camera, all over Jasper. Every shot felt good. It’s taken a while to feel confident with the obscurity of shooting a camera without viewfinder or lens, so I was enjoying a sense of competency. Maybe I was enjoying it too much. Not to get too technical but, when I got back to Edmonton I made the fatal mistake of forgetting which canister had the exposed negs and which was the originator of blank film. I pulled on the wrong one. I fucked up my potential photos.

And now all I am left with are the digital photos I took along with my now unrecoverable film shots. They’re not as cool as the pinhole photos would have been, but I have them. For a while after ‘the incident’ I didn’t even want to look at them. But now I have, and if I’m going to be absolutely honest with myself, I have to admit they don’t suck.

So, here are the digital photos of this years trip to Jasper. May their pinhole brethren rest in peace.