Chain Gang

Like many bloggers or webmasters, I have a list of links to other sites
that I find interesting.

On my website at www.hudsonartworks.com, I have a list of links on the
Contact/Links tab. However, the website platform I use has an option to display
more than one frame or window on a single page. Different panels can display
different content on the same page.

I thought it would be interesting to highlight the 'links' concept by trying to
develop a visual component to 'links.' On that page, the 'links' to the other
websites are in text, and next to the listing of links are visual treatments of,
well, links. When I think of 'links', the first visual image to cross my mind i
s one of chain links. However, a standard chain link is a bit cliche' - not to
mention boring.

So I set out to explore some ways to show links.
This shot is pretty straightforward. Chain links against a white backdrop.
Not much going on creatively; what you might expect from anyone who
had the brilliant idea to dress up their links page with - WOW! A photo of chain.




In this next execution we now have a bit of color happening. A bit of glow,
a bit more interesting. Still links, but this version is somewhat more engaging.





This is a bit more interesting. Kind of like a 1970's Black Light look. Dark,
perhaps not quite 'menacing', but there is a bit of mystery going on, maybe
even a hint of malice. There is definite attitude in these links. I quite like this.





This one has a crisp, metal look to it. There are some interesting black
highlights going on, with some subtle hints of blue and orange. We've moved
away from the straightforward standard chain links into something
a bit more visually compelling.

To see how it looks on the website go to www.hudsonartworks.com and click
on the Contact/Links page.

Know you know where to go

Guys, now you have no excuse if you don't know where to go.

No more excuses.

Super-Duper Massive Megapixels Blowout!

I was browsing some of the camera review sites the other day and came across a blog post about, for lack of a better term, ‘Pixel-creep.’ You can read the full post here.


I don’t personally know the author of this post, but his site is well organized, has lots of sections, and had actual advertising! So he must know his stuff, certainly more that I do. But when I read his post about camming more and more megapixels into smaller packages, i.e. point and shoot cameras, well, I just had to smile. Here is an out-take from his post:

“I just saw that one of the camera manufactures is releasing a 16 MP compact point-and-shoot camera. 16 MEGAPIXELS IS TOO MANY ON A COMPACT! Period.”

I have two digital cameras – a Nikon D300 with 12.3 effective Megapixels and a Canon Powershot S95 with 10 Megapixels. Obviously the D300 is my primary camera, which I use for anything I plan ahead to shoot, and for and those other instances where I might reasonable expect to find something unique to shoot. I have had this camera for over two years have never regretted my purchase. I always shoot in RAW format.

Recently I purchased the Canon Powershot S95 for my day-to-day, walking-around camera. Too many times I’ve been someplace where I have some across a scene or event that begs to be photographed, only to be missed because I wasn’t lugging the D300 everywhere. I chose the S95 because it was one of the few ‘pocket’-type cameras that allow for  RAW image capture.

I did not consider Megapixel count.

I am aware of the limitations that come with a digital ‘pocket’-type cameras. And I am aware that having more than 10 or 12 megapixels is overkill, for all of the reasons the authors of this post articulates.
However, the person who wrote this rant (his term, not mine) is a professional photographer. I was, at one point, but no longer. These days I make the majority of my income as a marketer, and in my role as a marketer I love the way the camera companies are selling these cameras.

Here’s why.

The digital transition opened the doors to millions of people who had never taken a photograph other than a Polaroid. The cost of a decent camera that shot anything other than insta-prints or prints that came back from the yellow Foto-Mat booths was very expensive. Even then, the cost of film made people very selective for each image they made.

When digital photography became mainstream, almost anyone could buy a 3.1 megapixel camera and never have to buy film again. Suddenly, photography was affordable to the masses.

As megapixel counts go up, the perceived value of the camera goes up as well. As the perceived value goes up, price point rise. As the price rises, the margin rises. Rising margins equate to higher profits, some of which in turn are hopefully plowed back into R&D. Which, ultimately, will lead to improved higher end models for the professional level cameras.

This is America, land of the free and the home of ‘Let’s Make a Buck!’ Reaaly, is someone wants to buy a point and shoot camera with 16 megapixels, why shouldn’t we sell it to them? Maybe having a point and shoot camera with more megapixels than your neighbors’ point and shoot camera makes that person feel better about themselves. We do it with cars, we do it with lawnmowers, we do it with our barbeque grills – why not with cameras?

Let’s let the professional photographers choose the cameras they feel with give them the best results possible, and let the millions of point and shoot camera owners keep buying the highest megapixel cameras they can afford. Everybody wins! The great unwashed masses have some bragging rights, the professionals will benefit with better cameras thanks to the profits Nikon and Canon will make from the over-pixelated point-and-shooters.  

Rosebud County, Montana Courthouse

Today's post is about the County Courthouse in Rosebud County, Montana.  Rosebud County is in southeastern Montana, near the Wyoming border. The town of Rosebud, conveniently located in Rosebud County, sits hard on the south shore of the Yellowstone River and is ten miles to the east of Forsyth on I-94.  Forsyth is actually the County seat, and is the location of the Rosebud County Courthouse - not Rosebud. Go figure. 

The sign below is found at a rest area off I-94, and it gives a little bit of the history of the county and the area to those travelers who do more than just stop to use the restrooms.

This sign reads:"From July 28, 1806 when Wm. Clark passed Rosebud Creek on his way down Yellowstone, this river valley was served as one of the major avenues for development and trade in eastern Montana. Innumerable trappers and traders followed Clark's route, including the American Fur Co. which constructed Ft. Van Buren at the juncture of the Rosebud and Yellowstone, in 1835. The fort proved unprofitable and was abandoned in 1843.

Buffalo Hunters took over 40,000 robes from this area alone during the 1860's and '70's shipping them out by river boat. The slaughter disrupted eastern Montana's Indian culture and precipitated several years of bloody confrontation, culminating in the Battle of the Rosebud on June 17, 1876, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn eight days later."

Rosebud County was carved out of Custer County in 1901. I don't know why. It probably doesn't matter. The area was explored by traders ad fur trappers. It turns out Rosebud Creek was full of beavers. After much debate, the county was named Rosebud and not Beaver. Which is probably a good thing, because Rosebud Creek is still around. I am not sure how many beavers are left.

This also happens to be near the spot where Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer camped along the banks of Rosebud Creek a few days before the Battle of Little Bighorn. We al know what happened there, don't we?  Perhaps if you are thinking about camping near here, you might want to rethink that idea.

 Here is a photo I took of the Rosebud County Courthouse. You will see that this building is much like the Divide County, North Dakota County Courthouse from an earlier post. Three stories, stone finish, a dome at the top. Many County Courthouses share a similar design.

The Rosebud County Courthouse was built in 1912.  The cost to build the structure, furnish and landscape the grounds was about $175,000. Remember, that's in 1912 dollars. It would be just a bit more to build it today. It turns out there was a bit of an issue with cost overruns, which apparently the local government did not want to pay for, or perhaps did not have the funds to pay for. The builders, having completed the job and feeling as though they were entitled to get paid, simply locked the doors. The people of Forsyth protested, the Judge threw the contractors in jail, and after everyone cooled off, the courthouse was opened.

 

Here a another view of the Rosebud, Montana County Courthouse.

Because this building is in Montana, and those were the days of the wild wild West, the building would not be the same if there weren't a unique story that becomes part of the local lore. There is an actual bullet hole located in one of the seats in the Courtroom.  During a trial, there was a question as to whether a shotgun held as evidence could accidentally go off, as alleged by one of the parties.  The Sheriff said the gun could not go off accidentally. He shook the gun to make his point, and, you guessed it - the gun went off.

 

In 1927 the Richland County Commissioners used the Rosebud County Courthouse plan to build an identical building in Sidney but with brick facing instead of sandstone. what a bunch of copycats they are up in Sidney.

.

County Courthouses from across the West

For some time now I have been taking photographs of county courthouses across the western United States. I find it interesting to see the different architectureal styles different counties selected when designing and building their signature buildings. Particularly in the rural counties, I have found that counties which constructed their buildings in the lat 1800s to early 1900s tended to build the classic, imposing buildings with a grand staircase leading up to imposing doors, and topping their building with a dome or other architectrueally unique or significant feature.


One of my favorite county courthouse images comes from Divide County in Northwestern North Dakota.

As you can see, this building has a towering entryway, is three stories tall and is topped with a white dome. 

In 1873 Wallette County, which included Divide County in the Dakota territory was created. However, it was never organized due to a lack of settlers. In 1883 Wallette Co was divided into Buford and Flannery Counties. In 1891 they became Williams County. In 1910 Williams was divided into Williams and Divide County.

The population in 1911 was about 6,000. It reached a peak of 9,627 in 1920. The population in 1997 was approximately 2,899. 

As of 2000, the population was 2,283. 

The County seat is Crosby named for S.A. Crosby of Portal, who first plotted the townsite.


The name Divide results from two factors, that division from Williams County and the fact that Divide County lies on the Continental Divide between the watersheds that flow into the Gulf of Mexico and those that flow into Hudson Bay.  Divide's name may also derive from the fact that it lies on the boundary between the United States and Canada

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 1,294 square miles (3,351.4 km²), of which 1,260 square miles (3,263.4 km²) is land and 35 square miles (90.6 km²) (2.68%) is water.